INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SHIP DRAG REDUCTION (SMOOTH-Ships)

ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY 20-21 May 2010 Macka Campus, Istanbul, Turkey
Editors Mustafa Insel Ismail Hakki Helvacioglu Sebnem Helvacioglu

Copyright 2010, SMOOTH Consortium

Paper No: 5

An Overview: Effect of Roughness and Coatings on Ship Resistance

M. TAYLAN Istanbul Technical University

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SHIP DRAG REDUCTION (SMOOTH-Ships) 20-21 May 2010 Istanbul Technical University Faculty of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering ISTANBUL-TURKEY

International Conference on Ship Drag Reduction SMOOTH-SHIPS, Istanbul, Turkey, 20-21 May 2010

An overview: effect of roughness and coatings on ship resistance

M. TAYLAN
Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 34469, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey.

ABSTRACT: As it is known, reducing ship resistance has been a great challenge for ship designers, naval architects and ship owners. To this end, relatively low drag hull forms, which translate into higher speed and lower fuel cost, have been evolved over the last decades. Surface condition of a ship, apart from the hull form, is also quite important for especially frictional resistance characteristics. Therefore, any effort for the sake of improvement of the final finishing of underwater hull surface will contribute to the overall drag reduction. The recent developments in marine paints and coatings address various concerns such as life of paints, environmental issues and drag reduction. This paper aims at emphasizing the significance of surface roughness, paints and coatings on ship resistance. It can be shown that, certain level of drag reduction may be achieved by a suitable coating application after a proper surface preparation and fouling control. New generation antifouling paints and coatings offer superior resistance characteristics along with corrosion prevention, fouling and environmental protection. Some meaningful quantitative and comparative results have been supplied.

1 INTRODUCTION Resistance of a ship in a seaway is of great importance to especially ship owners and operators since it directly affects ship performance and fuel consumption. Primarily, total resistance can be broken into two main parts; namely, frictional resistance and residual resistance. Frictional resistance takes up the major part, approximately 6090%, of the total resistance (WHOI 1952, McEntee 1915). Residual resistance on the other hand, results from eddies around the hull and wave making which may be lowered by hydrodynamic hull optimization. Conventionally, ship resistance may be determined from model tests in the preliminary design stage and scaled up to the full scale ship. Reducing ship resistance is always a difficult task since the design process is a compromise among many conflicting parameters. More insistent attempts have been carried out in the recent years in order to lower ship resistance since the fuel prices went up drastically. There are various ways available to reduce ship resistance to a degree. Hull form optimization is the most conventional method to lower drag of the ship. CFD solutions of hydrodynamic characteristics of a ship and towing

tank model tests may lead to a low drag hull form optimization. Another way of culminating drag reduction is the smoothing the underwater part of the hull by low resistance antifouling paints and coatings. A novel approach; air lubricated ship concept, on the other hand, is based on three different methods as, air cavity, micro bubble drag reduction and air film application. These methods have shown to provide a net drag reduction more than 5%. 2 SURFACE CONDITION OF THE HULL Since frictional resistance is induced by the frictional forces around the hull surface of a ship, the condition of the surface plays an important role in the magnitude of it. Surface roughness mainly influences the frictional resistance of a ship. There are two types of roughness that can be defined as permanent or physical and temporary or biological roughness, Figure 1 and 2, (IMC, 2004). Permanent roughness results from any kind of discontinuities and protruding parts that affect flow pattern over the hull surface such as shell plating deformations, welding seams, mounted cathodic protection, bilge keels etc. Permanent roughness and its mitigation

are out of the scope of this study. However, unlike permanent roughness, temporary roughness depends on the average roughness of underwater outer surface of the ships hull. This type of roughness is mostly caused by fouling and can be controlled tangibly by viable means.

Figure 1. Physical roughness.

more than 2500 species exist all around the world (Anderson et al, 2003). Amount of fouling greatly depends on the geographical regions in which fouling organisms live. These foulers can be classified in two categories as micro and macro organisms. Slime or algae is an example of microfouling organisms that gives rise to resistance about 1-2%. Hard-shelled fouling species such as barnacles, tube worms, mussels etc., on the other hand, may increase ship resistance up to 40% if it is not controlled. Hard-shelled barnacles, most of the time, induce corrosion by damaging the paint system on which they attach. Figures 3 and 4 show severe fouling on ships hulls.

Figure 2. Biological roughness.

A significant reduction in ship resistance, which in turn in fuel cost, may be obtained by smoothing the outer surface of the hull in contact with water. It is well known that certain level of surface roughness on the steel surface is imperative for a successful paint and coating application. Required surface roughness is driven by the specifications of the paint and coating type. Recent developments in low drag antifoulings offer even a smoother surface along with better fouling control over a quite reasonable period. A newly built ship expectedly reveals less resistance characteristics than a ship in service owing mainly to fouling. Accumulation of biofouling organisms on the surface affects fuel performance of a ship. Therefore, the condition of the underwater hull of a ship mostly governs overall excessive fuel consumption of the vessel. 3 EFFECT OF FOULING ON FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE

Figure 3. Ships bottom fouled with barnacles.

Figure 4. Severely fouled ship.

Fouling is defined as the growth of marine organisms on marine structures . It is known that fouling significantly increases frictional resistance, which accounts for approximately 70-90% of the total resistance, of a ship which in turn the fuel consumption. Although it is not easy to determine the amount of resistance increase, some studies showed that up to 40% increase in ships resistance may be expected due to fouling. It is estimated that

The first comprehensive experimental study on the effect of fouling on frictional resistance was carried out by McEntee (1915). Steel plates were painted with anticorrosive paint and left at sea for a period of a year to be fouled with small barnacles. They were then towed at the towing tank at different velocities in order to determine the frictional resistance in various surface conditions. Every month, one plate was taken out of the water. The plate was cleaned, re-painted and tested to determine its clean surface resistance. The thorough study

d depicted tha frictional r at resistance of the fouled steel p plates increa ased up to fo times tha of the valu for our at ue t clean pl the late within a year. The results show a wed similar trend as in the c d case of Frou udes experim ments w with plates having various rou s ughness va alues. A Amount of fouling depe f ends on the t type of organ nisms a geograp and phical region and period of immersi in n, d ion t sea. Am the mount of fou uling may r radically va in ary d different par of the wo dependin on the sp rts orld ng pecies a climatic conditions. The amoun of dry fo and c nt ouling o the test plates where the experim on p ments were ca arried o (Chesap out peake Bay, MD) is sho own in Figu 5, ure ( (McEntee 19 and WH 915 HOI, 1952). Micro-fou uling is ca aused by sl lime or dia atoms a attached to the surface of the hull. Although microt m f fouling inc creases the r resistance, it negative effect ts e w would be within the ord of a few percent in terms der w t o frictional resistance. of

west and the highest sp e peed values used in th s he low experiments, na amely 2 and 9 knots. T friction d The nal resistance value and the increase in r es resistance du ue to f fouling in pe ercentage are given in T e Tables 2 and 3 resp pectively. Graphical rep G presentations of the sam s me valu ues are als supplied in Figure 6 and 7, so d es resp pectively.
Tabl 1. Effect of fouling o frictional resistance fro le on om expe eriment (McEn ntee, 1915).
Imm mersion pe eriod (months) cl lean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 10 1 11 1 12 0.01 107 0.01 100 0.01 100 0.01 119 0.01 108 0.00 095 0.01 108 0.01 101 0.01 108 0.00 090 0.00 096 0.00 095 f fouled 0.0114 0.0128 0.0167 0.0239 0.0255 0.0252 0.0275 0.0267 0.0275 0.0285 0.0273 0.0292 clean 1.869 1.918 1.937 1.855 1.874 1.938 1.880 1.912 1.869 1.848 1.914 1.924 n fou uled 1.9 994 1.9 928 2.0 029 2.0 002 2.0 003 1.9 988 2.0 000 2.0 000 1.9 967 2.0 015 2.0 055 2.0 035 3.91 1.95 2.93 13.67 13.67 17.58 19.53 15.62 9.76 17.58 15.62 15.62 Dry fouling (kg/m2)

Tabl 2. Frictional resistance, Rf at V=2.0 knots for clean and le s d foule plates. ed Rf (kN) at V=2 knots V clean fouled 0.0448 0.0503 0.0658 0.0940 0.1003 0.0991 0.1082 0.1051 0.1081 0.1122 0.1076 0.1150 0 0.0419 0 0.0393 Resistance increase (%) 107 128 167 202 237 266 256 265 255 318 286 308

F Figure 5. Amo ount of dry foul ling on test pla ates.

Froudes frictional re esistance form (1); mula (1) ( where; Rf : fric ctional resista ance (kN) S : surf face area (m2) m V : speed (m/s) The value for f and n in the abo formula were es ove d determined from the f fouling experiment and are d shown, alon with amou of dry fouling, in Tab 1. ng unt ble Based on Froudes fr n rictional resi istance appr roach, f frictional resistance of t plates w found fo the the was or

0 0.0393 0 0.0466 0 0.0423 0 0.0373 0 0.0423 0 0.0396 0 0.0423 0 0.0353 0 0.0377 0 0.0373

Figure 6. Effect of fouling on frictional resistance at V=2.0 knots. Table 3. Frictional resistance, Rf at V=9.0 knots for clean and fouled plates. Rf (kN) at V=2 knots clean 0.6973 0.7025 0.7233 0.7591 0.7092 0.6882 0.7158 0.7031 0.7038 0.5680 0.6703 0.6736 fouled 0.8998 0.9131 1.3908 1.9097 2.0407 1.9708 2.1906 2.1269 2.0826 2.3231 2.3660 2.4542 Resistance increase (%) 129 130 192 252 288 286 306 303 296 409 353 364

Figure 7. Effect of fouling on frictional resistance at V=9.0 knots.

FOULING CONTROL AND ANTIFOULING PAINTS

Since, especially macro fouling or hard shell fouling has a great influence on ships frictional resistance and therefore fuel consumption, fouling control has

been of a great interest for ship operators and paint companies for decades. The most conventional fouling control method is antifouling paints or coatings. The purpose of antifoulings is to prevent or reduce the growth, to provide a better fuel economy over the sailing period and to avoid growth penetration through the coatings and thus extend corrosion protection. Most of the antifouling coatings contain toxic biocides. Tributyl Tin (TBT) had been used as biocide for a long time. In 2001, International Maritime Organization (IMO) has reacted to the environmental impact by TBT, and adopted International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti- Fouling Systems on Ships (IMO-AFS Convention), (IMO, 2001). The convention banned the application of antifoulings containing TBT from the date Jan. 1st, 2003 and the presence of TBT on ships from Jan. 1st, 2008. The ships are now being issued an International A/F Certificate ensuring compliance with the AFS convention. Today, antifouling paints may be classified as biocide containing, such as Controlled Depletion Polymer (CDP), Self-Polishing Copolymer (SPC) and Hybrid SPC and non-biocide antifoulings such as Foul Release antifouling paints. Controlled Depletion Polymers (CDP), usually have high VOC (Volatile Organic Content) of 5060% and use rosin or its derivatives in the biocide releasing mechanism by hydration process. Porous leached layers thicken in time and increase surface roughness to about 75 microns. They require blasting after 10 years of use. However, they are suitable for vessels with short dry-docking intervals (up to 3 years) and regions having lower fouling rates (Atlar, 2008). Biocide releasing mechanism for Self Polishing Copolymers (SPC) is in the form of controlled chemical dissolution or hydrolysis. Unlike CDPs, their leached layers are much thinner, about 10-15 microns. Thus, they offer a smoother surface and longer dry-docking intervals. SPCs show great antifouling properties and are easy to clean and may be repaired during maintenance. Hybrid SPCs, which combines SPC acrylic polymer with rosin, have a hybrid biocide releasing mechanism between hydrolysis and hydration. They contain high VOC and have a reasonable leached layer thickness of about 25-30 microns. As far as the performance is concerned, they lie somewhere between CPD and SPC. Their life runs somewhere between 3-5 years.

Antifouling paints have been used as the main prevention method against fouling starting from the middle of 18th century. The primary mechanism of antifouling coatings is to avoid attachment of foulers by the release of biocides. Until 1970s, most of the antifouling paints were copper based with a relatively short design life up to 2 years. The main drawback of these kinds of antifoulings is the need for the removal of the paint by blasting and repainting the surface at dry-docking intervals as needed. In the 1960s, self-polishing copolymer (SPC) antifoulings based on tributyltin (TBT) copolymers have been developed using organotin compounds as the antifouling biocides. SPC paints have an effective design life. However, TBT based antifouling paints has been found to be harmful for the marine eco-system and the International Maritime Organization, IMO adopted a new convention to cease the application of TBT antifouling paints effective from January 1st, 2003. In the last few decades, the research on antifouling paints has concentrated on non-toxic coating systems which are called foul release coatings. These paints often called non-stick paints since they prevent attachment of fouling species on the paint surface. Initially, they have been applied to fast ferries in the mid-1990s. Examples of fouling release coatings are synthetic polymers and copolymers which are also named as low surface energy coatings. Recently, silicon polymers are widely used as antifouling coatings. Biocide-free self-polishing antifouling coatings have been developed which uses a similar technology to the TBT and tin-free, copper-based self-polishing coatings. In these non-toxic SPC coatings, the copolymer bound biocide is replaced by a non-toxic compound using the same hydrolysis mechanism. This alternative coating system creates a polishing surface to prevent attachment of fouling organisms. 5 ANTIFOULING ROUGHNESS TYPES AND SURFACE

roughness increase at a rate of 10-20 microns/year owing to the effect of the mechanical damages. An experimental study carried out by (Lewis, 2008) on static immersion of tests panels showed a tremendous difference in fouling between untreated and SPC applied test panels. In Figure 8, the test panel on the left was exposed to seawater for about 3 months, the one on the right was coated with SPC and immersed in seawater for 33 months. As a part of the same experimental study, the panels were tested in a rotor to examine efficacy of SPC antifouling system under the speed of 20 knots. The test panel on the right coated with SPC looks very clean with compared to the test panel on the left with non-toxic control, Figure 9.

Figure 8. Static immersion test of panels (Lewis, 2008).

Figure 9. Tests panels after rotor trials following static immersion (Lewis, 2008).

As mentioned earlier, surface roughness of a ships hull is very influential on resistance and fuel economy of the ship. When a ship is in service, it is susceptible to mechanical damages to the paint system such as damages by hitting of anchor, chains, cables and other solid objects. When SPC coating systems, providing a polished surface with a low surface roughness, are used the average surface

According to ASTM, foul release properties of antifouling paints are determined by adhesion of barnacles under shear. Experimental fouled test plates were towed in the sea in order to find out freestream velocities at which fouling is scraped from silicone coatings (Kovach, 1998). From the experiment done for two different foul release mechanisms, the speed was measured to be 12 and 20 knots at which barnacles were released from the coatings. Figure 10 shows foul releasing speeds for the test plates.

Figure 10. Foul releasing speeds for test plates (Kovach, 1998).

Townsin et al (1986) carried out two hull roughness studies during 1976 1986. They demonstrated that the roughness of ships surface increases over time due to a number of reasons. The cause of this rougher surface is associated with the mechanical damage from anchor and chain, grounding, hits by solid objects etc. or deterioration of the applied paint system such as corrosion, cracking, blistering, flaking etc. It was further found that roughness increase greatly depends on the type of the antifouling system applied. The average hull roughness increase with conventional antifouling paints was shown to be 40 microns/year. Part of this increase resulted from the reasons outlined above and part of it came from repair painting at each dry-docking without proper surface preparation. Before the hull roughness measurements, fouling was stripped off from the surface. The average hull roughness increase for SPC (Self Polishing Copolymer) antifoulings on the other hand was shown to be around 20 microns/year. This significant reduction in the average hull roughness rise results from the self polishing and smoothing characteristics of SPC antifouling paints. Since 1986, The traditional antifoulings have been modified with reinforcing resins since mid-1980s and are called as Controlled Depletion Polymer (CDP) antifoulings. The average hull roughness for CDP antifoulings is found to be 40 microns/year. Figure 11 depicts the power requirement increase in percentage with increasing hull roughness and the increase in fuel consumption in order to maintain speed of a fast container ship.

Figure 11. Typical power/fuel increase with respect to surface roughness (IMC, 2003).

The type of the antifouling system plays an important role on surface roughness and fuel consumption for a ship over a period of service life. The increase in mechanical roughness and related power requirement for a container ship may be estimated over a year for different antifouling types as shown in Figure 12. Initial roughness is taken to be 120 microns resembling average roughness of a new ship.

Figure 12. Power increase due to roughness for a containership (IMC, 2003).

In Figure 13, the increase in fuel consumption of two identical container ships is compared. One of the container ships is coated with CDP antifouling system and the other with SPC antifouling system. After one year in service, there seems to be a little difference in fuel consumption between the antifouling systems. However, the CDP coated container ship suffered from weed fouling on the vertical sides of the ship and showed a drastic fuel consumption increase comparatively after 18 months.

Figure 13. Increase in the fuel consumption of the container ship (IMC, 2003).

CONCLUSIONS

Surface roughness of the underwater part of a ship is extremely important in terms of economic considerations. The frictional resistance of a ship is influential on the fuel consumption of the vessel. There are many factors such as physical damages and fouling which affect hull roughness. Undue mechanical damages may be mitigated to a degree. However, fouling poses a big problem to deal with during service life between dry-docking intervals. Studies have shown that hard-shell fouling may increase the resistance up to 40%. Therefore, proper fouling control is of paramount importance for both design life and fuel economy of the ship. The new generation toxic-free antifouling systems have been emerging in the commercial market even before IMOs TBT ban. Choosing an appropriate antifouling system for a ship depends mostly on the operational characteristics of that particular ship. There are advantages and disadvantages of each antifouling paint system. Some studies show that foul release antifouling paints have less drag than tin-free SPC antifouling paints. Finally, appropriate antifouling paint systems must be used to reduce hard-shell and slime fouling in order to reduce drag and lower fuel consumption. Although a lot of progress has been achieved in antifouling paint technology, there are still lot to be done to find a meaningful correlation between hull roughness and fuel penalty. REFERENCES
Almeida, E., Diamantino, T.C. and Sousa, O., 2007. Marine Paints: the Particular Case of Antifouling Paints, Progress in Organic Coatings 59, 220. Anderson, C. et al, 2003. The Development of Foul-Release Coatings for Seagoing Vessels. Journal of Marine Design and Operations, No. B4.

Atlar, M., 2008. An Update on Marine Antifoulings, 25th ITTC Group Discussions 3 Global Warming and Impact on ITTC Activities, Fukuoka, Japan. Berto, D., Boscolo, R., Cacciatore, F. and Giani, M.,2006. Organotins Used in Antifouling Paints: Environmental Impact and Contamination in a Case Study (Southern Venice Lagoon). International Journal of Oceanography and Hydrobiology, Vol.35, No.3, pp.269-283. Candries, M., 2001. Drag, Boundary-Layer and Roughness Characteristics of Marine Surfaces Coated with Antifoulings. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of NewcastleUpon-Tyne, UK. Claus, E.W. et al,, 2003. Experimental Study of Drag Resistance Using a Laboratory Scale Rotary Set-up, Biofouling, Vol. 19 (Supplement), pp 4551. Haslbeck, E.G. and Bohlander, G.S.,1992. Microbial Biofilm Effects on Drag-Lab and Field. Proceedings of NSRP Ship Production Symposium, No.3A-1. Hempel, Asia News, Issue 14, Dec 03 - May 04. Hull Fouling as a Vector for the Translocation of Marine Organisms, Phase 3, The Significance of the Prospective Ban on Tributyltin Antifouling Paints on the Introduction & Translocation of Marine Pests in Australia, 2002. Report No.2, AMOG Consulting. Hull Roughness Penalty Calculator, 2004, International Marine Coatings, www.international-marine.com. IMO, 2001. Adoption of the final act of the conference and any instruments, recommendations and resolutions resulting from the work of the conference: International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-Fouling Systems on Ships. Isensee, J. and Bertram, V.,2004. Quantifying external costs of emissions due to ship operation. Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs Vol. 218 Part M: J. Engineering for the Maritime Environment. Kiil, S. et al, 2007. Marine Biofouling Protection: Design of Controlled Release Antifouling Paints. Chapter 7, Chemical Product Design: Toward a Perspective through Case Studies, Elsevier. Kovach, B.S. and Swain, G.F., 1998. A Boat Mounted Foil to Measure the Drag Properties of Antifouling Coatings Applied to Static Immersion Panels. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Seawater Drag Reduction, pp.169-173, Newport, RI. Lewis, J.A., 2008. Performance of the Tin-Free Antifouling Coating International Ecoloflex in DSTO/RAN Trials, Australian Department of Defence, Maritime Platforms Division, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, DSTO-TR-2203. Lewis, J.A. and Gillham, A.C., 2007. Antifouling Paint Patch Trial Project, Final Report, Maritime Platforms Division Defence Science and Technology Organisation and Australian Shipowners Association, DSTO-CR-2007-0153. Marine Fouling and its Prevention, 1952. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), United States Naval Institute, Annapolis, Maryland, USA. McEntee, W.,1915. Variation of Frictional Resistance of Ships with Condition of Wetted Surface. Trans. Soc. Nav. Arch. and Mar. Eng, 23, pp.37-42. Review of Current and Future Antifouling Coatings, 1993. MSA Report No:93.TIPEE.4787. Propeller, International Marine Coatings, www.internationalmarine.com, issue 16, 2003.

Schultz, M., 2007. Effects of Coating Roughness and Biofouling on Ship Resistance and Powering. Biofouling, 23(5): pp.331 341. Schultz, M.P.,2004. Frictional Resistance of Antifouling Coating Systems. Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 126, pp. 1039-1047. Schultz, M.P., 2002. The Relationship Between Frictional Resistance and Roughness for Surfaces Smoothed by Sanding. Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 124, pp. 492499. Townsin, R.L., 2003. The Ship Hull Fouling Penalty, Biofouling, Vol 19 (Supplement), pp 915.

Townsin, R.L., Byrne, D., Svensen, T.E. and Milne, A., 1986. Fuel Economy due to Improvements in Ships Hull Surface Condition 1976-1986. International Shipbuilding Progress, 33, (383). Weinell, C.E., Olsen, K.N., Christoffersen, M.W. and Kiil, S.,2003. Experimental Study of Drag Resistance Using a Laboratory Scale Rotary Set-up. Biofouling, 19: 1, pp.4551. Yebra, D.M., Kiil, S. and Johansen, K.D., 2004. Antifouling TechnologyPast, Present and Future Steps Towards Efficient and Environmentally Friendly Antifouling Coatings. Progress in Organic Coatings, 50, 75104.