Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Service Report

MAERSK JEDDAH
Maersk Tankers A/S

PrimeServ Copenhagen
5 July 2018
1. General data

Vessel: MAERSK JEDDAH IMO no 9524994

Engine type: 6S60MC-C Run. hours: 30157

Engine builder: MITSUI Engine no.: 005955


Sumitomo Heavy
Newbuilding yard: Hull no.: 1368
Industries, Ltd.
Job order no.: 40063935 Sea trial: 2011

Spare parts from MAN: Spare order no.:

Place: Copenhagen ECS version:

Made by: Martin Jakobsen

Period: 2018-07-05 – 2018-07-05

Owner/manager: Maersk Tankers

Requested by, P/O no.: Nitin Mattamal, O56-17-0067

Reason: Performance evaluation

MAN PrimeServ 5 July 2018 Page 2 of 7


2. Background

As requested by Mr Nitin Mattamal, our Superintendent Engineer Mr Martin Jakobsen has carried out an
engine performance evaluation based on data received from the crew by email.

MAN PrimeServ 5 July 2018 Page 3 of 7


3. Extent of work

The following report will cover:

- Evaluation of load diagram.


- Comparison of service result with test bed results.
- Evaluation of performance observations.

4. Work carried out

Evaluation of load diagram

Figure 1 – load diagram

As seen in the above graph, line 5 is the test bed results and the nominal propeller curve.
The grey dots are based on the received performance data.
As shown, the present propeller running is light and within the recommended area.

Performance curves: Shop test result versus service measurements.

MAN PrimeServ 5 July 2018 Page 4 of 7


Figure 2 – Performance Curves corrected to ISO conditions

MAN PrimeServ 5 July 2018 Page 5 of 7


The engine rpm is high and the MEP is low which is the consequence of the light running propeller.
It is good.
The T/C rpm and Pscav are a little higher indicating that the actual load is a little higher than calculated,
maybe around 5%.
The fuel consumption is higher, but it also seems as if the fuel consumption during the shop test running
had been very low.

Evaluation of performance observations

With regard to the deviation among the units MAN PrimeServ’s guidelines are as follows:

Pi = +/- 0.5 bar compared to average.


Pcomp= +/- 3.0 bar compared to average.
Pmax= +/- 3.0 bar compared to average Pressure/Load.

The below graphs show the Pcomp, Pmax, Pi and deviation at 72% load.

160

140

120

100

Pmax [bar]
80
Pcomp [bar]
Pi [bar]
125 123 123 123 125
60 121

96,5 95,2 96,5 96,9 95,1 97,9

40

20

14,8 14,9 14,9 14,9 15,1 15,1


0
Cyl 1 Cyl 2 Cyl 3 Cyl 4 Cyl 5 Cyl 6

Fig 1: Measurements

Engine balance

The engine is very well balanced and the Pmax level and the pressure jump between Pcomp and Pmax is
very close to optimal.
It can also be seen on the above performance curve.

MAN PrimeServ 5 July 2018 Page 6 of 7


Turbocharger, scavenging pressure, air cooler

As already mentioned the turbocharger rpm and scavenging pressure are a little higher and the same
with the fuel pump index.
This indicates more than anything else that the actual load is higher than calculated.
Estimated, the load is around 5% higher which means that the 72% load is more likely 75-77%.

The back pressure of 104 mmWC at 72 % is OK.


The measured pressure drop across the air cooler is the same as measured during the shop test.
The measured pressure drop across the T/C intake filter is high. 137 mmWC while during shop test
around 44 mmWC. It should be cleaned.

In order to evaluate the air cooler we have a rule saying that the Air(out) – Water(in) should not be too
high.
During shop test at 100% it was measured to be 33 – 26 = 7 deg.C.
(Air out during shop test was not measured, so we have used the scavenging temperature instead)
Now at 72% it is 51 – 36 = 15 deg.C.
At the same load the pressure drop across the cooler was measured to 130 mmWC during the shop test
running and now it is 115 mmWC.
Based on the Air-Out and Water-In the cooler efficiency seems to have dropped.
It could indicate that a number of the water pipes have been blocked.

In general, it is recommended lowering the cooling water temperature as much as possible as it will save
fuel.
Furthermore, with a lower cooling water temperature the air cooler and water mist catcher will remove
more water from the compressed scavenge air, when operating in humid areas.
This has a positive effect on the cylinder condition as the humidity level in the combustion gas is lowered
and thereby the tendency to condensation of acids on the liner wall will lower too.
The water drain system and the water mist catcher must, of course, be in good condition.

5. Conclusion

Biggest influence on the consumption, with a vessel in service, is the propeller running and Pmax level.
But both the propeller running and the Pmax level are very fine and within specification.

The fuel oil heat value has an influence as well. In this case, the specific fuel oil consumption drops from
around 200 g/kWatth to 185 g/kWatth, when we ISO correct the measurements.

There is nothing in the engine performance which can explain the high fuel oil consumption and therefore,
if the consumption is found higher than normal, it must be related to the fuel quality and/or measuring of
the amount.

05-07-2018 Martin Jakobsen


Date Signature

JPW/HLH

MAN PrimeServ 5 July 2018 Page 7 of 7