Fathom Focus – Hull Coatings for Vessel Performance / The

FATHOM FOCUSwww.fathomshipping.com

Hull Coatings for Vessel Performance

“Information Specialists for Maritime Eco-Efficiency”

FOCUSFath

om

‘From the publishers of Ship Efficiency : The Guide’


Published by

”

Information Specialists for Maritime Eco-Efficiency Fathom has developed a range of technical publications to serve the thirst for eco-efficiency knowledge in the industry. Titles include ‘Ship Efficiency: The Guide’ ‘Ballast water Management: The Guide’ ‘The Step-By-Step SEEMP Manual’ and ‘Emission Control Areas: The Guide’ amongst many others. Fathom’s newest publication range is the ‘Fathom FOCUS’ series. These in-depth guides to specific efficiency topics and market areas are available to the shipping community to use as a free reference source. The first edition was titled ‘Choosing the Optimum Lubricant Solutions for your Operation’

Email: [email protected]: www.fathomshipping.com

Proud Sponsors of ‘Hull Coatings for Vessel Performance’

A Century of Pioneering Leadership Hempel was founded in Denmark in 1915 by Jørgen Christian Hempel. Driven by innovation and the vision of helping to protect man-made structures from corrosion and fouling, the company has developed and grown into a world-leading coatings supplier working in the decorative, protective, marine, container and yacht markets. In 1917, Hempel introduced the world’s first antifouling coating for ships’ hulls based on modern science and technology. Today, Hempel is among the world leaders within antifouling and fouling release technology, and retains a close bond with the scientific community. Hempel filed its first silicone patent in 1972 and the company’s first commercial silicone-based coating, HEMPASIL, was introduced in 1999. This pioneering product created a smooth, non-stick surface on the hull, preventing marine organisms from attaching to it. The result was less drag in the water, lower fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions. Over the years, Hempel’s research and development lab continued to improve this technology by optimizing its long-term stability and mechanical properties, leading to HEMPASIL X3, Hempel’s flagship fouling release product with a fuel saving guarantee. Hempel is committed to constant improvement of its performance with regard to energy efficiency and environmental impact. The development of ActiGuard® technology arose out of a wish to pursue an entirely new concept that would set the bar way above current standards. Fouling control was no longer enough. The goal now was a Fouling Defence solution that effectively protects against fouling throughout the service interval. Hempel’s new patented ActiGuard® technology introduces a new and unique way of producing an underwater hull coating containing a silicone-hydrogel that not only enables controlled biocide release, but also has the necessary long-term stability and mechanical properties. Hempel’s latest hull coating product, HEMPAGUARD®, is the first to be based on this patented technology, offering substantial economic and environmental advantages. “We are committed to remaining focused on our goals, adaptable in a fast-changing world and quick to implement new ideas. We will strive to increase our understanding of our markets and customers, and offer innovative solutions that add value to their business“, Hempel’s Christian Ottosen concludes.


Contents

Chapter One – The Important Role of the Hull in Ship Efficiency The Hull Roughness FactorThe Science of SmoothnessOptimisation of Hull SmoothnessHull ThreatsHull Bio-Fouling: A Deep DiveThe Scale of the ProblemEnvironmental Impact of Hull Fouling Chapter Two – The Market Landscape A History of the Market: Key MilestonesRegulation of the Hull Coatings IndustryThe Future: Market Barriers and Drivers for Change Chapter Three - Choosing the Optimum Hull Coating The Ideal Coating Checklist Hull Coating ChemistryA Snapshot of the Market: Hull Coating Manufacturer Profiles

Chapter Four - Measuring Hull and Propeller Performance Hull Fouling and Performance: The RelationshipHow to Measure?What to Measure? Developing a Standard Method for Measuring Hull PerformanceKey Industry Studies A Snapshot of the Market: Hull Monitoring Software ProvidersA Snapshot of the Market: Class Society SolutionsA Snapshot of the Market: Hull Coating Provider – SoftwareProvider Partnerships

Chapter Five – Hull Cleaning for Optimal Performance

The Importance of Hull CleaningHull Cleaning MethodsUnderwater Cleaning MethodsA Snapshot of the Market: Hull Cleaning Service Providers

.....................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................

....................................................................................................

...................................

......................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................

..............................................................................................................................................................

.............

.........................................................................................................

................................

..........................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................

2334578

101215

182230

59606162636976

78

83838485


Welcome! Following the success of the inaugural edition of Fathom FOCUS – Choosing the Optimum Lubricant Solutions for your Operation –Fathom is proud to bring you the second edition of Fathom FOCUS - Hull Coatings for Vessel Performance. As you may already know, this is just one of the technology areas covered in our flagship publication Ship Efficiency: The Guide. Ship Efficiency: The Guide maps out a litany of abatement technologies and ship efficiency techniques, and is comprehensive in focus. It was designed to be your road map for the labyrinth that is ship efficiency.

Our free Fathom FOCUS mini-guides give the reader the opportunity to have access to comprehensive information that is in much more depth and that has focus on a single technology area.

What Information you Should Expect Our Fathom FOCUS series is reminiscent of our guides in that they offer a technically led, but easy to understand analysis of the solutions on offer, in addition to offering insight into the key issues affecting the market. This edition of the FOCUS series will shine a spotlight on the apparent lack of faith in the industry that has resulted from the clash between super slow steaming, laying up and foul release coatings, and the banning of tributyltin (TBT), in addition to a plethora of market influencing events that have occurred over the last few decades.

We discuss key emerging trends, including the legislative landscape, the development of solutions for Arctic conditions, and increased demand for more fuel economy, for example. In keeping with our usual structure, this publication offers broader market-based editorial and analysis, coupled with manufacturer profiles that offer in-depth technical detail on individual hull coatings solutions. In addition to the coatings themselves, Hull Coatings for Vessel Performance includes a chapter on monitoring hull performance and a chapter on hull cleaning, with profiles from hull cleaning service providers.

Why the Publication can Benefit Your Operations Biofouling can reduce ship efficiency by up to 40%, which results in massive fuel penalties that directly eat into the bottom line of your operations. Quite simply, an un-healthy hull can really adversely affect a healthy bank balance. The hull coatings sector is undergoing a period of change that posits exciting opportunities for the sector and is a key stepping stone to a sustainable and profitable industry. We hope that you find this publication useful and an interesting read! Warmest regards,

Catherine McMillanSEPTEMBER, 2013

From the Editor:

A Message From Catherine McMillan


1-2

The hull of a ship is a key piece of the ship efficiency puzzle. The physical ability of the ship to cut through the waves in a streamlined manner is of paramount importance to fuel economy.

Therefore, improving hull performance plays a pivotal role, because a smooth hull is an optimally hydrodynamic hull.

The Hull Roughness Factor The key factors that affect hull performance are the shape of the hull, the condition of the hull itself, the coating used on the hull and the nature and extent of fouling on the hull.

This edition of Fathom FOCUS looks at those factors that can vary during the vessel lifecycle – the coating used on the hull and the nature and extent of the fouling. This publication also delves into the anti-fouling coatings market, the monitoring of the coating’s ‘results’ and also the hull cleaning market.

In this publication, when we talk about improving hull performance we are referring to taking those measures needed to make sure a ship’s hull is as smooth and friction-free as possible.

ABS comments in its publication Ship Energy Efficiency Measures: Status and Guidance: “A tanker at its design speed will use the majority of its fuel overcoming frictional resistance in calm water…..The size of frictional resistance is dramatically impacted by the roughness of the surface exposed to flow.”

Each additional 10µm to 20µm of ‘roughness’, ABS estimates, can increase the total resistance experienced by the hull by 1% for full form ships such as tankers and carriers, and by 0.5% for ships at high speeds.

Ships are regularly delivered with a very low surface roughness at around 75µm. ABS state that later in the ship’s life cycle, the very same vessel could enter a dry dock with a roughness of 250µm, which would mean that by the time it is dry-docked the vessel will have been fighting against an increased resistance of up to 17%, leading to an increase in fuel consumption of 3 to 4% compared to when it first went into operation.

Historical records have shown that even with good maintenance practices average hull roughness can increase by 10 to 25 μm per year, depending on the hull coating system, even when fouling is not included.

Image Courtesy of Micanti

CHAPTER 1

The Important Role of the Hull in Ship Efficiency


The Science of Smoothness A hydrodynamic ship, able to cut through the waves with little resistance and drag to go further on less fuel.

In essence, creating a hydrodynamic ship is to create a shape and texture that is able to manipulate the flow of water around the vessel to allow for maximum ease of movement and maneuverability.

As mentioned there are two ways to do this:

- Hull form and dimension optimisation: The shape of the ship itself is arguably the most important element of ensuring the ship’s hydrodynamics because it is also one of the few choices that will stay with the ship for the duration of the ship’s life-cycle; once the ship has been built, whilst some parts of the ship can be integrated, automated and retrofitted for further efficiency savings, you cannot change the shape of your hull.

- Coatings and hull roughness: Hull coatings and the circumvention of hull roughness play a key role in ensuring optimal hydrodynamics of the hull and ship. The preservation of hull smoothness can represent significant fuel savings however, when comparing this figure to the fuel penalties involved when the hull becomes rough from either physical or biological fouling, the potential fuel savings become much, much more.

Optimisation of Hull Smoothness

For the purpose of this publication, we study two areas of hull smoothness optimisation; the first being the choice of an anti-fouling hull coating; and the second being the maintenance of that coating through hull cleaning.

Hull Coatings

The era of simply coating a ship with standard issue paint to protect it from corrosion and fouling has long passed, some of the options available on the market are highly complex and a vast amount of science and chemistry has gone into their development. A fast-growing technology in its own right, the latest hull coatings have shown considerable potential for substantial eco-efficiency savings over the past few years. Following the ban on TBT-based coatings in 2008, research into alternative options has increased tremendously. Hull coatings now aim to not just reduce fouling but make the hull surface as smooth as possible.

Most hull coatings today are designed to reduce hydrodynamic drag and to prevent the build-up of marine organisms. This also leads to a variety for ‘fuel saving claims’ and the nature of these are addressed in Chapter Four but claims for the fuel savings they can deliver vary.

Coating systems usually consist of a primer, possibly a tie coat and then one or more coats of the product. Each product has its own role, the primer is the first barrier to corrosion, the tie coat bonds the primer and the final product coating delivers the protection that the system is designed for.

For the purpose of this publication we focus on the final product, in other words the anti-fouling product that delivers its specific type of protection.

Manufacturer and associated anti-fouling product profiles are provided along with product-specific technical data in Chapter Three.


3-4

Hull Cleaning

It is inevitable that once a ship is in water bio-fouling will occur, it is therefore essential to keep the hull clear of all matter to ensure the safety and efficiency of the vessel. Despite the use of effective anti-fouling systems and operational practices, bio-fouling will still accumulate on the hull of the vessel.

To maintain a ship as free of bio-fouling as practical, it may be advisable for the ship to undertake in-water inspection, cleaning and maintenance.

Typically, every 5 years a ship will be inspected in dry dock, where a full clean is usually undertaken and new applications of anti-fouling paint can be applied where necessary. However the optimum interval between the periodic cleanings and inspections will vary with the type of vessel, the location of the vessel and its service profile (speed of operation, idle time, etc).

BIMCO’s Framework A recently released BIMCO Circular has suggested a framework for the delegation of hull cleaning and hull maintenance responsibilities in the wake of slow-steaming and long periods of idleness in port, in particular in tropical waters where fouling has a tendency to be the most aggressive.

Whilst previously it would have undisputedly been the responsibility of the ship owner after a period of docking to clean the hull (failure to do so would result in the owner being liable to pay the operator the cost of the resulting fuel penalties), BIMCO has seen fit to respond to the new market trend that has seen extensive fouling on hulls due to periods of idleness – a tactic selected by the operator and not the owner.

To ensure it is the decision-maker who reaps the consequences of the decisions taken, BIMCO suggests deciding the period of idleness in advance (the default is suggested at 14 days) after which point responsibility for the condition of the hull switches to the operator.

A full blast and re-application of anti-fouling can cost about US$10 per square metre, which would total at around US$300k for a typical VLCC, whilst just a clean will be about US$50k.

The cost of maintenance is a testament to how expensive fouling can be when maintenance still works out to be much cheaper. Cleaning a light slime results in 7 to 9% reduction in the fuel bill, whilst heavy slime means up to 18% less, and heavy macro fouling can offer a reduction of up to 30%.

Hull Threats

There are two key threats to hull integrity; physical threats and biological threats, both of which negatively impact the hull in a number of ways, but all with the same result: hull roughness.

Physical Threat: Corrosion

Corrosion is an incredibly common phenomenon.

Ships are made of metal and the sea is a mass of salty, moving water – metal’s nemesis. To counteract the corrosive effect of sea water on a Ships metal hull, a hull coating forms a barrier between the metal and the water, thereby ensuring the Ships surface integrity is protected.

However, if for whatever reason the coating is damaged, corrosion becomes a very real prospect and the nature of corrosion means that any corrosion on the hull surface is difficult and expensive to rectify. Even following repairs, ‘micro-pitting’ can be present in the repaired area, which weakens it and makes it a candidate for future damage or fouling.

Other macro physical symptoms of hull damage are plate laps, seams and butts, weld roughness, weld quality, and mechanical damage; however (aside from the obvious issue of coating condition) these types of hull threats are not linked to the hull coating and would have to be covered under specific hull maintenance and repair programmes that include but also go above and beyond ‘just’ the issue of hull coatings.


Biological Threat: Fouling

Like physical hull threats, biological threats to the hull can be divided across the category of macro and micro, both of which wreak havoc on the integrity of the hull via attachment. The build of said attachment severely impacts the hydrodynamics of the ship.

Also, like physical threats, the relative seriousness and impact on the overall hull’s health is also reflected in whether or not it is a micro or macro issue.

However, even minor bio-fouling has a significant impact on the overall profitability of the vessel’s operations when considered across a fleet and a vessel’s 25-30 year lifetime.

Roughness caused by micro bio-fouling is caused by slime, and results in an increase in fuel consumption between 1 to 2%. Macro bio-fouling refers to animals and plants, and its impact on fuel consumption greatly varies depending on the nature of the unwanted guest. Whilst seaweed will cause a fuel consumption increase of up to 10%, shells – barnacles, oysters, and mussels for example – can cause a massive increase of 40%.

In addition to fuel penalties in the short and long term, extensive bio-fouling will eventually lead to hull corrosion, which further compounds what was already a significant additional expense.

Hull Bio-Fouling: A Deep Dive

Whilst preventing corrosion is a relatively easy requirement of a hull coating, the prevention of bio-fouling build up is much more complex, especially in the advent of slow-steaming, long periods of idleness, and the banning of TBT-based paints.

Bio-fouling is especially aggressive in tropical and sub tropical waters, for example ships serving Europe/Latin America or Europe/Asia must have a coating that is able to function well in both environments.

Fouling refers to the accumulation of unwanted material on solid surfaces, most often in an aquatic environment. As further described below, the fouling material can consist of either living organisms (bio-fouling) or a non-living substance (inorganic or organic) and is often a combination of the two. Fouling is usually distinguished from other surface-growth phenomena in that it occurs on a surface of a component, system or plant performing a defined and useful function (such as a ship hull or propeller), and the fouling process impedes or interferes with this function.

Bio-fouling is not as simple a process as it sounds. Organisms do not usually simply suck onto a substrate. The complex process often begins with the production of a biofilm.

Contact and colonisation between the microorganism (biofilm actors) and the surface is promoted by the movement of water through Brownian motion, sedimentation and convective transport, although organisms can also actively seek out substrates due to propulsion using flagella. Bacteria and other colonising microorganisms secrete extracellular poly- meric substances (EPS) to envelope and anchor them to the substrate thereby altering the local surface chemistry which can stimulate further growth such as the recruitment and settlement of macroorganisms.

Biofilms do not have to contain living material; they may instead contain dead bacteria and/or secretions. The growth of a biofilm can progress to a point where it provides a foundation for the growth of seaweed, barnacles, and other organisms. They use this biofilm similar to an incubator. This is a process that constantly repeats itself, meaning that high concentrations of micro-organisms can be present in the affected water after a period of time. In other words, micro-organisms such as bacteria and algae form the primary slime film to which the macro-organisms such as mollusks and barnacles attach. If this biofilm is eliminated from the water, it becomes impossible for micro-organisms to reproduce.


5-6

Biofilm is characterised by 5 stages of growth:

Stage 1 Initial attachment

Stage 2 Irreversible attachment

Stage 3 Growth I

Stage 4 Growth II

Stage 5 Outbreak

Micro Bio-Fouling

Bio-fouling starts with a biofilm, or slime layer. The most cost effective efficient option when it comes to bio-fouling treating or prevention is to catch it early so that the micro-fouling does not have a chance to progress on to attracting macro-bio-fouling.

A biofilm consists of bacteria that has accumulated on the surface of the hull. The layer can also consist of some types of seaweed, diatoms (which are a type of algae and a common phytoplankton), and secretions from marine organisms.

Diatoms attachment depends on the pH of the hull coating. The biofilm-causing bacteria Vibrio alginolyticus, for example, is sensitive to temperature changes and pH. Many innovative hull coatings, as profiled in Chapter 4, leverage organisms’ characteristics and preferences to create highly effective, targeted solutions, such as paint that change pH.

Slime in general – like all bio-fouling– is strongly impacted by the temperature of the waters. Once the biofilm is fully established, it will inevitably lead to macro bio-fouling as the underside of the hull has now become an attractive environment for a number of organisms.

Macro Bio-Fouling Macro bio-fouling can be divided into two categories.

The first, calcareous or hard fouling can include: barnacles, bryozoans (which look a bit like an underwater moss), mollusks, tube worms, and zebra mussels.

As the name may indicate, calcareous fouling can be difficult to remove without damaging the hull coating underneath as it requires more abrasive hull cleaning techniques than non-calcareous or soft fouling.

The second, non-calcareous fouling, includes: algae, slimes, hydroids, sponges, and seaweed.

Different fouling communities will develop depending on the type of environment the hull offers; this preference or distaste helps provide clues as to how to avoid the fouling. For example zebra mussels dislike aluminum-bronze for example. Cupronickels (copper-nickel alloys) have good bio-fouling and corrosion resistance, but may not be able to cope with the demands of a ship that spans continents involving oceans of varying salt levels and temperatures, as the changes may impact the coating’s efficacy, or a particular species in a particular region may be more resistant.

This becomes an issue when the bio-fouling species are no longer content to ride on the underside of the hull but also become invasive species with wide-spread ecological and bio-fouling implications.


The Scale of the Problem

Economics

In the absence of hull fouling control systems, within six months of active service a vessel could have up to 150 kilograms of marine life per square metre attached to the hull. This obviously has huge fuel efficiency and bunker fuel cost implications.

Loss of speed from moderate fouling can range between 10% to 18%.

With hull resistance and drag having such an immense impact of bunker fuel consumption, ship owners and operators are looking for hull coatings and cleaning solutions that deliver the highest impact on drag reduction.

A study published by the United States Naval Academy, compiled by Dr Michael P Schultz, released in 2011 entitled ‘Economic impact of bio-fouling on a naval surface ship’ estimated the overall economic impact of hull fouling on a mid-sized naval surface ship in which fuel, hull coatings, hull coating application and removal, and hull cleaning costs were analysed and assessed.

Following the report’s release Schultz conveyed the message:

“Ship owners: paint now, or pay later”

Schultz’s research quantified the economic consequences of drag from ship hull fouling.

The study looked at the hull fouling penalty for the U.S. Navy’s conventionally powered, mid-sized surface combatant: the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-51). The study examined 320 actual individual inspection reports from Jan. 1, 2004, to Dec. 31, 2006.

It was found that resistance due to hull fouling amounted to US$56 million per year for the DDG-51 class destroyer fleet, and about US$1 billion over 15 years.

His conclusion from the studies was: The main cost associated with fouling is the increased fuel consumption from increased frictional drag.

“The costs related to hull cleaning and painting are much lower than the fuel costs,” Schultz reports in “Economic Impact of Bio-fouling on a Naval Surface Ship,” published in the journal Biofouling.

Furthermore, Schultz said, a hull needn’t be fouled to drag. Even when the hull is free of fouling, frictional drag on some hull types can account for up to 90% of total drag, he reported.

According to a white paper released by Hydrex, entitled ‘The Slime Factor’ published in 2010, uses the example of a cargo ship that requires 100 tonnes of fuel per day to maintain a cruising speed of 20 knots with a completely smooth and unfouled hull, the way it was at its first speed trials.

If that ship were to build up a thin layer of slime in a month and a thick layer of slime in two months, by the end of those two months of sailing, it would be requiring 110 tonnes of fuel per day to maintain the same cruising speed. Applying a fuel price of US$450 per tonne, which is majorly conservative in today’s market, the slime build-up would cause a fuel penalty of an additional US$4,500 per day just to keep operating at the same service speed. Even if the fouling remained at that level, in a month it would have used US$135,000 more fuel than it would have if the hull were clean. In a year, at that same rate, it would have cost US$1.62 million more than if the hull had remained clean.

International Paint has also calculated the immense fuel penalties and savings that can be generated across various pieces of literature. An example of such is provided below.

A 5000 TEU containership that consumes 150 tonnes of fuel per day at US$500 per tonne, their annual fuel bill would amount to US$131,625,000. A saving of 9%, from the optimisation of hull smoothness through prevention of fouling build up would equal a saving of US$12million off the annual fuel bill.


7-8

Environmental Impact of Hull Fouling

Emissions

The reduction in fuel burn and emissions is directly proportional.

The worse the fouling, the slower the ship will sail at a given RPM. Or in other words, more power will be required to keep the ship sailing at a given speed.

This results in higher fuel consumption and a higher fuel consumption results in a greater volume of greenhouse gases and other emissions being produced during the process of fuel combustion.

According to Bellona and the Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC), poor hull & propeller performance accounts for around 1/10 of world-fleet energy cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

~ US$30 billion increase in energy cost and

~ 0.3% increase in man-made carbon emissions

The previous example of International Paint’s 5000 TEU containership that uses 150 tonnes of fuel per day as described in more depth in the previous section, would emit 77,000 tonnes less of CO2 as a byproduct of the anti-fouling coating application and associated fuel savings.

If the world’s fleet didn’t have proper anti-fouling protection, International Paint estimates that an extra 72 million tonnes of fuel would be burned each year. If this scenario was flipped, and the savings were not realised, the increased fuel consumption would lead to the production and release into the environment of an estimated extra 210 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and 5.6 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide.

Invasive Species – Widening the Bio-Fouling Boundaries

Whilst the problem of ballast water and invasive species has been widely recognised by both the media and regulatory bodies – the issue of the transference of invasive species via other areas of ship have to date been relatively overlooked.

A noteworthy contributor to the issue of invasive species imported and exported across the world along with the world’s trade and goods is the presence of bio-fouling communities that establish themselves on the hull.

The zebra mussel for example has caused huge problems in the US Great Lakes because it is a voracious eater that has a devastating impact on other members of the ecosystem.

They also decimate native mussel populations by subjecting them to their own medicine through bio-fouling; they attach themselves to the hard outer shell of the native mussel, decimating the native carrier.

As this behaviour suggests, zebra mussels are aggressive bio-foulers and the species proliferates in a wide variety of environments, thereby exposing shipping communities to the threat of zebra mussel bio-fouling areas that were previously safe – and therefore unprepared.

The zebra mussel, for obvious reasons, is in the top 10 of BIMCO’s ‘Most Unwanted’ list but only one of many invasive species that bio-fouling has helped to introduce to native ecosystems the world over.

However, it is only one example of many as invasive species brought over from far away is an endemic and systemic problem in shipping; hull coatings have a vital part to play in limiting the further spread of invasive species around the world.


The activity and interest in the marine coatings market has boomed in recent years. This is due to a number of factors but not least including ship owners searching for clean technology solutions that can offer technical maturity and proven fuel savings but also factors such as the decline in the ship newbuilding market and resultant increase in ship repair and maintenance have played a major part. There is of course also the growing urgency to minimise fuel consumption penalties wherever possible whilst a shift in the regulatory landscape is enforcing a movement towards reduced environmental impact. This change has meant that both industry and its technology providers, including the marine coatings sector, have had to respond and reconfigure how the current and future regulatory and market landscape can work best for business. Innovation within the marine coatings market is evolving at a rapid rate as companies compete to provide the best products. As a result of the intense competition, the market is growing and there are a greater number of high specification, innovative marine coatings solutions available on the market than ever before. There have also been numerous launches of low-cost solutions to respond to a financially troubled industry where minimising vessel maintenance cost, including paint investment, is a focus area. In many ways a polarised hull coatings market has emerged that has a product cost focus at one end and investment in vessel efficiency at the other.

A transition towards more premium solutions, offering significant savings in fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions compared to the current market average, is predicted by most of the major marine coatings companies. Also, the market is seeing a new driver emerge. In collaboration with the marine coatings industry marine coatings provider, Jotun is currently leading an initiative to establish reliable measurability of hull performance. This was spurred by a historical lack of accurate and reliable measurability on hull performance that has resulted in limited incentives to invest lifetime performance in both newbuilding and maintenance situations. Therefore, this initiative will be absolutely crucial to increase market awareness and contribute to growth in the marine coatings market.

CHAPTER 2

The Market Landscape


9-10

412 BC: A translation from the Aramaic of a papyrus dated about 412 BC concerning boat repairs struck an optimistic note: “And the arsenic and sulphur have been well mixed with Chian oil thou broughtest back on thy last voyage and the mixture evenly applied to the vessel’s sides that she may speed through the blue waters freely and without impediment.” 16th century onwards: The main form of protection for wooden ships was copper sheathing or the use of a mixture containing sulphur and arsenic. It was not until the development of iron hulls that copper sheathing was abandoned.

17th century: In 1625 William Beale was the first to file a patent for a paint composition containing iron powder, copper and cement. In 1670, Philip Howard and Frances Watson patented a tar, resin and beeswax paint.

1854: James McInnes patented the first practical composition to come into widespread general use. It used copper sulphate as the biocide in a metallic soap composition, which was applied hot over a quick-drying priming paint of rosin varnish and iron oxide pigment. This was soon followed by a similar product known as ‘Italian Moravian’ which was used well into the 20th century.

1881: Holzapfels Antifouling Compositions were introduced. The Holzapfel brothers were the Founding Fathers of International Coatings Ltd.

1926: The US Navy developed a hot plastic paint using coal tar or rosin as binder and copper or mercuric oxides as toxins. This was followed, later, by ‘cold plastic paints’ which were easier to apply.

1960s: Contact leaching antifoulings are introduced, designed to increase antifouling lifetimes by increasing the biocide content.

3rd century: The Greeks were using tar and wax to coat ships’ bottoms.

13th to 15th centuries: By this time pitch, oil, resin and tallow were in use. The Chinese Admiral Cheng Ho had the hulls of his junks coated with lime mixed with poisonous oil to protect the wood from worms. Christopher Columbus was also familiar with the problem: “All ships’ bottoms were covered with a mixture of tallow and pitch in the hope of discouraging barnacles and teredo, and every few months a vessel had to be hoved-down and graved on some convenient beach”.

18th century: William Murdock patented a varnish mixed with iron sulphide and zinc powder, using arsenic as anti-foulant in 1791.

19th century: By 1870, more than 300 antifouling patents had been registered. Then as now, the basic principle of the majority of antifouling paints is to use biocide(s) to deter the settlement of fouling organisms through a leaching mechanism.

1863: James Tarr and Augustus Wonson were awarded a US patent for antifouling paint using copper oxide and tar.

1885: Zuisho Hotta was given the first Japanese patent for an antifouling paint made of lacquer, powdered iron, red lead, persimmon tannin and other ingredients.

1906: The US Navy began to manufacture its own antifouling coatings and tested shellac and ‘hot plastic paints’.

Late 1940s onwards: Major changes in paint technology resulted from a wide range of new industrial chemicals and the introduction of new surface preparation and prefabrication methods.

1974: International Paint introduces the first Self Polishing Copolymer (SPC) antifouling.

A History of the Market: Key MilestonesThe Fouling of Ships’ Hulls has Troubled Mankind for CenturiesTimeline courtesy of International Paint – History of Fouling Control


1987: The first TBT-Free Controlled Depletion Polymer (CDP) polishing antifoulings are introduced globally. 1999: The first foul release system for Deep Sea Scheduled Ships. Revolutionary low surface energy coating technology controls fouling without the use of biocides.

2002: International Paint introduces the first self polishing antifouling system blending SPC and CDP technologies.

2013: Foul release coating technology evolves with the introduction of International Paint’s Intersleek®1100SR product, the first micro fouling-focused fluoropolymer based slime release technology specifically designed to tackle the impact of slime.

1994: Introduction of Interspeed®340, a controlled depletion polymer (CDP) antifouling suitable for use at Newbuilding or Maintenance & Repair.

2000: International Paint launch the first Linkcoat, Intersleek®717 introduced, allowing direct conversion of biocidal SPC anti-foulings to foul release systems.

2007: The next generation foul release coating is launched by International Paint that is based on fluoropolymer technology, Intersleek®900.

To understand the current trends and drivers influencing the market today, and the developments that could trigger expansion, an understanding of how the market has evolved is required. The need to keep a smooth hull and experimentation around the types of coatings that can be used is as old as the maritime industry itself. In the industry’s infancy, various compounds were used to coat the hull in an attempt to dissuade marine life from becoming an attached pest. The first successful anti-fouling surface to receive general recognition was copper sheathing. William Beale filed the first coating patent in as early as 1625. This coating was surprisingly on the right track, containing iron powder, copper and cement. In 1670, a tar, resin and beeswax-based coating was then patented by Philip Howard and Frances Watson.

The historical market pathway has been littered with scientific discovery.

Naval institutions have spurred a great deal of ground-breaking research. Prompted by a desire to obtain more fundamental knowledge as to how to prevent fouling, various naval institutions arranged biological investigations which has been fundamental to shaping the evolution of the market. The work has supplied valuable information on the toxicity of potential paint ingredients to marine organisms, on the nature of the fouling population, its rate of growth, its seasonal and geographical incidence, and the relation of the service in which ships are employed to their tendency to foul. For example, an early proposal that identified that slimes produced by bacteria and diatoms on submerged surfaces had an important bearing on subsequent fouling aroused much interest, and has been a pillar for innovation throughout the development of anti-fouling coatings. Following much research into the occurrence of fouling and the development around hull coating options the problem of preventing the attachment of organisms became one of applied physical chemistry rather than a game of permutations and combinations.


11-12

A more recent pivotal market-shaping event in recent times was the banning of TBT -based hull coatings. Its presence in hull coatings prevented marine growth to an unprecedented level and for the industry it was a revelation. However, TBT-based paint was also extremely toxic to non-target organisms. It is an endocrine-disrupting chemical, which means affected aquatic animals would have disruptions in reproduction; whelks would change sex and oysters became deformed. There was also the frightening possibility of the bioaccumulative aspect of the compound in some ducks, fish and seals, and the resultant threat of it eventually entering the food chain and appearing on people’s plates. In reaction to what was perceived as a fast approaching ecological disaster, the IMO passed the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS Convention), which was adopted in October 2001 and came into force in September 2008. This Convention is discussed further in the next section. Following the ban of TBT-based paint, new paint formulations evolved which are discussed in great detail in Chapter Three and also below. New biocidal anti-fouling paints were rapidly developed in the wake of the ban, for example the coatings based on silyl-acrylates or copper, and foul-release solutions, based on self-polishing silicone types.

Regulation of the Hull Coatings Industry

As shipping is global in nature variations in regional and local environmental regulations have an industry-wide impact, and this is in addition to global regulations that govern all areas. Regulations are making it technically more challenging to deliver coatings that perform, however in the same breath, regulations are helping to increase the value add associated with higher levels of performance –where the coatings have an impact on energy efficiency in particular. Many stakeholders within the industry regard environmental regulations as an important driver of innovation in the marine coatings market. It is a delicate balance however between the benefit to the environment, the economic impact, and the constraints of technology. As described in the previous section, the Anti-fouling Systems Convention (AFSC) outlawed the use of TBT-based paints. In response to the AFSC, the major hull coating manufacturers voluntarily decided to withdraw tin-containing anti-fouling hull coatings from the market before the IMO convention enters into force. The European Union (EU) also passed legislation that bans the application of tin-containing coatings and prohibits vessels with tin-based anti-foulings from entering EU ports. Whilst copper has been the go-to substance since the banning of TBT-based coatings, there are indications that its time is coming to a close. The reasoning behind this potential ban is that copper can interfere with photosynthesis and enzyme function in both plants and animals in very low concentrations – as low as 4 μg/l.

As a result of this some regional regulations are set to address the presence of copper in hull coatings. The U.S. State of Washington will be banning the use of copper with effect from 2018, and California looks set to do the same.


In addition to this, the 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) addresses the issue of copper a few paragraphs after addressing the issue of TBT-based coatings – the unspoken message being that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers them to be part of the same family of undesirables. “Some ports and harbors are impaired by copper, a biocide used commonly in anti-foulant paints. These waters include Shelter Island Yacht Basin in San Diego, California, and waters in and around the ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach,” the VGP states.“When vessels spend considerable time in these waters (defined as spending more than 30 days per year), or use these waters as their home port (i.e., house boats, ferries or rescue vessels), vessel owners/operators shall consider using anti-fouling coatings that rely on a rapidly biodegradable biocide or another alternative rather than copper-based coatings. If after consideration of alternative biocides, vessel operators continue to use copper-based anti-foulant paints, they must document in their recordkeeping documentation how this decision was reached” the document continues. Another potentially impactful IMO Regulation is the Ballast Water Convention. Obviously this is not a coatings specific regulation. However, it does impinge on coating performance or lifetime. This convention aims to stop the transport of invasive marine species from one part of the globe to another in the ballast water by ensuring the water is treated before discharge into the sea or is discharged into fixed onshore facilities where it can be treated. Several onboard systems have been developed to date. However, a factor to consider for the hull coatings industry is: should these ballast water treatment processes be compatible with the prescribed coatings, or should coatings be compatible with the systems?


13-14

The Maths: The Cost of Hull Roughness

According to the International Paint ‘Hull Roughness Penalty Calculator’ model. This is a software programme that predicts the inevitable increase in underwater hull roughness during the specified in service period and combines this with the risk of fouling associated with different antifouling types. The model compares fuel usage and cost to the installation cost of different TBT free antifouling and foul release systems to derive potential net benefit. The model is also able to compare the exhaust emissions (CO2, SOX) associated with the additional fuel consumption for a particular vessel. The effect of coating roughness on ship performance can be calculated using the Townsin1 formulae below: Fractional Added Resistance ( ∆ R/R) for going from a smooth (AHR = k 1 ) to a rough (AHR = k 2 ) surface: ∆ R/R = ∆ C F /C T = 0.044[(k 2 /L) 1/3 – (k 1 /L) 1/3 ]/C T Where:∆ = Change in resistance, power, speed or propeller efficiency due to increased roughness ∆ C F = Frictional Resistance coefficient increaseC T = Total Resistance coefficient = ([Total Resistance]/0.5 ρ S V 2 ) or very approx. = 0.018 L -1/3 (if C T value cannot be found otherwise, and where L is in metres)ρ = Seawater densityS = Surface wetted area of vesselV = Speed of vesselL = Length between perpendiculars of vessel Hull roughness gauge in use Fractional Power increase ( ∆ P/P) at constant speed for going fr om a smooth (AHR=k 1 ) to rough (AHR=k 2 ) surface: 1+ ∆ P/P = (1 + ∆ R/R) (1+ ∆ η η / η η ) -1 Where:P = Shaft Powerη = Open water propeller efficiency For Ro-Ro ships: (1+ ∆η / η ) -1 = 0.17 (1 + ∆ R/R) + 0.83 For Tankers: (1+ ∆η / η ) -1 = 0.30 (1 + ∆ R/R) + 0.70 Fractional Speed Loss ( ∆ V/V) at constant power, for going from a smooth (AHR=k 1 ) to rough (AHR=k 2 ) surface: ∆ V/V = ∆ P/P (n + 1) -1 Where:n = speed index = ~2.15 for Tankers and Bulk Carrier


There are a number of key challenges and drivers that the industry is facing that will trigger change in the market. Firstly, declines in shipbuilding after many years of overhang and overtonnage will start to bite; for the hull coatings market this will mean a drop in the volume of newbuild hull coating application orders. With a lay-up of 10% worldwide, the coatings industry has also suffered from cancellations and delays in newbuildings and in maintenance work when operators have realised that losing their deposit and idling the ship would result in less losses than attempting to operate. Secondly, ship management companies, as a way of surviving during difficult economic times, will consolidate. This consolidation process will strengthen the buying power of individual clients, thereby putting pressure on coatings prices. The technical ramification of this future drop in pricing is that it will impair the ability of coatings companies to invest in R&D projects at a time when they are needed more than ever. An additional challenge, as Azko Nobel has pointed out in the past, is that hull coatings have a long development cycle due to the lack of reliable accelerated test methods and considerable formulation work required to meet anti-fouling performance, mechanical and application property requirements. The development cycle consists of laboratory and assay tests, field trials and test patching.

These factors will put pressure on the market whilst other trends will trigger further demand and development in the market. The preference for vessel lay-up and operating at lower loads requires new solutions, whilst increasing bunker prices makes the demand for an optimised hull condition all the more important.

The clock is ticking for coatings manufacturers to prove to operators that they can offer non TBT- based paints with pre-TBT performance. For that reason perhaps the current difficulty in the market would be more aptly described as growing pains than any more sinister a market trend. A study by Frost & Sullivan in 2011 estimated that the market earned revenues of over US$5bn in 2011, and estimated that figure to reach US$10.2bn by 2018. “The need to lower fuel consumption is a strong market driver and antifouling coatings applied to ships’ hulls offer one way to combat emissions and reduce fuel consumption,” explained Frost & Sullivan Research Director Dr Leonidas Dokos. “Foul-release technology, which also results in substantial fuel savings, is particularly useful for large cargo ships, which consume a lot of fuel.”

The Future: Challenges, Drivers for Change, and Market-Shaping Trends


15-16

Market Barriers

When considering market barriers, the 2012 study published by the European Commission (EC) Analysis of market barriers to cost effective GHG emission reductions in the maritime transport sector. (Reference: CLIMA.B.3/SER/2011/0014) is useful to refer to in order to gain insight into the process and background of market barrier identification. In this section we identify the main market barriers to the uptake of hull coating technology solutions, split by technical limitations and non-technical limitations. Technical Limitations The technical limitations of a hull coating product is dependent on a number of factors:

• The efficacy of the hull coating.• The impact of slow-steaming.• The technical maturity of the products.• Differences in performance. The Efficacy of the Hull Coating “Whereas TBT-based coatings dominated the market prior to the ban, it is not clear whether the new “biocidal” or “foul-release” coatings will evolve as the superior approach to hull coating,” the EC study notes. “The ability of some of the newer hull coatings to live up to their claims of extremely long life is a technical concern” it admitted. However, the technical issues that surround the new coating products are not simply down to the mediocrity of the products; if anything, more research and precaution is going into the preparation of the coatings than ever before. It should also be noted that the technical performance of the coatings has been impacted by market conditions (e.g. widespread slow steaming and extended idle periods) that could not have been foreseen at the time of their development.

Slow-Steaming The EC’s analysis reports that operating ships at lower speeds is the single “best” solution to reduce marine GHG emissions. However, as the study points out, “operating vessels at lower speeds dramatically changes the economics of implementing other GHG solutions.” This is inherently true for hull coatings. A key issue for foul-release coatings is the fact that they are dependent on the ship’s movement though the water to remove the bio-fouling from the hull. The EC study notes that “certain types of new hull coatings may not be as effective at low engine loads.” This is because during periods of no movement, or very slow movement due to slow-steaming, the natural cleaning effect from the water’s circulation around the hull is minimised, which means that bio-fouling builds up. Once the bio-fouling has built up as a result of this reduced engine load, returning to usual speeds (which would be nonetheless extremely unlikely in current market conditions, and according to market forecasts, in the future) would not be enough to remove the biofouling, especially if the marine organisms have had a chance to develop into macro-organisms or even established a full-blown bio-fouling community on the side of the ship. As a result, the ship will have to be cleaned more often. To conclude, whilst slow-steaming is the number one tactic of offsetting fuel costs, it has triggered other unforeseen costs in other areas of the vessel’s operations.


Technical Maturity A fundamental market barrier to the uptake of hull coating solutions is the maturity of the technology, the relative number of installations and the proven delivery of promised savings. With most cutting-edge solutions naturally having a relatively short track record in the industry, ship owners and operators can naturally be wary of utilising them. However, it should be considered that particularly following the foul release coatings issue, the hull coatings industry has learnt valuable lesson on the research that needs to be carried out to ensure true market wide applicability and reliability. The newest generation of hull coatings have been tested under a far greater range of operating profiles and conditions than ever before

Non-Technical Barriers Non-technical barriers include: • Lack of a market-wide performance measuring standard to allow for easy comparison between products, which exacerbates the technical barrier of possible product under-performance.

• Lack of information or understanding of the economic returns relative to other coatings on the market.

• Increased price of non TBT-based paints and possible need to re-coat more often.

• Split incentives under term charters.

• Patents that limit the flow of information between manufacturers and also of performance information into the market. The impact of non-technical market barriers could be mitigated by further investment in new technologies followed by the effective communication to industry stakeholders as to the benefits of this new technology.

The Good News – The Changing of Market Barriers to Market Drivers Market barriers and drivers are sometimes two sides of the same coin. There are some market drivers that have spurred the hull coatings industry to develop best practices and be ahead of the regulatory curve. This has allowed the sector to cope with and further leverage market changes. The hull coatings sector excels in anticipating changes in regulation. They make tremendous investment and efforts in early R&D efforts to meet these anticipated changes. It is no quick process to develop and test coatings. They have also been good at adopting consistent and coherent regulation globally, with any potential market changes already identified and expected. This means that vessels tend not to suffer from restrictions in trading areas. Latterly, they have also started to offer performance guarantees to clients in order to allay concerns about the coatings not living up to the claims. It is a multi-billion dollar market and therefore it tends to swiftly address how to overcome the market barriers in order to open the opportunity that comes with their removal.

Image Courtesy of HYDREX


17-18

The Ideal Coating Checklist There are a number of high level factors which must be taken into consideration when evaluating which coating system to deploy onto a ship, either at newbuild stage or during routine maintenance of the hull and its coating.

The different factors listed below are a checklist of the essentials that should be considered when evaluating and selecting a hull coating system. For the purpose of this table, anti-fouling paints are the focus. However, it must be noted that, a system must also be put in place for corrosion protection.

Factors Questions to ask Why? Check forLongevity What is the lifespan of

the coating? Will the coating remain active 5-7 years in-between dry docking periods?

Varying systems have a varying lifespan. Some systems are designed to last 3 - 5 years. Some will aim to last the lifetime of the vessel. This will vary on type of product chosen.The lifespan of the coating can make a real variance in total ownership cost of the vessel, factoring in dry docking time, cost of materials and labour, and off-hire time.

Product specific lifespan information and case studies of longevity from manufacturer.

Suitability Will the coating system suit the needs of a particular vessel or fleet?e.g. Is the hull coating suitable for use on ships with lay-up times of any length?

Different ships, fleets, routes, activities operate under different conditions, therefore will demand varying aspects from a hull coating product.

The vessel’s trade route or voyage path, frequency of port calls, lay up periods. Ask for specific evidence that the product is suitable for that type of route. It may not be available but should be asked.

Chapter 3

Choosing The Optimum Hull Coating


Maintenance – Cleaning (hard coatings)

How frequently must the hull be cleaned to maintain coating performance? How suitable is the hull coating suitable for cleaning, in dry dock and/or underwater?

It is important to ascertain how often the hull will require maintenance and what impact this will have on the coating.In the absence of regular dry docking, in-water cleaning is a necessity if a ship is to run at optimum performance.

The following points need to be considered:- Does routine underwater cleaning damage the coating? - Can the coating be cleaned without damage to it?-Will in-water cleaning of the hull pose and environmental hazard, such as a pulse release of biocides, silicone oils or other substances? How can this be mitigated?

Factors Questions to ask Why? Check forProduct Features

How thick is the coating? How abrasive resistant? How flexible or brittle? Is it completely impermeable?

The answers to these questions have much to do with how well the coating will survive under harsh or varying conditions.

The challenges a vessel may face on specific trade routes, such as mechanical force, bumps and scrapes, ice and other challenges, varying water temperate etc.

Regulatory Demands

Will the coating have to be replaced in the future due to regulations or legislation?

Although there is nothing immediately in the pipeline, in the wake of the IMO ban on TBT, biocidal paints are continually under scrutiny. The future potential demands on the hull coatings market from regulation should at least be thought of with ships in the newbuild stage or requiring a full repaint.

Is there any likelihood that the paint compounds could be banned within the lifespan of that coating?

Condition How smooth will the hull be after coating? What rate of fouling should you expect with the coating?

Different hull coatings will cause different levels of hull resistance due to skin friction even when no fouling is present.More skin friction means higher fuel consumption.Another key consideration after basic protection has been established, is how the coating system deals with marine fouling.

Case studies from manufacturer.


19-20

Factors Questions to ask Why? Check forMaintenance – Repainting/Repairing

How often does the coating system require major repair or reapplication? Does the coating have any special application requirements?

How easy is the coating to repair or touch up if it is damaged?

This can be a major cost.Surface preparation plus application of paint can vary from 5 or 6 days for some coatings to as much as 17 or 18 days for others.

How many coats need to be applied and how long does this take in dry dock? Are there any special precautions or requirements for correct application or to obtain claimed savings?

Fuel-Saving Does the manufacturer guarantee performance? Does the hull coating system lead to greater fuel efficiency and therefore reduced GHG and other emissions?

The type of hull coating product and system can make a big difference to the ship’s fuel efficiency.Great care must be taken to understand exactly HOW any fuel savings are calculated.Note: It is actually ‘reduced loss in performance’ that claims are made on not active savings themselves i.e. paint will degrade in performance less than another.

Third party verification? Is there an associated monitoring software package offered with the product to measure the ‘fuel saving’?

Environmental Concerns

Is the coating system toxic or not toxic to the oceans and waterways? Does the in-water cleaning of the coating present any additional environmental hazard? Does the application or removal of the coating constitute an environmental hazard? Does the hull coating system help or inhibit the translocation of hull-borne, non-indigenous, invasive marine species?

The coating system used on a ship can have a negative impact on the environment.Therefore the decision should include the environmental consequences of its use. It may be that corporate social responsibility concerns are a factor in the decision process.

Does the product contain: -Heavy metals-Biocides-VOCs-Toxic waste-Silicone or fluropolymer oils


Factors Questions to ask Why? Check forCost How much does the paint

cost? What surface preparation is required and what does that cost? How much does it cost to apply the coating? How many times can one expect to have to repaint in the ship’s lifetime? What frequency of in-water cleaning is required for a particular system and how much will this cost? How much will the fuel penalty incurred by a particular coating system add to the total ownership cost of hull?

Cost is a vital consideration in choosing a hull coating system for a new vessel or for repainting an existing vessel. However, prices per litre of paint can be misleading, as can cost of surface preparation.

There are a number of factors which contribute to the real cost of a hull coating system and they must all be taken into account for a total ownership cost assessment.

Beware of solely looking at price per litre. What are the total costs of materials for coating the entire hull?Some hull coating systems require five or more coats with lengthy curing times in between, stretching a full painting job out to as much as 17 days or more.Others can be applied in just two coats with a few hours between coats and can be fully prepared and painted in under a week, ready for launching or re-launching. The costs involved include labour, dry dock time and off-hire time.

Ensure you understand the whole cost cycle.


21-22

Hull Coating Chemistry Due to the penalties associated with and the severe impact of the unwanted colonisation of a hull surface by marine organisms, primarily through negative impact on hydrodynamics via increased drag, anti-fouling systems are in great use across the maritime industry.

The principle mitigation tactic for reducing the impact of hull fouling is through preventing the attachment of fouling, and therefore minimising drag.

Therefore, there have been great advancements in the manipulation of the chemistry that sits behind anti-fouling products to prevent the attachment of fouling.

It must also be noted that although hull cleaning measures such as under water scrubbing can be deployed to mitigate hull fouling. Thus far the use of under water scrubbing as the sole method for complete hull fouling mitigation has not been proven to be viable for the vast majority of the world’s fleet.

There are four main tributyltin TBT-free fouling control technologies currently available:

• Biocidal- Self-Polishing Copolymer (SPC)- Contact Leaching Systems- Controlled Depletion Polymer (CDP)

• Foul Release

Biocidal Anti-Fouling Coatings

Biocidal anti-fouling coatings function by creating a microlayer of biocide rich environment at the paint surface, which prevents marine organisms from attaching. These coatings also contain active ingredients, which prevent or slow marine growth. There are currently only three main forms of biocides that can be used in anti-fouling systems: • Metallic• Organometallic• Organic Few biocides have had the necessary combination of characteristics to make them safe, yet effective antifouling agents. Mercury, arsenic and their compounds, and also now the organotins, are examples of effective antifouling agents that have been deemed unacceptable due to adverse environmental or human health risks. TBT-based coatings were introduced in the mid-1960s and were common in the latter half of the 20th century as an effective anti-fouling solution. However, their acute toxicity to non-target marine organisms had severe environmental impacts and a complete ban on TBT paints entered into force on 17th September 2008. Copper-based biocides are the most commonly used, and often in combination with organic biocides in order to achieve a wider spectrum of activity.


Releasing Biocidal Agents

For biocidal anti-fouling coatings to be effective, the biocides have to be released into the sea. The most common method of releasing biocidal agents is through a combined leaching/polishing process. Seawater first diffuses into the coating and then the biocide leaches out. As each new layer of paint is exposed and then worn away, new layers come into contact with the water and the process repeats. Sea water is alkaline (pH ~ 8) and biocidal anti-foulings work by having an acidic binder component that can dissolve in sea water, thus releasing biocides. The method behind biocidal release is that the surface will not foul provided that the release rate of the biocide(s) is above a critical release rate threshold value (CRTV). Therefore, the objective is to control and maintain the release rate above the CRTV for as long as possible. To address this the market hosts “Controlled Release” technologies that are used to give maximum performance and enhanced lifetimes of the anti-fouling coating. Modern anti-foul coatings use a binder, which is partially soluble in seawater, hence allowing the steady release of sufficient amounts of biocide and, thereby, extending the active lifetime of the coating. The two main variations of self-polishing coatings are controlled depletion polymers (CDP) and self-polishing copolymers (SPC). Both require a current of water to wash away the coating layers at the required rate, so are not suitable for vessels that spend long periods of time laid up.

The three main soluble acid binder options to enable biocide release in sea water are: - Controlled Depletion Polymer (CDP)- Hybrid SPC- Self-Polishing Copolymer (SPC)

The so-called “Self-polishing” coatings use a binder, which is partially soluble in seawater, meaning that as biocide is released the coating also becomes smoother over time. The two main variations of self-polishing coatings are controlled depletion polymers (CDP) and self-polishing copolymers (SPC). Both require a current of water to wash away the coating layers, so are not suitable for vessels that spend long periods of time laid up.

Clarity of Terms Used

Note to the reader: The descriptions “Self-polishing” and “Self-polishing Copolymer” (SPC) are not the same.

The term ‘self-polishing refers to the effect obtained with an anti-fouling coating in which the coating has a controlled decrease in its thickness.

The term ‘Self-polishing Copolymer’ refers to a type of polymers that fulfill the requirement of Self-Polishing, for example CDP.

BIOCIDE (DISPERSED IN A RESINOUS MATRIX)


23-24

Biocide Release: Self-Polishing Copolymer (SPC)

Self-Polishing Copolymer (SPC) anti-foulings release biocides via the hydrolysis or ion exchange reaction of an acrylic polymer with seawater, to form an acid polymer, which is then soluble in seawater. This results in thinner leached layers and thus much better control of biocide release.

SPC coatings require the binder to react with seawater first before it becomes soluble. This happens via hydrolysis – the breaking of chemical bonds by the addition of water. The process results in thinner leached layers than CDP coatings and so better control of biocide release over time and self-smoothening. These paints are claimed to be higher performance although more expensive.

The main types of SPC polymer are nanocapsule acrylates, metal acrylate and silyl acrylate. Silyl acrylate coatings have a slow initial rate of polishing, while metal acrylate coatings have a fast initial rate of polishing however both demonstrate a steady rate of polishing over time. Nanocapsule acrylates have a more balanced behaviour. All are long-lasting and easy to re-coat.

SPC coatings can also be formulated with some co-binders such as rosin or derivatives, to improve the properties of the film. The combination of SPC coatings plus co-binder are often referred to as ‘Hybrid SPC’ coatings.

In terms of chemistry, hybrid SPC technology are formulated via a mixture of hydrolysis and hydration mechanisms, combining SPC acrylic polymers with a certain amount of co-binder.

SPC Features:

- Controlled, chemical dissolution of the paint film, capable of giving long dry dock intervals- Predictable polishing, enabling “tailor-made” specifications by vessel type/operation- Thin Leached Layers = simple cleaning and recoating- Ideal for newbuildings- Excellent weatherability- Good mechanical properties

Hybrid SPC Features:

- High volume solids content- Polishing control- Surface tolerant- Good film properties- Control of biocide release- Good anti-fouling performance

Biocide Release: Contact Leaching

Contact leaching anti-foulings were introduced in the 1960’s and were designed to increase antifouling lifetimes by increasing the biocide content.

Also known as hard racing or long life paints, contact leaching paints have an insoluble matrix and continuous biocide release if generated by the high biocide concentration ensuring that biocide particles contact each other through the paint film. As surface biocide is released, microchannels are created which permit release of biocide from deeper in the coating. Biocide release rates decrease exponentially with time and effective life is again limited to periods rarely exceeding 18 months.


Biocide Release: Controlled Depletion Polymer (CDP) CDP coatings have rosin-derivatives as the main polishing-inducing binder.

The soluble binder, natural rosin contains around 90% abietic acid and has been used for over 100 years in antifouling paints.

Rosin, as a soluble binder has a low mechanical strength. As a general rule; the higher the solubility of the coating, the lower the mechanical strength, so there is a necessary trade-off in order for the coating to resist abrasion and damage. Leached layers of paint can build up, which slows biocide release down and inhibits smoothing.

Rosin has some disadvantages:

- it is a brittle material, and can cause cracking and detachment;- it reacts with oxygen and has to be immersed relatively quickly;- it does not prevent water going into the depth of the antifouling paint film. Rosin can be used at low level to form hard “Insoluble Matrix” anti-foulings, or high level to form soft “Soluble Matrix” anti-foulings. It is the modern “Soluble Matrix” anti-foulings are now commonly referred to as CDP anti-foulings. CDP coating exhibit slow dissolution of the paint film in sea-water, this dissolution gradually slows down over time, due to the formation of insoluble materials at the surface. Also, leached layers can become thick, suppressing biocide release and increasing roughness.

CDP Features: - CDP anti-foulings have thick leached layers, which limit performance and negatively affect re-coatability.- CDP anti-foulings are claimed to be not as effective as SPC systems- CDP products are the lowest cost per sq. m “value for money” anti-foulings, and are suitable for use in lower fouling areas or for vessels with short dry-dock intervals

Biocide Release: Hybrid SPC

Hybrid SPC coatings are a combination of CDP and SPC technology. Hybrid SPC technology works by a mixture of hydrolysis and hydration mechanisms, combining SPC acrylic polymers with a certain amount of Rosin.

In terms of performance and price, they are mid-way between the two. Copper pyrithione is commonly used as a co-biocide.

Hybrid SPC Features:

- High volume solids content- Polishing control- Surface tolerant- Good film properties- Control of biocide release- Good anti-fouling performance


25-26

Foul Release Coatings

Foul release coatings (FRCs) function by preventing or reducing the adhesion (“non-stick”) of fouling organisms to vessel hulls. The flora and fauna species that colonise on the hull, which contribute to marine fouling, typically attach to hull surfaces by exuding special ‘glues’, with the strength of the glue dependent on the glue’s ability to spread over the surface and bind to it.

In terms of chemistry, foul release coatings typically have low “surface energy”, which is a measure of the way they bind with other substances.

This low surface energy degrades an organism’s ability to generate a strong interfacial bond with the surface via the aforementioned ‘glues’. The smoothness ‘Non Stick’ properties of the coating at the molecular level allows for organisms to be dislodged once the vessel is moving beyond a critical velocity.

As a general rule, substances with a low surface energy are harder to wet (i.e. harder for a liquid to spread across), and so harder for adhesives to stick to.

To work effectively, foul release coatings need to have a minimum thickness in order to have the required flexibility and assist in the self-cleaning of any weakly-attached fouling that manages to settle on the coating. This thickness is always lower than that of biocide-based anti-foul coatings. All commercial foul release coatings contain oils, which migrate to the surface and improve their overall effectiveness.

There are three main ways of modifying the surface of silicone-based coatings: modified silicone oils, fluoropolymers and hydrogels.

Foul Release: Silicone

Silicone coatings are the oldest type of foul release coatings and are still the foundation over which all modern fouling release coatings have been built on.

Silicone coatings are still the most common type of foul release coatings.

Traditional silicone-based coatings foul relatively fast, so they require that the vessel stays sailing most of the time and preferably at high speeds (i.e. above 15 knots). Silicone coatings have several other properties that distinguish them from other anti-fouling coatings. They are generally smoother and have a higher volume of solids, which reduces their solvent emissions when applied.

Silicone-based technology relies on the unique surface chemistry of siloxanes to which fouling cannot easily adhere. These formulations are typically comprised of a silanol (SiOH) functional polydimethylsiloxane, silica, catalysts and an alkoxy functional silane or silicate crosslinker.


Foul Release: Fluoropolymer

Polymers containing fluorine can also be used to create a low energy surface with non-stick properties designed to prevent adhesion of marine fouling.

A Fluoropolymer is a polymer, with multiple strong carbon– fluorine bonds, with the consumer product ‘Teflon’ being the most commonly recognised example (but which unfortunately has poor fouling prevention properties).

Fluoropolymer based fouling release stands for silicone coatings, which are modified by small amounts of fluorinated oils.

Fluoropolymer chemistry represents the very latest advances in foul release technology, significantly improving upon the performance of the best silicone based systems as they provide an ultra-smooth surface.

Fluoropolymer systems provide an amphiphilic surface. It has been established that marine fouling organisms secrete an adhesive, either of a hydrophobic or hydrophilic nature depending on the fouling species. By having a balanced amphiphilic surface fluoropolymers can minimise the chemical and electrostatic adhesion between the surface and a wide range of fouling organisms. The amphiphilic surface physically deters the settlement of organisms simply by nature of the surface.

Therefore, the basic concept behind this is to provide an amphiphilic surface with both hydrophobic (“water-hating”) and hydrophilic (“water loving”) areas

Fluoropolymer oils also are also leached into the water to increase the effectiveness of these fouling release coating systems.

Foul Release: Hydrogel

Hydrogel-based fouling release coatings move the concept of fouling release to the opposite extreme, hydrophilic surfaces. Inspired by advanced biomedical research, these coatings contain a hydrophilic modified silicone polymer that migrates to the surface upon immersion and creates a hydrogel layer at the outermost surface of the coating. Water trapped in this layer presents the biofouling organisms with a surface unlike other surfaces in the marine environment. Abundant research show that this chemistry provides upgraded fouling protection, and these coatings claim to release fouling down to 8 knots of speed and down to 50% of activity.

Foul Release Coatings Features:

• Foul Release coatings are durable fouling control systems for Scheduled Ships• Foul Release coatings give equivalent performance to SPC systems without the use of biocides.• Foul Release coatings generally have an average hull roughness (AHR) under 100 microns, which is smoother than most biocidal anti-foulings• Foul Release coatings are based on silicone chemistry, and are thus very• Durable, both above and below water• They retain their gloss and do not change colour, even after prolonged immersion periods, in contrast to biocidal anti-foulings Costs at Maintenance & Repair can be lower with FRCs because:

• Only touch up is required at dry docking(s) up to 60 months.• After 60 months only a single full re-coat (100 microns) of finish is required.• Washing is easy & quick.• There is reduced waste during paint application (fewer cans).• Draft marks do not need to be re-painted.


27-28

Therefore:

• Potentially less time in dry dock.• Intervals between dry dock can be flexible, up to 60 months.• No expensive treatment of the wash water or abrasive is needed.

Advantages of Foul Release Systems:

• No release of biocide in to the environment.• Unlikely to be affected by future environmental legislation.• Reduced paint volume (and solvent emitted) on first application.• Good anti-fouling performance on a range of vessel types.• Good resistance to mechanical damage.• Reduced hull roughness giving improvements in vessel performance and reducing emissions.• Less time in dock, paint required and application costs at future dockings.• Keeps fouling off the propellers.

Disadvantages of Foul Release Coatings:

• Higher initial cost of paint and application.• Quality of application is very important −Masking and dedicated equipment required.• As product is biocide-free, resistance to slime for silicone foul release systems are lower than some biocidal anti-foulings.

Hard Coatings

Hard coatings are a third type of marine coating which, like fouling release coatings, are not reactive with seawater and do not contain biocides. They have the advantage of not gradually dissolving and also provide very good mechanical resistance and anticorrosive properties.

However, to be truly effective against marine fouling, use of these coatings needs to be combined with a regular method for hull cleaning. Such coatings also need to be able to flex with a vessels hull, so the best coatings will combine extreme hardness with flexibility.

Alternative Coatings

A number of alternative and innovative approaches to hull fouling prevention have come onto the market or are currently in development. A selection of alternative coating solutions and innovative approaches to combatting hull fouling are profiled below.

Microfibre foils consist of a film of tiny fibres that are applied to vessel hulls.

These can prevent microorganisms from settling via the density of the foil and the swaying motion of individual fibres. For single cell organisms that form chains, such as micro-algae, the swaying motion damages the cell structure, which causes the threads of organisms to eventually be cut off rather than staying attached. This can also prevent algae spores from sticking and from finding their way to the hull surface.

Stimulated Release coatings use periodic stimulus to change the shape of the hull surface and knock any attached organisms off. This technology is currently in development by Duke University, with the stimulus in question being an electric current, although the technology does not yet have a commercial application.

Water Encapsulation is a new technology that Nippon Paint claims to employ. This enhances the self-polishing properties of an SDP coating by trapping water in bumps in the hull coating, creating a smoother surface than the paint alone.

However, the mechanism behind this effect is not clear; whether it is a function of the polymer being used or another technology has not been specified.


Natural Product Anti-Foulants have been the centre of much research over the last 20 years.

For example, materials harnessed from terrestrial trees & plants such as tea-tree oil and capsaicin and materials harnessed from marine organisms & plants such as furanones, zosteric acid have been widely used. In August 2013, Pettit announced the launch of Hydrocoat Eco, a self-polishing ablative coating with naturally-derived biocide. Hydrocoat Eco consists of self-polishing, water-based, ablative technology that has as its active ingredient the organic biocide Econea. The company claims that tests show that antifoulants made with 6% Econea are as effective as those made with 50% copper. Natural product anti-foulants features: Positive• Perceived as an environmentally acceptable solution .• Data exists that demonstrates the efficacy of some natural products. Negative• Natural product anti-foulants are natural biocides, and in many cases very little data exists with regard to their toxicity and/or degradation in the environment.• In many cases the materials are complex organic molecules that are very costly to synthesise.

Biomimetics is defined as the study of the structure and function of biological systems and processes as models or inspiration for the sustainable design and engineering of materials and machines. A number of technologies inspired by nature are worth considering as antifouling strategies such as surface texture, mucus and secondary metabolites. For example, one strategy is inspired by the low-drag performance of sharkskin surfaces made to mimic their grooved scales (placoid scales, which resemble tiny spines that protrude from the surface). These scales are almost parallel to the longitudinal body axis of the shark and their presence has been shown to reduce drag by 5–10%.

Surface Technology or Nanotechnology is defined as ‘the manipulation of matter on an atomic and molecular scale.’ In essence, nanotechnology can be described as the science of molecular engineering, and is currently changing the way many industries think of surface coatings. Nanomaterials are finding applications in marine antifouling. The inherently small size of nanoparticles means they remain in the lattice of the antifoul coating. Although they do not readily leach out, they slowly release ions to provide long-term antifouling performance.

An example of nanotechnology innovation within for hull coatings application is described in the academic paper: Natalio et al, 2012 ‘Inspired by nature: Paints and coatings containing bactericidal agent nanoparticles combat marine fouling”

It makes use of tiny vanadium pentoxide nanowires and is inspired by one of nature’s own defense mechanisms in which so-called vanadium haloperoxidase enzymes play a crucial role.


29-30

Advanced Marine Coatings

Advanced Marine Coatings (AMC) is a specialist manufacturer of marine coatings headquartered in Norway. Their product range applies to decks, cargo holds, ballast tanks and underwater hulls, having been tested both in laboratories since 2006 and on commercial vessels since 2008.

In 2006, the company experimented with a nano-modified epoxy coating formulation applied on a speed boat. Preliminary tests showed that the coating made a difference of several knots in terms of the speed, compared to traditional anti-fouling paints. Over the next three years, AMC continued to improve the formula. Subsequent tests on different types of boats with depths of up to 40 metres demonstrated an increase in speed of 6 to 10%, or a corresponding reduction in fuel consumption.

The foremost feature of AMC products is their use of carbon nano-tubes in epoxy-based coatings. Preliminary tests showed that the coating made a difference of several knots in terms of the speed, compared to traditional anti-fouling paints. Over the next three years, AMC continued to improve the formula. Subsequent tests on different types of boats with drafts of up to 40 metres demonstrated an increase in speed of 6 to 10%, or a corresponding reduction in fuel consumption. The use of carbon nano-tubes is also said to provide a stable, flexible coating surface without leading to compromises on other key mechanical properties such as adhesion and resistance to wear.

AMC also has a heavy involvement in cooperative research and development initiatives around the use of nano-technology. They hold partnerships with a wide range of institutes including SINTEF, the Max Planck Institute, EADS, Daimler, the YKI Institute for Surface Chemistry, SP, VTT, SAAB, and Vattenfall.

Premium Anti-Fouling Products:

Advanced Marine Coatings Antifoul, Super Sleek

An anti-foul system based on copper oxide slowly leaking through the coating during a span of several years. The pore free coating film has proved to be extremely hydrophobic and water repellent. The coating remains very smooth and has low friction against water. In addition the nano reinforcement ensures that the coating does not lift from the steel surface if washed by high pressure water cleaners.

Type of Coating: Biocidal

Known Ship Types: Particularly suitable for vessels involved in washing regimes and high speed ferries or catamarans.

Savings: Speed trials have proven that it is possible to increase speed up 10% compared to alternative anti-foulings.

Manufacturer Application Guidance: It is applied with roller, brush or spray and without added solvents (VOC).

Recent Vessels/Clients: AMC states that their AFS Hybrid coating has been applied on the bulb of a cruise vessel owned by a “leading cruise operator” since October 2011. Further details of the trial were unavailable.

The first ship to test the AMC anti-fouling range was the LNG carrier Berge Arzew owned by BW Gas. In mid-2009, large areas of the subsea and topside of the vessel were covered with the paint, with trial results said to be positive. Several types of coatings have also been applied to passenger ferries for Torghatten Nord, with results stated as promising although no specifics listed.

A Snapshot of the Market: Hull Coating Manufacturer Profiles


Brunel Marine Coating Systems

Brunel Marine Coating Systems are headquartered in Gibraltar.

In 1995, Brunel embarked on a project to ‘develop the most environmentally friendly and durable underwater coating possible’. Their first product, EnviroMarine, was launched in 1999.

The products in Brunel’s range are said to be completely inert, are able to be applied in high humidity conditions and harmless to the environment. Brunel can also supply bespoke coating systems tailored for the requirements of specific customers, such as for difficult substrates or diverse application circumstances.


EnviroMarine

EnviroMarine is a hard, inert coating. It is the only hard coating on the market that is made up of 100% solids. The finished coating has a surface co-efficient of friction less than that of glass, and is self-cleaning - very low speeds or water movement being sufficient to clear the surface of any growth.

According to Brunel, the impervious surface of this coating does not support marine growth, and performance is maintained without the need to shed sacrificial layers.

EnviroMarine only requires a total of three coats of 100 microns each, minimising application costs, dry docking time and additional vessel weight.

Type of Coating: Foul Release.

Known Ship Types: All.

Manufacturer Application Guidance: Can be applied quickly using a conventional airless pump. No specialised equipment or training is needed.

Certification: DNV has certified EnviroMarine as the only coatings system in existence approved for a ten year docking interval.

Other Stated Benefits: A coefficient of friction less than that of glass.

Recent Vessels/Clients: EnviroMarine was first applied to the forward and aft thirds of the M/V CP Prospect, a 225m containership, in 2000. The middle was coated with a top of the range anti-fouling paint system, supplied by a leading manufacturer, with an identical application method aside from the number of coats being greater due to requirements.

After six years of service which covered both sub-zero and tropical waters, the areas coated with EnviroMarine showed no signs of delamination or reduction in film thickness, compared with the middle third which has shed 85% of its coating. The owner subsequently elected to have the middle third coated with EnviroMarine.

In July 2009 EnviroMarine was also applied to the 6800m2 RoRo the MV Slingeborg, owned by Cobelfret. Which Brunel states is now realising significant fuel savings. However, the levels of these savings have not been made publically available.


31-32

Chugoku Marine Paints

Chugoku Marine Paints is a global supplier of high quality paints headquartered and based in Japan, with product ranges tailored for the marine, industrial and container sectors.

The company has been manufacturing marine paints since 1917 and has a service network that extends to 40 countries across Asia, America, the Middle East and Europe. Technical research laboratories are located in Otake City and Yasu City in Japan, Shanghai in China as well as in Singapore.

Chugoku Marine Paints offer the product series SEAFLO NEO.

SEAFLO NEO is a high performance TBT-free hydrolysis anti-fouling coating, utilising a unique polymer to deliver an ultra smooth surface and self-polishing performance. SEAFLO NEO is the lowest VOC (330g/L) antifouling in the hydrolysis category.


SEAFLO NEO

The SEAFLO NEO series is a hydrolysis antifouling coating, which uses polymers to deliver an ultra smooth, self-polishing surface. SEAFLO NEO is the lowest VOC (330g/L) anti-fouling in the hydrolysis category, Chugoku Marine Paints claim. The product promises fuel savings at 3 - 5 % due to the reduction of friction, and is effective for up to 90 months.

Type of Coating: Biocidal

Known Ship Types: Product Carrier, Chemical, Bulk Carrier, General Cargo.

Fuel Savings Claim: 3-5 %.

Verification: Company estimate based on joint tests with the Tokyo University of Science and the National Maritime Research Institute.

Extra Stated Benefits: Long paint life, reduction in paint consumption leading to a reduction in labour costs. A 30% reduction in the amount of paint used and 40% reduction in VOCs compared to conventional paints.

Technical Maturity: Over 100 vessels to date.

In-service Interval: Up to 60 months.

Recent Case Studies: Mitsui OSK Lines (MOL) adopted the low-friction SEAFLO NEO in 2011 for two newbuild car carriers. According to analysis by MOL, the paint offers improvements in fuel efficiency compared to conventional paints on newbuilds.

Information of Interest: Even lower friction can be obtained if SEAFLO NEO is used in combination with Universal Epoxy Primer “BANNOH 1500” which obtains high solid (73%) content and self-levelling technology.


Hempel A/S

Hempel A/S is an international coatings supplier based in Copenhagen, Denmark. The company was founded in 1915 and is currently represented in more than 80 countries.

Hempel supply coatings to the decorative, protective, marine, container and yacht markets. They operate 24 production plants across six continents. The company has a strong focus on research and development and operates 3 main R&D centres in Denmark, Spain and China as well as 7 Regional R&D application centres in the US, Bahrain, Singapore, Korea, Germany, France and the UK.

Their strategy for the marine industry is to offer efficient coating solutions for all vessel segments, with significant cost-saving benefits for vessel operators. As part of this, they have calculated average fuel savings for all their antifouling coatings and launched a new high-solids anti-fouling range in September 2012.

In the same year, Hempel also rolled out a new standard for evaluating antifouling performance - the Antifouling Performance Index (API). The API assesses the performance of an antifouling on a scale of 1 to 100, based on observed appearance and taking into account the three main types of fouling as slime, algae and animals. It is based on the ASTM D6990-05 performance standard for marine coatings.

In September 2013 Hempel launched an innovative silicone-hydrogel coating with a controlled diffusion of biocide. The product, HEMPAGUARD, showcases ActiGuard hydrogel technology, sustains fuel efficiency at a high level over a docking interval and keeps vessels free of fouling regardless of water temperature.


HEMPAGUARD – first with ActiGuard

HEMPAGUARD is the first coating product from Hempel to use ActiGuard technology in a commercial product.

According to Hempel, HEMPAGUARD releases 95 per cent less biocide than a standard SPC antifouling. Moreover, the biocide is temporarily retained at the surface during its release, thereby activating the surface, and eliminating the need for polishing as well as requiring only one coat compared to the two or three coats, needed in the case of antifouling. The surface has the same smoothness as conventional biocide-free silicone-based fouling release coatings.

The ActiGuard technology features a special active hydrogel micro-layer that provides a barrier between the solid silicone binder and the fouling organisms, thus boosting the antifouling barrier and significantly prolonging the fouling-free period. The performance and durability of the products has been tested over several years with outstanding results.”Hempel scientists have developed ActiGuard technology a biocide-activated hydrogel that not only protects against fouling, but also enables controlled release of biocide, irrespective of vessel speed.

According to the company, the low friction of the silicone hydrogel combined with the deterrent effect of biocides ensures an ultra-smooth hull surface for a significantly longer time than any conventional fouling control coatings.

Type of Coating: Biocidal.

Known Ship Types: Recommended for all ship types whose owners wish to benefit from flexible trading, fuel savings and fouling defence at any speed or during idle periods.

Service Interval: Up to 90 months.

Technical Maturity: Launched in September 2013.


33-34

Dynamic

Dynamic is an anti-fouling based on a hydrolysing silyl acrylate binder. Dynamic also includes an innovative formulation of inorganic fibre reinforcement which is said to ensure an extra high level of mechanical strength.

Variations on this product include:

• Dynamic 79540 – for vessels operating at medium to high speed and high activity with short idle periods• Dynamic 79560 – for vessels operating at medium speed and medium to high activity with short idle periods• Dynamic 79580 - for vessels operating at low to medium speeds and low to medium activity.




Manufacturer Surface Preparation: When applying over an existing old self-polishing or ablative antifouling, use a suitable detergent followed by high pressure fresh water cleaning to remove possible oil and grease and for a thorough removal of any possible weak structure of leached antifouling. Whether to use a tie coat or sealer coat depends on the condition and type of the existing antifouling.

GLOBIC 6000

GLOBIC 6000 is an anti-fouling coating based on Hempel’s patented nano-capsule binder technology.

GLOBIC 6000 also includes an innovative formulation of inorganic fibre reinforcement which is said to ensure an extra high level of mechanical strength.




Technical Maturity: Commercially available since 2012 but based on a technology commercial since 2006

GLOBIC 9000

GLOBIC 9000 is an anti-fouling coating built on a nano-capsule acrylate binder to enable highly controlled self-polishing. This unique, patented technology has been developed by Hempel over the past 10 years.

GLOBIC 9000 also includes an innovative formulation of inorganic fibre reinforcement which is said to ensure an extra high level of mechanical strength.




Manufacturer Surface Preparation: When applying over an existing old self-polishing or ablative antifouling, use a suitable detergent followed by high pressure fresh water cleaning to remove possible oil and grease and for a thorough removal of any possible weak structure of leached antifouling.

Whether to use a tie coat or sealer coat depends on the condition and type of the existing antifouling.

Technical Maturity: GLOBIC NCT, first nano-capsule technology product launched in 2006. GLOBIC 9000 launched in 2012.


OCEANIC +

OCEANIC+ is a self-polishing SPC antifouling with high solids content. An efficient bioactive mixture makes it suitable for protection on vessels operating in medium aggressive fouling waters.The controlled self-polishing is made possible partly by hydrolysis and partly by ion exchange. The patented inorganic fibre reinforcement of the binder ensures good mechanical strength.Variations on this product include:

• Oceanic+ 73950 – for vessels operating at medium to high speed and high activity with short idle periods• Oceanic+ 73900 - for vessels operating coastal trade at low to medium speed and (down to) low to medium activity with short idle periods• Oceanic+ 7395B – for flat bottom of deep sea going vessels operating at medium to high speed and high activity with short idle periods Type of Coating: Biocidal.


Service Intervals: Up to 60 months.

Technical Maturity: Commercially available since 2012.

OLYMPIC +

OLYMPIC+ is a self-polishing antifouling coating with a high solids content.

Ion exchange plays a major role in the controlled self-polishing and the bioactive package makes it suitable for protection on vessels operating in not overly aggressive fouling waters. The patented inorganic fibre reinforcement of the binder gives mechanical strength.

Variations on this product include:

• Olympic+ 72950 – for vessels operating at medium to high speed and high activity with short idle periods• Olympic+ 72900 - for vessels operating at low to medium speed and (down to) low to medium activity with short to medium idle periods• Olympic+ 7295B – for flat bottom of deep sea vessels operating at medium to high speed and high activity with short idle periods



Service Interval: Up to 36-months. Technical Maturity: Commercially available since 2012.


35-36

Hempasil X3

The Hempasil X3 coating, a third-generation foul-release paint based on hydrogel is free of any biocides. The smooth texture of the paint, enhanced by the thin hydro-gel layer, gives it a non-adhesive quality, and the silicone polymers facilitate self-cleaning.

Hempel guarantees fuel savings of up to 8% in the first year of using this coating and up to 6% in the second year when Hempasil X3 is combined with most of the on-board performance monitoring systems available on the market. However, the percentage guarantee varies with ship type.


Known Ship Types: All ships travelling at speeds above 8 knots.

Savings Claim: Ranges from 3.5% for an OSV to 8.2% for a VLCC. Specific estimates by Force Technology for full hull-application are as follows:

• RoPax: 4.8%• Container: 6.5%• Aframax Tanker: 7.2%• Bulk Carrier: 5.9%• VLCC: 8.6%• Gas Tanker: 5.1%• Supply Vessel: 3.5%

Fitting: Only a single coat is required.


Verification: Estimates by company and client testimonials as listed on website.

Technical Maturity: Since November 2008.

Recent Vessels/Clients: British Navy, Spanish Navy, Vrontados, Holland America Line, A.P. Moller-Maersk, IDO, BW Shipping.

In July 2011, Hempel signed a multi-million USD contract with United Arab Shipping Company (UASC) for use of its coatings on nine newbuild A13 containerships. In addition to the Hempasil X3 fouling release coating, the contract also included use of one-coat Nexus X-Seal tie coat solution, the Sea Trend fuel consumption data monitoring software and the Hempasil Helix propeller coating.

In 2011, Hempel also signed a contract with Vale to supply 150,000 litres of Hempasil X3 for the conversion of five VLCCs.



37-38

Interview with Claes Skat-Rørdam, Marketing Manager, Fouling Control, Hempel Hempel has launched their innovative new anti-fouling product at Fathom’s Ship Efficiency: The Event, during London International Shipping Week – What is the product and how does it differ from other anti-fouling products on the market?HEMPAGUARD® is a new groundbreaking fouling defence coating from Hempel using patented ActiGuard® technology. It offers unlimited trading flexibility, significant fuel savings, and outstanding idle periods compared to standard anti-fouling.

Hempel scientists spent five years developing and testing the ActiGuard® technology. We have used a silicone-based hydro-gel product, which has then been merged with biocides known from anti-foulings. What biocide agent does HEMPAGUARD release?We have chosen to formulate the coating with a component that does not contain copper oxides. It contains the same biocide that is currently being used in Hempel’s top range of anti-foulings, which has also been used in top anti-fouling products by other coatings producers. HEMPAGUARD® releases 95 per cent less biocide than a standard SPC. Moreover, the biocide is retained at the surface, thus eliminating the need for polishing as well as requiring only one coat compared with the two or three that are normally necessary in the case of anti-fouling. Does HEMPAGUARD have a minimum speed at which it is most effective?The effect is always the same, regardless of the trading pattern of the vessel and, in particular, when sailing at speeds as low as 8 knots or even during idle periods in aggressive waters. We have developed different variants of the product so that we can tailor-make products for the operational profile of the vessel. For one of the products there will be no requirement for minimum speed; instead, the criteria used to judge the suitability of the coating will be based on the activity of the vessel. Another product is along side the ‘one speed fits all’ product that will have a minimum speed requirement of 8 knots.

Which vessel types have been tested under sea trial conditions?The sea trials have been very promising, and HEMPAGUARD has been used on a wide range of vessels, including:• Bulk carrier;• Chemical tanker;• Chemical/Products tanker; • Container ship;• Crude oil tanker;• Cruise ship;• Fishing vessel;• General cargo;• Ro-Ro/passenger ship;• Ro-Ro/vehicles carrier;• Supply vessel;• VLCC;• VLOC. The applications are predominantly full ship applications.


Our flagship publication, Ship Efficiency: The Guide, notes that savings claims for hull coatings can be particularly substantial. What fuel savings figures can ActiGuard offer?It is pretty substantial indeed. The coating delivers fuel savings up to eight per cent on average, which we are very pleased with. Based on the aforementioned sea trials, what is the projected return on investment (ROI) of ActiGuard?We anticipate a ROI of less than 6 months, which we are happy about. This can be partly attributed to the cost of docking where the paint is applied. It also depends on whether or not the owner/operator chooses to apply it on top of the anti-fouling paint already on the hull of the ship, or if the operator chooses a full blast for their vessel and then uses the complete paint system. A key factor for choosing a hull coating is how a coating is able to perform during periods of idleness, super slow steaming, and in tropical waters. How has HEMPAGUARD performed under the conditions mentioned?We guarantee idling periods of up to 120 days.We are testing our products across the world, both on vessels and rafts. We have rafts in cold waters, medium waters and warm waters in Singapore. In all test areas we have seen outstanding results during periods of idleness.

Our tests have shown that HEMPAGUARD® retains its effectiveness when switching between slow and fast steaming anywhere in the world as well as during extended idle periods. This is particularly interesting for bulk carriers that can be redirected at short notice as well as larger container vessels and tankers that may wish to increase speed to meet schedules or slow steam to achieve extra fuel savings.

Could you explain the unique selling points of ActiGuard in more detail?The unique selling points are fuel savings and that we are able to offer in the same product the ability to provide fuel savings during operation but also excellent levels of bio-fouling protection during extended periods of idleness.

We see our product as an advantage for ship owners in the market today, especially owners of bulk carriers and tankers, who due to fluctuations in trade volume cannot be certain of what their vessel will be doing even in just a few months’ time. As global trade continues to contract and over-tonnage persists, the future operational pattern of a vessel is more uncertain than ever. With this product, we can provide fuel savings whilst the vessel is sailing, and then when the vessel is not sailing, the operator can enjoy anti-fouling protection for a long time. It is a single product with dual benefits. A key issue with coatings that the industry has struggled with historically is that coatings have been designed for a specific operational profile: a vessel with a specific activity level at a specific speed and at a certain water temperature. Other products are designed for static conditions and low speed, which are then sloughed off the hull if the vessel speeds up. The choice of hull coating has until now also been a choice of operational profile. In contrast, Hempel has now given the industry the flexibility to respond to market conditions in real time.


39-40

Currently there is no industry standard for measuring hull coatings performance. What is your view on the development of a global hull coatings standard?We welcome the introduction of a global standard. We would prefer for there to be only one standard, as if there are several then each standard on its own would not be worth e as much worth when compared to the one standard scenario. We believe that the development of a global standard will allow for easy differentiation between well and worse performing products. Is there a particular measurement method that Hempel recommends above others?Not particularly; what we welcome is a standard that has wide applicability and that has the backing of the industry. We would advocate an approach that is simple for ship owners and operators to familiarize themselves with and implement, because if the process is too complex we will not achieve the necessary uptake required to make the standard meaningful. What is the process of widespread commercialization for HEMPAGUARD and the time frame?The product will be globally launched at Fathom’s Ship Efficiency: The Event, which will be taking place at London International Shipping Week in September 2013. After that, other events in other markets will take place.

How will Hempel leverage HEMPAGUARD moving forward? Will it represent a separate line of hull coating solutions or become part of an existing product range?This will remain a separate line of hull coating solutions. We are currently looking at two products: firstly one with a life span of 36 months, and another with a life span of 60 months with scope to extend that up to 90 months.


HullSpeed Performance Marine Coatings

HullSpeed Performance Marine Coatings is a division of Greenfield Manufacturing Inc., based in New York, USA. The company was established in 1998 as a chemical manufacturing facility, with the HullSpeed product line established in 2002 originally for the performance sailing market.

Between 2009-2012, Greenfield was awarded US$340,000 in funding from New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) to further develop and commercialise the HullSpeed product line. Applications now extend beyond commercial and recreational marine vessels, with other viable uses including the aircraft, automotive, energy, industrial and construction markets.


3000 Series

The 3000 series are water-based silicone/epoxy copolymer coatings containing proprietary technology. These coatings are said to provide the abrasive protection of epoxy while also providing the surface release properties of dimethyl silicone, and are designed for improved fuel efficiency.

According to HullSpeed, the 3000 Series will adhere to a broad range of hull substrates including steel, epoxy, gelcoat, aluminium, fibreglass, carbon fibre and wood, as well as most plastics including epoxies, polyurethanes, and alkyds. The unique chemical bonding of these products is said to allow for easy repair and overcoating with a fast drying time.

Type of Coating: Foul release.

Known Ship Types: Tankers, cargo ships, passenger liners, military vessels, tug boats, supply vessels.

Fuel Savings Claim: 1-8%.

Cost: US$55/litre.

Verification: In-service data.

Certification: Meets EPA, USDA, and FDA 21 CFR 175.300 requirements.

Extra Stated Benefits: A low co-efficient of friction and ease of maintenance. According to HullSpeed, use of their coatings also results in smoother cornering, acceleration and deceleration.

Manufacturer Surface Preparation: No tie-coat is required prior to applying.

Manufacturer Application Guidance: Easily applied with conventional application equipment. In-service Interval: 60-84 months depending on use and bio-fouling conditions Technical Maturity: Since 2002.

Recent Vessels/Clients: New York Naval Militia, Florida Fish and Wildlife, Potomac Riverboat Company, Scotia Fire and Rescue.


41-42

Hydrex

Hydrex is the world leader in underwater repairs, replacement and maintenance, pioneering new methods and technology for in-water techniques to enable ships to continue operations without the need to drydock, and by insisting on the highest standards of quality for underwater repair and maintenance.

The company was founded in Antwerp in 1974 by Boud Van Rompay who continues as CEO. They are headquartered in Antwerp with regional offices in the U.S.A and Spain. From these offices Hydrex operates fast emergency-response diving teams which travel worldwide on call.

Hydrex repair specialities include stern tube seal repairs, bow thruster replacement, underwater hull repairs, propeller cropping and straightening and rudder repairs. Many operations are now conducted using Hydrex-pioneered flexible or rigid mobdocks, which dramatically shorten the time needed for repair.


ECOSPEED

Hydrex manufactures and supplies Ecospeed, the original hard, non-toxic coating system for underwater hulls. Ecospeed was developed starting in 1994 and has been adopted by shipping lines in all major sectors of operation since 2002.

The coating is classified as a Surface Treated Composite (STC), which consists of relatively large glass flakes in a resin base. Once conditioned by an in-water process involving special tools, the coating provides a very smooth, extremely hard protection for the life of the hull, guaranteed for at least 10 years, requiring only minor touch-ups during routine dry-docking. Unlike conventional anti-fouling and foul-release coatings which markedly deteriorate as a ship ages, Ecospeed becomes smoother and achieves maximum hull efficiency and fuel savings through routine in-water cleaning.

Due to Ecospeed’s environmental safety, in-water cleaning of ships coated with Ecospeed is approved in ports where in-water cleaning is normally banned.

Ecospeed does not offer conventional biocidal anti-fouling properties and Hydrex suggests that in-water cleaning of the hull should be conducted regularly, the frequency to be determined by the ship’s operating pattern and local water conditions. Because of the product’s non-toxic and non-metallic properties, this type of cleaning can occur even in ports with the strictest environmental regulations, such as Rotterdam and Seattle.

Ecospeed has proven to be a superior protection against ice and has had great success with icebreakers and ice-trading ships. Lloyd’s Register has certified Ecospeed for ice going ships, and permits a reduction of thickness of the steel plating in way of the ice belt of up to 1 mm where Ecospeed is used as the coating. Ecospeed is also particularly suitable for offshore vessels or those that are often stationary and not drydocked very often since the coating can be cleaned underwater as aggressively as needed to bring it back to its original pristine condition without fear of damaging the coating or harming the environment. It is also used by major ferry lines, cargo vessels, cruise operators, navies and others.

As part of an EU-LIFE demonstration project in 2008, stringent tests proved that the Ecospeed coating is 100% non-toxic with no negative effect on water quality or the marine environment at any point of its use or application. The product was awarded the 2012 National Energy Globe Award for sustainability.

Image Courtesy of Hydrex


Type of Coating: Hard Coating, Surface Treated Composite (STC).

Known Ship Types: All, including ice-class vessels and offshore ships and rigs.

Cost: Initial cost comparable to conventional AF or FR coatings and total ownership cost much less. Savings Claim: 10 – 25% total ownership cost savings compared to conventional AF or FR coatings (includes fuel savings, reduced frequency of drydocking and time spent in drydock, the cost of reapplication, environmental clean-up costs).

Fitting: Two coats required with a minimum over-coating time of 3hrs, no maximum.

Class Society Approval: Lloyds Register, ABS, DNV.

Certification: Certificate of design assessment. Abrasion resistant ice coating certificate. Class B1 superior ballast tank coating.

Verification: Tank tests carried out under supervision of the Antwerp Maritime Academy and the University of Ghent. Cavitation protection carried out in Grenoble, France. Ecological safety tests conducted in The Netherlands and British Columbia.

Manufacturer Recommended Spray Procedure: Ecospeed cures by chemical reaction, which starts as soon as catalyst is added and then proceeds quite quickly. When spraying use the minimum amount of catalyst permissible i.e. 1 % by volume.

Manufacturer Application Guidance: The surface shall be grit blasted to minimum Sa 2½ standard. The surface profile shall be minimum 75 microns (Rz). Ecospeed is a two-component coating. The quantity of catalyst used can be varied to suit the ambient temperature, and rate of cure desired. The range is from 1% to 2% for spray application. Airless spraying is the preferred method of application.

Using spray equipment to apply one full coat of catalysed material to a DFT thickness of 500 microns (WFT thickness of 616 microns). Allow to cure. The second coat can be applied as soon as the first coat is cured, approximately 3 hours at a temperature of 20 °C. Using spray equipment to apply the second full coat of catalysed material to a DFT of 500 microns (616 microns wet). The total DFT shall be minimum 1000 microns.

Recent Case Studies: Application on the Royal Research Ship Ernest Shackleton between 2009 and 2011 demonstrated that Ecospeed can survive the harshest conditions. At dry-docking in 2011, the hull coating was virtually intact and undamaged, despite over two seasons of breaking through ice up to 2.5m thick and with a high content of gravel and volcanic lava adding to the abrasiveness.

Ecospeed was applied to the container vessel M/V Baltic Swan between dry-dockings in 2008 and 2010. At dry-docking in 2010, the underwater hull was observed to be in virtually the same condition as it was when the vessel undocked two years before, with no damage from the large floating ice encountered on winter voyages. The captain of the vessel and the technical superintendent who specified the new coating were impressed with the hull coating condition.

A major cruise line (unnamed) converted two cruise ships from a TBT-based antifouling coating to Ecospeed in 2005/6. Executives of the cruise line announced a subsequent 10% fuel savings. When the company ordered two new cruise ships in the last few years, Ecospeed was specified as the coating. The cruise line subsequently won a prestigious environmental award mainly due to the non-toxic hull coating.

Information of Interest: The product comes with a 10 year warranty from Hydrex. More than 150 rudders have now been coated with Ecospeed.


43-44

International Paint

International Paint Ltd. is part of AkzoNobel. AkzoNobel is a leading global paints and coatings company and a major producer of specialty chemicals. The International Paint group is headquartered in Singapore and controls 13 specialist marine laboratories and operates in 60 countries worldwide. The company claim to be technology leaders in antifouling coatings, abrasion resistant coatings, ballast tank coatings and foul release coatings, with over 17 years experience in the latter. They introduced the first self-polishing copolymer (SPC) antifouling product in 1974.


Intersleek 1100SR

Intersleek 1100SR is the first biocide free fouling control coating to feature unique patented Slime Release technology to combat micro fouling. This product contains a new patented fluoropolymer which is an enhancement of the slime resistant polymer used in earlier generations of Intersleek, to influence and resist the adhesion and settlement of organisms that make up slime. The development of the new polymer included a three-year fundamental research programme involving a multi-disciplinary team of marine biologists, hydrodynamicists and polymer scientists. International Paint say that the team was supported by world renowned independent academic institutes, four years of laboratory testing and in service, full vessel performance data, from some of the world’s leading ship owners and operators. The coating is said to have improved static resistance even for ships travelling in warm waters. Slime that does build up during static periods is said to be released by the movement of the ship through water.

Type of Coating: Foul Release Known Ship Types: All. Suitable for slow steaming.

Technical Maturity: Released in February 2013. Trial vessels coated since August 2011. Savings Claim: Intersleek 1100SR offers proven fuel and emissions savings of up to 10% in comparison to controlled depletion polymer antifoulings. Verification: “We are extremely happy with the performance of the new Intersleek which has to given us over a year virtually slime-free performance on two of our Caribbean vessels,” stated Carnival Cruise lines.

Intersleek 900 Until the launch of Intersleek 1100SR, Intersleek 900 was the premium product in the range. Intersleek 900 is a patented fluoropolymer foul release coating, which presents the organisms with an amphiphilic surface, combining hydrophilic and hydrophobic properties in order to minimise the chemical and electrostatic adhesion between the surface and the fouling organism. Type of Coating: Foul Release. Known Ship Types: All vessels sailing faster than 10 knots, including scheduled ships, tankers, bulkers, general cargo ships and feeder containers. Savings Claim: Intersleek 900 offers proven fuel and emissions savings of up to 10% in comparison to controlled depletion polymer antifoulings. Verification: In 2008, Cunard converted their flagship liner the Queen Mary 2 from a silyl-based TBT-free self-polishing copolymer antifouling to the fluoropolymer foul release coating Intersleek 900, improving vessel efficiency by over 10% or the equivalent of US$30,000 a day. Technical Maturity: Released in 2007.


Intersleek 700. Intersleek 700 is a foul release coating based on silicone technology. Type of Coating: Foul Release. Known Ship Types: High activity, scheduled ships such as Container vessels, Reefers, LNG/LPG Carriers, Cruise Liners, RoRo’s and Vehicle Carriers which travel at 15-30 knots. Savings Claim: Intersleek 700 offers proven fuel and emissions savings of up to 7% in comparison to controlled depletion polymer antifoulings. Verification: VELA International Marine, converted the vertical sides of VLCC Alpha Star to Intersleek 700 in May 2005. Results were presented at Offshore Arabia Conference in 2006 and vessel speed improved by over 3% (equivalent to an efficiency improvement of over 8%). Technical Maturity: Released in 1999.

Intercept 8000LPP Intercept 8000LPP is a biocidal antifouling product featuring International Paint/AkzoNobel’s patented LUBYON® polymer technology. The company claims that LUBYON delivers predictable long-term hull coating performance. The coating has been extensively monitored with in-service performance validated on over 4 million DWT thus far. Intercept 8000LPP is said to replicate the linear polishing behaviour of previous tributlytin based antifoulings, unlike typical silyl and metal acrylate biocidal antifouling systems. Silyl acrylate based products typically polish slowly initially, with the rate of polishing steadily increasing thereafter, whereas typical metal acrylate systems polish fast initially before reaching a steady state.

The LUBYON polymer technology is also said to give the coating a ‘superhydrophilic’ surface creating a lubricating effect at the coating surface that also swells on contact with water helping to smooth out imperfections and potentially further reducing drag. LUBYON polymer technology reacts with seawater via a constant surface active zone releasing only the optimum amount of biocide over the scheme life to control fouling settlement. Critically, this biocide release rate is largelyunaffected by seawater temperature meaning Intercept 8000LPP has trading flexibility and can operate across global routes and through all seasons. Type of Coating: Biocidal. Known Ship Types: All, though specifically designed for deep-sea vessels. Manufacturer Surface Preparation Guidance: All surfaces to be coated should be clean, dry and free from contamination. Savings Claim: Intercept 8000LPP offers fuel and emissions savings of up to 5% in comparison to controlled depletion polymer antifoulings.


45-46

Intercept 8000LPP cont.. Verification: The coating has been monitored with in service performance validated on multiple vessel types including containers, tankers, bulk carriers and LNGs representing over 4 million DWT. In-Service Period: Up to 90 months. Technical Maturity: Launched in February 2013.

Intersmooth 7460HS SPC and Intersmooth 7465HS SPC Intersmooth 7460HS SPC and Intersmooth 7465HS SPC are low friction, true, pure hydrolysing self-polishing copolymer antifoulings for deep-sea vessels featuring high volume solids and low VOCs.

Patented copper acrylate technology delivers controlled chemical dissolution of the paint film, which ensures continued smoothing over long drydocking intervals.

Predictable polishing enables specifications to be tailored to specific ship types andoperational profiles, while thin leached layers allow simple cleaning and recoating at drydockings.

Intersmooth 7460HS SPC and Intersmooth 7465HS SPC provide fouling control for up to 60 months and share in the proven track record of Intersmooth SPC on over 34,000 vessels worldwide. Type of Coating: Biocidal. Known Ship Types: Designed for deep sea vessels at newbuilding and maintenance and repair. Savings Claim: Intersmooth SPC offers fuel and emissions savings of up to 4% in comparison to controlled depletion polymer antifoulings. In-Service Period: Up to 90 months. Technical Maturity: Launched in 2009.

Intersmooth 7465Si SPC Intersmooth 7465Si SPC is a low friction, SPC antifouling, based on patented silyl acrylate polymer technology. Intersmooth 7465Si SPC features 55% volume solids. Compared to lower volume solids products, this results in shipyard benefits of faster application, reduced wastage and pail consumption and lower solvent emissions to the atmosphere. Reduced overspray leads to lower contamination levels in dock and reduced applicator exposure. Particularly suitable for use where solvent emissions need to be reduced, this product has solvent emission levels of less than 400g/l VOC - some of the lowest silyl acrylate solvent emission levels in the industry. Intersmooth 7465Si SPC offers the same fouling control, up to 4% fuel savings and excellent patina resistance as its copper acrylate SPC counterpart, Intersmooth 7460/7465HS SPC. Type of Coating: Biocidal Known Ship Types: Designed for deep sea vessels at newbuilding and maintenance and repair. Manufacturer Surface Preparation Guidance: All surfaces to be coated should be clean, dry and free from contamination. Savings Claim: Intersmooth 7465Si SPC offers fuel and emissions savings of up to 4% in comparison to controlled depletion polymer antifoulings. In-Service Period: Up to 90 months. Technical Maturity: Launched in 2012.


JOTUN

The Jotun Group is headquartered in Norway. The company offers a range of decorative paints as well as marine, protective and powder coatings and is represented in more than 90 countries worldwide. Jotun offers a variety of high performance anti-fouling products and hold themselves at the forefront of technology innovation. The group has 71 companies and 36 production facilities on all continents. Marine coatings is a major part of the business, with 32% of sales in 2012 coming from this sector and a track record in the industry stretching back to 1926. More than 30,000 ships are painted with their wide range of marine products. It is well known as a market leader within high technology antifouling systems.


Hull Performance Solutions w/SeaQuantum x200

Since 2011, Jotun has offered Hull Performance Solutions (HPS) designed to make it easy to maximise hull performance and thereby reduce both fuel cost and GHG emissions. The solutions combine state-of-the-art antifouling and application technologies with reliable measurability and high performance guarantees.

As a part of its Hull Performance Solutions Jotun employs, at any time, the best coating technologies available in its portfolio. The current antifouling of choice is SeaQuantum X200. SeaQuantum X200 is Jotun’s first anti-fouling purpose designed coating to maximise initial performance (low friction properties) as well lifetime performance (anti-fouling properties) with no limitations in terms of formulation cost.

Known Ship Types: All. High Performance Guarantees are available for most, but not all, trades.

Cost: Around US$8.5 per m2 and year depending on ship type and year.

Savings Claim: Around 15% propulsion efficiency gain on average over a 60 month dry-docking interval as compared to a market average solution. This equates to around a 13% fuel cost and GHG emission saving if speed is to be maintained over the interval. The saving is based on comparing guaranteed minimum performance under a High Performance Guarantee with market average performance as per MEPC63-4-8.

ROI: Typically 6 to 18 months depending on ship type and trade. Jotun also states that, under its High Performance Guarantee, the ‘additional investment” in SeaQuantumX200 will be paid back if the guaranteed level of performance’ is not delivered.

Fitting: Approximately one week in dry-dock.

Class Society Approval: American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Korean register of Shipping (KRS), Lloyd’s Register (LR),

Verification: Performance over the full dry docking is documented based on Jotun’s Hull performance Measurement Method. This method has been judged sufficiently reliable so as to be used in performance based contracts by a number of ship owners worldwide. The methodology is also the starting point for on-going work on an ISO standard –ISO 19030.

Technical Maturity: Since 2000; Based on the next generation Silyl Methacrylate technology, SeaQuantum X200 is the culmination of more than 10 years of experience, 15 000 trial formulations and close to 8,000 full applications with the original SeaQuantum technology.

Technology Progress Since 2011: The Jotun Hull Performance Measurement method is currently in version 2, and has now been proposed as the baseline for work on an ISO standard. Jotun High Performance Guarantee is also currently in version 2, with a version 3 being planned for release later in 2013.


47-48

SeaQuantum

SeaQuantum is a self-polishing antifouling product based on a third generation silyl acrylate polymer technology, which hydrolyses when exposed to seawater. SeaQuantum offers tailor made solutions for special trading circumstances, for vessels with service intervals of up to 90 months.

Variations within this product range include:

• SeaQuantum X200 – The first silyl methacrylate antifouling (see Hull Performance Solutions);• SeaQuantum Ultra S – For low activity vessels and intense conditions;• SeaQuantum Classic S – For medium activity vessels;• SeaQuantum Plus S – For high activity vessels.• SeaQuantum Static – For static and laid-up vessels;• SeaQuantum Pro – For universal trades;



Savings Claim: Around 10% efficiency gain on average over a 60 month dry-docking interval as compared to a market average solution. This equates to a ~9% fuel cost and GHG emission saving if speed is to be maintained over the interval. The saving is based on comparing expected performance with market average performance as estimated in MEPC63-4-8.

ROI: Within 2 years, compared to a market average system calculated on a LNG vessel in average activity trade over 60 months.


Manufacturer Surface Preparation Guidance: All surfaces should be clean, dry and free from contamination prior to paint application, with high pressure fresh water cleaning used to remove surface contamination. Paint to be applied on a clean, dry approved primer/undercoat or intact self-polishing anti-fouling.

Manufacturer Application Guidance: The coating should not be exposed to oil, chemicals or mechanical stress until it is thoroughly dried. During application and the initial drying of the coating, the coating should not be exposed to high humidity as this can result in loss of gloss and discolouration.

Class Society Approval: American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Korean register of Shipping (KRS), Lloyd’s Register (LR).

Verification: Saving potential is based on estimations of product performance and can be verified by Jotun Hull Performance Measurement Methodology.

Information of Interest: Increasing film thickness will lead to increased drying time. When three or more antifouling coats are applied in a rapid succession, Jotun recommend a doubling of time to launch.

Technical Maturity: Since 2000 with over 8,000 vessels coated.


SeaMate

SeaMate is a self-polishing anti-fouling based on silyl acrylate binder technology providing a linear polishing rate. By providing excellent fouling protection and good hull performance the solution ensures maintained speed and schedule of the vessel.




ROI: Within 2 years (Compared to a market average system calculated on a LNG vessel in average activity trade over 60 months).

Fitting: Approximately one week in drydock.

Manufacturer Surface Preparation Guidance: All surfaces should be clean, dry and free from contamination prior to paint application, with high pressure fresh water cleaning used to remove surface contamination. Paint to be applied on a clean, dry approved primer/undercoat or intact self-polishing anti-fouling.

Manufacturer Application Guidance: The coating should not be exposed to oil, chemicals or mechanical stress until it is thoroughly dried. During application and the initial drying of the coating, the coating should not be exposed to high humidity as this can result in loss of gloss and discolouration.


Class Society Approval: American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Bureau Veritas (BV), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Korean register of Shipping (KRS), Lloyd’s Register (LR), Registro Italiano navale (RINA), Russian Maritime register of Shipping (RMSR).

Compliance: IMO Anti-fouling System Convention (AFS/CONF/26).

Technical Maturity: Since 2008 with over 1 400 vessels coated.

Information of Interest: Increasing film thickness will lead to increased drying time. When three or more anti-fouling coats are applied in a rapid succession, Jotun recommend a doubling of time to launch


49-50

SeaLion Repulse

SeaLion Repulse is a biocide free anti-fouling based on Nanorepellent Technology. It has a low surface energy which is both hydrophobic and hydrophilic that creates a bivalent surface to confuse the settling of organisms. This smooth and hostile surface secures good fouling control throughout the service period.




ROI: Within 3 years (Compared to a market average system calculated on a LNG vessel in average activity trade over 60 months)


Class Society Approval: Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Lloyd’s Register (LR), Germanischer Lloyd (GL),


SeaForce

Jotun’s SeaForce range balances anti-fouling performance with cost economy.

SeaForce limits the hull deterioration caused by fouling throughout the whole in-service interval. It has gained global recognition as an anti-fouling brand of proven quality, with 30 million litres applied on more than 15,000 vessels.

In order to meet different vessel operational requirements and budgets, the SeaForce brand range contains three products – SeaForce 30, 60 and 90 – allowing the most appropriate anti-fouling solution to be selected for specific vessels.



Savings Claim: An efficiency gain of 3% on average over a 60 month dry-docking interval as compared to a market average fouling solution. This equates to a ~3% fuel cost and GHG emission saving if speed is to be maintained over the interval. The saving is based on comparing expected performance with market average performance as estimated in MEPC63-4-8.

ROI: Within 3 years (Compared to a market average system calculated on a LNG vessel in average activity trade over 60 months).

Fitting: Approximately one week in drydock.

Class Society Approval: American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), Bureau Veritas (BV), Det Norske Veritas (DNV), Germanischer Lloyd (GL), Korean register of Shipping (KRS), Lloyd’s Register (LR), Registro Italiano navale (RINA), Russian Maritime register of Shipping (RMSR).



Technical Maturity: Since 2004 with over 15,000 vessels coated.


SeaLion Resilient

SeaLion Resilient is the newest product offering from Jotun: an efficient biocide-free hull protection that only requires the application of two coats. According to Jotun, this is the industry’s first anti-fouling coating to include epoxy-polysiloxane, a compound of resins and hardeners that provides highly resilient hull protection.

It is especially suitable for vessels where simple maintenance and efficient dry-docking are of utmost importance. The strong surface of SeaLion Resilient significantly reduces the risk of mechanical damage, maintaining the condition of the hull over the service period.


Known Ship Types: Especially suitable for vessels with fairly short docking intervals, such as passenger ferries, cruise vessels, offshore supply & service vessels, tugs, barges and navy vessels.

Savings Claim: 1 day less in dock based on docking efficiency due to a reduced need for vessel repair. Off-hire, dock hire and labour costs are also said to be reduced although not quantified by Jotun.

Fitting: Compared to any other anti-fouling, a minimum of one day less.

Class Society Approval: Det Norske Veritas (DNV) and Lloyd’s Register (LR).


Manufacturer Application Guidance: The coating should not be exposed to oil, chemicals or mechanical stress until cured.

Verification: Saving potential is based on estimations of docking efficiency and can be verified together with customer by using Jotun’s benefit calculator.


51-52

Micanti

Micanti was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in the Netherlands. Micanti developed a non-toxic fouling defence technology and patented it in 2006. The technology behind the coating is based on the theory of; by applying specific short fibres, organisms are unable to settle.

After several years of intensive testing on both static and moving objects, Micanti started to market the Thorn-D anti-fouling product into the shipping industry by 2011.

The Commercialisation of Thorn-D began with the aquaculture industry in Turkey, with Micanti expanding into this industry internationally before carrying out the first tests for commercial ships in 2009. After several years of research with institutes such as MARIN, TNO, and Delft Technical University, Micanti now provides Thorn-D to a range of commercial vessels in Europe, the Middle East and the US.


Thorn-D

Thorn-D is a special type of non-toxic coating which uses microfibres to create a physical barrier against marine growth. A surface of nylon microfibres on a polyester film prevents micro-organisms like mussels and barnacles from attaching directly to a vessel’s hull surface.

Tests with marine institutes such as MARIN have confirmed that these fibres have no effect on drag and will remain on a ship’s hull at speeds of up to 30 knots. The company also claims that this product will reduce fuel costs.

Micanti states that Thorn-D has a lifetime of 5 years.



Savings Claim: Said to “lower fuel costs” although no specific claim made.

Class Society Approval: ABS, Lloyds Register, Bureau Veritas.

Manufacturer Recommended Surface Preparation: For newbuilds, Thorn-D is applied directly on the anti-corrosive paint. For existing vessels, the hull needs to be hydro washed to remove all marine growth and a primer will need to be applied to seal the old anti-fouling layer underneath.

Recent Clients/ Case Studies: In February 2013, Micanti applied Thorn-D anti-fouling to the Lady Rasha crew vessel owned by Gulf Glory Marine Services.

Micanti reported in May 2013 that the owner of BMS Towing BV was very pleased with the result of nine months of Thorn-D application on the Willem-B tugboat.

In May 2013, the workboat operator Acta Marine chose to use Thorn-D anti-fouling on the Sara Maatje X.

Starting in May 2013, the Port of Amsterdam is conducting a year-long trial of Thorn-D on a patrol boat which will be compared with a sister vessel that has a conventional coating.


Nippon Paint Marine Coatings

Nippon Paint Marine Coatings (Nippon Marine) are based in Japan with wholly owned subsidiaries in China, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Malaysia. Although they have been in existence for over 40 years, the company began to independently manufacture their own marine coatings range in 2004. The company claims to be technology-orientated and has developed a unique series of coatings based on research around the hydrodynamic adaptations of sharks, dolphins, tuna, penguins and other marine animals that enable them to travel through the water efficiently. While some researchers have tried to reproduce the riblet structure of sharkskin, Nippon Marine chose instead to model their range on the mucous membrane employed by dolphins and tuna. Nippon Marine also has an explicit focus on environmental issues, having developed a tin-free hydrolytic anti-fouling paint in 1990, and has been ISO 4001 certified since 2003. Their stated manufacturing goal is to develop a revolutionary environmentally friendly technology based on a completely new concept, rather than improvements to existing technology and products.


LF-Sea

LF-Sea is a low-friction antifoul claimed to be more cost-effective than silicone type coatings. The coating contains a ‘hydrogel’ which traps sea water in tiny irregularities in a ship’s hull, so creating a smoother surface and reducing resistance.



Fuel Savings Claim: 4%

ROI: Cost simulator available on website.

Verification of Savings: Towing tank estimates; verified by in-service data on one vessel.

Use of the LF-Sea on the 28,000 DWT Seacliff bulk carrier is claimed to show a 4% power saving during sea trials.

Technical Maturity: Since 2007, with application on over 700 vessels.

Application Guidance: Directly applicable on existing tin-free anti-foulings without blasting.

Recent Clients/Case Studies: A 2010 trial of LF-Sea onboard the Neptune Ace, a 6,400 car PCTC owned by Mitsui O.S.K Lines, confirmed that this coating improved fuel efficiency. However, the level of fuel savings was not made publicly available.

American Eagle Tankers also applied LF-Sea to four of its vessels in 2008. The first vessel to be coated was the Aframax tanker Bunga Kenanga. Fuel savings from this trial are unclear.

EcoloFlex SPC

ECOLOFLEX SPC was the first TBT-Free hydrolysing self-polishing anti-fouling in the world from Nippon Paint. The coating contains a special acrylate copolymer developed with patented technology as the basic resin, and cuprous oxide as the main biocide.



Technical Maturity: As of December 2005, the product has been applied to far over 10,000 ships. In 2003, its perfect anti-fouling performance was proved on 4 large containers after the operation for 59 to 61 months.

In-Service Period: Up to 60 months.


53-54

ECOLOFLEX HyB

ECOLOFLEX HyB series was developed to further improve the performance and predictability of anti-fouling paint to new levels. Therefore, the development of this product was based on the original Ecoloflex SPC product. This product provides very accurate polishing rates and eliminates skeleton layers on the coating’s surface.This has been achieved by combining in a unique hybrid the ultra- reliability of Copper acrylate and the silyl resins.

ECOLOFLEX HyB types possess progressive patented technology to constantly expose fresh anti-fouling film to the ship’s surface.

The silyl resins in this product form the basis of the LF-Sea product.



Verification: Both new building and repair vessels have verified ECOLOFLEX HyB anti-fouling efficiency. The company claims that conventional self-polishing types usual have a life of around 2 years before the anti-fouling efficiency expires.ECOLOFLEX HyB provide constantly reliable levels of performance right up to the end of the service period.

In-service Period: Up to 30 months.

Case Studies: Various case studies are available on the website.


PPG Protective and Marine Coatings

One of the world’s largest coatings companies, PPG has built a track record with the clear and consistent way it researches, tests and releases products to the marketplace.

PPG has a policy of intensive, continuous development of their products, with their teams of Research and Development (R&D) scientists having worked on biocide-free technologies for over 20 years.

The R&D department uses state-of-the-art techniques such as surface analysis, contact angle measurements and sophisticated equipment including electron microscopes in order to assess and understand fouling protection mechanisms, and also partners with customers and suppliers to better understand their needs. To assess and continuously improve the quality of PPG coatings, the R&D teams also conduct raft testing at various locations around the world as well as trial applications on commercial vessels.


SIGMAGLIDE Range

The SIGMAGLIDE range, including SIGMAGLIDE 990, is completely biocide-free and is therefore unaffected by such legislation as the BPD (Biocidal Products Directive). With a very high solids content (80%), SIGMAGLIDE 990 easily meets stringent VOC regulations like the SED (Solvent Emissions Directive).

Type of Coating: Fouling Release.

Known Ship Types: Many different vessel types such as bulk carriers, cruise liners, container vessels, oil and gas tankers, Ro-Ro vessels, tugs.

Manufacturer Application Guidance: For newbuild vessels or spot blasting or full blasting, SIGMAGLIDE 990 should only be applied over SIGMAGLIDE 790. As a re-fresh coat, SIGMAGLIDE 990 can be applied over itself or SIGMAGLIDE 890 in line with PPG Protective & Marine Coatings SIGMAGLIDE General Working Procedures.

Savings Claim:Vessel Type Daily

bunker consumption (t)

Bunker cost (USD/t) Yearly fuel savings (USD x 1000)

Oil Tanker 40 400 500 600 700409 234 292 350

Bulk Carrier 33 400 500 600 700337 193 241 289

Container 90 400 500 600 700920 526 657 788

Note : The final saving percentage achieved is subject to a range of operational parameters like the average speed and operational activity of the vessel.

Recent Vessels/Clients: Greek operator Tomasos Group decided to convert their RO-PAX vessel Partenope to the SIGMAGLIDE 990 solution in 2012. This coating considerably reduced the vessel’s frictional resistance and delivered extremely low surface energy, leading to “significant” fuel savings which were recognised immediately after the vessel’s return to sea post-docking, although the exact figures are not publicly available. The company was so satisfied with the results that they decided to convert the sister vessel, the Trinacria.

Princess Cruises chose to apply the SIGMAGLIDE foul release system on the Star Princess in a project that first started in April 2004. After removal of the conventional anti-fouling system the SIGMAGLIDE system was applied, showing excellent hull conditions when inspected at regular dry-dockings in both 2008 and 2011. During the latter dry-docking, the owner also decided to apply a full refresher coat of third generation pure silicone SIGMAGLIDE 990 coating on the vertical sides of the vessel.

SIGMAGLIDE Range Contd overleaf.....


55-56

SIGMAGLIDE 990 was applied to the hull of the Neptune Okeanis in Sept 2010. Neptune Lines recorded an 8% reduction in the main engine fuel consumption per nautical mile at the same average speed of the vessel.

SIGMA SYLADVANCE Range

SIGMA SYLADVANCE 800

Hydrolysing anti-fouling coating with self-polishing and self-smoothing for both deep sea and coastal vessels. Suitable for a wide range of applications, SIGMA SYLADVANCE 800 can be specified for newbuilding and maintenance and repair applications.



Savings Claim: savings above 3% can be achieved, reduced GHG emissions.

Fitting: Suitable for newbuilding and dry docking applications.

Information of Interest: Highest solids content of all premium anti-foulings.

SIGMA SYLADVANCE 700

Pure silyl acrylate binder with high fuel savings potential. For vessels with medium- or high-operational rate at medium speed. High-volume solids 56%.



Savings Claim: fuel savings can be achieved, reduced GHG emissions.

Fitting: Suitable for newbuilding and dry docking applications.

Information of Interest: Highest solids content of all premium anti-foulings.


Sherwin-Williams

Sherwin-Williams is a global provider of protective and marine coatings, headquartered in the USA and with a presence in 120 countries worldwide.

The company offers a line of high performance coatings for the maritime industry with a particular focus on protection against corrosion.

A unique feature that the company also offers is the IMAGE (Information Management and Graphics Engine) system as a tool to help maritime customers select optimal coatings for their needs.

IMAGE provides access to an archive of thousands of data points and photographs to visually illustrate the performance history of many protective coating systems.

This application can be used to produce photographs, data plots and generate customised image reports of coating performance.

SeaGuard Sher-Release Surface Coat

The Sher-Release system is a foul release system that consists of the SeaGuard Surface Coat and SeaGuard Tie Coat in a three-layer tie coat formula. It is silicone-based and biocide free, with a key feature of the product said to provide its superior durability compared to similar coatings.

The biofouling protection of this system is said to be up to 50/% better than comparable fluoropolymer/silicone-based systems, causing marine organisms to be released from surfaces even at slow speeds and light water pressure.

Features of the SeaGuard Surface Coat are listed below.


Known Ship Types: Vessels trading at speeds down to10 knots e.g. container ships, cruise vessels, RoRos, tankers

Savings Claim: 6-10%

Key Stated Benefits: Long-life fouling protection and a reduction in operating costs and extended dry-docking intervals

Manufacturer Application Guidance: Apply over SeaGuard Tie Coat in observance with specified recoating intervals. The tie coat must be dry and free of any surface contamination.

Information of Interest: Sherwin-Williams advises consultation prior to use on vessels with cooling coils or cooling equipment positioned on submerged hull exteriors, due to the insulating effects of the cooling system


57-58

Chapter 4

Measuring Hull and Propeller Performance

By improving hull and propeller performance, the world fleet can reduce fuel costs by as much as US$30 billion per year and achieve an estimated 0.3% reduction in manmade GHG emissions. The main barrier to realising this potential has been a lack of an accurate and reliable method for measuring hull and propeller performance over time.

Numerous anti-fouling hull coating solutions have entered the market over the last decade, all that offer eye-catching fuel savings, attractive ROIs and bountiful operating cost reductions.

If a shipowner or operator is looking to be able to quantify the savings (or not) of any technology or measure, accurate measurement and monitoring of fuel consumption is vital.

The energy efficiency of a vessel can effectively be thought of as being directly linked to the fuel oil consumption. The fuel oil consumption can fluctuate to the extent that, without truly accurate measurement, savings can be difficult to identify, especially if they are in the region of 1-2 percent.

However, these small percentages saved or spent on each voyage add up to significant dollars saved or spent on the annual operating cost of a vessel.

However alluring the savings offered may be, what actually matters to shipowners is that the hull coating or hull-related fuel saving solution that is chosen delivers the savings promised and a reliable ROI.

The performance of hull coatings can be quantified by their impact on a ship’s speed and so it’s overall energy efficiency. However, there is more than one way to measure performance, more than one set of factors involved, and more than one time to capture the measurements.

It is crucial that a shipowner and operator therefore truly understands what is being measured and how it is being measured and on what basis any claims are made. ‘Savings’ could be perhaps a misleading term when it comes to hull coating savings claims.


Hull Fouling and Performance: The Relationship

The performance of a ship’s underwater hull deteriorates over a drydocking interval (the interval between two dry dockings). This deterioration is mainly caused by biological fouling and by mechanical damage to hull and propellers. The aforementioned damage and bio-fouling build up on the hull is also known collectively as ‘hull roughness’

Understanding hull roughness is an important factor in understanding ship, and therefore hull performance. Any increase in hull roughness will increase the hull frictional resistance which will either require additional power and fuel to maintain vessel speed or, if maintaining constant power, will result in speed loss and longer voyage times.

‘Hull and propeller performance’ is a term used to identify changes in the performance of a vessel’s hull and propeller over time, assuming no design alterations have been made during the dry docking interval. Specifically, it refers to the relationship between the condition of the hull and propeller and the propulsion power required to move the vessel through water at a given reference speed.

As a part of developing a definition for “hull and propeller performance” the propulsion power was selected as the metric (the alternative being speed).

According to this definition there is a 1:1 relationship between hull and propeller performance on the one hand and propulsion efficiency on the other.

According to MEPC\63\4-8 - A transparent and reliable hull and propeller performance standard:

For a typical vessel in a typical trade, deterioration in hull and propeller performance is now estimated to result in a 15 to 20 percent loss in vessel efficiency on average over a typical sailing interval for the entire world fleet (approximately 50 months). This corresponds to a 15 to 20 percent increase in bunker consumption and GHG emissions if the vessel maintains its speed. Given that a share of the bunkers consumed is used for purposes other than propulsion, and given that speed is not always maintained, the deterioration in hull and propeller performance is broadly estimated to account for 9 to 12 percent of current world fleet GHG emissions.


59-60

How to Measure?

There has been a great deal of attention amongst ship hull paint manufacturers on the subject of fully transparent measurements of hull and propeller performance.

Broadly speaking, three different methods can be deployed to confirm the effectiveness of hull coatings at preventing marine fouling:

1. Comparing two different coatings against each other, on different vessels of a similar type, over the same period of time.

2. Comparing two different coatings against each other, on the same vessel, in two different service intervals e.g. before and after dry docking.

3. Comparing one coating against “baseline” ship performance, over a period of time.

The above are the methods explained at their most simple. International Paint and BMT explain these three methods thus:

1. Directly comparing the in-service vessel performance when using one fouling control system over its full lifetime to that of another fouling control system over its full lifetime. 2. Directly comparing a period of time in-service prior to dry-docking with one fouling control system to the same period after the dry-docking and application of a new fouling control system.

Different periods can be used, however it is recommended that the full intended lifetime of a system is used as a basis of comparison, especially if the comparison is to be used for commercial decisions. The use of comparing systems on a 12 month ‘snapshot’ is thought to be inaccurate by some in the industry as if solely the first period is used as basis for comparison, such a system would appear an attractive investment as the coating may perform better immediately out of dry dock immediately after the coating has been applied, however, it may perform worse prior to dry-docking due to the time elapsed since coating.

3. Directly measuring the same fouling control system over a given time period. For this method a rule that a vessel on average will lose five percent speed over a 60-month period can be used.

However, Jotun estimates that the average speed loss is 5.9%, rounded up to 6% (based on historical performance data now from more than 100 full dry-docking intervals across all major sub-vessel types and anti-fouling technologies). As an indication, a 5% speed loss would translate to roughly a maximum average of 15% increase in fuel in order to maintain speed. This assumption is not specific on fouling control type. The baseline data is then compared to the performance predicted or measured in service.

Each method has its pros and cons:

- To be most accurate, method number 1 requires hull coatings to be analysed over their full lifetime and to be analysed on vessels that travel in similar operating conditions.

- Method number 2 has the advantage of giving a comparison over the vessel’s lifetime, as described in method 1, however the method being of applicable for shorter in-service periods such as 12 months is questionable. In any case it requires that no other changes to the hull are made at dry-docking and if fuel consumptions is to be compared, no changes to the engines are made at drydocking.

- Method number 3 relies on an assumption regarding “baseline” deterioration in hull performance, for example typically 5-7% of their speed over a 50-month in-service period.

None of these aforementioned methods offer a perfect comparison of performance but they certainly all offer a valuable proxy.


What to Measure?

A commonly used proxy for measuring hull coating performance is to measure the resistance of the hull, in other words how easily a ship moves through the water.

However, ship resistance is difficult to measure directly unless under towing tank conditions with minimal variables and there are a wide range of factors that influence it.

These include environmental factors such as wind, waves, currents, water depth, water temperature and density, and ship-specific factors such as the state of the propeller, propeller pitch, draft, trim and rudder activity.

A standard approach to singling out the individual factors is to create theoretical or empirical models for each single factor and then use those models to make resistance corrections to a standard baseline of performance.

Separate models are commonly developed for each component of resistance by using tank tests of small-scale models.

However, this approach has several problems.

Firstly: the practitioners measuring resistance tend to include varying components in their calculations. This makes the results of different tests inconsistent, and makes it difficult to compare predictions of power across similar ships.

Secondly: the exploration of interactions between these components can be left uncharted. Fluctuations in one factor can affect changes in another, leading to complex effects that can be difficult to account for.

Thirdly: using small-scale ship models also has drawbacks. When it comes to scaling these models up to real life size the accuracy of the calculation can be affected.

An alternative method, utilised by software providers MACSEA for one, demonstrates the use of the ships propeller as the primary measuring instrument of ship resistance. The work output of the propeller is measured, with the general rule of increased fouling equaling increased propeller work.

Analysing the horsepower of the propeller over time and comparing this with ship speed can quantify the effects of hull fouling.

One limit of this approach is that to rule out the influence of other factors, the measurements need to be taken in the same operating conditions every time.

However, MACSEA claim that this method has proved incredibly accurate. The company quotes that through the use of a data set of 3,326 measurements, their calculated difference between predicted and actual performance was only 0.04% of the maximum power range.

Once the method of comparison has been chosen and the key performance factors identified, the actual measurements can take place at varying times.


61-62

In a presentation to Bellona Foundation in January 2013, MARIN summarised each method as well as their pros and cons:

Method Pro ConDedicated Speed trials Most accurate method

Results easily understoodOnly for performance decay over time Interesting effects may be missed due to time between trialsDedicated manoeuvres neededLimited volume of data

Noon reports Easy to implementData is already there

Changing weather conditions over 24hrs must account for acceleration and decelerationManual input from crew limits accuracyTime between measurement points very large

Continuous monitoring Big volumes of dataCan detect short-term changes in performance

Less accurate than speed trialsRequires sophisticated analysisLarge dataset which can contain inexplicable performance deviations

The best method will depend on the objective of the monitoring. This will depend on factors such:- the person in charge;- the available resources;- the operational profile of the ship;- the ship type.

Developing a Standard Method for Measuring Hull Performance

Key conclusions of the January 2013 workshop:• A commonly accepted framework for measuring hull and propeller performance would offer both economic and environmental benefits.• An ISO Standard is a suitable way of achieving this.• Agreement on a set of relevant measurement purposes for such a standard, including the need to measure the success of any improvements made to a ship's hull and/or propeller, both to enable performance-based contracting by companies and inter-company reporting.• To explore a standard with tiered levels of accuracy, to be fit for specific purposes and yet still applicable to large portions of the world fleet.• To only use the standard to rank ships against themselves, not create rankings within classes.


The Current Status of the Standard

It was recently announced that a New Work Item Proposal has now been approved by the International Standards Organization (ISO).

The working group now has a deadline of 18 months to develop its draft deadlines under ISO requirements. With this tight timeframe in mind, the ISO working group will produce a draft standard over the next 6 to 12 months. This means that with a subsequent period of open voting following the standards submission to the ISO, they could be finalised by mid 2015.

The new work for the ISO would be to develop a voluntary code, not for regulatory use. But the fact it is considered necessary is likely to drive the impetus for other bodies to push ahead with similar standards.

How will the Standards be Formulated?

The standards are being worked on in three parts, namely the principles of how to use them, the level of accuracy needed, depending on how the standard will be used, and also in-company learning — how to ensure ships’ crews and other involved parties can best use the data.

The standards can also be used in commercial guarantees, written into contracts between ship operator and the coatings manufacturer. One of the biggest hurdles for the standards, and one found with any fuel efficiency drive, is the hurdle of charterparties that give owners little incentive to maintain a fuel-efficient vessel when they do not reap any benefit from operational savings. This has to be overcome, otherwise any operational standard between supplier and operators could be pointless if all the parties are not involved.

Key Industry Studies

In-depth information on the benefits of hull coatings and hull solutions and a range of industry papers have been published with a plethora of comprehensive data sets and case studies.

For this publication, Fathom has chosen key papers and summarised their key points for easy reading.

Clean Shipping Coalition – Submission to IMO MEPC 63rd Session - 63/4/8

In December 2011, the Clean Shipping Coalition, in partnership with Jotun, presented a paper to the IMO’s MEPC 63rd session regarding “A transparent and reliable hull and performance monitoring standard”. Although this paper was not a case study per se, it did summarise several key pieces of information about the state of anti-fouling performance measurement.

Key conclusions: For typical vessels, CSC estimates a 15-20% decrease in vessel efficiency on average due to hull and propeller deterioration over a sailing interval.

A review of performance guarantees from coatings manufacturers showed that the most ambitious promised a maximum speed loss on average of 1.5% over the dry-docking interval. This corresponds to a maximum vessel efficiency loss of 4% over 54 months, meaning that the vessel efficiency improvement potential associated with anti-fouling can be estimated as 11-16%.

Measuring performance based on a reliable and unbiased standard is recommended.


63-64

Eniram – Hull Fouling on Cruise Ships

In 2012, Eniram completed a rigorous analysis of cruise ship performance in order to help shipowners and operators estimate the impact of fouling in different areas.

Method: Eniram analysed 60 cruise ships over 38,000 operative sea days, taking measurements of performance data at up to 25 times per second. By complementing this data with temperature and salinity databases, the study was also able to account for the impact of dry-docking and washing on fouling.

These cruise ships in question were between 90-120,000 GRT and sailed through the Caribbean, the coastal seas round California and Alaska as well as the Mediterranean and the Baltic. Each vessel sailed at least 30 days in a single area.

Key Conclusions: The study showed that operating in areas with a heavy development of fouling could increase costs by around US$500,000 per year on a single cruise vessel.

There are significant differences in the aggressiveness of fouling between regions: on average, the Caribbean caused the most fouling and the Alaskan area the least.

Analysis of in-water hull cleaning also showed that the first and second of these washes decreased the added power consumption of vessels by 2% depending on the coating. However, fouling continued to increase rapidly after the washes, and brushing also had the negative side-effect of removing some of the coating from the hull itself.

On the other hand, dry dock cleaning was able to reduce the added power consumption by 5%.

Similar studies are being planned in order to provide more examples of the costs of cleaning strategies, study the effects of different cleaning techniques, and analyse the impact of different coating systems on the extent of hull fouling.

Jotun - Clean Shipping Coalition

Jotun submitted a paper to the Clean Shipping Coalition on hull and propeller performance which fed into the above summary submitted to the MEPC in December 2011.

Method: Jotun analysed changes in hull and propeller performance on 32 vessels over 48 dry-docking intervals, covering most sub-vessel types and anti-fouling technologies. The typical length of the sailing interval was 54 months. The study also included vessel performance data from 8 LNG vessels covering 12 dry-docking intervals.

Key conclusions: Average speed loss per year across all the dry-docking intervals was 2.36%. This implies a cumulative speed loss of 10.6% over a typical dry-docking interval, corresponding to a 32% reduction in vessel efficiency.

On average over a typical dry-docking interval this results in a 16% efficiency loss. However, a number of the vessels included in the study had also conducted ad-hoc or regular hull and propeller cleaning. If these cleanings had not been done, the efficiency loss would have been even higher.

On average over a typical dry-docking interval the LNG vessels experienced a 17% vessel efficiency loss attributable to a deterioration in hull and propeller performance.




Jotun’s Hull Performance Solutions may be a sign of what’s to come in the hull coatings market. The solutions combine Jotun’s top-of-the-range SeaQuantum X200 antifouling with what Jotun refers to as “state-of-the-art paint application procedures, reliable performance measurements and high performance guarantees”. According to Jotun, for ships operating on a fixed schedule, the Hull Performance Solution can be expected to deliver a 13% fuel cost and GHG emission saving – making it “one of the most attractive investments in shipping today”. Fathom sat down with Geir Axel Oftedahl, Director of Business Development for Jotun’s Hull Performance Solutions, to better understand what underlies these bold claims.

Q. A 13% fuel cost and GHG emission saving is very impressive. On what do you base this claim?

A. In close cooperation with a number of our ship owning customers we have analysed historical ship performance data from more than 150 full dry-docking intervals – covering all major antifouling technologies from Jotun as well as from our competitors. Based on the data, the average propulsion efficiency drop, attributable to deterioration in hull and propeller performance, was found to be 18% over a 60 month dry-docking interval. This is in line with findings from other studies and, in our opinion, the best available estimate of what may be referred to as market average hull and propeller performance today.

As a part of our Hull Performance Solutions we guarantee that propulsion efficiency loss on average over a 60 month dry docking interval shall not exceed 4.5%. The difference between market average and our guaranteed level represents a 13.5% gain in propulsion efficiency.

In addition, the combination of the low friction properties in SeaQuantumX200 and state-of-the art application procedures result in an improvement also in initial performance. We very conservatively estimate the additional propulsion efficiency gain to be in the range of 1.5% - for a total gain of 15% on average over a 60 month dry docking interval.

On an average ship around 85% of fuel is consumed for propulsion purposes while the rest is consumed for other purposes. Therefore, on ships on a fixed schedule, a 15% propulsion efficiency gain would typically translate into a 13% saving in overall fuel cost and GHG emissions. On ships that must maintain speed only half the time, and that can accept a loss of speed the other half, the fuel cost and GHG saving would be around 8.5%.


67-68

Q. As a part of your solution you offer your own method for measuring delivered hull and propeller performance – Jotun’s Hull Performance Measurement Method. Why should a ship owner trust this method?

A. In order for our High Performance Guarantee to be meaningful to our customers, we need an accurate and reliable methodology for measuring hull and propeller performance. When we started work on our Hull Performance Solutions back in 2008, there was no commonly accepted methodology available on the market so we saw no other choice but to develop such a methodology ourselves.Jotun’s Hull Performance Measurement Method has been judged sufficiently reliable so as to be used in performance based contracts by a number of leading ship owners worldwide. The methodology is also the starting point for on-going work on an ISO standard – the ISO 19030.

Jotun’s Hull Performance Measurement Method is fully transparent. The full details of the methodology have been placed in the public domain and the performance data is generated by the ship owner’s own measurement equipment. Therefore, whenever the need arises, an independent third party can be called upon to verify any aspect of the methodology or the resulting measurements.

Q. And what happens if expected performance is not delivered?

A. With our Hull Performance Solutions we have made it our business to deliver performance– not only paint. Therefore, if promised performance is not delivered, the customer should not pay.Our high performance guarantee is really a cash-back guarantee. If guaranteed performance is not delivered we pay back a sum of money – typically amounting to the difference in price between our high performance solution and a market average solution.

Thereby, while the expected return on the investment is considerable, the investment is virtually risk free. This is why we are so confident that our Hull Performance Solutions is one of the most attractive investment opportunities in shipping today.


ABB/Amarcon - Octopus

ABB has been delivering the Octopus software suite since it s acquisition of Amarcon in 2012. This broad range of software tools builds on core elements of motion sensors and weather forecasting to offer performance and fatigue monitoring, wave and motion data, dynamic positioning advice and fleet management.

The “OCTOPUS-Performance” module is the key extension to the system, designed to deliver fuel savings it allows for onshore analysis of vessel data to produce recommendations of optimum throttle and trim settings, as well as giving an assessment of hull and propeller condition to assist with condition-based maintenance strategies.

All information regarding hull performance is stored and used to give clear insight into hull and propulsion economics, including the calculation of power speed curves.


Service Provided: Decision support and hull performance integrated into data analysis suite, plus onshore analysis of data.

Real-time Feedback: Yes. Using the onshore database, owners can identify the performance of their fleet at any place.

Fuel Savings: 2-10% possible when combined with Octopus Onboard.

BMT Group - SmartVessel

BMT offers the SmartVessel performance-monitoring tool as part of the SmartServices software suite, a package of measures to help owners and operators make informed decisions on maintenance and operations.

SmartVessel measures factors such as speed, shaft power and fuel consumption, presenting this information visually to the crew using graphs and data comparisons next to traffic light Key Performance Indicators. The causes of degradation in performance can be measured over time.

Known Ship Types: Tanker, LNG and Cruise Ships.

Monitoring Method: Hydrodynamic modelling is used to formulate five key performance coefficients, which incorporate the state of the hull.

• Power Coefficient – an increase in this coefficient correlates to increased power absorption, due to the effect of fouling on the ship’s hull or propeller.

• Hull Coefficient – this is a proxy measure to the hulls condition due to fouling over time.

• Propeller Coefficient – indicates the propulsive efficiency of the propeller in isolation.

• SFOC (Specific Fuel Oil Consumption) Coefficient - a measure of the fuel consumption of the main engine is a direct indication of engine efficiency.

• FOC (Fuel Oil Consumption) Coefficient – highlights the overall changes in fuel consumption and is an indication of total vessel performance.Users can perform data analysis on the results to isolate trends in individual factors and so identify changes in hull performance over time. Real-time Feedback: Yes. Visual plots of performance.

Information of Interest: New software tools, based on BMT SmartPower which was released in 2008.

A Snapshot of the Market: Hull Monitoring Software Providers


69-70

DNV Petroleum Services Limited (DNVPS) - TOP Monitoring

DNVPS offers the Technical Operations Performance (TOP) monitoring service that collects onboard data on main engine performance, auxiliary engine performance in addition to the hull and propeller.

This data is sent to DNV experts for analysis, who generate customised recommendations to improve performance and carry out necessary maintenance tasks.

Known Ship Types: All types with two-stroke engines.

Monitoring Method: TOP collects engine performance data from participating vessels equipped with two-stroke engines. The monitoring system uses normal engine monitoring equipment plus a torque meter and a Mean Indicated Pressure (MIP) calculator as the only additional hardware.

Calculation Method: Derives a Technical Condition Index (TCI) from the above data, corrects for ISO conditions and then creates performance trends which are used to generate recommendations.

Service Provided: Onboard monitoring and analysis by DNV experts.

Real-time Feedback: It appears not, due to need for third party analysis.

Eniram - Onboard/ Onshore

Eniram offer a range of modular software solutions from onboard applications to comprehensive onshore fleet analysis and data analytic services. All Eniram solutions are fed data by the Eniram Vessel Platform (EVP), a data collection platform that holds accurate real-time data from multiple sources.

Hull Fouling Analysis is an analytics service, which helps to identify and quantify performance degradation due to impact of hull fouling and hull aging. This service uses both the extensive data collected and the experience and skills of Eniram’s mathematical modelling and interpretation capability.

Eniram has also carried out one of the most comprehensive studies of fouling on cruise ships (See previous listed study).

Known Ship Types: All large commercial vessel types.

Service Provided: Monitoring and analysis.

Real-time feedback: Yes.

Key Features: A performance forecast for the following quarter, recommendations for cleaning/polishing, document hull performance over time and notification of unexpected changes to hull performance.

Key Stated Benefits: Plan optimum hull cleaning intervals on a cost-effective basis, monitor the effects of different cleaning methods, and evaluate the effect of fouling on hull structure after several dry docks.


FORCE Technology – SeaTrend

FORCE Technology offers the ‘SeaSuite’ software product range that focuses on fuel efficiency and safety. This range is based on the company’s experience of over 50 years in offering hydrodynamical consultancy, services and products.

The SeaTrend product combines an on-board reporting tool and shore-based web-enabled database. This includes analytics which can assess hull and propeller condition through use of hydrodynamic models and also analyse charter parties and voyage reporting.


Cost: Around US$2000 a year according to hull coatings manufacturer Hempel.

Service Provided: SeaTrend can produce analysis reports which contain a graphical trend analysis of the fouling of a hull and propeller. From these graphs it is possible to determine the speed loss or fuel increase over time due to fouling.

Real-time Feedback: Limited. FORCE Technology states that reporting is “normally on a daily basis”.

Monitoring/Calibration Method: Shipowners send details of their vessels to Force, who then create mathematical models of these and configure the software to align with them.

Kongsberg - Ship Performance System

Kongsberg offers the Ship Performance System (SPS), an onboard system designed to assist operators in optimising the fuel consumption of the vessel. It is based on a combination of Kongsberg’s automation technology and Marorka software modules and monitors performance and emissions in real-time.


Service Provided: The software includes an analysis module, which measures hull performance in terms of kWh per nautical mile.

Real-time Feedback: Yes. The SPS includes Ship@Web, an information management system designed to enable continuous access to primary vessel data both on-board the vessel and from ashore.


71-72

Kyma - Ship Performance Analysers

Kyma offer high quality performance monitoring products for all types of vessels. The company offers the Ship Performance monitor as an online performance-monitoring program.

Kyma Performance Monitoring makes it possible to evaluate the economic impact of reduced propeller efficiency and increased hull resistance. It is said to be able to show the effect of any action taken to improve hull or propeller smoothness. Known Ship Types: All.

Service Provided: Performance monitoring which can be accessed online.

Real-time Feedback: Yes, data streaming over the internet.

Monitoring Method: Information from this system is based upon inputs from the shaft power meter, fuel meter, speed log, GPS and anemometer. The output information is presented as noon to noon and voyage reports, trends as well as graphs where the actual operating data is compared to reference data.

Recent Vessels/ Clients: An extensive list which includes major names in the industry such as Maersk, Chevron and Mitsui OSK.

MACSEA - Hull Medic

MACSEA offers the Hull Medic software module as part of its DEXTER suite of ship performance monitoring tools.

The software is said to be able to detect the onset of hull fouling and determine the optimal intervals for hull cleaning and painting. It can also quantify fuel savings from prudent hull condition maintenance, measure the long-term degradation in hull and propeller efficiency, and determine if the hull coating is performing as advertised.


Service Provided: Expert analysis by onshore teams plus continuous monitoring.

Real-time Feedback: Yes, data analysis is automated.

Cost: US$495 per ship per month for a two year subscription (for 10 ships or more).

Monitoring Method: Uses the ship’s propeller as a ‘power absorption dynamometer’, comparing actual performance to “clean-hull” performance and collecting over 100,000 data points each month to measure the difference between measured power and model-derived power and analyse the influence of individual factors.

Information Outputs: Speed, power, and fuel losses due to hull fouling.

Calibration Method: A model of a fully functional and clean propeller is created immediately after hull conditioning in dry-dock, and measurement of the ships performance in placid sea conditions. That data is then used as a baseline against which power increases over time are measured.

Information of Interest: The software is also said to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of alternate paint systems, validate energy-saving technologies related to ship performance.

Recent Clients: Thirty years of experience with US Navy.


Marorka - OnBoard

Marorka markets a comprehensive ship efficiency management tool called OnBoard. The system is modular, with elements of the tool relevant to navigation, hull monitoring and efficiency of auxiliary systems. The “Propulsion Optimization” application can monitor the efficiency of the hull in terms of performance, as well as helping operators make efficient use of their propulsion system by providing a clear picture of the energy efficiency of each other component.


Service Provided: Monitoring of the hull and remote fleet management. Marorka OnBoard includes propulsion optimisation module, which monitors the engine, shaft and propeller to give an overview of propulsion efficiency and hull condition. The module also gives decision support in terms of RPM, pitch, rudder and thermal efficiency. Marorka Online is a web-based fleet management application that gathers performance data from ships equipped with Marorka OnBoard products, allowing the fleet manager to track and compare energy performance and the condition of the fleet. Real-time Feedback: Yes, can collect data from over 500 data sources every 15 seconds.

Key Vessels/Clients: Contract signed in 2011 to install system onto the entire fleet of Greek owner Thenamaris, comprised of around 45 tankers, bulkers and container ships

ClassNK-Napa Green

NAPA Group offers the ‘NAPA for Operations’ range of products that include specific software modules with energy and fuel saving benefits.

It is currently developing the Class NK-NAPA Green software system, which is claimed to be a total solution for planning, monitoring and follow-up of ship operations with a focus on fuel efficiency.

Key modules relevant to hull performance include real time monitoring for keeping track of multiple data sources onboard the vessel, analysis services for analysing hull and propeller condition, voyage reporting for collecting and recording data, and an office portal for follow-up and analysing the results.

This software is said to be able to automatically determine the cause of changes to the ships efficiency or operating conditions.


Service Provided: Monitoring, data analysis and decision support.

Real-Time Feedback: Yes.

Savings Claim: Potential saving of up to 30%.

Class Society Approval: Joint project with Class-NK.

Verification: Sea trials pending.

Recent Vessels/Clients: Imabari Shipbuilding and Sayonas Shipbuilding to install Class NK-NAPA Green on board several existing vessels with further development and verification to take place in 2013.


73-74

Propulsion Dynamics - CASPER

Propulsion Dynamics offer the CASPER (Computerised Analysis of Ship PERformance) service, which compares the actual performance of the ship to its performance as new.

The primary products of this service are CASPER reports, which include a variety of indicators that can be used to create an energy management plan. Specifically, the reports enable operators to make cost-benefit decisions on dry-dock treatment, coating selection, hull cleanings, and propeller polishing as well as evaluating the merits of slow steaming.

Active ships in the CASPER service increased by 20% in 2012.

Known Ship Types: All vessels with single displacement hulls over 5,000 DWT in blue water operation (voyages of at least 18 hours or more). Propulsion arrangements include: slow speed diesel, diesel electric, single or twin screw.

Service Provided: Analysis by onshore teams of naval architects.

Real-Time Feedback: No, as vessel performance data is recorded at periodic intervals.

Monitoring Method: Performance data is captured by the crew and forwarded to the Propulsion Dynamic offices for analysis, resulting in precise calculations of speed, fuel consumption and resistance. By incorporating factors such as the speed of the ship through water, data from sea trials, and calculated resistance into mathematical models, Propulsion Dynamics is then able to calculate the ships “added resistance”, which is the difference between its ‘new’ and ‘actual’ performance.

Cost: US$700,000 based on Teekay fleet feedback of 90 vessels. Low vessel entry fee with monthly subscription service. No capital investment or equipment required. The company says specific fees available upon request.

Savings Claim: In their Carbon Disclosure Project Report in 2011, Teekay stated that it found 1-3% efficiency savings through timely hull and propeller cleaning, which CASPER’s calculations can aid.

ROI: One year but some customers have noted less than that. Technical Maturity: Since 2002; over 350 vessels and 5,000 CASPER reports.

Recent Vessels/Clients: Teekay is reported to have subscribed 90 of its tankers to the CASPER service, as well Norden, reportedly subscribing 50 vessels to the service

Information of Interest: Over 50% of the ships in the CASPER service are with shipowners who have won the Green Ship or Clean Air Award


Market Overview

Company Product Form of Analysis Service ProvidedABB/Amarcon Octopus Integrated into software Software modulesBMT Group SmartVessel Specific module – hull

performance coefficientSoftware modules and expert analysis

DNV Petroleum Services Limited

TOP Monitoring Integrated into software Software modules and expert analysis

Eniram Onboard/ Onshore Integrated into software Software modules and expert analysis

FORCE Technology

SeaSuite Specific module - SeaTrend Software modules

Kongsberg SPS Integrated into software Software modulesKyma Performance

Monitoring suiteIntegrated into software Software modules

M.A.C System Solutions

SPMNet Integrated into software Analysis

MACSEA Ltd DEXTER suite Specific module – Hull Medic Software modules and expert analysis

Marorka OnBoard Integrated into software Software modulesClassNK-NAPA ClassNK Napa

GreenIntegrated into software Software modules

Propulsion Dynamics

CASPER Integrated into software Software modules and expert analysis


75-76

A Snapshot of the Market: Class Society Solutions

Germanischer Lloyd (GL) – HullManager

GL Maritime Software offers the GL HullManager service package for shipowners, operators and managers. This software integrates hull condition monitoring (HCM) with lifecycle management tools and 3D vessel models.

It makes vessel maintenance easier by monitoring and assessing the condition of a ship’s cargo tanks, hull and coatings throughout their entire lifecycle. GL HullManager can also record a complete history of the hull condition for use in surveying.

Maintenance jobs can be integrated with GL’s planned maintenance software – GL ShipManager –and the results of thickness measurements recorded by thickness measurement companies using GL Pegasus software can also be integrated.

Key Benefits: An early warning when hull condition deteriorates, reducing maintenance efforts, repair costs and dry-docking time.

Extra Feature: Overview of fleet status and comparison of ships of the same series.

Bureau Veritas – VeriSTAR HLC

Bureau Veritas offer the Veristar Hull Lifecycle (HLC) service, which creates a 3D model of a specific ship and enables the recording of thickness measurements, cracks and other structural defects to be placed onto the model during class surveys or onboard inspections.

The aim of the service is to simplify the day-to-day routines of superintendents when dealing with dry-docking, class surveys and inspections on board. However, once the data is in the system it can be used for broader purposes as well.

Bureau Veritas states that “easy specification of coating repairs” is coming soon as a new feature of the Veristar HLC.

Several class societies also offer software and training solutions to monitor and simplify hull performance measurement and maintenance. While these solutions tend to focus on hull integrity rather than hull coating performance, they can offer a useful complement to hull performance measuring and monitoring.

Det Norsk Veritas – Hull PIMS

DNV offers a Planned Hull Inspection and Maintenance System (PIMS), for close systematic monitoring of a ship’s hull condition. This allows for the early detection of defects, and a cross-fleet approach to inspection, reporting and maintenance of the hull as well as improving the quality and efficiency of crew inspections.

Implementation is carried out in stages:1. Development of the Hull Inspection Manual and a review by DNV, which will normally take 3-6 months.

2. Training of personnel that are assigned to carry out PIMS (Hull) inspections.

3. Implementation of system on board/ashore.

4. Periodical annual audits of the system.

ABS – NS5 Enterprise Software

ABS offer the NS5 Enterprise Software to simplify the day-to-day operations of fleet managers. The current software suite offers extended business intelligence tools which include hull inspection monitoring as well as tools for dry docking, on-demand reporting and vessel drawings management.

This is said to synchronise management systems, operations and onboard personnel details across an entire fleet into a centralised data entry and information system.

The Energy & Environmental Manager module can create graphs of ship performance in real time, although there is no mention of measuring hull performance specifically.

Recent Clients: The Taiwanese tanker operator Formosa Plastics Marine Corp is trialling the NS5 software onboard its ships.



77-78

A Snapshot of the Market: Hull Coating Provider – Software Provider Partnerships

Jotun + Kyma/Marorka, M.A.C System Solutions + MACSEA

Jotun states that they strive to work with leaders and innovators with regards to hull performance, in order to contribute to the continuous development of the best possible method for measuring it.

Their policy on working with technology partners includes never having a direct commercial interest in any one partner’s business and never letting any one partner have a direct commercial interest in theirs. They also stated that their contribution to the measurement method resulting from any of their partnerships shall be placed in the public domain, to the extent that this is possible. This does not prohibit further use/implementation of the method in equipment or solutions.

Current partners include Kyma, Marorka, M.A.C System Solutions, and MACSEA. All current partners offer solutions that have been verified as compatible with Jotun’s Hull Performance Measurement Method.

Hempel + FORCE Technology

Hempel and performance monitoring company FORCE Technology have an official agreement to monitor all applications of HEMPASIL X3 with the SeaTrend performance monitoring software.

The collaboration extends beyond ongoing testing. The third generation Hempasil coating was itself the product of exhaustive studies conducted by FORCE Technology in towing tanks, as well as over five years of static raft and dynamic rotor testing.

In order to provide further validation of the quality of their hull coatings product offerings, several hull coatings manufacturers have teamed up with providers of performance monitoring solutions to also offer measurement services for their products. These partnerships enable owners and operators to independently test the performance of what they have been sold.

International Paint + BMT ARGOSS

International Paint and BMT announced their partnership in 2011. The BMT Smart Services system has been adopted by International Paint to verify, through independent monitoring and software analysis, the contribution to vessel performance, fuel savings and reduced emissions made by their highest performance fouling control coatings, Intersmooth SPC (self polishing copolymer) anti-fouling and Intersleek foul release coating. The MetOcean data gathered automatically from high resolution, accurate satellite monitoring is essential to monitor information on board, such as the relationship between hull roughness condition and fuel consumption. This information needs to be integrated with the environmental conditions being experienced by the ship. This MetOcean data includes factors such as wind speed and direction, currents, (speed and direction) and wave height and direction. The system has been modelled using weighted performance coefficients to provide the basis for measurement of vessel performance against the condition of the propeller, hull, engine and fuel consumption. In depth analysis can be used to monitor the propulsive performance of a ship and to indicate how much additional power, or fuel, would be required as a consequence of the combined effects of weather and fouling or of the isolated effects of fouling on the hull or propeller. This analysis enables data trending, which can be used to optimize any scheduling of hull and propeller cleaning events and can be subsequently used to quantify the effectiveness of any such events.




Measuring and monitoring efficiency for the global fleet- John Willsher, Market Manager, International Paint There is no doubt that shipping is becoming increasingly proactive towards emissions reduction. The truth is that the industry now has little choice. Fuelled by sustained high bunker costs and the need to generate efficiencies wherever possible whilst complying with growing emissions regulation, ship owners and operators are investing in operational and technical measures to safeguard the future of their fleet. Whilst the choice of viable technologies continues to grow, this is only one half of the emissions reduction equation. The missing piece is a credible, universally agreed and independent methodology for measuring and verifying emissions reduction. For the market to fully realise the fuel and emissions reductions benefits of new and emerging technologies, it will need to fully trust the fundamental data and analysis behind performance and efficiency claims. The lack of an independent standard and verification is a claim that has been pursued against the clean technology sector for some time. The conventional wisdom would certainly suggest that the take up of clean technologies would be boosted even further with one. For owners and operators, such a methodology would provide a significant commercial advantage as they seek to increase and prove their fleets’ efficiency. An agreed standard would also demystify current fuel savings claims and provide technology providers with a ‘level playing field’ from which to measure their products. However, in order to substantiate these assumptions, an objective and independent consortia are required to undertake an independent study to corroborate these assumptions. Once gathered, this data can be used to reflect the industry’s sentiment for a unilateral and independent methodology standard for measuring emissions reduction; importantly it is the sentiment of multiple industry stakeholders, particularly owners and operators, and not just technology companies that inevitably have a vested interest. To measure is to know, and real-time, automated performance monitoring has the potential to enable the crew on board a vessel to take necessary actions early in response to changing conditions that can adversely affect fuel consumption. From an onshore management perspective, real-time, onboard performance monitoring enables long-term trends to be measured and analysed to enable faster and more precise decision making within the long-term goal of developing more efficient fleet operations.


81-82

Currently, most ship owners and operators have limited information about the fuel consumption and the energy efficiency of their fleet. For most, performance analysis is carried out manually with operators comparing energy performance reports and audits in isolation against budget estimates. Many ship owners and operators today have to rely on inadequate information and data to justify investments. If they don’t have confidence in the fuel and emissions reduction figures that are claimed, the take up of these technologies and further innovation will be stifled and customers will spend more on fuel than they need to at a time when budgets are being significantly stretched and charterers are increasingly scrutinising their fuel spend. With current technology and innovation there is the scope for a meaningful framework and roadmap for calculating fuel consumption and a level playing field provided for all. With hull coatings being the most widely used eco-efficient technology on the market, and as a leading global marine coatings supplier, International Paint has the opportunity, and responsibility to lead the way. However, it should not, and cannot be up to hull coatings companies to set the parameters and methodologies by which their products are measured; a principle that is relevant to all clean technologies and their manufacturers. The best and most appropriate thing we can do is to let independent, third party expert fuel and emissions monitoring organisations, in consultation with a cross-section of industry stakeholders develop a standard model that can be applied to measure fuel consumption and the savings that can be generated through technology. Tapping into accurate, high-quality and high-frequency fuel consumption and vessel performance data, collected from ships’ sensors monitoring engine torque, navigational systems and the speed log, throughout the service life of a vessel could become a fundamental way of improving the operational efficiency of the global shipping fleet. Ensuring independence is critical and the most responsible and effective way to generate credibility and accurate eco-efficiency benefits for clean technology manufacturers, which will serve to build trust with ship owners and operators and the wider shipping industry. Accurate measurement can only serve to challenge coatings manufacturers to continue to develop technology to better serve future demands for greater efficiency within the industry. Technology providers for their part must seek to understand customers’ needs and calibrate investment in research and development to stay ahead of the challenges that emerge. The current economic challenges and the realisation of multi-faceted regulation facing the industry are not the first time in shipping’s long history that it has been faced with making hugely impactful decisions. As in the past, challenges should inspire innovation to create long-term sustainability. Investing in innovation now is most certainly the way ahead.


Chapter 5

Hull Cleaning for Optimal Performance

The Importance of Hull Cleaning

From the outset, the purpose of hull cleaning has been to prevent deterioration of the hull and increase a ship’s speed. The use of TBT largely eliminated the need for hull cleaning, however since it was banned hull cleaning has been reinstated as a necessary part of hull maintenance regardless of what protective coatings are applied.

A recent report from the Clean Shipping Coalition (CSC) estimated that inadequate hull and propeller performance could reduce the entire world’s fleet efficiency by 15-20% over a typical 4 to 5 year sailing interval. This represents a serious economic liability. Source 1 below represents real data measurements from a vessel clearly shows the impact regular cleaning of a ship’s hull has on fuel consumption.

In this chapter of the FOCUS we concentrate on the underwater hull cleaning market and what the different options are with snapshots of companies that provide these different methods.

Hull Cleaning Methods

There are essentially two ways to clean a ship’s hull:- Pressure wash and scraping in dry dock- Underwater cleaning- White metal blasting Cleaning in dry dock is more effective and safer however the cost of dry docking rules this out as a regular practice and tends to occur just at scheduled dry dock for obvious reasons. Ships entering their second or third 5-year docking can significantly improve fuel efficiency by white-metal blasting the hull but this really appropriate or cost effective at every dry docking. This therefore leaves underwater cleaning as the most frequent form of hull cleaning.

However, underwater cleaning is not without liabilities and restrictions: 1. Softer coatings such as biocidal anti-fouling and foul release coating systems can be damaged with underwater cleaning, particularly where an aggressive approach is needed.2. During cleaning coatings which contain toxic substances such as biocides may shed and can be considered an environmental hazard with a pulse discharge of these substances out in to the water.3. Cleaning a heavily fouled hull, where the fouling was acquired elsewhere, can be an invasive species risk. Because of these factors, underwater cleaning, especially of toxic coatings, is forbidden or restricted in many ports and areas. The concern about pollution from heavy metals, toxic substances and invasive species underlies these restrictions.


83-84

Underwater Cleaning Methods

The most prevalent method of underwater hull cleaning requires divers to use rotating brush equipment to remove the accumulated fouling.

This method involves large, self-propelled, hydraulic, diver-operated, rotating multiple brush units that are used to rapidly clean the hull of large ships.

Smaller areas and niche areas can be cleaned underwater by lighter brush tools or with underwater high pressure water jet equipment.

It is very important that service providers choose the least aggressive cleaning brush that will effectively remove the fouling in order to avoid excessive anti-foul paint wear.

However a diver requires certain conditions however including fair visibility and acceptable current. This places a restriction on location and conditions although this is not by any means insurmountable.

Other options for underwater hull cleaning include remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and some further innovative technologies.

Propeller Cleaning/Polishing In addition to hull cleaning, there is also demand in the market for services that clean and polish the propellers. It has proved economically and environmentally beneficial to clean propellers frequently than to wait until they are thoroughly fouled and have calcareous deposits. Rudders and propellers are intrinsically more complex structures and will require divers to carry out the service. Typical costs are in the range of US$6,000-12,000 per polishing.

Images Courtesy of Hydrex


A Snapshot of the Market: Hull Cleaning Service Providers

The following service providers are profiled just to show a snapshot of the different methods and innovative technologies available.

It is by no means an exhaustive list as there are many hull cleaning providers all over the world

Limpieza Purotecnica S.A. Limpieza Purotecnica S.A. is a provider of hull cleaning equipment founded in 2000 and based in Spain. They were set up especially to promote the Cavi-Jet cleaning technology and related services, which the company has been delivering worldwide since 2012.

Locations: The Mediterranean, Asia, America, Europe, Russia, the Middle East and West Africa.

Vessel Types: All.

Specialist Equipment: The Cavi-Jet System uses salt or fresh water to create a high-speed water jet which contains microscopic bubbles of gas and steam. These bubbles collapse when they meet the hull surface, producing micro-explosions up to 150,000 bar that are said to lead to rust and fouling being destroyed.

Cleaning rates are as follows:• Cavi-Jet pistols - 250-350 m2/hr• Self-propelled Cavi-Jet heads – 600-900 m2/hr• Self-propelled twin Cavi-Jet heads – 1200-1500 m2/hr

Other Benefits: The Cavi-Jet equipment is said to have operational reliability without requiring frequent servicing or replacement of parts.

CleanHull AS

CleanHull AS is an underwater cleaning specialist which relies on an automated remote underwater vehicle called CleanROV to carry out hull cleaning. The company is based in Norway.

Locations: Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Spain and Singapore.

Vessel Types: All.

Fuel Saving Claim: An average of 5% although up to 8% according to company literature.

Cost: Between US$15,000 and US$30,000 per cleaning dependent on vessel size.

Verification: In-service data.

Specialist Equipment: CleanHull uses a patented high-pressure water cleaning technology which is a brushless cleaning method delivered by an autonomous underwater vehicle. This “CleanROV” crawls around a ship’s hull, rotates on its own axis, and documents the cleaning process with multiple cameras. It can clean 800-1000 sq m an hour.

Verification: According to CleanHull, tests by independent surveyors prove that CleanROV does not cause damage or abrasion to the anti-fouling.


85-86

Commercial Diving Services

Commercial Diving Services Pty Ltd is an Australian company with over 55 years of underwater cleaning experience. They have extensive experience with shipping, maintenance, and mobile offshore operations.

In 2009 their Hull Surface Treatment (HST) was awarded 1st prize for Environmental Innovation at the Lloyd’s List Asia Awards.

In 2010 HST was shortlisted as one of the top five emerging technologies in Maritime Environmental Protection in the Seatrade Asia Awards.

Locations: Australia.

Vessel Types: All.

Costs: Typical costs are US$6,000 - $12,000 per polishing. Divers are required to carry out services on rudders and propellers which are typically more complex devices.

Specialist Equipment: HST technology uses a containment device that attaches to a ship’s hull and pumps out hot salt water in order to kill off marine slime, algae and weeds. This method relies on the dead growth then being washed off the hull under normal operating conditions. The HST process does not remove or damage existing anti-fouling paints and is non-toxic.

Fathom Comment: While HST received multiple innovation awards in 2009 and 2010, the recent development of this technology is unclear. More recent case studies would help validate the benefits of this environmentally friendly offering.

ECOsubsea

ECOsubsea is a new underwater cleaning company founded in 2008 and based in Norway. The founder, Tor M. Ostervold, received the Young Entrepreneur Award at NorShipping 2013.

Vessel Types: Not specified.

Locations: Approved for use in five ports although details not specified.

Specialist Equipment: ECOsubsea technology consists of a cleaning and suction unit that enables in-water cleaning of hulls while also collecting debris at the same time.

Validation: The collection efficiency of the cleaner is above 95% based on model trials.

Key Partners: Wilh Wilhelmsen ASA, Innovation Norway


Ship Maintenance Underwater

Ship-Maintenance Underwater (SMU) is a provider of hull cleaning solutions based in Denmark.

Their trained team of divers operates in all Danish harbours as well as offshore, and has also carried out ship maintenance activity in a select few other countries.

Locations: Danish waters, Sweden and Germany.


Partners: Maersk, UMC International, EA Diving Services Ltd.

Specialist Equipment: SMU has patented a new form of hull cleaning system in 2013 which is operated from above the water surface and so does not require divers in the water. This system is said to be gentler on the hull as well as on the environment compared to using brushes.. It is suitable for vessels of more than 100 metres in length.

SMU has also developed and patented a collection and filtration system for propeller polishing, designed for use in ports. It captures the material released from the propeller and extracts the discharge to a mobile onshore unit where the water is passed through a filtration system before being pumped back into the harbour basin.

Information of Interest: SMU always offers fixed prices on hull cleaning and the service includes a written debriefing report as well as photo or video documentation.

Hydrex

Hydrex is the world leader in underwater repairs,replacement and maintenance, pioneering newmethods and technology for in-water techniques toenable ships to continue operations without the needto drydock, and by insisting on the highest standardsof quality for underwater repair and maintenance.

The company was founded in Antwerp in 1974 byBoud Van Rompay who continues as CEO. Theyare headquartered in Antwerp with regional officesin the U.S.A and Spain. From these offices Hydrexoperates fast emergency-response diving teamswhich travel worldwide on call.

Hydrex repair specialities include stern tube sealrepairs, bow thruster replacement, underwater hullrepairs, propeller cropping and straightening andrudder repairs.

The company has a reputation forinnovative in-situ solutions to problems whichpreviously required days in drydock. Manyoperations are now conducted using Hydrex pioneered flexible or rigid mobdocks, whichdramatically shorten the time needed for repair.

Technical expertise and problem solving abilities arehallmarks of the company’s diver/technicians.

Locations: Offices in Belgium, USA, Spain, India, Gabon.

Vessel Types: All.

Specialist Equipment: Underwater high pressure water jets for cleaning sea chests and other nooks and crannies. Hydrex also uses flexible “mobdocks”, mini dry-docks that enable divers to create dry underwater environment around a vessels hull in order to carry out repair work.

Information of Interest: Hydrex has a policy not to carry out underwater cleaning activities which could spread toxic compounds and result in an increase in marine pollution.


87-88

UMC International

UMC International are specialists in underwater maintenance and marine repair based in the UK and with 40 years of experience. They carry out work on more than 1500 vessels and platforms each year worldwide, from tankers to warships to cruise liners and including jack-up rigs. The company has dedicated operational hubs in 60 locations spanning the globe, meaning that UMC can provide rapid and effective support. The company continues to expand since acquisition by V Ships in 2006. UMC is ISO9001:2008 Quality Management certified.

Locations: More than 300 locations worldwide.

Vessels: All.

Specialist Equipment: The ‘Mini Pamper’ is a versatile compact hull-cleaning machine used by UMC divers. The operators of the machine can bring a choice of cleaning heads into contact with the hull until the cleaning pressure is just strong enough to remove fouling without damaging the surface. The Mini Pamper will then maintain this level of cleaning pressure throughout the operation.

SCAMP

SCAMP is a leading provider of underwater hull cleaning machines as well as services for propeller polishing and underwater hull maintenance. The company is part of the Gibraltar-based Gibunco Group and has over 45 years experience in fuel conservation and underwater engineering.

The company has been providing propeller polishing and underwater hull cleaning for the US Military Navy for over 30 years.

Locations: More than 280 locations worldwide.

Vessel Types: All.

Specialist Equipment: SCAMP machines were introduced in 1971 and are said to enable “powerful and effective cleaning without damaging ships’ paints”. They have a very strong reputation within the industry.


The Future of Underwater CleaningAn interview with Boud Van Rompay, CEO of Hydrex

Boud Van Rompay began underwater cleaning on ships in the early 1970s. Since then he has built a leading international underwater repair and maintenance company, Hydrex, and has developed and brought to market a non-toxic, durable hull coating with a full line of advanced underwater cleaning equipment to go with it. Q: Where do you think underwater cleaning will go from here?A: Since the ban on TBT, underwater cleaning has become increasingly important. It will continue to grow, especially as restrictions on heavy metals and biocides in antifouling coatings are implemented, longer drydocking intervals are sought, bunker prices rise and pressure to reduce GHG emissions and eliminate the hull-borne spread of invasive species increases. Q: What direction do you think this growth of underwater cleaning will take?A: You can’t separate the cleaning from the coatings used. In order for widespread, routine in-water cleaning to become a reality, the industry will need to move away from toxic coatings. It’s not sustainable to keep pouring hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy metals and toxic chemicals into our oceans. They don’t just go away. So the future of underwater cleaning includes a shift to non-toxic, really non-toxic coatings. Then ports can allow cleaning without fear of pollution. If ships are cleaned often enough to prevent the fouling from going beyond a medium slime layer, there will be no fear of spreading nuisance species. The demand for industrial strength cleaning will lead to a global infrastructure that can cope with the existing world fleet, just as there is an infrastructure around the world which can cope with the demand for fueling of commercial and other ships. But while the industry continues to put toxic coatings on ships persists, the subject of underwater cleaning will remain confused and problematical. Q: Is there a resistance to more frequent cleaning?A: There are a few factors. Slow, poorly done underwater cleaning by inept providers using inferior equipment may have given the subject a bad name with some ship operators. This will improve with demand and competition. They also know that soft coatings are easily damaged and depleted by underwater cleaning and so avoid it. Ports are understandably unwilling to have ships coated with toxic substances cleaned in their area due to the resulting pollution. Again, it’s more a coatings problem than a cleaning problem.


89-90

Q: What about guidance and regulation, such as from the IMO?A: This is tending, albeit very slowly, in the direction of phasing out toxic hull coatings and requiring greater attention to how much biofouling a ship is carrying. This will gradually lead to the obvious solution which is to apply hard, cleanable coatings, build up the infrastructure for economical, widely available industrial strength underwater cleaning.

Q: How is Hydrex involved?A: Well, we have developed and are delivering a non-toxic hard coating which lasts the life of the hull without need for replacement. We have simulated 500 cleanings on this coating and it only became smoother. We have developed a line of industrial cleaning equipment for the main hull and the niche areas and proved them in commercial use. We have researched and prototyped reclaim systems and found that that line of research is, unfortunately, a dead end.

Q: What’s next?A: Get the word out. Get more shipowners and operators to opt for this environmentally benign approach. We have considered developing a car-wash like procedure for cleaning ships. It would be designed for frequent, rapid cleaning without any interruption to a ship’s schedule. It would require a tough, surface treated composite (STC coating system) in order for it to work. Because all of this makes economic as well as environmental sense it will eventually be adopted by the industry. The sooner the better to my mind.


Documents

Fathom Focus – Hull Coatings for Vessel Performance / The