Jump to content
StrixKitty

The Triple Expansion Engine: I need info!

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,747
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,779 posts
2,920 battles

Hello all, 

 

I'm (probably again) looking for information on the TEE. Specifically what I'm looking for are examples and pictures of those examples. An example (pun?) of what I'm looking for would be something like this:

GERMAN TORPEDO BOAT 4-CYL TRIPLE EXPANSION ENGINE

[Picture]

1st Cyl Diameter: 150mm

2nd Cyl D: 200mm

3rd Cyl D: 250mm

4th Cyl D: 260mm

Engine Weight: 5,660 kg; 555555555 tons

Engine Power: 12000 SHP

Boiler Pressure Supported: 300 PSI

Shaft RPMs: 290 RPM

 

etc etc

 

What I would like best are book sources (take some dang pictures of any if you have to) or online sources. THE MORE DETAIL THE BETTER PLEASE. (Almost) ANY help would be appreciated. 

 

Thanks,

~ Kitty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,430
[HINON]
Supertester
18,902 posts
12,423 battles
13 minutes ago, StrixKitty said:

Engine Weight: 5,660 kg; 555555555 tons

How did you arrive at that second number? A metric ton is 1000 kg (2204.62 lbs), an imperial long ton is 1016.05 kg (2240 lbs) and an imperial short ton is 907.19 kg (2000 lbs) ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[MBR]
Members
221 posts
5,588 battles

One example of TEE ship? The RMS Titanic, she was designed to have efficiency not speed. The engineers decided to use 2 TEEs to rotate the 2 main shafts and its propellers and a low pressure turbine to rotate the third and central shaft. This turbine increased the engine horsepower by 50%.

So what are you looking for ? Just design datas for curiosity? Equations to design an engine? Try to search Steam Engine and Thermodynamic books

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,430
[HINON]
Supertester
18,902 posts
12,423 battles
37 minutes ago, MaxVladimus said:

The engineers decided to use 2 TEEs to rotate the 2 main shafts and its propellers and a low pressure turbine to rotate the third and central shaft.

The problem with that was that the TEEs were reversible, the turbine was not. When they ordered full astern when they saw the iceberg, they effectively only had 1/3 reverse thrust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[DLG06]
Members
39 posts
4,101 battles

Turbines are reversible via blading and valving.  My first ship had a couple sets reversed turbine blades (think they were Parson's wheels) on the same shaft of the LP turbine at each end.  Valving through linkages would flow steam across these vice the LP turbine in an Astern situation.  Problem with reversing with turbines is they are inefficient.  We could only apply about 60% of Ahead power, going Astern.

 

Something like this?  

http://battleshiptexas.info/images/EngineRoom/EngineRoom.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,779 posts
2,920 battles
2 hours ago, Lert said:

How did you arrive at that second number? A metric ton is 1000 kg (2204.62 lbs), an imperial long ton is 1016.05 kg (2240 lbs) and an imperial short ton is 907.19 kg (2000 lbs) ...

What're you babbling about? Examples always = 1oo% accoorucy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,779 posts
2,920 battles
24 minutes ago, BarneyMM2 said:

Turbines are reversible via blading and valving.  My first ship had a couple sets reversed turbine blades (think they were Parson's wheels) on the same shaft of the LP turbine at each end.  Valving through linkages would flow steam across these vice the LP turbine in an Astern situation.  Problem with reversing with turbines is they are inefficient.  We could only apply about 60% of Ahead power, going Astern.

 

Something like this?  

http://battleshiptexas.info/images/EngineRoom/EngineRoom.html

 

 

I like the information mine there for the Texas, but perhaps something a little more...tiny. I'd really like to see a SHP of around 15,000 in a package small enough for a medium destroyer. I'm sure it's possible, just don't know any ship that has 'em.

 

1 hour ago, Lert said:

The problem with that was that the TEEs were reversible, the turbine was not. When they ordered full astern when they saw the iceberg, they effectively only had 1/3 reverse thrust.

"Captain: we know the Titanic and its capabilities lack the backs of our hands."

"Sir there's an iceberg straight ahead"

"REVERSE THE SHIP!"

"But sir we have a tu-

"REVEEERRRSSEEEEEEEEEE"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[DLG06]
Members
39 posts
4,101 battles

I can stay up a little longer, but her're some leads:

Arabe, Spahi, Voltiguer, and Branlebas class destroyers

French destroyer Espingole

USS Walker

HMS Wanderer

Belliss & Morcom

The Marine Power Plant by Chapman, 1922

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,070
[WOLF3]
Members
5,873 posts
2,191 battles
2 hours ago, Lert said:

The problem with that was that the TEEs were reversible, the turbine was not. When they ordered full astern when they saw the iceberg, they effectively only had 1/3 reverse thrust.

 

2 hours ago, BarneyMM2 said:

Turbines are reversible via blading and valving.  My first ship had a couple sets reversed turbine blades (think they were Parson's wheels) on the same shaft of the LP turbine at each end.  Valving through linkages would flow steam across these vice the LP turbine in an Astern situation. 

Some turbines are reversible.  Titanic's was not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
67
[MBR]
Members
221 posts
5,588 battles

Yes, that's true. But the turbine was added to give extra power using the remaining low pressure steam from the cylinders, not to make maneuvers. If the ship had used a single engine system (expansion or turbine or other system), the amount of fuel that had to be burned would be higher. Then, the ship had to carry more fuel instead of passengers and cargo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,779 posts
2,920 battles
14 hours ago, BarneyMM2 said:

I can stay up a little longer, but her're some leads:

Arabe, Spahi, Voltiguer, and Branlebas class destroyers

French destroyer Espingole

USS Walker

HMS Wanderer

Belliss & Morcom

The Marine Power Plant by Chapman, 1922

I know of the Arabe, but the others are welcome.

 

Also I think we're thinking of different USS Walkers. DD-163 had x2 turbine sets.

 

Also, the book is VERY welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[JFSOC]
Members
908 posts
2,583 battles
23 hours ago, BarneyMM2 said:

Turbines are reversible via blading and valving.  My first ship had a couple sets reversed turbine blades (think they were Parson's wheels) on the same shaft of the LP turbine at each end.  Valving through linkages would flow steam across these vice the LP turbine in an Astern situation.  Problem with reversing with turbines is they are inefficient.  We could only apply about 60% of Ahead power, going Astern.

 

Something like this?  

http://battleshiptexas.info/images/EngineRoom/EngineRoom.html

 

 

US navy steam ships with turbines usually have a Curtiss wheel or two for reverse thrust but these produce only a fraction of the forward turbine's capacity.

Here's the principle on which a TEE works:

kget_animation_cincinnati.gif

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[REVY]
Members
935 posts
7,279 battles
On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 3:32 PM, Lert said:

The problem with that was that the TEEs were reversible, the turbine was not. When they ordered full astern when they saw the iceberg, they effectively only had 1/3 reverse thrust.

think your math is off Lert

 

Titanic was a triple screw ship. Center prop was connected to the low pressure turbine.

So when going into reverse, they 'lost' 1/3 of their thrust. They still had the 2 outer props. The other issue is that without the center prop, the rudder became less effective.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[REVY]
Members
935 posts
7,279 battles
On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 1:56 PM, StrixKitty said:

Hello all, 

 

I'm (probably again) looking for information on the TEE. Specifically what I'm looking for are examples and pictures of those examples. An example (pun?) of what I'm looking for would be something like this:

GERMAN TORPEDO BOAT 4-CYL TRIPLE EXPANSION ENGINE

[Picture]

1st Cyl Diameter: 150mm

2nd Cyl D: 200mm

3rd Cyl D: 250mm

4th Cyl D: 260mm

Engine Weight: 5,660 kg; 555555555 tons

Engine Power: 12000 SHP

Boiler Pressure Supported: 300 PSI

Shaft RPMs: 290 RPM

 

etc etc

 

What I would like best are book sources (take some dang pictures of any if you have to) or online sources. THE MORE DETAIL THE BETTER PLEASE. (Almost) ANY help would be appreciated. 

 

Thanks,

~ Kitty

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,430
[HINON]
Supertester
18,902 posts
12,423 battles
3 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

So when going into reverse, they 'lost' 1/3 of their thrust. They still had the 2 outer props.

1/3 props going forward, 2/3 props going reverse, one of the reverse props cancels out the forward thrust one, remains 1/3 reverse thrust.

3 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

The other issue is that without the center prop, the rudder became less effective.

That is a very good point.

Titanic also would've survived it she'd just killed engines and remained rudder neutral. She'd have crumpled her nose and lost the forward two or three compartments, but she'd have remained afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,779 posts
2,920 battles
Just now, Lord_Slayer said:

 

Not bad, but not what I'm looking for in specific examples, with dimensions, pressures, and cyl diameters.

 

21 hours ago, Murotsu said:

US navy steam ships with turbines usually have a Curtiss wheel or two for reverse thrust but these produce only a fraction of the forward turbine's capacity.

Here's the principle on which a TEE works:

kget_animation_cincinnati.gif

I like the animation - very nice indeed - but see the comment above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[JFSOC]
Members
908 posts
2,583 battles
252
[REVY]
Members
935 posts
7,279 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

1/3 props going forward, 2/3 props going reverse, one of the reverse props cancels out the forward thrust one, remains 1/3 reverse thrust.

That is a very good point.

Titanic also would've survived it she'd just killed engines and remained rudder neutral. She'd have crumpled her nose and lost the forward two or three compartments, but she'd have remained afloat.

Actually, by going into reverse, the center prop was disconnected and just free-wheeled, providing no power forward or reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,430
[HINON]
Supertester
18,902 posts
12,423 battles
1 minute ago, Lord_Slayer said:

Actually, by going into reverse, the center prop was disconnected and just free-wheeled, providing no power forward or reverse.

Huh. Learned something.

So 2/3 reverse thrust then, and 0 thrust going over the rudder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[REVY]
Members
935 posts
7,279 battles
1 minute ago, Lert said:

Huh. Learned something.

So 2/3 reverse thrust then, and 0 thrust going over the rudder.

I'm kinda a Titanic buff. I read anything and everything I could on the ship from grade 4 and up. It was also neat to see in the Titanic movie when they show the props reversing, you see nothing from the center prop.

 

You are right though, the ship would have been better off hitting it head on. Only one, maybe two compartments would have been compromised. It would still be a bad thing for the Officers though, it does not look good to have the CEO of the company on board and running into frozen water on the ships maiden voyage. It also would have reflected bad on the company as Titanic's sister, Olympic, had several things happen to her during her service, from dropping a prop blade (which coincidently delayed Titanic's original sail date) to her drought pulling a Royal Navel cruiser into her side.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,430
[HINON]
Supertester
18,902 posts
12,423 battles
2 minutes ago, Lord_Slayer said:

You are right though, the ship would have been better off hitting it head on.

In your opinion, what would've happened if they'd just retained forward thrust and just gone hard-over on the rudder, then hard-over the other way to try and fishtail around the berg?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[REVY]
Members
935 posts
7,279 battles
3 minutes ago, Lert said:

In your opinion, what would've happened if they'd just retained forward thrust and just gone hard-over on the rudder, then hard-over the other way to try and fishtail around the berg?

It's possible that simply turning, not even performing the fish tail, might have allowed them to miss the iceburg. From what I recall, the Olymipc class did have decent rudder control for it's size. With all three props running, and with the wash off the center going right over the rudder, she likely could have made it. I wonder if anyone has tried to see if they could in a ship simulator. I know a maritime institute used one and was able to show that the Stockholm was at fault in the Andrea Doria collision.

 

It is all Monday morning quarterbacking though. The Officers did what they did because of prior training and experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,747
[PRNA]
Beta Testers
18,779 posts
2,920 battles

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×