Feature 3 | PAINTS AND COATINGS
Partnership aims to scientifically prove coatings performance
A new industry partnership aims to establish firm evidence for a correlation between applying specific fouling control coatings and reducing fuel consumption and CO2
emissions.
have come together in a new partnership. Working in tandem they will utilise the recently launched BMT SMARTSERVICES system to verify, through independent monitoring and software analysis, the contribution to vessel performance, fuel savings and reduced emissions made by International Paint’s fouling control coatings, Intersmooth SPC (self polishing copolymer) antifouling and Intersleek foul release coating. Te partnership aims to counter the
I
sceptics in the industry who argue that no matter which coating is applied, a ship will naturally move through the water more smoothly if it has been blast cleaned during drydocking. Furthermore, they argue, the linkage between hull smoothness and reduced emissions is tenuous. Jim Brown, marketing development
manager, International Paint, said: “No one would dispute that, depending upon the fouling control system employed, a newly grit blasted or hydroblasted, freshly coated hull will perform better than a hull at the end of its docking cycle. However the point is surely to measure how quickly hull performance deteriorates over time in the context of the coating systems applied.” For this reason, International Paint sought
has in recent years - directly to make
comparisons using various methods. Tese include: • Method 1
comparing
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.
• Method 2 - directly comparing a period of time in-service prior to
International Paint and BMT believe they can scientifically demonstrate reduced fuel consumption levels for specific coating
types.consumption levels for specific coating types.
dry docking with one fouling control system to the same period aſter the dry docking and application of a new fouling control system.; and
• Method 3 - measuring the same fouling control system over a given time period.
Using the first method, comparing
a 60 month docking cycle of a typical rosin-based system with another 60 month docking cycle with Intersmooth SPC, International Paint has calculated an annual average 4% fuel saving for Intersmooth SPC over the rosin-based system. If method 2 were to be used, and compared 12 months before dry dock for a rosin-based system with 12 months aſter dry dock with Intersmooth SPC, International Paint has calculated fuel savings would be higher, at 9%. (However, as the periods in service are at different time periods in the docking cycle, the company argues that there are limitations of this method, and that the resultant high value of the improvement
Shiprepair and Conversion Technology 1st Quarter 2012
is misleading. It suggests that this method should not be used.) As for Method 3, International Paint
points out that in 1986 evidence was published of vessel performance using SPC technology. Townsin et al1
– AHR1-1/3 showed
that the effect of hull roughness on fuel consumption could be related in a fairly simple formula, % Power Increase= A(AHR2-1/3
), that for every
increase in hull roughness of 25microns there would be approximately a 1% penalty in the fuel consumption of the vessel. For typical rosin based antifouling systems, hull roughness increases by around 40microns per year. However, due to polishing, smoothing and minimal build-up of leached layer, an SPC antifouling increases in roughness by only 20 microns per year. Terefore, for SPC technology, the fuel
consumption increase over the full period (of 60 months) would be just under 1% per year, reaching 4% in year 5 (for the vast majority of vessels that return from service in a clean condition). Using data generated
37
nternational Paint and BMT ARGOSS - a specialist provider of marine environmental information -
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60