ShipCalculators.com

Tier III Compliant Two-Stroke Engines

IMO Tier III sets a maximum NOx emission limit of approximately 3.4 g/kWh for marine diesel engines operating in designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs). The limit is roughly 80 percent below the standard Tier II limit of 14.4 g/kWh. Slow-speed two-stroke marine engines achieve Tier III compliance through three principal pathways: exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), or dual-fuel operation on gas. This article surveys each pathway, the operational and capital cost trade-offs, ECA geography, and the strategic considerations facing ship owners specifying new builds. Visit the home page or browse the calculator catalogue for related propulsion engineering tools.

Contents

Background

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) regulates marine engine emissions through MARPOL Annex VI. Three tiers of NOx limits apply, with progressively stricter targets:

  • Tier I: applicable to engines installed 2000-2010, NOx limit approximately 17.0 g/kWh at 130 rpm
  • Tier II: applicable to engines installed 2011 onward, NOx limit approximately 14.4 g/kWh at 130 rpm
  • Tier III: applicable to engines installed 2016 onward operating in designated ECAs, NOx limit approximately 3.4 g/kWh at 130 rpm

The exact limits depend on engine speed: lower-speed engines have higher NOx limits because they are inherently lower-NOx. The formula is:

  • Tier I: NOx = 17.0 × n^(-0.2)
  • Tier II: NOx = 14.4 × n^(-0.23)
  • Tier III: NOx = 3.4 × n^(-0.2)

For a slow-speed engine at 80 rpm, the Tier III limit is approximately 4.7 g/kWh.

ECAs include:

  • North American ECA: 200 nautical miles around the US and Canadian coasts
  • US Caribbean ECA: around the US Caribbean territories
  • North Sea ECA: the North Sea
  • Baltic ECA: the Baltic Sea
  • Mediterranean ECA: anticipated to enter force in the late 2020s

In ECAs, ships built or with engines installed after 2016 must operate at Tier III. Outside ECAs, Tier II remains the limit.

This article surveys the three principal Tier III compliance pathways, their costs, operational implications, and strategic trade-offs.

Pathway 1: Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)

EGR principle

EGR reduces NOx by recirculating a fraction of the engine’s exhaust gas back to the cylinder inlet. The recirculated gas dilutes the cylinder oxygen content, lowers peak combustion temperature, and reduces NOx formation.

For a typical Tier III installation, 25 to 35 percent of exhaust gas is recirculated. Without recirculation, NOx would be at Tier II levels (~14.4 g/kWh); with recirculation, NOx drops to ~3.4 g/kWh.

Architecture

A typical EGR system includes:

  • Exhaust gas extraction: a tap-off point on the exhaust manifold, taking a fraction of the exhaust flow
  • Cooler: a heat exchanger cooling the recirculated gas to acceptable temperatures
  • Scrubber (low-pressure EGR only): washing the recirculated gas to remove SOx and particulates
  • Mixing: introducing the recirculated gas into the cylinder inlet, typically via the scavenge receiver
  • Control system: managing recirculation rate based on engine load and operating conditions

Capex and opex

EGR system capex is typically USD 1-3 million per ship for a large engine. Operating costs include:

  • Slight increase in SFOC (~3-5 g/kWh) due to thermodynamic penalty
  • Periodic scrubber maintenance (low-pressure EGR)
  • Cooler cleaning
  • Increased cylinder oil feed rate due to acid loading from recirculated gas

Operational considerations

EGR is active continuously while in ECAs. Ships entering an ECA activate EGR, run with EGR throughout, and deactivate when leaving the ECA. EGR activation typically takes a few minutes.

EGR can be used on HFO operation if scrubbing is in place. Without scrubbing, EGR is only used on lower-sulphur fuels (LSFO, MGO).

Pathway 2: Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)

SCR principle

SCR is an exhaust aftertreatment system. Urea solution (or anhydrous ammonia in some industrial applications) is injected into the exhaust stream upstream of a catalyst. The catalyst (vanadium, titanium, or zeolite) facilitates the reaction:

4 NO + 4 NH3 + O2 → 4 N2 + 6 H2O

The result is conversion of NOx to nitrogen and water, with ammonia as the consumable.

Architecture

A typical SCR system includes:

  • Urea storage tank: aqueous urea solution (typically 32.5 percent, called AdBlue or DEF)
  • Urea dosing system: pump and metering valve
  • Mixer: introducing urea into the exhaust stream
  • Catalyst block: ceramic or metallic substrate coated with active catalyst
  • Heating system: maintaining catalyst temperature in the optimal range (typically 280-450 degrees Celsius)
  • Control system: managing urea dose based on NOx and exhaust temperature

Capex and opex

SCR system capex is typically USD 1.5-4 million per ship. Operating costs include:

  • Urea consumption (typically 10-20 grams per kg fuel)
  • Catalyst replacement (every 30,000-60,000 hours)
  • Maintenance of dosing system

The urea cost is a significant operating expense, comparable to fuel cost increase from EGR.

Operational considerations

SCR is more passive than EGR. Once installed and warmed up, it operates with minimal active control. The principal operational concerns are:

  • Catalyst temperature: SCR requires exhaust temperature above approximately 280 degrees Celsius; below this, the catalyst is ineffective. Slow steaming or low-load operation may produce below-threshold exhaust temperatures.
  • Ammonia slip: excess urea injection produces ammonia slip (unreacted NH3 escaping to atmosphere). Modern SCR systems have ammonia slip below 10 ppm.
  • Catalyst poisoning: heavy metals (vanadium from fuel, sulphur from HFO) can poison the catalyst over time. Lower-sulphur fuels prolong catalyst life.

High-pressure vs low-pressure SCR

Two SCR architectures exist:

  • High-pressure SCR: catalyst placed before the turbocharger turbine, where exhaust pressure and temperature are highest. Very effective but mechanically demanding.
  • Low-pressure SCR: catalyst placed after the turbocharger, where exhaust pressure is near atmospheric. Easier to install and maintain but requires higher catalyst volumes and may struggle with low exhaust temperatures.

Most marine installations use low-pressure SCR.

Pathway 3: Dual-fuel operation

Dual-fuel principle

Dual-fuel engines running on gas (LNG) achieve Tier III compliance inherently due to lean Otto-cycle combustion at low flame temperatures. NOx emissions in gas mode are typically 1.5 to 3.0 g/kWh, well within Tier III limits.

In gas mode, no separate aftertreatment is needed for NOx compliance. The engine’s combustion process delivers Tier III performance directly.

Liquid mode requirements

In liquid mode, dual-fuel engines do not inherently meet Tier III. Tier III in liquid mode requires either EGR or SCR, similar to liquid-only engines.

Some recent dual-fuel engines (e.g. WinGD X-DF2.0 with iCER) achieve Tier III in liquid mode through built-in low-pressure EGR.

Capex and opex

Dual-fuel capex is significantly higher than liquid-only engines:

  • Engine premium: USD 3-8 million for the dual-fuel engine itself
  • LNG fuel system: USD 3-15 million for tanks, regasification, valves, GVUs
  • Total premium: USD 6-23 million per ship

LNG operating cost (per energy unit) is typically slightly lower than liquid fuel, partially offsetting the higher capex.

Operational considerations

Dual-fuel operation requires:

  • LNG bunkering infrastructure (improving but not yet ubiquitous)
  • Cryogenic fuel handling
  • Different operating procedures for gas mode
  • Potential for methane slip (now well-managed but still a consideration)

Strategic choice

For a new-build large slow-speed two-stroke engine, the Tier III pathway choice depends on:

ECA exposure

  • High ECA exposure: ships frequently in ECAs (e.g. North Atlantic, North Europe trade) benefit from sustained Tier III capability. EGR or SCR is essential. Dual-fuel may be economically justified.
  • Low ECA exposure: ships rarely in ECAs may rely on Tier II operation outside ECAs and use simpler Tier III mechanisms (e.g. partial-time SCR) for ECA visits.

Fuel cost expectations

Dual-fuel makes economic sense if:

  • LNG remains cheaper per energy unit than HFO/LSFO
  • LNG bunkering is reliable on the vessel’s trade route
  • Methane slip regulations remain manageable
  • Carbon taxes apply to fossil fuels (favouring lower-CO2 options)

Liquid-only with EGR or SCR makes economic sense if:

  • LNG infrastructure is unavailable or expensive
  • Fuel choice flexibility is valued
  • Capex constraints favour lower-cost compliance

Operational complexity tolerance

Dual-fuel adds operational complexity (cryogenic fuel handling, mode switching, methane slip management). Some operators prefer liquid-only with simpler aftertreatment.

Future regulatory expectations

Looking ahead:

  • Carbon taxes on shipping are expected
  • Methanol and ammonia dual-fuel options are emerging
  • Renewable fuels may displace some current pathways

These uncertainties are increasingly factored into Tier III pathway choices.

Certification

Tier III compliance is verified through:

Engine International Air Pollution Prevention (EIAPP) certificate

Issued by the engine manufacturer based on factory testing. Confirms the engine model meets Tier III at specified operating conditions.

Ship-specific compliance

After installation, the ship is certified for Tier III operation through:

  • Sea trial measurements verifying NOx emissions
  • Class society audit of EGR/SCR/dual-fuel systems
  • Compliance markings on engine and ECR

Onboard monitoring

Some Tier III installations include continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) systems that log NOx output to verify ongoing compliance.

Cost summary

Approximate total compliance costs (capex + opex over 25-year life) for a large slow-speed engine:

PathwayCapexAnnual opex25-year cost
EGR + LSFO$1-3M$0.3-0.8M$9-23M
SCR + LSFO$1.5-4M$0.5-1.0M$14-29M
Dual-fuel LNG$6-23M$-1 to +$1M (vs HFO)$-19 to +$48M
Dual-fuel + iCER$7-25M$0 to $1M$7-50M

The wide ranges reflect uncertainty in fuel prices, regulatory developments, and trade route assumptions.

The Tier III pathway distribution in new-build orders has shifted significantly:

  • 2016-2018: predominantly EGR and SCR
  • 2019-2021: rising dual-fuel LNG share
  • 2022-2024: growing methanol dual-fuel share
  • 2025+: ammonia dual-fuel beginning commercial deployment

The trend reflects both regulatory pressure (CO2 considerations) and improving fuel infrastructure.

See also

References

  • IMO. (2008). MARPOL Annex VI: Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships.
  • IMO. (2017). MEPC.291(71): Designation of the North Sea Emission Control Area.
  • MAN Energy Solutions. (2023). Tier III Compliance Pathway Manual. MAN Energy Solutions.
  • WinGD. (2023). X-Series Tier III Engineering Specifications. Winterthur Gas & Diesel.
  • DNV. (2022). Marine Emission Compliance: Tier III Strategies. DNV.