Skibsteknisk Selskab Conference
Passenger Ships – Now and in the future
23. November 2015
Project LightShip
An Investigation of
Status Quo and Next
Stages for using FRPbased Materials in
Danish Commercial
Shipbuilding
By Rikke Aarøe Carlsen from Ready?
and Dan Lauridsen from DBI
Project detail
Small non-academic project in regard of FRP usage in commercial
shipbuilding (in Denmark and the neighboring countries).
3 months duration.
Project team and Advisory Group.
Status and Idea Catalogue.
• Mapping of:
‒
‒
‒
‒
stakeholders,
existing rules and status for coming rules or guidelines,
known research capabilities in the topic,
significant development projects the last 10-15 years,
• Identification and description of barriers,
• Listing of relevant ship types with current or likely coming usage of FRP.
Ship types and usage
Danish flag was focus for the project.
Considered ship types and usage:
Ship
Category
Usage
FRP application
Conv. HSC
Cargo (incl. SPS)
X
X
Passenger
X
X
RO-RO
Cruise
Special
personn
el
X
Open
Sea
Coastal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Port areas Hull
/
protected
X
Super
structure
Component
/
equipment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Stakeholders
• Authorities,
‒ IMO (International Maritime Organization),
‒ The European Union,
‒ National maritime authorities, in Denmark the DMA.
•
•
•
•
Classification societies,
Shipowners,
Shipyards,
Technology providers, like
‒ material producers,
‒ component suppliers.
• Naval architects/consultants,
• Universities,
• Test & Development Institutions.
Value Chain
Timeline Overview
some Projects
Areas investigated
Area investigated:
Weight saving
Fire safety and test
Joints between materials
Risk based regulation
LCCA (Life Cycle Cost Assessment)
LCA (Life Cycle Assessment)
New materials
Structural design
Degradation of composites
Inspection of defects and damages
Certification of FRP elements
Global strength
Production process
Patch repair
Number of projects
looking at this area:
6
6
4
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Hazard ranking
1.Fire
2.Toxicity
3.Structural Collapse / Loss of strength
4.Ice sailing
•Wrong Emergency Response
(operational)
Fire Hazard & Risk of Fire
• Fire is regarded as the greatest hazard among those
interviewed
• Along with risks associated with heat and flame
• Agreement fire hazard always present
• Not sharing opinion on risk
• Technical aspect
• Regulatory aspect
Toxicity Hazard & Risk of
Toxic Smoke
• Toxicity is regarded as the second highest ranked hazard
among those interviewed
• Smoke from burning FRP is toxic
‒ However, all smoke is hazardous
‒ Shift focus to on how to avoid exposure to smoke
• Increased risk of the burning FRP material producing
excessive amounts of smoke, toxic or not.
Structural Hazard & Risk of
Collapse
• Structural Collapse / Loss of strength were regarded as the
third highest rank hazard among those interviewed
• Whether the cause being a fire or a collision the material’s
potential lack of sufficient residual strength poses a risk that
stakeholders are generally concerned with
• Issues in loosing strength as a consequence of for example
elevated temperatures or deflection
‒ But good structural features of FRP in terms of flexibility and
strength in all directions.
Focus should then be of loss prevention and risk reduction,
through other means that are not yet fully investigated.
Ice Hazard & Risks associated
• Ice sailing is regarded a high ranking hazard among those
interviewed
• Ice as a hazard only exists if a ship operates in certain cold
geographical areas.
• Whether it poses a bigger risk to a FRP ship compared to
steel or aluminium ships, further depends on the operational
mode and design criteria.
• Varying opinions on the usability of FRP in ice
• Different opinions on whether it is really of interest to focus
on.
Organizational Hazards &
Risks
• Wrong Emergency Response and operational hazards in
general, are regarded as high ranking hazards
• Matters such as crew manning and external readiness
• Crew preparedness?
• Level of knowledge (or lack of) about FRP on ships both
in operation and emergency situations
Barriers and challenges
Perceived or real ?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Regulation
Parties’ limited risk analysis experience
Functional criteria lacking, methods and standards lacking
Damage detection and repair Conservatism and 1. mover
risk avoidance
Tendering rules
Shipyards issues on size and FRP engineering
FRP technical challenges and uncertainties
“Noise” from to many technical experts with individual
specific knowledge clouding the message ?
Barriers and Interdependency
Financial incentive /
volume ?
Approval?
Documentation?
Financial incentive?
Delays from
approval
procedure?
Ship
owners
Producers
Shipyards
Authorities
Documentation?
Safety vs Risk
assumptions?
Approval?
Capacity?
Moving out of Status Quo
• Smaller steps for incorporating FRP in the commercial
shipbuilding industry – in aiming for step by step
approval – is likely to be more successful, than an “all
or nothing” approach
• Modular approach has some foreseen benefits, like:
‒ focus the research and development on certain elements of
the topic
‒ enable authorities to prepare an approval scheme with safety
level differentiation
‒ allow technology and regulation to follow each other
‒ incremental steps align with the conservatism while still
preparing for slight change
Prioritized Initiatives
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Functional criteria for alternative material
Components and equipment in FRP
Combatting FRP fire risk: a multi-angles approach
Focus on one FRP ship type and operation
Operational focus for FRP on ships
Adjustments to tendering rules
Enhancing knowledge transfer
New cooperation approach to FRP
• Documenting full scale FRP ship fire
Ex.: Combatting FRP Fire Risk:
A multi-angles Approach
Scope
Overall fire focus on FRP material and joints
Being able to handle the FRP fire risk, either through eliminating the
combustible elements, or actively preventing fire, or a combination of this.
Verifying material properties.
Brief description Develop applicable non-combustible FRP. Applicable to usage on ship, so
must have a full matrix of suitable properties for marine usage.
Developing fire-resistant system solutions, for example by limiting the use of
combustible materials for specific functions or sections on the ship.
Defining a Fire Safety Engineering approach to fire safety making fire safety a
design parameter for future use of FRP.
Possibly establish a simpler test method to classify a material or construction
Fire Restricting Material (FRM), making it a viable alternative the large and
expensive full scale room corner test in ISO 9705.
Investigate structural features with focus on loss prevention and risk
reduction.
Foreseen
Test & development institutions, material providers, universities, consultants.
participants
Ultimate goal
Creating Momentum
• First-mover avoidance can be reduced by the smaller steps, but not
entirely avoided
‒ Risk taking and knowledge gaining
‒ Shared possibilities for risk and opportunity
• Look at upsides and downsides from an overall business perspective
• Recognize there must be a clear customer need to drive the process
• Usage of newer technologies, and tailoring the rules and regulations,
is seen as crucial for successfully bringing FRP into commercial
shipbuilding
• Development and technical knowledge from universities as well as
industry
Knowledge
Opportunity
Fiber reinforced polymer “on
fire”
Material-level
Fire retardants
Principle of fire retardants
Endothermic degradation: (effect on heat)
Magnesium and aluminum hydroxides, Calcination in gypsum
Thermal shielding, solid phase: (effect on heat, oxygen and fuel)
Intumescent materials, Nano clay, ordinary char
Dilution, gas phase: (effect on oxygen and fuel)
Inert gases produced by thermal degradation
Gas phase radical quenching: (effect on heat)
Release hydrogen chloride or hydrogen bromide
FRP composite “on fire”
composite - level
Temperature
De-bonding
De-bonding
Laminate
Laminate
Core material
Resistance to fire testing
Prescriptive requirement for the structural core to be
made of steel or equivalent.
Thermal exposure
Time-temperature
curve (ISO 834)
A-60 bulkhead Performance
Integrity:
No flames or holes in
60 minutes
Insulation:
Max temperature rise
140°C/180°C in 60 minutes
Insulation Insulation
FRP composite sandwich
Statutory matrix for FRP
vessels
Vessel type
Regulation
FRP construction
Remarks
< 24m and
< 12 PAX.
Meddelse F
Danish notation
•
Pax can sleep onboard
•
International operation
but regulated operation
range
•
One navigator
DMA accepts the use of FRP in
construction
Not guaranteed to be accepted
outside Denmark
< 24m and
> 12 PAX.
High speed craft (HSC code)
• No PAX sleeping onboard
• No crew sleeping onboard
• International operation
• Fixed routes
• Two navigators
HSC code allows alternative
materials like FRP
International accepted
Positive towards toward
alternative materials like FRP
> 24m and
> 12 PAX.
Ferry Directive (Meddelse D)
• Allows designs according to
HSC
HSC code allows alternative
materials like FRP
DMA allows design according to
undefined “Slow speed craft”
based on HSC.
No international or regional
accept when using the national
“Slow speed craft” based on
HSC.
SOLAS
Do no allow widespread use of
alternative materials like FRP
and if, regulation 17 is to be
used.
International accepted.
Using Regulation 17 is extensive
and unprecedented.
Regional operation
> 24m and
> 12 PAX
International operation
Fire safety according to
SOLAS
Prescriptive approach
Fulfill:
Prescriptive requirements in
Part A and Part B, C, D, E, G
Regulation 17 approach
Fulfill:
Prescriptive requirements in Part A, F
and fire safety objective and functional
requirements in Part B, C, D, E, G.
“At least as safe as if it would have
been designed according to
prescriptive requirements”
Guidance on “how” in MSC/Circ. 1002
generally known as fire safety
engineering (FSE) using the method
described in MSC/Circ. 1455.
News from IMO on FRP
guideline
The text in the Swedish proposal has been
finalized by SDC and submitted to MSC……..
and rejected.
MSC replied:
Not good enoughs – you are welcome to
submit a better guideline.
Norman Atlantic
COMPASS - "implicit
robustness"
COMPASS - in pursuit of "implicit robustness"
Purpose:
Comparative testing of steel, aluminum of FRP deck and bulkhead. In order to
quantify implicit robustness in a reproducible manner, which will enable method for
ship builders to verify equivalent implicit robustness for ships build according
to different regulation, using different materials (steel, aluminum and FRP).
Task specification:
Test of a number of full size load bearing structural elements in order to
understand issues at hand.
Thermal exposure: Natural fire curve. A natural fire curve imposes novelty with in
resistance to fire testing as this is not tested in accordance to the FTP code.
Structural elements: All bulkheads and deck should be insulated to fulfill the Class
A-60 requirement and the structural element should be loaded.
New business, build
lightweight
Wing in ground plane (ship)
Doors
Toilet
Fire protection
(fire spread)
Sprinklers (external)
Pipes and cables
Ship
Furniture
Ventilation
Find the Status Report and Idea Catalogue at dbi-net.dk
THANK YOU!
QUESTIONS?