project lightship an investigation of status quo and next stages for using frp- based materials in...
TRANSCRIPT
Project LightShip
An Investigation of Status Quo and Next Stages for using FRP-based Materials in Danish Commercial Shipbuilding
By Rikke Aarøe Carlsen from Ready?and Dan Lauridsen from DBI
Skibsteknisk Selskab ConferencePassenger Ships – Now and in the future
23. November 2015
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 Special personnel
Open Sea
Coastal Port areas / protected
Hull Super structure
Component / equipment
Cargo (incl. SPS) X X X X X X X X
Passenger X X X X X X X X
RO-RO X X X X X
Cruise 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: Number of projects looking at this area:
Weight saving 6Fire safety and test 6Joints between materials 4Risk based regulation 3LCCA (Life Cycle Cost Assessment) 3LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) 3New materials 2Structural design 2Degradation of composites 1Inspection of defects and damages 1Certification of FRP elements 1Global strength 1Production process 1Patch repair 1
Hazard ranking
1.Fire2.Toxicity3.Structural Collapse / Loss of strength4.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 challengesPerceived 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 ?
Ship owners
Shipyards
Authorities
Producers
Financial incentive?Delays from
approval procedure?
Approval?Capacity?
Documentation?Safety vs Risk assumptions?
Financial incentive / volume ?Approval?
Documentation?
Barriers and Interdependency
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. Functional criteria for alternative material2. Components and equipment in FRP3. Combatting FRP fire risk: a multi-angles approach4. Focus on one FRP ship type and operation5. Operational focus for FRP on ships6. Adjustments to tendering rules7. Enhancing knowledge transfer8. New cooperation approach to FRP
• Documenting full scale FRP ship fire
Ex.: Combatting FRP Fire Risk:A multi-angles ApproachScope Overall fire focus on FRP material and joints
Ultimate goal 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 participants
Test & development institutions, material providers, universities, consultants.
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
KnowledgeOpportunity
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
De-bonding
Laminate
Core material
Laminate
De-bonding
Temperature
Resistance to fire testing
Prescriptive requirement for the structural core to be made of steel or equivalent.
Thermal exposureTime-temperature curve (ISO 834)
FRP composite sandwich
InsulationInsulation
A-60 bulkhead PerformanceIntegrity: No flames or holes in 60 minutesInsulation: Max temperature rise 140°C/180°C in 60 minutes
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.
Regional operation
Ferry Directive (Meddelse D)• Allows designs according to
HSC
HSC code allows alternative materials like FRPDMA 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.
> 24m and > 12 PAX
International operation
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.
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
Pipes and cables
VentilationFurnitureSprinklers (external)
Fire protection (fire spread)
Ship
THANK YOU! QUESTIONS?
Find the Status Report and Idea Catalogue at dbi-net.dk