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