Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Marine steam engine
View on WikipediaA marine steam engine is a steam engine that is used to power a ship or boat. This article deals mainly with marine steam engines of the reciprocating type, which were in use from the inception of the steamboat in the early 19th century to their last years of large-scale manufacture during World War II. Reciprocating steam engines were progressively replaced in marine applications during the 20th century by steam turbines and marine diesel engines.
History
[edit]The first commercially successful steam engine was developed by Thomas Newcomen in 1712. The steam engine improvements brought forth by James Watt in the later half of the 18th century greatly improved steam engine efficiency and allowed more compact engine arrangements. Successful adaptation of the steam engine to marine applications in England would have to wait until almost a century after Newcomen, when Scottish engineer William Symington built the world's "first practical steamboat", the Charlotte Dundas, in 1802.[1] Rivaling inventors James Rumsey and John Fitch were the first to build steamboats in the United States. Rumsey exhibited his steamboat design in 1787 on the Potomac River; however, Fitch won the rivalry in 1790 after his successful test resulted in a passenger service on the Delaware River.[2] In 1807, the American Robert Fulton built the world's first commercially successful steamboat, simply known as the North River Steamboat, and powered by a Watt engine.
Following Fulton's success, steamboat technology developed rapidly on both sides of the Atlantic. Steamboats initially had a short range and were not particularly seaworthy due to their weight, low power, and tendency to break down, but they were employed successfully along rivers and canals, and for short journeys along the coast. The first successful transatlantic crossing by a steamship occurred in 1819 when Savannah sailed from Savannah, Georgia to Liverpool, England. The first steamship to make regular transatlantic crossings was the sidewheel steamer Great Western in 1838.[3]
As the 19th century progressed, marine steam engines and steamship technology developed alongside each other. Paddle propulsion gradually gave way to the screw propeller, and the introduction of iron and later steel hulls to replace the traditional wooden hull allowed ships to grow ever larger, necessitating steam power plants that were increasingly complex and powerful.[4]
Types of marine steam engine
[edit]A wide variety of reciprocating marine steam engines were developed over the course of the 19th century. The two main methods of classifying such engines are by connection mechanism and cylinder technology.
Most early marine engines had the same cylinder technology (simple expansion, see below) but a number of different methods of supplying power to the crankshaft (i.e. connection mechanism) were in use. Thus, early marine engines are classified mostly according to their connection mechanism. Some common connection mechanisms were side-lever, steeple, walking beam and direct-acting (see following sections).
However, steam engines can also be classified according to cylinder technology (simple-expansion, compound, annular etc.). One can therefore find examples of engines classified under both methods. An engine can be a compound walking beam type, compound being the cylinder technology, and walking beam being the connection method. Over time, as most engines became direct-acting but cylinder technologies grew more complex, engines began to be classified solely according to cylinder technology.
More commonly encountered marine steam engine types are listed in the following sections. Note that not all these terms are exclusive to marine applications.
Engines classified by connection mechanism
[edit]Side-lever
[edit]The side-lever engine was the first type of steam engine widely adopted for marine use in Europe.[5][6] In the early years of steam navigation (from c1815), the side-lever was the most common type of marine engine for inland waterway and coastal service in Europe, and it remained for many years the preferred engine for oceangoing service on both sides of the Atlantic.[7]
The side-lever was an adaptation of the earliest form of steam engine, the beam engine. The typical side-lever engine had a pair of heavy horizontal iron beams, known as side-levers, each secured in the centre by a pin near the base of the engine, allowing the levers to pivot through a limited arc. The engine cylinder stood vertically between this pair of levers at one end, with the piston rod attached to a horizontal crosshead above, from each end of which a vertical rod, known as a side-rod, extended down each side of the cylinder to connect to the end of the side-lever on the same side. The far ends of the two side-levers were connected to one another by a horizontal crosstail, from which extended a single, common connecting rod which operated the crankshaft as the levers rocked up and down around the central pin.[5]
The main disadvantage of the side-lever engine was that it was large and heavy.[6] For inland waterway and coastal service, lighter and more efficient designs soon replaced it. It remained the dominant engine type for oceangoing service through much of the first half of the 19th century however, due to its relatively low centre of gravity, which gave ships more stability in heavy seas.[7] It was also a common early engine type for warships,[8] since its relatively low height made it less susceptible to battle damage. From the first Royal Navy steam vessel in 1820 until 1840, 70 steam vessels entered service, the majority with side-lever engines, using boilers set to 4psi maximum pressure.[8] The low steam pressures dictated the large cylinder sizes for the side-lever engines, though the effective pressure on the piston was the difference between the boiler pressure and the vacuum in the condenser.
The side-lever engine was a paddlewheel engine and was not suitable for driving screw propellers. The last ship built for transatlantic service that had a side-lever engine was the Cunard Line's paddle steamer RMS Scotia, considered an anachronism when it entered service in 1862.[9]
-
Side-lever engine of SS Pacific (1849)
-
Side-lever engine of RMS Persia (1855)
-
Model of the twin side-lever engines of the 1836 Thames River steamboat Ruby
-
Early Napier side-lever engine from PS Leven, on display at Dumbarton, Scotland
Grasshopper
[edit]
The grasshopper or half-lever[10] engine was a variant of the side-lever engine. The grasshopper engine differs from the conventional side-lever in that the location of the lever pivot and connecting rod are more or less reversed, with the pivot located at one end of the lever instead of the centre, while the connecting rod is attached to the lever between the cylinder at one end and the pivot at the other.[11]
Chief advantages of the grasshopper engine were cheapness of construction and robustness, with the type said to require less maintenance than any other type of marine steam engine. Another advantage is that the engine could be easily started from any crank position. Like the conventional side-lever engine however, grasshopper engines were disadvantaged by their weight and size. They were mainly used in small watercraft such as riverboats and tugs.[11]
Crosshead (square)
[edit]The crosshead engine, also known as a square, sawmill or A-frame engine, was a type of paddlewheel engine used in the United States. It was the most common type of engine in the early years of American steam navigation.[12]
The crosshead engine is described as having a vertical cylinder above the crankshaft, with the piston rod secured to a horizontal crosshead, from each end of which, on opposite sides of the cylinder, extended a connecting rod that rotated its own separate crankshaft.[13] The crosshead moved within vertical guides so that the assembly maintained the correct path as it moved.[14] The engine's alternative name—"A-frame"—presumably derived from the shape of the frames that supported these guides. Some crosshead engines had more than one cylinder, in which case the piston rods were usually all connected to the same crosshead.
Because the cylinder was above the crankshaft in this type of engine, it had a high center of gravity, and was therefore deemed unsuitable for oceangoing service.[15] This largely confined it to vessels built for inland waterways.[13] As marine engines grew steadily larger and heavier through the 19th century, the high center of gravity of square crosshead engines became increasingly impractical, and by the 1840s, ship builders abandoned them in favor of the walking beam engine.[16]
The name of this engine can cause confusion, as "crosshead" is also an alternative name for the steeple engine (below). Many sources thus prefer to refer to it by its informal name of "square" engine to avoid confusion. Additionally, the marine crosshead or square engine described in this section should not be confused with the term "square engine" as applied to internal combustion engines, which in the latter case refers to an engine whose bore is equal to its stroke.
-
Model of a crosshead or "square" engine, showing location of engine cylinder above the crankshaft; also piston rod, crosshead, connecting rods and paddlewheels
-
Diagram of a typical Hudson River steamboat crosshead engine (side view)
-
The 1836 paddle steamer New York. Between the paddlewheels is the tall square or "A-frame" engine, within which can be seen the long piston rod, near the top of its stroke, making a "T" with the horizontal crosshead
-
The steamboat Norwich, showing her crosshead engine in operation
Walking beam
[edit]The walking beam, technically known as a vertical beam or overhead beam, and sometimes simply referred as a "beam", was another early adaptation of the beam engine, but its use was confined almost entirely to the United States.[17] After its introduction, the walking beam quickly became the most popular engine type in American waters for inland waterway and coastal service, eventually making its way into American transoceanic steamships as well. The type proved to have remarkable longevity, with walking beam engines still being occasionally manufactured as late as the 1940s. In marine applications, the beam itself was generally reinforced with iron struts that gave it a characteristic diamond shape, although the supports on which the beam rested were often built of wood. The adjective "walking" is believed to have originated from a corruption of the technical term "working beam".
Walking beam engines were a type of paddlewheel engine and were rarely used for powering propellers. They were used primarily for ships and boats working in rivers, lakes and along the coastline, but were a less popular choice for seagoing vessels because the great height of the engine made the vessel less stable in heavy seas.[18] They were also of limited use militarily, because the engine was exposed to enemy fire and could thus be easily disabled. Their popularity in the United States was due primarily to the fact that the walking beam engine was well suited for the shallow-draft boats that operated in America's shallow coastal and inland waterways.[17]
Walking beam engines remained popular with American shipping lines and excursion operations right into the early 20th century. Although the walking beam engine was technically obsolete in the later 19th century, it remained popular with excursion steamer passengers who expected to see the "walking beam" in motion. There were also technical reasons for retaining the walking beam engine in America, as it was easier to build, requiring less precision in its construction. Wood could be used for the main frame of the engine, at a much lower cost than typical practice of using iron castings for more modern engine designs. Fuel was also much cheaper in America than in Europe, so the lower efficiency of the walking beam engine was less of a consideration. The Philadelphia shipbuilder Charles H. Cramp blamed America's general lack of competitiveness with the British shipbuilding industry in the mid-to-late 19th century upon the conservatism of American domestic shipbuilders and shipping line owners, who doggedly clung to outdated technologies like the walking beam and its associated paddlewheel long after they had been abandoned in other parts of the world.[19]
-
Basic diagram of a walking beam engine
-
USS Delaware (1861). The vessel's diamond shaped "walking beam" can clearly be seen amidships
Steeple
[edit]
The steeple engine, sometimes referred to as a "crosshead" engine, was an early attempt to break away from the beam concept common to both the walking beam and side-lever types, and come up with a smaller, lighter, more efficient design. In a steeple engine, the vertical oscillation of the piston is not converted to a horizontal rocking motion as in a beam engine, but is instead used to move an assembly, composed of a crosshead and two rods, through a vertical guide at the top of the engine, which in turn works the crankshaft connecting rod below.[20] In early examples of the type, the crosshead assembly was rectangular in shape, but over time it was refined into an elongated triangle. The triangular assembly above the engine cylinder gives the engine its characteristic "steeple" shape, hence the name.
Steeple engines were tall like walking beam engines, but much narrower laterally, saving both space and weight. Because of their height and high centre of gravity, they were, like walking beams, considered less appropriate for oceangoing service, but they remained highly popular for several decades, especially in Europe, for inland waterway and coastal vessels.[21]
Steeple engines began to appear in steamships in the 1830s and the type was perfected in the early 1840s by the Scottish shipbuilder David Napier.[22] The steeple engine was gradually superseded by the various types of direct-acting engine.
Siamese
[edit]The Siamese engine, also referred to as the "double cylinder" or "twin cylinder" engine, was another early alternative to the beam or side-lever engine. This type of engine had two identical, vertical engine cylinders arranged side by side, whose piston rods were attached to a common, T-shaped crosshead. The vertical arm of the crosshead extended down between the two cylinders and was attached at the bottom to both the crankshaft connecting rod and to a guide block that slid between the vertical sides of the cylinders, enabling the assembly to maintain the correct path as it moved.[23]
The Siamese engine was invented by British engineer Joseph Maudslay (son of Henry), but although he invented it after his oscillating engine (see below), it failed to achieve the same widespread acceptance, as it was only marginally smaller and lighter than the side-lever engines it was designed to replace.[24] It was, however, used on a number of mid-century warships, including the first warship fitted with a screw propeller, HMS Rattler.
-
Basic diagram of a Siamese engine
-
Diagram of an annular engine (see below) with Siamese connection mechanism
-
Siamese engine of HMS Retribution (1844)
Direct acting
[edit]There are two definitions of a direct-acting engine encountered in 19th-century literature. The earlier definition applies the term "direct-acting" to any type of engine other than a beam (i.e. walking beam, side-lever or grasshopper) engine. The later definition only uses the term for engines that apply power directly to the crankshaft via the piston rod and/or connecting rod.[25] Unless otherwise noted, this article uses the later definition.
Unlike the side-lever or beam engine, a direct-acting engine could be readily adapted to power either paddlewheels or a propeller. As well as offering a lower profile, direct-acting engines had the advantage of being smaller and weighing considerably less than beam or side-lever engines. The Royal Navy found that on average a direct-acting engine (early definition) weighed 40% less and required an engine room only two-thirds the size of that for a side-lever of equivalent power. One disadvantage of such engines is that they were more prone to wear and tear and thus required more maintenance.[24]
Oscillating
[edit]An oscillating engine was a type of direct-acting engine that was designed to achieve further reductions in engine size and weight. Oscillating engines had the piston rods connected directly to the crankshaft, dispensing with the need for connecting rods. To achieve this, the engine cylinders were not immobile as in most engines, but secured in the middle by trunnions that let the cylinders themselves pivot back and forth as the crankshaft rotated—hence the term, oscillating.[26] Steam was supplied and exhausted through the trunnions. The oscillating motion of the cylinder was usually used to line up ports in the trunnions to direct the steam feed and exhaust to the cylinder at the correct times. However, separate valves were often provided, controlled by the oscillating motion. This let the timing be varied to enable expansive working (as in the engine in the paddle ship PD Krippen). This provides simplicity but still retains the advantages of compactness.
The first patented oscillating engine was built by Joseph Maudslay in 1827, but the type is considered to have been perfected by John Penn. Oscillating engines remained a popular type of marine engine for much of the 19th century.[26]
-
Model of a Maudslay oscillating engine
-
Oscillating paddlewheel engines of HMS Black Eagle. Oscillating engines could be used to drive either paddlewheels or propellers.
-
Oscillating engine built in 1853 by J. & A. Blyth of London for the Austrian paddle steamer Orsova
Trunk
[edit]The trunk engine, another type of direct-acting engine, was originally developed as a means of reducing an engine's height while retaining a long stroke. (A long stroke was considered important at this time because it reduced the strain on components.)
A trunk engine locates the connecting rod within a large-diameter hollow piston. This "trunk" carries almost no load. The interior of the trunk is open to outside air, and is wide enough to accommodate the side-to-side motion of the connecting rod, which links a gudgeon pin at the piston head to an outside crankshaft.
The walls of the trunk were either bolted to the piston or cast as one piece with it, and moved back and forth with it. The working portion of the cylinder is annular or ring-shaped, with the trunk passing through the centre of the cylinder itself.[27][28]
Early examples of trunk engines had vertical cylinders. However, ship builders quickly realized that the type was compact enough to lay horizontally across the keel. In this configuration, it was very useful to navies, as it had a profile low enough to fit entirely below a ship's waterline, as safe as possible from enemy fire. The type was generally produced for military service by John Penn.
Trunk engines were common on mid-19th century warships.[28] They also powered commercial vessels, where—though valued for their compact size and low centre of gravity—they were expensive to operate. Trunk engines, however, did not work well with the higher boiler pressures that became prevalent in the latter half of the 19th century due to the difficulty of maintaining a steam seal around the trunk, and builders abandoned them for other solutions.[28]
Trunk engines were normally large, but a small, mass-produced, high-revolution, high-pressure version was produced for the Crimean War. In being quite effective, the type persisted in later gunboats.[29] An original trunk engine of the gunboat type exists in the Western Australian Museum in Fremantle. After sinking in 1872, it was raised in 1985 from the SS Xantho and can now be turned over by hand.[30] The engine's mode of operation, illustrating its compact nature, could be viewed on the Xantho project's website.[31]
-
Trunk engine illustration
-
Cutaway view of trunk engine of HMS Bellerophon, showing (on the left) engine cylinder, annular piston and trunk assembly, and connecting rod inside trunk
-
Looking down at the trunk engine of HMS Warrior (1860). The connecting rod can be seen emerging from the trunk at right.
Vibrating-lever
[edit]
The vibrating-lever, or half-trunk engine, was a development of the conventional trunk engine conceived by Swedish-American engineer John Ericsson. Ericsson needed a small, low-profile engine like the trunk engine to power the U.S. Federal government's monitors, a type of warship developed during the American Civil War that had very little space for a conventional powerplant.[32] The trunk engine itself was, however, unsuitable for this purpose, because the preponderance of weight was on the side of the engine that contained the cylinder and trunk—a problem that designers could not compensate for on the small monitor warships.
| External videos | |
|---|---|
Ericsson resolved this problem by placing two horizontal cylinders back to back in the middle of the engine, working two "vibrating levers", one on each side, which by means of shafts and additional levers rotated a centrally located crankshaft.[32] Vibrating-lever engines were later used in some other warships and merchant vessels, but their use was confined to ships built in the United States and in Ericsson's native country of Sweden,[33] and as they had few advantages over more conventional engines, were soon supplanted by other types.
Back acting
[edit]The back-acting engine, also known as the return connecting rod engine, was another engine designed to have a very low profile. The back-acting engine was in effect a modified steeple engine, laid horizontally across the keel of a ship rather than standing vertically above it.[33] Instead of the triangular crosshead assembly found in a typical steeple engine however, the back-acting engine generally used a set of two or more elongated, parallel piston rods terminating in a crosshead to perform the same function. The term "back-acting" or "return connecting rod" derives from the fact that the connecting rod "returns" or comes back from the side of the engine opposite the engine cylinder to rotate a centrally located crankshaft.[34]
Back-acting engines were another type of engine popular in both warships and commercial vessels in the mid-19th century, but like many other engine types in this era of rapidly changing technology, they were eventually abandoned for other solutions. There is only one known surviving back-acting engine—that of the TV Emery Rice (formerly USS Ranger), now the centerpiece of a display at the American Merchant Marine Museum.[35][36]
-
Diagram of back-acting engine of USS Ranger
-
Return connecting rod engine of HMS Agincourt (1865)
Vertical
[edit]As steamships grew steadily in size and tonnage through the course of the 19th century, the need for low-profile, low-centre-of-gravity engines correspondingly declined. Freed increasingly from these design constraints, engineers were able to revert to simpler, more efficient and more easily maintained designs. The result was the growing dominance of the so-called "vertical" engine[25] (more correctly known as the vertical inverted direct acting engine).
In this type of engine, the cylinders are located directly above the crankshaft, with the piston rod/connecting rod assemblies forming a more or less straight line between the two.[25] The configuration is similar to that of a modern internal combustion engine (one notable difference being that the steam engine is double acting, see below, whereas almost all internal combustion engines generate power only in the downward stroke). Vertical engines are sometimes referred to as "hammer", "forge hammer" or "steam hammer" engines, due to their roughly similar appearance to another common 19th-century steam technology, the steam hammer.[37]
Vertical engines came to supersede almost every other type of marine steam engine toward the close of the 19th century.[25][37] Because they became so common, vertical engines are not usually referred to as such, but are instead referred to based upon their cylinder technology, i.e. as compound, triple-expansion, quadruple-expansion etc. The term "vertical" for this type of engine is imprecise, since technically any type of steam engine is "vertical" if the cylinder is vertically oriented. An engine someone describes as "vertical" might not be of the vertical inverted direct-acting type, unless they use the term "vertical" without qualification.
-
Diagram of a simple "hammer" engine
-
Vertical triple-expansion engine of USS Wisconsin (BB-9). The typical vertical engine arrangement of cylinder, piston rod, connecting rod and crankshaft can clearly be seen in this photo.
Engines classified by cylinder technology
[edit]Simple expansion
[edit]A simple-expansion engine is a steam engine that expands the steam through only one stage, which is to say, all its cylinders are operated at the same pressure. Since this was by far the most common type of engine in the early period of marine engine development, the term "simple expansion" is rarely encountered. In the literature of the early period then, an engine can generally be assumed to be simple-expansion unless otherwise stated.
Compound
[edit]Compound engines were a method of improving efficiency. Until the development of compound engines, steam engines used the steam only once before it was recycled back to the boiler. A compound engine first recycles the steam into one or more larger, lower-pressure secondary cylinders, to use more of its heat energy. Compound engines could be configured to increase either a ship's economy or its speed. Broadly speaking, a compound engine can refer to a steam engine with any number of different-pressure cylinders—however, the term usually refers to engines that expand steam through only two stages, i.e., those that operate cylinders at only two different pressures (or "double-expansion" engines).[38]
Note that a compound engine (including multiple-expansion engines, see below) can have more than one set of variable-pressure cylinders. For example, an engine might have two cylinders operating at pressure x and two operating at pressure y, or one cylinder operating at pressure x and three operating at pressure y. What makes it compound (or double-expansion) as opposed to multiple-expansion is that there are only two pressures, x and y.[39]
The first compound engine believed to have been installed in a ship was that fitted to Henry Eckford by the American engineer James P. Allaire in 1824. However, many sources attribute the "invention" of the marine compound engine to Glasgow's John Elder in the 1850s. Elder made improvements to the compound engine that made it safe and economical for ocean-crossing voyages for the first time.[40][41]
To fully realise their benefits, marine compound engines required boiler pressures higher than the limit imposed by the United Kingdom's Board of Trade, who would only allow 25 pounds per square inch (170 kPa). The shipowner and engineer Alfred Holt was able to persuade the authorisation of higher boiler pressures, launching SS Agamemnon in 1865, with boilers running at 60 psi (410 kPa). The combination of higher boiler pressures and a compound engine gave a significant increase in fuel efficiency, so allowing steamships to outcompete sail on the route from the UK to China, even before the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869.[42]
Triple or multiple expansion
[edit]
A triple-expansion engine is a compound engine that expands the steam in three stages, e.g. an engine with three cylinders at three different pressures. A quadruple-expansion engine expands the steam in four stages.[39] However, as explained above, the number of expansion stages defines the engine, not the number of cylinders, e.g. the RMS Titanic had four-cylinder, triple-expansion engines.[43] The first successful commercial use was an engine built at Govan in Scotland by Alexander C. Kirk for the SS Aberdeen in 1881.[44] An earlier experiment with an almost identical engine in SS Propontis in 1874 had had problems with the boilers. The initial installation, running at 150 psi (1,000 kPa) had to be replaced with a different design operating at only 90 psi (620 kPa). This was insufficient to fully realise the economic benefits of triple expansion. Aberdeen was fitted with two double-ended Scotch type steel boilers, running at 125 psi (860 kPa). These boilers had patent corrugated furnaces that overcame the competing problems of heat transfer and sufficient strength to deal with the boiler pressure. This provided the technical solution that ensured that virtually all newly built oceangoing steamships were fitted with triple-expansion engines within a few years of Aberdeen coming into service.[45]: 106–111
Multiple-expansion engine manufacture continued well into the 20th century. All 2,700 Liberty ships built by the United States during World War II were powered by triple-expansion engines, because the capacity of the US to manufacture marine steam turbines was entirely directed to the building of warships. The biggest manufacturer of triple-expansion engines during the war was the Joshua Hendy Iron Works. Toward the end of the war, turbine-powered Victory ships were manufactured in increasing numbers.[46]
-
A Joshua Hendy triple-expansion engine
-
Top view of a triple-expansion engine on the 1907 oceangoing tug Hercules
-
140-ton – also described as 135-ton – vertical triple-expansion engine of the type used to power World War II Liberty ships, assembled for testing prior to delivery. The engine is 21 feet (6.4 meters) long and 19 feet (5.8 meters) tall and was designed to operate at 76 rpm and propel a Liberty ship at about 11 kn (13 mph; 20 km/h).
Annular
[edit]An annular engine is an unusual type of engine that has an annular (ring-shaped) cylinder.[47] Some of American pioneering engineer James P. Allaire's early compound engines were of the annular type, with a smaller, high-pressure cylinder placed in the centre of a larger, ring-shaped low-pressure cylinder.[48] Trunk engines were another type of annular engine. A third type of annular marine engine used the Siamese engine connecting mechanism—but instead of two separate cylinders, it had a single, annular-shaped cylinder wrapped around the vertical arm of the crosshead (see diagram under "Siamese" above).[49]
Other terms
[edit]Some other terms are encountered in marine engine literature of the period. These terms, listed below, are usually used in conjunction with one or more of the basic engine classification terms listed above.
Simple
[edit]A simple engine is an engine that operates with single expansion of steam, regardless of the number of cylinders fitted to the engine. Up until about the mid-19th century, most ships had engines with only one cylinder, although some vessels had multiple-cylinder simple engines, and/or more than one engine.
Double-acting
[edit]A double-acting engine is an engine where steam is applied to both sides of the piston. Earlier steam engines applied steam in only one direction, allowing momentum or gravity to return the piston to its starting place, but a double-acting engine uses steam to force the piston in both directions, thus increasing rotational speed and power.[50] Like the term "simple engine", the term "double-acting" is less frequently encountered in the literature since almost all marine engines were of the double-acting type.
Vertical, horizontal, inclined, inverted
[edit]These terms refer to the orientation of the engine cylinder. In a vertical cylinder, the piston moves in the vertical plane, with the piston rod emerging from the top of the cylinder to turn an overhead crankshaft. In a vertical inverted engine, the piston likewise moves in the vertical plane, but with the piston rod emerging from the bottom to turn a crankshaft beneath. With an inclined or horizontal type, the cylinder and piston are positioned at an incline or horizontally. An inclined inverted cylinder is a cylinder operating at a downward incline. These terms are all generally used in conjunction with the engine types above. Thus, one may have a horizontal trunk engine, or an inclined compound engine, etc.
Inclined and horizontal cylinders could be very useful in naval vessels as their orientation kept the engine profile as low as possible and thus less susceptible to damage.[51] They could also be used in a low profile ship or to keep a ship's centre of gravity lower. In addition, inclined or horizontal cylinders had the advantage of reducing the amount of vibration by comparison with a vertical cylinder.
Geared
[edit]A geared engine or "geared screw" turns the propeller at a different rate to that of the engine. Early marine propeller engines were geared upward, which is to say the propeller was geared to run at a higher rotational speed than the engine itself ran at.[52][53] As engines became faster and more powerful through the latter part of the 19th century, gearing was almost universally dispensed with, and the propeller ran at the same rotational speed as the engine. This direct drive arrangement is mechanically most efficient, and reciprocating steam engines are well suited to the rotational speed most efficient for screw propellers.
See also
[edit]- Evaporator (marine) – apparatus for obtaining boiler feedwater from sea water
- Guardian valve
- Steam boat
- Steam engine
Footnotes
[edit]- ^ Fry, p. 27.
- ^ Sutcliffe, Andrea. Steam: The Untold Story of America's First Great Invention. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
- ^ Fry, pp. 37-42.
- ^ Fry, Chapter 5.
- ^ a b Sennett and Oram, pp. 2-4.
- ^ a b Murray, p. 4.
- ^ a b Fox, p. 119.
- ^ a b Sennet and Oram, p. 3.
- ^ Maginnis, p. xiv.
- ^ Rippon, Commander P.M., RN (1998). The evolution of engineering in the Royal Navy. Vol. 1. Spellmount. pp. 19–20. ISBN 0-946771-55-3.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b Seaton, pp. 3-5.
- ^ Hilton, p. 59.
- ^ a b Ward, p. 60.
- ^ Laxton, p. 334.
- ^ Adams, p. 202.
- ^ Harvey, p. 55.
- ^ a b Thurston, p. 379.
- ^ Sutherland, p. 31.
- ^ Buell, pp. 92-93.
- ^ Hebert.
- ^ Evers, p. 88.
- ^ Dumpleton, p. 83.
- ^ Evers, p. 89.
- ^ a b Murray, p. 14.
- ^ a b c d Sennett and Oram, p. 12.
- ^ a b Chatterton, p. 132.
- ^ Evers, pp. 90–91.
- ^ a b c Sennett and Oram, pp. 7–8. See also the preceding section in this reference, entitled "Horizontal engines".
- ^ Osbon, G. A. (1965). "The Crimean gunboats. Part 1". The Mariner's Mirror. 51 (2): 103–116. doi:10.1080/00253359.1965.10657815. ISSN 0025-3359.
- ^ "The Children - Western Australian Museum". Western Australian Museum. Retrieved 27 March 2018.
- ^ "Restoring the Xantho engine". 10 August 2011. Archived from the original on 10 August 2011. Retrieved 27 March 2018.
- ^ a b Steam Launch Artemis - Engine Archived 2010-03-06 at the Wayback Machine, www.pcez.com.
- ^ a b "Emory Rice T. V. Engine (1873)" Archived 2008-12-09 at the Wayback Machine, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, p. 4.
- ^ Sennett and Oram, pp. 7,9.
- ^ Emery Rice T. V. Engine (1873) Archived 2008-12-09 at the Wayback Machine, American Society of Mechanical Engineers brochure.
- ^ Emery Rice Archived 2010-06-13 at the Wayback Machine, American Maritime Museum.
- ^ a b Evers, p. 81.
- ^ Thurston, 391-396.
- ^ a b Fry, Chapter XI.
- ^ MacLehose, p. 118.
- ^ Thurston, pp. 393-396.
- ^ Jarvis, Adrian (1993). "9: Alfred Holt and the Compound Engine". In Gardiner, Robert; Greenhill, Dr Basil (eds.). The Advent of Steam – The Merchant Steamship before 1900. Conway Maritime Press. pp. 158–159. ISBN 0-85177-563-2.
- ^ Halpern, Samuel (31 January 2011). "Titanic's Prime Mover – An Examination of Propulsion and Power". Titanicology. Retrieved 1 February 2021.
- ^ Day, Lance and McNeil, Ian (Editors) 2013, Biographical Dictionary of the History of Technology Routledge, ISBN 0-203-02829-5 (P. 694)
- ^ Griffiths, Denis (1993). "Chapter 5: Triple Expansion and the First Shipping Revolution". In Gardiner, Robert; Greenhill, Dr. Basil (eds.). The Advent of Steam - The Merchant Steamship before 1900. Conway Maritime Press Ltd. pp. 106–126. ISBN 0-85177-563-2.
- ^ Joshua Hendy Iron Works Archived 2009-03-18 at the Wayback Machine - American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
- ^ Murray, pp.15-16.
- ^ Alllaire, pp. 282-283. See engine description for Buckeye State.
- ^ Murray, pp. 15-16.
- ^ Thurston, p. 110.
- ^ Murray. pp. 17-18.
- ^ Murray, p. 18.
- ^ Fry, pp. 167-168.
References
[edit]- American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1978): Joshua Hendy Iron Works - informational brochure.
- Buell, Augustus C. (1906): The Memoirs of Charles H. Cramp, J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia and London, pp. 92–93.
- Chatterton, E. Keble (1910): Steamships and their Story, page 132, Cassell and Company Ltd.
- Christley, James J. & Jurens, W. J. (1991). "Question 32/90: Ericsson Vibrating Lever Engine". Warship International. XXVIII (4). International Naval Research Organization: 403–404. ISSN 0043-0374.
- Dumpleton, Bernard (2002): The Story Of The Paddle Steamer, Intellect Books (UK), ISBN 978-1-84150-801-6.
- Evers, Henry (1873): Steam and the Steam Engine: Land, Marine and Locomotive, William Collins, Sons & Co., London and Glasgow.
- Fox, Stephen (2003): Transatlantic: Samuel Cunard, Isambard Brunel, and the Great Atlantic Steamships, HarperCollins, ISBN 978-0-06-019595-3.
- Fry, Henry (1896): The History of North Atlantic Steam Navigation: With Some Account of Early Ships and Shipowners, Sampson Low, Marston & Co., London.
- Harvey, Steven (2007): It Started With a Steamboat: An American Saga, Authorhouse, p. 55, ISBN 978-1-4259-6719-2
- Hebert, Luke (1849): The Engineer's and Mechanic's Encyclopaedia: Comprehending Practical Illustrations Of The Machinery and Processes Employed In Every Description Of Manufacture Of The British Empire, Volume II, Thomas Kelly, London.
- Hilton, George W. (2002): Lake Michigan Passenger Steamers, Stanford University Press, p. 59, ISBN 978-0-8047-4240-5.
- Kludas, Arnold (2000?): Record Breakers of the North Atlantic: Blue Riband Liners 1838–1952, Brassey's, Inc., Washington, D.C., ISBN 1-57488-328-3.
- Laxton, Frederick William (1855): The Civil Engineer and Architect's Journal, incorporated with The Architect, Volume XVIII, John Knott, London.
- MacLehose, James (1906): Memoirs and portraits of one hundred Glasgow men who have died during the last thirty years and in their lives did much to make the city what it now is, James MacLehose & Sons, Glasgow, p. 118, as reproduced by the Glasgow Digital Library.
- Maginnis, Arthur J. (1900): The Atlantic Ferry: Its Ships, Men and Working, Whittaker and Co., London and New York.
- Murray, Robert (1858): Rudimentary Treatise on Marine Engines and Steam Vessels: Together with Practical Remarks on the Screw and Propelling Power as Used in the Royal and Merchant Navy, Published by J. Weale.
- Seaton, Albert Edward (1885): A Manual Of Marine Engineering - Comprising The Designing, Construction, And Working Of Marine Machinery, 4th Edition, Charles Griffin & Co., London.
- Sennett, Richard and Oram, Sir Henry J. (1918): The Marine Steam Engine: A Treatise for Engineering Students, Young Engineers, and Officers of the Royal Navy and Mercantile Marine, Longmans, Green & Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcutta.
- Sutherland, John Lester (2004): Steamboats of Gloucester and the North Shore, The History Press, ISBN 978-1-59629-000-6, pp. 31-32.
- Thurston, Robert Henry (1883): A History of the Growth of the Steam-engine, reprinted 2001 by Adamant Media Corporation, ISBN 978-1-4021-6205-3.
- Ward, J. H.: (1864): A Popular Treatise on Steam, and its Application to the Useful Arts, Especially to Navigation, D. Van Nostrand, New York, p. 60.
External links
[edit]Marine steam engine
View on GrokipediaHistory
Early Innovations (18th-early 19th century)
The development of the marine steam engine began with James Watt's pivotal improvements to the steam engine, patented in 1769, which introduced a separate condenser that dramatically increased efficiency by reusing steam and reducing fuel consumption compared to earlier atmospheric engines.[7] This low-pressure design provided continuous rotary power, making it suitable for adaptation to propulsion systems, though Watt initially focused on stationary applications. By the 1780s, Watt and his partner Matthew Boulton explored rotary motion mechanisms; their 1781 patent (No. 1321) described methods to convert the engine's reciprocating action into rotation using sun-and-planet gears, which facilitated integration with paddlewheels for marine use. Early experiments integrated these engines into wooden hulls, but challenges arose from the engines' weight straining fragile timber structures and the need for reliable seals to prevent leaks in a marine environment.[8] Scottish engineer William Symington advanced practical marine application in 1803 with the Charlotte Dundas, a 17-meter tugboat fitted with a Watt-style low-pressure engine driving a stern paddlewheel on the Forth and Clyde Canal.[9] During trials, it towed two 70-ton barges at about 3 knots over 19.5 miles, demonstrating viability for canal navigation despite concerns over wave erosion from the paddlewash, which led to the project's abandonment by canal authorities.[9] Paddlewheel development progressed concurrently, evolving from rudimentary oar-like mechanisms to feathered blades for better efficiency, though early versions suffered from cavitation and inconsistent thrust in varying water conditions.[10] American inventor Robert Fulton achieved the first commercial success in 1807 with the Clermont (also known as the North River Steamboat), a 43-meter vessel powered by a 24-horsepower Boulton and Watt engine connected to side-mounted paddlewheels of 12-foot diameter.[11] On August 17, 1807, it completed a 150-mile trial from New York to Albany in 32 hours at an average 5 miles per hour, initiating regular passenger service on the Hudson River by September, carrying up to 60 passengers at 5 cents per mile and proving economically viable.[7] This marked the first sustained commercial steamboat operation, overcoming prior hurdles like boiler reliability and hull-engine alignment through reinforced wooden construction and copper boilers.[11] The era's low-pressure engines, limited to about 7-10 psi to avoid explosions, gave way to high-pressure innovations by Richard Trevithick in the early 1800s, who patented a non-condensing design in 1802 that operated at up to 50 psi for greater power density.[12] In 1805, Trevithick applied this to propel a canal barge using paddlewheels, achieving practical propulsion without the bulk of condensers, though adoption was slow due to safety fears and patent disputes with Watt's firm.[13]Mid-19th Century Expansion
The mid-19th century marked a period of rapid expansion for marine steam engines, transitioning from experimental applications to widespread commercial and military use. Building on early low-pressure designs, steam propulsion became integral to transatlantic liners, exemplified by the SS Great Western, launched in 1838 as the first purpose-built steamship for regular North Atlantic crossings, which completed its maiden voyage from Bristol to New York in 15 days at an average speed of 8.7 knots.[14] This vessel, powered by a 750-horsepower engine, demonstrated the reliability of steam for long-haul passenger and mail services, spurring the establishment of regular routes by companies like the Great Western Steamship Company.[15] In naval applications, the Royal Navy accelerated adoption, with HMS Rattler, a 9-gun wooden sloop launched in 1843, becoming one of the first warships fitted with a screw propeller driven by a 200-horsepower steam engine, enabling speeds up to 9.5 knots.[16] Technological advancements further propelled this expansion, particularly the introduction of iron hulls and screw propellers, which addressed limitations of wooden paddle steamers. Swedish-American inventor John Ericsson patented a screw propeller design in 1836, featuring contra-rotating blades that achieved over 9 knots in model tests and were first applied successfully on the vessel Francis B. Ogden in 1837.[16] Iron hulls emerged in the 1840s to support heavier steam machinery without structural failure, as wooden hulls proved prone to leaks under the strain of large engines; Isambard Kingdom Brunel's SS Great Britain, launched in 1843 and completed in 1845, was the first large ocean-going vessel with an iron hull and screw propeller, displacing 3,200 tons and reaching 10 knots.[17] Debates over screw versus paddle propulsion were decisively settled through British Admiralty trials in the 1840s, culminating in 1845 when HMS Rattler (screw-driven) outpulled the paddle-powered HMS Alecto in a stern-to-stern contest, towing her backward at 2.5 knots despite identical 200-horsepower engines, proving the screw's superior efficiency in both speed and fuel economy.[18] This era saw steam engines extend to colonial trade routes, enhancing Britain's imperial connectivity. By the early 1850s, steamships like the SS Great Britain began regular voyages to Australia and India, reducing travel times from months to weeks and supporting mail contracts under the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, which operated routes to Bombay by 1840 and Sydney by 1852.[19] Production scaled dramatically, with British shipyards outputting engines for dozens of new vessels annually; by 1845, the Admiralty alone had integrated screw propulsion into 20 warships, while merchant output grew to power over 100 steamships by the decade's end.[16] Economically, steam engines eroded the dominance of sailing ships on time-sensitive routes, cutting transit times by up to 50% and boosting trade volumes, though wind-dependent sailing persisted for bulk cargo due to coal costs.[20] Steamers played a pivotal role in the 1849 California Gold Rush, with the SS California arriving in San Francisco on February 28 after a 145-day voyage via Cape Horn, inaugurating regular Pacific Mail Steamship Company service and transporting over 4,000 passengers that year to fuel the rush.[21]Late Developments and Transition (late 19th-20th century)
The late 19th century marked the widespread adoption of triple-expansion engines in marine propulsion, which maximized steam efficiency by expanding it through three stages of decreasing pressure cylinders. A prominent example was the RMS Teutonic, launched in 1889 by the White Star Line, equipped with twin-screw triple-expansion engines delivering 17,000 indicated horsepower and enabling speeds up to 20 knots.[22] This design became standard for large ocean liners and warships, building on earlier compound engine principles to reduce fuel consumption by approximately 30% compared to double-expansion systems.[23] The integration of steam turbines represented a pivotal advancement, offering higher speeds and reliability over reciprocating engines. In 1894, Charles Parsons demonstrated this innovation with the experimental vessel Turbinia, powered by his patented steam turbine achieving 34.5 knots—more than twice the speed of contemporary warships—and proving the viability of turbine propulsion for marine applications. Turbines were rapidly adopted in naval vessels, such as HMS Dreadnought in 1906, which used Parsons turbines to reach 21 knots, revolutionizing battleship design during World War I by enabling all-big-gun configurations with superior maneuverability.[24] During both World Wars, steam turbines powered the majority of Allied and Axis capital ships, including carriers and battleships, with peak thermal efficiencies reaching 20-25% in optimized designs by the 1920s through higher steam pressures and superheating.[25] The decline of marine steam engines accelerated in the 1910s with the rise of diesel propulsion, which offered greater fuel efficiency and reliability for commercial shipping. The MS Selandia, launched in 1912 by the East Asiatic Company, became the first ocean-going vessel fully powered by diesel engines, using two Burmeister & Wain units to achieve reliable transoceanic voyages without the need for frequent coaling stops.[26] The shift was further propelled by the advantages of oil fuel over coal, including higher energy density that allowed smaller fuel storage (reducing ship displacement by up to 20%), quicker refueling times (hours instead of days), and easier handling that eliminated large crews for stoking.[27] By the 1930s, these factors rendered steam obsolete for most new merchant vessels, though iconic steam turbine ships like the RMS Queen Mary persisted, entering service in 1936 with four Parsons geared turbines producing 160,000 shaft horsepower for 30-knot speeds on oil-fired boilers.[28] Safety concerns prompted international and national regulations in the 1890s to mitigate boiler explosions, a leading cause of maritime accidents. In the United Kingdom, the Boiler Explosions Act of 1890 extended prior land-based rules to marine vessels, mandating inspections, pressure limits, and safety valves to reduce explosion risks from overpressure.[29] Post-World War II, steam propulsion briefly evolved into nuclear variants, where reactors generated steam for turbines in submarines and surface ships, extending endurance indefinitely without fossil fuels, though adoption remained limited to military applications.[30]Basic Principles and Components
Thermodynamic Operation
The thermodynamic operation of a marine steam engine is governed by the Rankine cycle, an idealized vapor power cycle that converts heat energy from steam into mechanical work through a series of thermodynamic processes. In this cycle, water is heated in a boiler to produce high-pressure steam, which expands in the engine cylinder to drive the piston, followed by condensation of the exhaust steam and return of the condensate to the boiler via a feed pump. The four primary processes include isobaric heat addition in the boiler (where liquid water is evaporated to saturated or superheated steam), isentropic expansion in the cylinder (producing work as steam pressure drops), isobaric heat rejection in the condenser (where steam condenses back to water), and isentropic compression by the feed pump (to return the condensate to boiler pressure).[31][32] The work output of the cycle is determined from the pressure-volume (PV) diagram, typically obtained via indicator diagrams that record cylinder pressure against piston displacement during operation. The net work per cycle, , is the area enclosed by the PV curve, calculated as the integral , representing the difference between expansion work (during steam admission and expansion) and compression/pumping work (minimal in practice). On the PV diagram, the process begins with constant-pressure admission of steam from the boiler (horizontal line at high pressure), followed by the expansion line (adiabatic curve showing pressure drop as volume increases), constant-pressure exhaust and condensation (horizontal line at low pressure), and a near-vertical compression line for the feed pump. A key parameter is the cut-off ratio, defined as the fraction of the piston stroke at which steam admission ceases, marking the transition from constant-pressure supply to adiabatic expansion; this ratio controls the degree of expansion and influences the shape of the expansion line on the PV diagram, optimizing work extraction for given steam conditions.[33][32] In marine steam engines of the 19th and early 20th centuries, steam pressures typically ranged from 100 to 200 pounds per square inch (psi) gauge, enabling sufficient energy density for propulsion while balancing boiler design constraints and material strengths. The thermal efficiency of the Rankine cycle approximates the Carnot limit for the operating temperatures, given by , where temperatures are in Kelvin; for boiler temperatures around 440-470 K (corresponding to 100-200 psi saturated steam) and condenser temperatures near 300-310 K, this yields theoretical efficiencies of 35-40%, though actual values were lower (10-20%) due to irreversibilities like friction and incomplete expansion.[34][31][35] Marine adaptations emphasize the condenser's role in creating a partial vacuum to enhance expansion and efficiency, with typical vacuum levels of 20-28 inches of mercury (inHg), equivalent to absolute pressures of 2-10 inHg, depending on cooling water temperature. Seawater, used directly as the cooling medium in marine condensers, introduces challenges such as biofouling (from marine organisms like mussels and bacteria), particulate deposition (silt and sand), and crystallization due to high salinity (over 35,000 ppm chlorides), which reduce heat transfer rates and necessitate corrosion-resistant materials like admiralty brass tubes. These effects demand regular maintenance to mitigate efficiency losses, distinguishing marine systems from land-based engines that often use freshwater cooling for cleaner, less aggressive operation. Additionally, marine engines are optimized for continuous, high-load operation over extended voyages, requiring robust thermodynamic design to sustain vacuum integrity and minimize heat losses under varying sea conditions.[36][37][38]Core Components
The core components of a marine steam engine encompass the boiler for steam generation, the cylinder and piston assembly for power conversion, valve systems for steam control, the crankshaft and associated shafts for motion transmission, condensers and feedwater systems for efficiency and replenishment, along with evolving materials and safety mechanisms essential for reliable operation at sea.[34] Boilers, the foundational element, produce steam by heating water, typically operating at pressures from 150 to 180 psi in fire-tube designs where hot gases pass through tubes surrounded by water.[34] The prevalent Scotch boiler, a cylindrical fire-tube type with internal furnaces and an uptake for exhaust gases, dominated marine applications due to its compact form and stability in rolling seas.[34] In contrast, water-tube boilers, such as the Belleville or Yarrow types, circulated water through tubes exposed to furnace heat, enabling higher pressures up to 300 psi and quicker steam raising, though they required more precise water treatment to prevent tube failures.[34] The cylinder houses the piston that reciprocates under steam pressure to generate linear force. Pistons, fitted with packing rings to seal against the cylinder walls, connect via a piston rod to a crosshead, which guides motion and links to the connecting rod for transmission to the crankshaft.[34] Valves, including slide valves for simple linear motion or piston valves for balanced operation, admit and exhaust steam to and from the cylinder ends; more advanced Corliss valves, with separate inlet and exhaust mechanisms, improved efficiency by reducing steam leakage in larger installations.[34] The crankshaft converts the piston's reciprocating motion into rotary power through cranks and connecting rods, directly coupled to the propeller shaft that drives the screw propeller.[34] A flywheel, mounted on the crankshaft, smooths rotational speed variations to maintain steady propulsion.[34] Condensers recover exhaust steam by cooling it to water, with surface condensers—featuring tube-separated cooling water—preferred over jet condensers for their ability to produce purer condensate and support higher boiler pressures up to 150-200 psi without excessive scaling.[34] Feedwater systems, including pumps and heaters, recirculate this condensate back to the boiler, often preheated to minimize thermal shock and oxygen content.[34] Materials transitioned from wrought iron, valued for its ductility in early cylinders and shafts, to steel in the 1870s, which offered superior tensile strength for withstanding higher pressures and reducing weight.[34] Lubrication posed unique marine challenges, as saltwater exposure accelerated wear on bearings and cylinders, necessitating specialized high-viscosity oils resistant to dilution and emulsification by steam condensate.[34] Safety features like fusible plugs, embedded in the boiler crown sheet with a low-melting alloy core (typically tin or a tin alloy), melted at around 400-500°F to flood the firebox if water levels dropped, preventing tube overheating and explosions—a critical safeguard since the mid-19th century.[39]Classification by Reciprocating Mechanism
Side-Lever and Grasshopper Engines
The side-lever engine represented an early adaptation of reciprocating steam technology for marine propulsion, employing a pair of parallel levers positioned below the cylinder to transmit the piston's linear motion to the crankshaft via a connecting rod, thereby driving paddle wheels. This configuration ensured balanced forces on the crankshaft, minimizing uneven stresses, and was particularly valued for its stability in early warships. A prominent example was the HMS Comet (1822), fitted with twin-cylinder side-lever engines of Boulton & Watt design, delivering 80 nominal horsepower and enabling speeds of around 8 knots.[34] These engines featured horizontal levers oscillating about a central fulcrum, with the piston rod connecting to the levers' upper ends and the lower ends linked to the crank, allowing for a relatively low center of gravity that enhanced vessel stability during maneuvers. Power outputs generally ranged from 20 to 100 horsepower, making them suitable for vessels displacing 200-500 tons, such as early naval tenders and passenger steamers. Applications extended to riverboats, where the design's robustness supported operations in confined waterways.[34] Key advantages included reliable operation from the long connecting rods, which reduced wear, and effective balance of reciprocating masses to limit vibrations at low speeds. However, disadvantages encompassed substantial overall weight—often exceeding 10 tons for 80-horsepower units—and extensive deck space requirements, which complicated installation in smaller hulls and contributed to secondary vibrations from the lever mechanisms.[34] The grasshopper engine emerged as a specialized variant of the side-lever type in the 1820s, developed by Boulton & Watt to address space constraints in marine settings; its articulated levers, pivoted at one end and resembling an insect's hind legs, connected the piston to the crankshaft in a more upright, compact assembly. This design was tailored for shallow-draft vessels, such as river steamers, where headroom was limited, and found use in paddle-driven craft navigating inland waters like the Mississippi and Clyde rivers. With power ratings similarly in the 20-100 horsepower range, grasshopper engines offered improved accessibility for maintenance in low-profile engine rooms while preserving the lever system's motion conversion efficiency. Their primary advantages lay in the lowered center of gravity for better trim in light-draft hulls and simpler assembly compared to full beam engines. Drawbacks mirrored those of side-lever engines, including inherent vibration from the flexible lever joints and a bulky footprint that limited scalability for larger ocean-going ships.[34]Beam and Steeple Engines
The walking beam engine, an adaptation of James Watt's original beam design for stationary pumping applications, emerged as a key mechanism for marine propulsion in early 19th-century American side-wheel steamers. In this configuration, a large pivoted beam mounted overhead connected the vertical piston rod from the steam cylinder at one end to a connecting rod at the other, which drove the crankshaft and paddle wheels. This indirect linkage allowed for the conversion of the piston's linear motion into rotational power while accommodating the space constraints of river and coastal vessels. The design gained prominence in the United States following the success of Robert Fulton's Clermont in 1807, which utilized a Boulton & Watt beam engine, and became a hallmark of paddle steamer silhouettes by the 1830s.[40][41] A variant, the steeple engine, optimized the beam mechanism for greater space efficiency by orienting the beam vertically above the cylinder, resembling a steeple in profile. Invented by Scottish engineer David Napier in the 1820s for Clyde paddle steamers, it employed multiple piston rods and a crosshead to stabilize motion and reduce horizontal space requirements, making it suitable for compact engine rooms. By the 1840s, steeple engines had been adopted in Great Lakes steamers, where their vertical layout facilitated installation in low-profile hulls while maintaining effective power transmission to side wheels. This design addressed the limitations of horizontal beams in shallower-draft vessels common on inland waterways.[42][43][44] Mechanically, both beam and steeple engines relied on the lever principle—first articulated by Archimedes—to amplify force, with the pivot point providing mechanical advantage for long piston strokes essential to generating substantial torque in larger marine applications. Stroke lengths could reach up to 10 feet, enabling high power output for ocean-going vessels despite the reciprocating nature of the system. However, the rocking motion of the beam introduced maintenance challenges, including accelerated wear at the pivot bearings and trunnions, which required frequent lubrication and inspections to prevent misalignment or failure under sustained vibration and steam pressure. A notable example is the S.S. Ticonderoga, launched in 1906 on Lake Champlain with a walking beam engine delivering approximately 800 horsepower through a 9-foot stroke, exemplifying the type's enduring use in regional passenger service until the mid-20th century.[45][46]Direct-Acting and Oscillating Engines
Direct-acting marine steam engines feature a straightforward inline configuration in which the piston rod connects directly to the crankshaft via a connecting rod, eliminating intermediate levers or beams for power transmission. This design simplifies the mechanism and reduces the overall height of the engine, making it particularly suitable for vessels requiring compact machinery spaces. Inverted direct-acting engines, with cylinders positioned above the crankshaft, emerged prominently in the mid-19th century to accommodate low-profile installations, especially in naval cruisers of the 1860s where deck space and stability were critical concerns. A notable early example is the USS Michigan, the U.S. Navy's first iron-hulled warship, commissioned in 1844 as a steam-powered brig for Great Lakes service. It was equipped with two direct-acting condensing steam engines, each featuring 36-inch diameter cylinders and an 8-foot stroke, delivering approximately 200 horsepower combined and enabling speeds up to 8 knots. These engines exemplified the type's reliability in naval applications, powering the vessel for over a century with minimal modifications.[47][48] Oscillating marine steam engines, patented by Henry Maudslay in 1827, represent another simplified direct-acting variant ideal for screw propellers. In this design, the cylinder is mounted on trunnions—pivotal supports—allowing it to rock or oscillate with the piston's reciprocating motion, thereby aligning the steam inlet and exhaust ports automatically with fixed passages in the engine frame. This self-aligning valve mechanism obviates the need for external valve gear, enhancing simplicity and reducing maintenance in marine environments. Maudslay's firm installed pairs of these engines in paddle steamers like the Endeavour in 1828, marking their practical debut around the 1830s for commercial and naval use.[49] Both direct-acting and oscillating engines offered significant advantages over earlier beam or side-lever types, including a lower profile, reduced space requirements, and lighter construction—often considerably less massive for equivalent power output due to the absence of heavy framing. For instance, oscillating engines occupied less volume and weighed less than fixed-cylinder alternatives of similar capacity, facilitating installation in frigates and smaller warships. Historical piston speeds in these engines typically reached 200–400 feet per minute, corresponding to crankshaft speeds of 25–70 revolutions per minute depending on stroke length, allowing efficient propulsion without excessive vibration in well-balanced setups.[50][51] To mitigate inherent vibrations from reciprocating motion, some direct-acting designs incorporated tandem cylinders, where high- and low-pressure units shared a common piston rod in compound configurations, balancing forces and smoothing operation for sustained high-speed running. This approach proved effective in naval cruisers, contributing to the engines' adoption for screw-driven vessels by the late 19th century.[52]Trunk, Vibrating-Lever, and Other Variants
The trunk engine represented a significant advancement in direct-acting marine steam engines, designed to minimize the engine's height while accommodating a long piston stroke essential for efficient propulsion. In this configuration, the piston was directly connected to the connecting rod via a hollow cylindrical trunk extending from the cylinder, allowing the rod to articulate within the trunk without a traditional piston rod passing through the cylinder head. This design eliminated the need for a long crosshead and reduced the overall vertical space required, making it ideal for low-profile warship engine rooms where deck height was limited. British engineer John Penn patented the double-trunk variant in 1845, which featured trunks on both sides of the cylinder to balance forces and prevent misalignment during operation.[53][54] Penn's trunk engines were first installed in Royal Navy vessels, such as the screw frigate HMS Arrogant in 1848, where they powered propeller shafts with outputs up to 1,000 horsepower at pressures around 20 psi. The design's compactness allowed for better armor placement and stability in ironclads, contributing to its adoption in over 100 British warships by the 1860s. By reducing friction and enabling smoother power transmission, trunk engines improved reliability in rough seas compared to taller beam or side-lever types, though they required precise machining to avoid trunk wear. Their use extended to merchant marine applications, including conversions like the SS Xantho (1872), where a Penn trunk engine drove screw propulsion after paddle wheel removal.[55][56][57] The vibrating-lever engine, another direct-acting variant, employed oscillating levers attached to the piston to convert linear motion into rotary force, minimizing vibration and enabling a compact layout suitable for naval vessels. Swedish-American inventor John Ericsson developed this mechanism in the early 1840s as an improvement over traditional side-lever engines, with the levers "vibrating" in an arc to balance inertial forces and reduce the engine's footprint. Often combined with trunk elements, as in Ericsson's double-trunk design, the pistons oscillated horizontally within cylinders, driving the crankshaft via short connecting rods. This setup allowed for high power density in confined spaces, with the USS Monitor's 1862 engine delivering 400 horsepower from a single horizontal cylinder measuring 20 inches in diameter by 30-inch stroke.[58][59][60] Ericsson's vibrating-lever engines gained prominence during the American Civil War, powering ironclads like the Monitor and its class, where the low center of gravity enhanced stability under fire. The design's self-balancing levers reduced dynamic loads on the hull, making it preferable for high-speed maneuvers, though it suffered from overheating issues in early models due to inadequate lubrication. Post-war, variants were used in smaller warships and merchant ships built in the United States, such as the USS Miami (1862), but adoption was limited outside American yards due to patent restrictions and preferences for European compound designs. By the 1870s, improvements in materials allowed outputs up to 600 horsepower, influencing later oscillating engines.[61][62][63] Other variants of reciprocating marine steam engines included the diagonal engine, which positioned the cylinder at an angle to the crankshaft for optimal leverage in paddle-driven vessels, and the back-acting engine, where components were arranged behind the cylinder to save forward space in engine rooms. The diagonal design, pioneered in the mid-19th century for river and coastal steamers, featured inclined cylinders connected via diagonal levers, as seen in the PS Waverley's triple-expansion version (1899) producing 2,100 horsepower at 180 rpm. This configuration improved torque distribution for paddle wheels, enhancing efficiency in shallow-draft ships, and was favored in British and European fleets until the 1920s.[64][65] Back-acting engines, conversely, reversed the traditional layout with the crankshaft aft of the cylinder, allowing tandem arrangements for compound expansion and reducing length in narrow hulls; they powered vessels like the USS Miantonomoh (1865) with 1,000 horsepower outputs. Additional specialized types, such as the steeple engine with its vertical linkage resembling a church steeple, bridged early beam designs and direct-acting forms for auxiliary marine pumps, while annular engines encircled the crankshaft for ultra-compact naval use in the late 19th century. These variants collectively addressed spatial constraints in evolving ship designs, paving the way for multiple-expansion systems.[66]Classification by Expansion Technology
Simple-Expansion Engines
Simple-expansion engines represent the foundational design in marine steam propulsion, utilizing a single cylinder or stage where high-pressure steam from the boiler is admitted to drive the piston, expanding once before exhausting directly to the condenser or atmosphere. In this configuration, steam enters the cylinder at full boiler pressure, typically around 7-15 psi in early marine applications, and performs work through a single expansion phase until the end of the stroke. To maximize power output in these low-efficiency designs, the cutoff— the point at which steam admission ceases—occurs late in the stroke, generally at 70-80% of the piston travel, allowing near-full boiler pressure to act over most of the stroke for high initial torque. This approach, while straightforward, limits the engine's ability to recover heat from further expansion, making it the baseline technology for early steamships.[34] The thermal efficiency of simple-expansion marine engines ranged from 5% to 10%, constrained by the single-stage process that exhausted steam at relatively high temperatures and pressures without recapturing additional energy. This inefficiency stemmed from the incomplete utilization of steam's heat content, with significant losses to the exhaust, rendering these engines suitable primarily for applications requiring high torque at low speeds rather than sustained high-speed operation. Early harbor tugs and coastal vessels exemplified such uses, where the engines' robust low-rpm performance provided the pulling power needed for maneuvering heavy loads in confined waters, often achieving piston speeds of 400-500 feet per minute. By the 1870s, however, simple-expansion designs dominated marine propulsion but began yielding to more efficient alternatives as boiler pressures rose and fuel economy became critical for longer voyages.[67][34][68] Variants of simple-expansion engines included both horizontal and vertical orientations, with horizontal models prevalent in early warships and merchant vessels due to their compact placement below the waterline and simpler alignment with paddle wheels or screw propellers. Vertical configurations emerged later in the mid-19th century for improved accessibility and reduced floor space in engine rooms, particularly in naval applications. All were typically double-acting, admitting steam alternately to both sides of the piston to double the power strokes per revolution and enhance torque delivery. The indicated horsepower (IHP) of these engines could be calculated using the formula , where is the cylinder diameter in inches, is the stroke length in feet, is the number of revolutions per minute, and is the mean effective pressure in psi; this metric provided a standard measure of theoretical output before mechanical losses.[34][69]Compound and Multiple-Expansion Engines
Compound engines represent a significant advancement in marine steam technology, utilizing multiple cylinders to expand steam sequentially and recover energy that would otherwise be lost as waste exhaust in simple-expansion designs. In a typical compound setup, steam enters a high-pressure (HP) cylinder first, where it performs initial work before exhausting into a receiver pipe that conveys it to a low-pressure (LP) cylinder for further expansion. This dual-stage process, often with cylinder volume ratios around 1:2 to balance loads, allows for more complete utilization of the steam's energy, reducing fuel consumption by approximately 20-30% compared to single-cylinder engines.[70][71] The introduction of compound engines in marine applications is credited to engineers like John Elder, who developed practical designs in the mid-19th century to address the inefficiencies of early steam propulsion for long voyages. One of the earliest successful implementations was in the SS Agamemnon, launched in 1865, which demonstrated the viability of compound expansion for ocean-going merchant ships by achieving greater range on limited coal supplies. These engines operated with boiler pressures around 40-60 psi initially, expanding steam across the two cylinders to extract additional mechanical work, thereby enhancing overall thermal efficiency to levels of 12-20% under optimal conditions.[71][72] For ideal compound operation assuming isothermal expansion in each stage, the total work output can be approximated aswhere is the gas constant, is the temperature, and and are the pressure ratios across the high- and low-pressure stages, respectively. This formulation highlights how staged expansion multiplies the logarithmic work contribution from pressure drops, providing a theoretical basis for efficiency gains.[73] Multiple-expansion engines extended this principle to three or four stages, known as triple- and quadruple-expansion designs, which became standard for large marine vessels by the late 19th century. In a triple-expansion engine, steam flows from an HP cylinder (e.g., at 200 psi) to an intermediate-pressure (IP) cylinder (around 60 psi), then to a low-pressure (LP) cylinder (about 20 psi), with typical cylinder volume ratios of approximately 1:2:3.5 to equalize work distribution across stages and minimize steam velocity losses. Quadruple-expansion variants added a fourth cylinder for even lower pressures, further optimizing energy recovery in high-power applications. A notable example is the RMS Titanic's triple-expansion engines, which, combined with a low-pressure turbine, delivered approximately 68,000 indicated horsepower in 1912, powering the ship at speeds over 21 knots while maintaining fuel efficiency for transatlantic service.[74][71]
Annular and Specialized Cylinder Designs
The annular cylinder design represents a specialized configuration in marine steam engines, featuring concentric cylinders where an inner high-pressure cylinder is surrounded by an outer low-pressure annular space, allowing steam to expand sequentially within a single assembly.[75] This setup revives the compound expansion concept originally patented by Jonathan Hornblower in 1781, which directed steam from a smaller high-pressure cylinder to a larger low-pressure one to improve efficiency, though early implementations faced legal and practical hurdles.[75] By the 1850s, renewed interest in such compounded arrangements led to trials adapting the principle for marine use, culminating in Joseph Maudslay's 1856 patent for an annular engine installed on the steam yacht Hebe, where a pair of annular cylinders drove a screw propeller in a compact, low-center-of-gravity layout suitable for smaller vessels.[76][75] Other specialized cylinder variants include tandem arrangements, in which high- and low-pressure pistons share a common rod aligned end-to-end within coaxial cylinders, enabling direct steam transfer without an intermediate receiver, as seen in some 19th-century naval and merchant engines like those built by Morgan Iron Works.[75] Differential cylinder designs, by contrast, employ pistons with unbalanced effective areas—typically a smaller high-pressure face and larger low-pressure exposure—to produce net thrust from pressure differentials, often integrated into compound systems via a receiver to balance forces.[75] These configurations extended multiple-expansion principles by optimizing space and force transmission in non-standard geometries.[75] While offering compactness for experimental vessels such as 19th-century yachts, where low profiles reduced hull interference, these designs introduced notable disadvantages including heightened mechanical complexity from additional components and persistent sealing challenges in annular gaps and differential interfaces, which increased leakage and maintenance demands.[76][75] Efficiency gains were evident in compound applications broadly, with steam consumption dropping from 28.46 pounds per horsepower-hour in simple engines to 19.05 pounds in compounded versions—a roughly 33% improvement in fuel economy—though specialized annular and differential setups realized only marginal additional benefits due to sealing inefficiencies and higher initial pressures requiring robust boiler reinforcements.[75] Their adoption remained confined to niche trials, such as the Hebe and similar experimental craft into the late 1800s, rather than widespread commercial or naval service.[76]Additional Configurations and Terms
Acting Mechanisms and Cylinder Orientations
In marine steam engines, acting mechanisms refer to the manner in which steam pressure drives the piston, with single-acting and double-acting configurations representing the primary types. A single-acting engine admits steam to one side of the piston only, typically the top or bottom, producing power in a single direction per cycle, while the return stroke relies on momentum, gravity, or a separate mechanism. These were common in early marine applications, such as side-lever and grasshopper engines used in paddle-wheel vessels before the 1840s, but their inefficiency limited adoption for sustained propulsion.[34] In contrast, double-acting engines alternate steam admission to both sides of the piston, enabling power generation on both strokes and doubling output per cycle, which became the standard design post-1800 following James Watt's innovations adapted for marine use. By the mid-19th century, double-acting mechanisms dominated marine engines due to their superior efficiency and smoothness, with single-acting types becoming rare except in specialized low-power setups.[34] Cylinder orientations describe the alignment of the cylinder relative to the ship's deck, influencing space utilization, stability, and maintenance in marine environments. Horizontal orientations position the cylinder parallel to the deck, promoting operational stability by distributing weight evenly and minimizing vibration in cargo ships, where floor space is abundant but roll stability is critical.[34] Vertical orientations align the cylinder perpendicular to the deck, often upright with the piston moving up and down; this configuration reduces required floor area, making it suitable for vessels requiring compact engine rooms to optimize space.[34] Inclined and inverted orientations tilt the cylinder at an angle or position it above the crankshaft, respectively, to lower the center of gravity and overall height—key for warships like early 20th-century destroyers, such as the HMS Duncan class (1901), which used inverted vertical triple-expansion engines to enhance maneuverability and armor protection by keeping machinery below the waterline.[34] These orientations also impact practical aspects like lubrication flow, as gravity in vertical or inclined setups aids oil distribution along the cylinder walls, reducing wear compared to horizontal designs where pooling or uneven spreading can occur without auxiliary systems.Geared and Hybrid Systems
Geared marine steam engines incorporated reduction gears to connect the high-speed crankshaft or turbine output to the propeller shaft, enabling optimal rotational speeds for both components. Typically, these systems featured gear ratios around 10:1 or higher, such as the 14:1 reduction used in an experimental 10-horsepower steam turbine installation in 1897, which drove a small 22-foot boat with the propeller operating at 1400 RPM.[77] This configuration allowed steam turbines to operate at elevated speeds exceeding 300 RPM—far higher than the 70-100 RPM typical for direct-drive reciprocating engines—while reducing output to the 100-200 RPM range suited for efficient propeller performance.[77] The first geared steam turbine ship application emerged in 1897 with this prototype, marking a shift from direct-drive limitations and paving the way for broader adoption in larger vessels.[77] The primary advantages of geared systems included enhanced operational flexibility and efficiency, as turbines could run at their peak performance RPM without compromising propeller thrust. For instance, the 1909 conversion of the cargo vessel Vespasian to a geared steam turbine setup achieved a 19.9:1 reduction ratio using double helical gears, resulting in 98.5% transmission efficiency and 15-20% lower water consumption compared to equivalent reciprocating engines during 12,000 miles of service.[77] By the early 20th century, these systems boosted overall thermal efficiency to approximately 25% in optimized installations, a notable improvement over the 15-20% of ungeared reciprocating designs, due to better steam expansion and reduced mechanical losses.[78] Geared turbines became standard in naval and commercial ships, including 20th-century cruisers like the USS Wichita (1937), where they provided variable speed control and reliability under high loads.[79] Hybrid systems combined steam engines with auxiliary drives, such as electric or diesel components, to further improve versatility and power distribution. A seminal example was the turbo-electric propulsion on the USS Jupiter, commissioned in 1913 as the U.S. Navy's first electrically propelled vessel, featuring a 5,000 kW AC turbo-generator delivering 6,500 shaft horsepower to twin screws.[80] This setup decoupled the steam turbine from the propeller via electric motors, allowing precise speed regulation and maneuverability advantages over purely mechanical gearing, particularly in confined waters or during low-speed operations.[80] Turbo-electric hybrids extended to auxiliary diesel integration in later designs, offering redundancy and fuel savings; their adoption in interwar cruisers, such as the USS Lexington (1927), demonstrated sustained use through the mid-20th century for bridging steam propulsion toward more modern hybrid configurations.[81]Applications and Impact
Naval and Commercial Use
Marine steam engines played a pivotal role in naval applications, particularly in ironclad warships where propulsion systems were engineered for high-speed maneuvers essential to armored combat. Triple-expansion engines became standard in naval vessels from the late 19th century, providing the power needed for speeds exceeding 18 knots in ironclads like the Royal Italian Lepanto, which developed 16,000 indicated horsepower during trials. These engines were typically housed in watertight compartments to mitigate flooding risks from battle damage; for example, the British Warrior-class ironclads featured hulls divided into 92 watertight transverse bulkheads, including dedicated sections for the engine and boiler rooms to enhance survivability.[82][83] A notable early example of naval steam propulsion in ironclads was the Confederate CSS Virginia, commissioned in February 1862, which repurposed the steam engines from the scuttled USS Merrimack to drive its armored hull at speeds up to 6 knots. This capability allowed the Virginia to close distances rapidly during the Battle of Hampton Roads on March 8, 1862, where it rammed and sank the wooden sailing frigate USS Cumberland, demonstrating the tactical superiority of steam over sail in close-quarters engagements. The engine, a horizontal direct-acting type producing around 1,200 horsepower, was positioned amidships in a protected compartment, underscoring the integration of steam power with armored design for wartime effectiveness.[84][85] In commercial shipping, marine steam engines were optimized for cargo efficiency, with compound-expansion designs widely adopted in colliers to minimize fuel consumption and maximize payload capacity. These engines allowed colliers, such as those operating on the Thames in the late 19th century, to transport up to 1,000 tons of coal per voyage—far surpassing the 200-ton limit of sailing equivalents—by reducing the volume required for coal bunkers through staged steam expansion. For passenger liners emphasizing luxury and reliability, boiler systems were scaled for consistent high-pressure operation, often featuring multiple double-ended units to support extended transoceanic runs without interruption; this setup ensured stable power for onboard amenities like electric lighting and heating in upscale vessels.[86][87] The SS Britannic, launched in 1874 for the White Star Line, exemplified commercial application with its four-cylinder compound inverted engines—cylinders measuring 48 and 83 inches in diameter with a 60-inch stroke—delivering 4,970 horsepower to a single screw propeller for Atlantic crossings averaging 16 knots. This configuration enabled reliable service on the Liverpool-New York route, carrying up to 450 passengers in relative comfort over 7- to 8-day voyages. By 1900, steam-powered vessels accounted for approximately 80% of global merchant tonnage, reflecting the widespread shift to engine-driven propulsion in both naval and commercial fleets as documented in Lloyd's Register statistics.[88][89][90]Engineering Advancements and Limitations
The marine steam engine significantly advanced global maritime trade by enabling consistent speeds of 10 to 15 knots for merchant vessels, reducing transatlantic crossing times from weeks under sail to about 10 days and facilitating the rapid transport of goods and passengers across oceans.[20] These engines spurred innovations in metallurgy, particularly the development of high-pressure boiler steels capable of withstanding temperatures up to 300°C and pressures exceeding 200 psi, which improved vessel durability and efficiency.[40] The integration of steam power also standardized screw propeller designs, as seen in vessels like the SS Archimedes (1839), which demonstrated the superiority of screw propulsion over paddles for sustained speeds and maneuverability, influencing subsequent naval and commercial shipbuilding norms.[16] Despite these advancements, marine steam engines suffered from notable limitations, including fuel inefficiency where coal consumption often reached 1 to 2 tons per hour for mid-sized vessels operating at full power, necessitating large bunkers that occupied up to 20% of a ship's cargo space.[25] Saltwater exposure accelerated corrosion on external components like condensers and hull fittings, with chloride ions promoting pitting and galvanic degradation at rates up to 0.5 mm/year in untreated iron parts, requiring frequent anode replacements and coatings.[91] High maintenance demands further constrained operations, with reciprocating engines prone to wear on pistons and valves leading to downtime for overhauls and repairs in early 20th-century fleets. Safety concerns were acute, as boiler explosions—often due to weak seams or overpressure—claimed hundreds of lives before 1900, prompting the U.S. Steamboat Inspection Act of 1838 and subsequent international regulations that mandated pressure relief valves and material inspections.[92] Environmentally, these engines left a legacy of soot emissions from incomplete coal combustion, contributing particulate matter that blackened coastal skies and exacerbated urban air quality issues near ports during the steam era.[93] The technological framework of marine steam engines, including multi-stage expansion and geared transmissions, directly influenced early diesel designs by providing scalable power delivery models that improved fuel economy by 50% in transitional hybrid systems.[26]References
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:A_history_of_the_growth_of_the_steam-engine_%28IA_cu31924031167632%29.pdf/416