Sneak preview - SMM presentation


Published on

Here is a prelim presentation I will make at the SMM Coatings Conference in Hamburg, Sept. 2010. Contact me for the .ppt after the conference. Sorry but many of the fonts converted automatically as a part of the upload process.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Sneak preview - SMM presentation

  1. 1. “ Hull Resistance Management – IMO Activities on GHG Reduction and Minimizing Biofouling.” SMM Marine Coating Conference Hamburg, September 2010 Daniel Kane [email_address]
  2. 2. <ul><li>Hull and Propeller Performance Monitoring </li></ul><ul><li>emerging as an important matter in CSR </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment of CO2 Emission Performance of Ships Marintek, 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>“ Reasons behind variation in CO 2 index …hull and propeller fouling…” </li></ul><ul><li>GHG for Shipping and Implementation Guidance IMO Report, 2006 </li></ul><ul><li>“… Utilizing ship specific resistance curves, draft, speed and </li></ul><ul><li>consumption are more suitable to monitor hull performance…” </li></ul><ul><li>IMO Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Hull Resistance Management …”Performance monitoring for hull conditions and fouling ” -- IMO Ship Efficiency Management Plan, 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Intertanko Tanker Energy Management Plan, 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Propulsion Resistance Management, “A hull management system that evaluates hull and propeller condition”. </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>IMO Ship Energy Management Plan </li></ul><ul><li>Hull maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>4.21 Docking intervals should be integrated with ship operator’s ongoing assessment of </li></ul><ul><li>ship performance. Hull resistance can be optimized by new-technology coating systems, </li></ul><ul><li>possibly in combination with cleaning intervals. Regular in-water inspection of the </li></ul><ul><li>condition of the hull is recommended. </li></ul><ul><li>4.22 Propeller cleaning and polishing or even appropriate coating may significantly </li></ul><ul><li>increase fuel efficiency. The need for ships to maintain efficiency through in-water hull </li></ul><ul><li>cleaning should be recognized and facilitated by port States. </li></ul><ul><li>4.23 Consideration may be given to the possibility of timely full removal and replacement </li></ul><ul><li>of underwater paint systems to avoid the increased hull roughness caused by repeated </li></ul><ul><li>spot blasting and repairs over multiple dockings. </li></ul><ul><li>4.24 Generally, the smoother the hull, the better the fuel efficiency. </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>IMO BLG Group </li></ul><ul><li>ANNEX 1 </li></ul><ul><li>DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR THE CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT OF SHIPS’ </li></ul><ul><li>BIO-FOULING TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSFER OF INVASIVE AQUATIC </li></ul><ul><li>SPECIES. </li></ul><ul><li>1.4 Implementing practices to control and manage bio-fouling </li></ul><ul><li>can greatly assist in reducing the risk of the transfer of invasive </li></ul><ul><li>aquatic species. Such practices can also improve a ship’s </li></ul><ul><li>hydrodynamic performance and can be an effective tool in </li></ul><ul><li>enhancing energy efficiency on ships. This has been identified by </li></ul><ul><li>IMO in the Guidance on developing a Ship Energy Efficiency </li></ul><ul><li>Management Plan and is a tool used within the industry to </li></ul><ul><li>increase fuel efficiency and reduce air emissions from ships. </li></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>INTERTANKO –Tanker Energy Management Plan </li></ul><ul><li>2.1.             Hull Management </li></ul><ul><li>A hull management system should be developed that evaluates hull </li></ul><ul><li>and propeller condition. The management system would ensure the </li></ul><ul><li>regular inspection of ships hulls and propellers allowing for in </li></ul><ul><li>water and dry dock cleaning if and when required. </li></ul><ul><li>2.1.1.        Hull coatings systems </li></ul><ul><li>The implementation of a hull resistance management system should </li></ul><ul><li>also include the company’s assessments relating to the use of certain </li></ul><ul><li>anti-fouling coating systems as an additional means of improving hull </li></ul><ul><li>and propeller efficiency. Note however that hull and/or propeller </li></ul><ul><li>coating systems will not exclude the necessity for a monitoring system </li></ul><ul><li>to continuously evaluate hull and propeller condition. </li></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>Why isn’t the speed log onboard the ship accurate enough? </li></ul><ul><li>Any speed log developed so far is measuring the speed through the water in the </li></ul><ul><li>vicinity of the ship. This means that the speed is affected by the potential flow </li></ul><ul><li>around the ship and by the boundary layer of the hull. Furthermore, in waves the </li></ul><ul><li>flow will also be affected by the local velocity in the wave movement. Altogether, </li></ul><ul><li>a speed log has to correct for a number of things, and also has to have some </li></ul><ul><li>averaging and filtering procedures built in. The directly measured values, </li></ul><ul><li>despite a high accuracy, are simply not fully correct. </li></ul><ul><li>Speed logs are becoming more accurate, and absolutely good enough for all </li></ul><ul><li>practical purposes onboard, but not for managing hull resistance. </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>Main Features </li></ul><ul><li>Hull Resistance Management </li></ul><ul><li>There are certain relationships between propeller </li></ul><ul><li>power, propeller thrust, propeller RPM, ship speed </li></ul><ul><li>and ship resistance, not only for the single set of </li></ul><ul><li>performance data, but also for the accumulation of </li></ul><ul><li>performance data over time. This can be used to </li></ul><ul><li>determine a virtual speed through the water for </li></ul><ul><li>the individual sets of observations. In fact, this is </li></ul><ul><li>one of the main features in hull resistance </li></ul><ul><li>management. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Status of World Fleet pure averages of over 300 ships (not adjusted for age or time out of dock, etc.) 22 tons / day 1.9 kn 53.4 36.1% Post Panamax 14 tons / day 1.7 kn 44 34.0% Pana boxship 5.9 tons / day 0.92 kn 18.2 27.7% VLCC 5.1 tons / day 0.94 kn 9.8 29.5% Suezmax 4.2 tons/day 0.84 kn 7.2 26.3% Aframax Fuel savings for hull prop cleaning if done today Speed Loss (design speed, design draft) Excess FOC (design speed, draft) tons/day Avg. Added Resistance % (reference trials) Ship type
  9. 9. Buckling + Weld Beads + Paint Roughness + Fouling Courtesy: NTNU
  10. 10. Stages of Marine Growth Courtesy: NERC
  11. 11. The development of ship resistance higher with TBT-free
  12. 12. The development of ship resistance higher with TBT-free “ it is clearly seen on the trends of the graph that the performance decay was significantly smaller before the year 2000, i.e. the old very poisonous antifouling systems were indeed very effective compared with more recent systems applied to this vessel. Clearly, the vessel is due for immediate hull cleaning or dry-docking with its present performance”. -- SNAME Paper (AP Moeller, 2009)
  13. 13. Ship resistance
  14. 14. The “CASPER” ® Service <ul><li>A system of data collection, post-voyage analysis and (anonymous ship-type </li></ul><ul><li>comparisons). No additional software or instruments required. </li></ul><ul><li>In active use on hundreds of ships with over 1,000 ship-years work. </li></ul><ul><li>(tankers, bulkers, ro-ro’s, boxships). </li></ul><ul><li>Compatible with all performance monitoring, data recording, weather routing </li></ul><ul><li>systems. </li></ul><ul><li>The following values are calculated for every set of performance Observations: 1. Propeller thrust 2. Speed through water 3. Weather resistance 4. Ship resistance, as new, based on calculated speed 5. Ship resistance, actual, based on calculated speed 6. Added resistance as the difference between #4 and #5 above. </li></ul>
  15. 15. The “CASPER” ® Service <ul><li>1st CASPER Report (containership) April 03 </li></ul><ul><li>1st CASPER Report (tanker) April 03 </li></ul><ul><li>1st CASPER Report (bulker) Sept 04 </li></ul><ul><li>Recent Press: Teekay Shipping: 90 tankers </li></ul><ul><li> Seaspan Ltd: 14 containerships </li></ul><ul><li>ANNUAL REPORTS </li></ul><ul><li>Norden Tankers– ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ </li></ul><ul><li>China Navigation – ‘Technical Fuel Efficiency’ </li></ul>
  16. 16. Hydrodynamic Techniques <ul><li>Theoretical Model </li></ul><ul><li>Length </li></ul><ul><li>Breadth </li></ul><ul><li>Draft </li></ul><ul><li>Displacement </li></ul><ul><li>Design Speed </li></ul><ul><li>Propeller Design and RPM </li></ul><ul><li>Trial Trip data adjusts this model </li></ul>Actual “Performance Model” Observations (evidence-based) We find the three added resistances: 1 ) Weather: wind and waves 2 ) Residual: trim, nozzles, engine degr. 3 ) Fouling: affects resistance/wake Calculation of added resistance which is independent of speed, weather, draft. (Speed loss is the 3 rd root of the added resistance)
  17. 17. Unique data collection procedure <ul><li>Vessel in steady-state </li></ul><ul><li>(no changes in heading or power for 2-hour interval) </li></ul><ul><li>Performance Observation takes half-hour/wk </li></ul><ul><li>- any sea state < BF7 kg/hr not t/day </li></ul><ul><li>- any loading condition </li></ul><ul><li>- any speed </li></ul>
  18. 18. Outsourcing Performance Analysis [Performance Observations] [Awareness and Implementation] [Analysis and Benchmarking] “ Today it is necessary to analyze deficiencies…information exchanges are not enough” -- Tanker Shipping Oct. 2009 3 rd Party Services SHIPOWNER TECH DEPT SHIP / CREW
  19. 19. Errors in data collection are caught
  20. 20. Power Measurements
  21. 21. Hull Performance Factors <ul><li>Age of ship / hull form </li></ul><ul><li>Time in port </li></ul><ul><li>Service speed </li></ul><ul><li>Water temperature </li></ul><ul><li>Port water (fouling pressure) </li></ul><ul><li>Loading conditions (changes in draft/duration) </li></ul><ul><li>Factors in your control </li></ul><ul><li>Coating selection at newbuild stage </li></ul><ul><li>Frequency/efficiency of planned maintenance? </li></ul><ul><li>Treatment of hull in dock: HP Wash? Spotblast? Fullblast? </li></ul><ul><li>Hull coating selection in drydock </li></ul><ul><li>Drydock time interval: 3 year? 5 year? 6 year? </li></ul>
  22. 22. Full Correction of Performance Data True performance and trial trip reference ◄ (there is only one true curve in this scatter for one loading condition) ▼
  23. 23. ‘ Noon report’ vs. Careful Data (not the same ships, but illustrating scatter in noon-data)
  24. 24. Performance Data Complexity SPEED - For the 25 sets of observations in 2009 the average speed is found to be 18.223 knots, while the corresponding average speed for the 6 sets of observations in 2010 is 19.55 knots. The difference in speed (7.3%) which is an extra power consumption of 1.073 in 3 rd power, equal to approx. 24%. WEATHER - The weather losses in 2009 were 17%, while they in 2010 were 10%. This gives a difference in the fuel consumption of approximately 7%. DRAFT - Finally, the mean draft in 2009 was 6.325 m, while it in 2010 was 6.154 m. This gives a difference of the fuel consumption of approx. 3%. The difference in fuel consumption under the same conditions becomes 24% - 7% - 3% = 14%, which is exactly the improvement of the added resistance, which was given in the reports after the latest dry-docking.
  25. 25. The added resistance of hull and propeller translates into a speed/fuel penalty (at 15 kn was 57 t/day NOW 67 t/day = 10t/day excess fuel = 31.7 t/day CO2
  26. 26. Time history of added resistance <ul><li>Resistance was too high for first docking </li></ul><ul><li>Not all underwater contractors do the same quality of work </li></ul><ul><li>Sometimes the bottom fouling does affect performance </li></ul><ul><li>Full blasting makes a difference even on first special docking </li></ul>
  27. 27. Post-docking Analysis (sisters) (low cost hull pre-treatment = higher resistance outdocking) 18% Resistance ‘ 50% blast’ 30% Resistance ‘ 10% blast’
  28. 28. 50% (blast area) 10% At 22 knots: 140 tons/day At 140 t/day: 2 knot loss from trials At 22 knots: 154 tons/day At 154 t/day: 2.5 knot loss from trials Reference: 110 tons/day trials at 22 knots
  29. 29. Long Port Stay 20% increase in hull resistance after 4-week stay ( speed loss approximately 0.9 kn or increase in fuel use 8 tons/day) Suezmax 24 t/day of excess CO2 emitted at design speed
  30. 30. Idling and Resistance “ Confirming that the vessel did sit for approximately 37 days during the period of no performance data.  She also recently had a hull/propeller cleaning due to the fouling which occurred during this storage period. The cleaning is incomplete and will be finished when weather improves in the area”. 
  31. 31. Hull Resistance Dashboard “ Confirming that the vessel did sit for approximately 37 days during the period of no performance data.  She also recently had a hull/propeller cleaning due to the fouling which occurred during this storage period. The cleaning is incomplete and will be finished when weather improves in the area”. 
  32. 32. Full hull blast can make major difference in hull/prop condition 20 year old Newbuild
  33. 33. Spot Blast versus Full Blast <ul><li>Ship in upper graph on its second 3-year docking – spot blasting only resulting in </li></ul><ul><li>30% resistance at outdocking (poor results) </li></ul>Ship in lower graph on its first 3-year docking after a hull cleaning and full blast
  34. 34. Slime, Light Growth = Fuel Loss Ro-Ro
  35. 35. This hull cleaning - 5 t/day @ 17 kn 5t/day x 3.17 tons of CO2 = 16 t/CO2 per day saved
  36. 36. Hull + Prop Cleaning At 17 knots the savings on fuel was 6 tons per day
  37. 37. Coating delamination within 5 months of docking
  38. 38. Coating delamination Note below condition of hull, the resistance of this ship increased by 12% over a period of 5 months. This represents approximately 2.5% per month which is higher than a good performing coating system after leaving dock (normal 0.5% - 1.5% per month initially). The steep development of resistance was later confirmed by visual inspections of the hull and the eventual docking of the ship and new coating applied.
  39. 39. Coating delamination – FOC caused excess FOC +/- 3 tons / day
  40. 40. Comparing husbandry
  41. 41. Anonymous Benchmarking 25 tons of fuel per day difference between 7 sister ships (75 t/day CO2)
  42. 42. Hull Resistance Dashboard
  43. 43. Reducing Emissions (NOx, SOx, PM, CO2) Depends on age of fleet, FOC, docking intervals, etc. Greatest C02 Reduction <ul><li>Full hull blast in DDX </li></ul><ul><li>(higher cost, 10+ year old ships) </li></ul><ul><li>Propeller Polish intervals </li></ul><ul><li>(low cost, little risk) </li></ul>3A . Hull Slime Removal (lower cost) 3B . Hull brushing to remove growth <ul><li>Hull Coating Selection </li></ul><ul><li>(higher quality within supplier’s range) </li></ul>Simplest CO2 Reduction <ul><li>Propeller polish intervals </li></ul><ul><li>(low cost, little risk) </li></ul>2A. Hull Slime Removal (lower cost) 2B . Hull brushing to remove growth <ul><li>Full hull blast in DDX </li></ul><ul><li>(high cost, 10+ year old ships) </li></ul>4. Hull Coating Selection (higher quality within supplier’s range)
  44. 44. Thank You!