Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me.
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 12:10am 05 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
THIS WILL BE INTERESTING TO PEOPLE WHO ARE MECHANICALLY MINDED!
ALSO THERE ARE OTHER REASONS WE SHOULD BE INTERESTED.
The Wartsila-Sulzer RTA96-C turbocharged two-stroke diesel engine is the most powerful and most efficient prime-mover in the world today. The Aioi Works of Japan 's Diesel United, Ltd built the first engines and is where some of these pictures were taken. It is available in 6 through 14 cylinder versions, all are inline engines. These engines were designed primarily for very large container ships. Ship owners like a single engine/single propeller design and the new generation of larger container ships needed a bigger engine to propel them. The cylinder bore is just under 38" and the stroke is just over 98". Each cylinder displaces 111,143 cubic inches (1820 liters) and produces 7780 horsepower. Total displacement comes out to 1,556,002 cubic inches (25,480 liters) for the fourteen cylinder version.
Some more facts on the 14 cylinder version:
Total engine weight: 2300 tons (The crankshaft alone weighs 300 tons).
Length: 89 feet
Height: 44 feet
Maximum power: 108,920 hp at 102 rpm
Maximum torque: 5,608,312 lb/ft at 102rpm
Fuel consumption at maximum power is 0.278 lbs per hp per hour (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption). Fuel consumption at maximum economy is 0.260 lbs/hp/hour. At maximum economy the engine exceeds 50% thermal efficiency. That is, more than 50% of the energy in the fuel in converted to motion. For comparison, most automotive and small aircraft engines have BSFC figures in the 0.40-0.60 lbs/hp/hr range and 25-30% thermal efficiency range. Even at its most efficient power setting, the big 14 consumes 1,660 gallons of heavy fuel oil per hour.
A cross section of the RTA96C:
The internals of this engine are a bit different than most automotive engines. The top of the connecting rod is not attached directly to the piston. The top of the connecting rod attaches to a "crosshead" which rides in guide channels. A long piston rod then connects the crosshead to the piston. I assume this is done so the sideways forces produced by the connecting rod are absorbed by the crosshead and not by the piston. Those sideways forces are what makes the cylinders in an auto engine get oval-shaped over time.
These guys are installing the "thin-shell" bearings.
Crank and rod journals are 38" in diameter and 16" wide.
The crankshaft sitting in the block (also known as a "gondola-style" bedplate).
This is a 10 cylinder version.
Note the steps by each crank throw that lead down into the crankcase.
A piston and piston rod assembly. The piston is at the top. The large square plate at the bottom is where the whole assembly attaches to the crosshead.
Some pistons and piston rods:
The "spikes" on the piston rods are hollow tubes that go into the holes you can see on the bottom of the pistons (top picture) and inject oil into the inside of
the piston which keeps the top of the piston from overheating. Some high-performance auto engines have a similar feature where an oil squirter nozzle squirts oil onto the bottom of the piston.
The cylinder deck (10 cylinder version).
Cylinder liners are die-cast ductile cast iron.
Look at the size of those head studs!
The first completed 12 cylinder engine:
THESE ENGINES WHERE MADE IN AUSTRALIA UNTIL THE MID 70'S WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CLOSED THE COMMONWEALTH ENGINE WORKS IN MELBOURNE, THE JAPANESE THEN TOOK UP THE CONTRACT WITH SULZER AND THE WORK AND CONTRACTS WHERE LOST TO AUSTRALIA.
Foolin Around
mid north Matt Regular Member Joined: 06/01/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 58
Posted: 04:04am 05 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
wow Bob thats a bit bigger than the little chain saw/stationary motors i repair,the average motorist wouldnt consume that amount of diesel in a life time that the 14 cylinder version consumes in 24 hours,no wonder overseas freight cost the earth to send.the auto makers have got alot of catching up to get to the 50% plus efficiency that that motor is getting but wont do nothing till their forced toPt Wakefield Matt
MacGyver Guru Joined: 12/05/2009 Location: United StatesPosts: 1329
Posted: 05:54am 05 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Nice One Bob
This reminds me of an engine I messed around with when I was in the US Coast Guard some 40+ years back. It was a 4 (?) cylinder Nordburg installed in a buck and a quarter (125-foot cutter). Seems to me from memory it gulped down fuel like mad; not efficient at all compared to the monster you have posted here.
To start the sucker, there were blow-down valves, which let off pressure during the compression stroke. Hydraulics or air (can't remember now which) were used to spin the thing and as the "timing mark" passed a certain point, the chief engineer would yank a cord connected to one of the injectors. Doing this let a "squirt" of fuel enter the cylinder at just the right time and the thing fired off. When that happened, another handle was yanked, closing off the rest of the compression releases and "Uncle Nordie" was off and running.
The cylinders were large enough for TWO men to get inside and swab down with virgin mops (not much fun). I think its top speed was something like 140 rpm, but it swung about a 13-foot solid brass prop at the aft end of things.
Pretty impressive hunk of metal. Thanks for the post; very interesting.
. . . . . MacNothing difficult is ever easy!
Perhaps better stated in the words of Morgan Freeman,
"Where there is no struggle, there is no progress!"
Copeville, Texas
KiwiJohn Guru Joined: 01/12/2005 Location: New ZealandPosts: 691
Posted: 07:32pm 05 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
I tried one of those in my ute, heaps of torque but not much in the way of revs!
dwyer Guru Joined: 19/09/2005 Location: AustraliaPosts: 573
Posted: 01:26am 06 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Bob
That for me
THIS WILL BE INTERESTING TO PEOPLE WHO ARE MECHANICALLY MINDED!
Pretty impressive hunk of metal and l love sort of things and there none in Australia manufacture do this anymore shame shame .
Good on you Bob
Dwyer
Greenbelt Guru Joined: 11/01/2009 Location: United StatesPosts: 566
Posted: 07:07am 06 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Bob;
I received this set of pictures in an E-Mail some time ago. I was totally amazed and awed by the size of that thing.
For curiosity sake I checked out its possibilities as a Prime Mover for a Gen Set.
Equivalent Horsepower = 81.25 megawatts,!!! That would light up your Life.!---Roe Time has proven that I am blind to the Obvious, some of the above may be True?
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 01:54pm 06 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Roe
if it could be run on a feasible bio fuel it would make a good power station engine with the efficiency they are quoting.
I had a national engine works gen set as a standby in the workshop it weighed 20 tons and was rated at 1000 HP 700 KW output. It used ten gallons an Hour to run without loading it up much, so I went back to a smaller plant 50 KVA so I could afford to run it, Sold it off and have been sorry ever since, it was 12 ft high and nearly 30 foot long but wasn't as fuel efficient as this one.
When the last one of these was made in Australia I went to the commissioning test run, around 1975 I think, the size and engineering that goes into one of these is truly amazing.
All the best
BobFoolin Around
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 02:02pm 06 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Mack
I worked on one of those motors when I was young, I got the job to help service one in Sydney, I turned up with my tool box and they all laughed at me, the spanners where so heavy they where handled with an overhead gantry.
It was good experience as we had a week to fully rebuild the motor working rolling shifts. It was a timed air start, with a huge air compressor.
All the best
Bob Foolin Around
Tinker Guru Joined: 07/11/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 1904
Posted: 02:34pm 06 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
What kind of machine is used to make the crank shaft? Is it one piece or many parts bolted together? I just can't imagine a lathe big enough to turn this shaft .Klaus
VK4AYQ Guru Joined: 02/12/2009 Location: AustraliaPosts: 2539
Posted: 12:43am 07 Mar 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Klaus
From memory the equipment was huge in the factory there was a huge lathe made up in sections, with a cabin on the tool post that the operator rode on along the bed, the horizontal borer was massive also the grinder i presume ground the shaft was over 100 foot long, I don't know what happened to all the equipment, I suppose it would be redundant these days with CNC machines as they are, I did have some photos of the equipment but they where lost in the floods in Brisbane.
I have seen large crankshafts put together by pressing the webs and journals together like the way old motorbike CS where made, but I think the Sulzer cranks where one piece.
Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me.
Print this post
.