LF-Sea (Brand name) Date: December 2007

L F C
Co-workers:
TOSHIO SUZUKI : Professor emeritus of Osaka University
YASUYUKI TODA : Professor of Osaka University
YOSHIHARU YANO : Captain of Training Ship “Fukaemaru”
of Kobe University

1
Anti-fouling paint
for less fuel consumption(LFC)
Index:
1. Why LFC now ?
2. Comparison with current technology
3. Challenge for frictional resistance reduction
4. Frictional resistance test (Lab.)
5. Model ship test
6. Mechanism of LFC
7. Actual ship test
8. Product List & Standard Spec.
9. Cost Impact Simulation
10. Cost Impact for Application

2
1. Why LFC now?
䊶Ecological Aspect (ex. Kyoto Protocol)
* Reduction of fuel emission gas:CO2䇮SOx
* If fuel consumption of ship is reduced
by 4% per year…
Japan World wide
Reduction of heavy oil 3.8 11 million ton

*Reduction CO2 11 32
*Reduction SOx 0.3 7.6
Japanese target of CO2 reduction is 500 million ton
based on Kyoto protocol
*Reduction CO2 : Corresponding reduction in terms of CO2.
*Reduction SOX : Corresponding reduction in terms of SOX.

3
1. Why LFC now?
䊶Economic Aspect
USD 6 0 0
per Bunker A
KL 5 0 0
Bunker C
400

300

200
3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q 1Q 3Q
02 03 03 04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

- Bunker Oil price is skyrocketing indefinitely.

- INTERTANKO and environmentalists support use of Bunker A
in place of Bunker C.
- Fuel consumption is saved and navigation cost is saved by LFC.

4
 2. Comparison with current technology
Current New
Technology Technology

㪜㪸㫉㫃㫐㩷㫊㫋㪸㪾㪼㩷㫆㪽㩷㫅㪸㫍㫀㪾㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅 CDP type

㪪㪼㪸㩷

㪧㪸㫀㫅㫋㩷㪽㫀㫃㫄 LFC
㪪㫌㪹㫊㫋㫉㪸㫋㪼 Self-polishing type

㪚㫆㫅㫍㪼㫅㫋㫀㫆㫅㪸㫃㩷 vo
vo vo
vo vo vo vo

㪪㪼㫃㪽㪄㪧㫆㫃㫀㫊㪿㫀㫅㪾㩷
Self-Polishing technology
㪣㪝㪚
+

㪝㫌㪼㫃㩷
Water-trapping technology
㪥㪸㫍㫀㪾㪸㫋㫀㫆㫅㩷㪧㪼㫉㫀㫆㪻

5
3. Challenge for frictional resistance reduction

mic䋿
Wisdom
Penguin 䋼Air bubble䋾
of Evolution

㪫㫌㫅㪸
Surface is
covered with
mucosa, and this Shark
helps Tuna swim
at 160 km ph.

Riblet surface
Dolphin
Smooth & flexible surface help Dolphin swim fast.

LFC : Viscous & Slippery surface like Tuna & Dolphin skin

6
 4. Frictional resistance test (Lab.)

㪩㪼䋽㪋㪃㪇㪇㪇㪃㪇㪇㪇 Current AF


 㰱䋴䋦
smj


Ӡ%V=?

Frictional Resistance
 Î 4% reduced !!

Frictional resistance



     
4DKU=ǴO?
-Friction resistance is measured using apparatus as shown in this sheet.
-Various kind of AFs including competitors’ are tested.
-Surface roughness of general AF is between 100 ~ 150 microns.
-As above graph shows, about 4% of friction resistance reduction is
verified at 100 microns.

7
5. Model ship test (using Towing Tank )
in Osaka University䋺 (tank length䋽100䌭䋩
Professor YASUYUKI TODA

LFC AF
applied

CURRENT
AF
applied

No
coating
applied

8
 * Resistance components in navigation

MNG
Air Resistance

Total Wave Making 6CE

Resistance Resistance Frictional Resistance of flat plate
Viscous
Resistance Viscous Pressure
Form Resistance
Resistance

㪘㫀㫉㩷㫉㪼㫊㫀㫊㫋㪸㫅㪺㪼
㪈㪇㪇㩼 Frictional Form
Resistance
㪏㪇㩼 㪮㪸㫍㪼㩷㫄㪸㫂㫀㫅㪾
㪍㪇㩼
㫉㪼㫊㫀㫊㫋㪸㫅㪺㪼
㪝㫆㫉㫄㩷㫉㪼㫊㫀㫊㫋㪸㫅㪺㪼
㪋㪇㩼

㪉㪇㩼 㪝㫉㫀㪺㫋㫀㫆㫅㪸㫃 KEY FRICTION our AF

㪇㩼 㫉㪼㫊㫀㫊㫋㪸㫅㪺㪼 challenged to reduce
㪭㪣㪚㪚 㪣㪥㪞 㪚㪆㪪

Flat plate Ship Fig. Example of resistance components in ship navigation

9
Example of Resistance Components
XWWL

_WL

]WL h™G™Œšš›ˆ•ŠŒ
~ˆŒG”ˆ’•ŽG™Œšš›ˆ•ŠŒ
m–™”G™Œšš›ˆ•ŠŒ
[WL
m™Š›–•ˆ“G™Œšš›ˆ•ŠŒ

YWL

WL
}sjj sun jvu{ mlyy€

The larger the ship, the bigger the frictional resistance

of flat plate.

10
Model ship test
Friction resistance comparison test on three model
ships of 3 meter long at 2.4 meter / second was carried
out. Æ equivalent to 100 meter ship at 25 knots

Index number
Frictional Resistance
Results Total Resistance
of Flat plate
Current AF 100 100
LFC AF 96 (-4%) 88 (-12%)

LFC showed the reduction of both of resistances as above,

compared with Current AF !

11
 Index number

Test Result Frictional Resistance

Total Resistance
of Flat plate

Current AF 100 100

LFC AF 96 (-4%) 88 (-12%)
h™ GyŒšš› ˆ•ŠŒ

{–› ˆ“G ~ˆŒGtˆ’•Ž - 12 %

yŒšš› ˆ•ŠŒ yŒšš› ˆ•ŠŒ m™ Š› –•ˆ“GyŒšš› ˆ•ŠŒG– G “ˆ› G—“ˆ› Œ
- 4% }šŠ–œšG
yŒšš› ˆ•ŠŒ
m–™ ”GyŒšš› ˆ•ŠŒ }šŠ–œšGw™ Œššœ™ ŒGyŒšš› ˆ•ŠŒ

m™ Š› –•ˆ“Gm–™ ”G
yŒšš› ˆ•ŠŒ

12
 㧔Image illustration㧕

6. LFC Mechanism (1) ~ˆ›Œ™G{™ˆ—Gsˆ Œ™GOQP

This phenomena keep cycling hG“ˆ Œ™G–Gžˆ›Œ™G
‹ŒŒ“–—Œ‹G‰ G
›™ˆ——•ŽGžˆ›Œ™G
“–žU

AF paint film AF paint film

஦஠஝ –™”š Trap Layer ‰Œ›žŒŒ•G›ŒG
j–•‹›–•G–Gh஠—ˆ•›G“”
•›Œ™ˆŠŒG–GšŒˆžˆ›Œ™Gˆ•‹G—ˆ•›G“” ž›
•ŒžG›ŒŠ•–“–Ž U
jŒ“•ŽGŒŒŠ›G›–Gš›™Œˆ”“•ŒG
žˆ›Œ™G“–žU

AF paint film AF paint film

{Œ Trap Layer ˆ›G›ŒG {ŒGTrap Layer ‹–ŒšG•–›G
Š–•ŠˆŒGšœ™ˆŠŒGš›ˆ šGˆšG›GšG ”ˆ•›ˆ•G›šG–™Ž•ˆ“G–™”Gˆ•‹G
ˆ•‹GŠ–•›™‰œ›ŒšG›–G›ŒG ›šGŠ–•ŒŸGšœ™ˆŠŒGšG
™Œ‹œŠ›–•G–G›ŒG™Š›–•ˆ“G ™Œ”–Œ‹G‰ Gˆ‹‘ˆŠŒ•›Gžˆ›Œ™G
™Œšš›ˆ•ŠŒU “–žU

13
 㧔Image illustration㧕

6. LFC Mechanism (2)

LFC AF paint film is relevantly off-set by water trap
layer, leading to smooth water flow and to reduce
frictional resistance.

a : ( Normal Coating Wave )

a – b = c b : ( Water Trap Layer )
c : ( Friction Affecting Film )

Water Flow on smoother surface

thanks to water trap layer
c
a
b
Water Trap Layer
LFC AF paint film

14
 㧔Image illustration㧕
6. LFC Mechanism (3) Water Trap Layer
Current SPC AF LFC AF

In early stage

In mid term stage

Water Trap Layer

In long term stage

Self-polished surface becomes smoother by
water trapping mechanism.
15
7. Actual ship test
¾Sea Area 䋺 Seto Inland Sea, Japan
¾Under weigh distance run 䋺290 miles/day
¾Ferry A䋺2000t, 20knots (Ship age : 14 yrs)
Ferry E䋺2500t, 20knots (Ship age : 5 yrs)
Ferry S䋺1000t, 16knots (Ship age : 21 yrs)
¾Survey period䋺 for 1 year 䋨Dock to Dock䋩
¾Evaluation䋺
The amount of fuel oil consumption for 1 year
between Current AF (2004~2005) and LFC AF
(2005~2006) was compared.
LFC was applied on old AF coating WITHOUT
BLASTING.

16
Data to analyze fuel oil consumption
¾ DATA - daily From LOG book
Rpm of Main Engine
Fuel rack (spray-out degree of fuel oil valve)
Fuel consumption of Main Engine (FO)
Hours under weigh (total navigation hours)
Under weigh distance run (Ocean Going)
Hours propelling (navigation hours at service speed)
Speed

¾Analyzed Results
1. Fuel oil consumption / Under weigh distance run
2. Fuel oil consumption / Hours under weigh
3. LFC effect

17
Data analyzed by a ferry company
Under Mild Weather Conditions ( vs previous year )
Ship Age㸣 Engine Efficiency FO (L) / Dist FO (L) / Hour
Ferry E 5 years - - 2.6 % - 3.3 %
Ferry A 14 years - - 3.7 % - 2.6 %
Ferry S 21 years - + 1.1 % + 1.2 %

Fuel Oil was obviously

㪝㪦㩿㪣㪀㪆㪟㫉㪅 reduced in terms of per hour / per distance!
㪝㪦㩿㪣㪀㪆㪛㫀㫊㫋㪅
㪝㪼㫉㫉㫐㩷㪜 㪄㪊㪅㪉㪏㩼 㪄㪉㪅㪌㪌㩼
㪝㪼㫉㫉㫐㩷㪘 㪄㪉㪅㪌㪌㩼 㪄㪊㪅㪍㪎㩼
㪝㪼㫉㫉㫐㩷㪪 㪈㪅㪉㪊㩼 㪈㪅㪇㪎㩼 FO (L) per Hour
㪉
㪈 FO(L) per Distance

㪇
㪄㪈㩼 Small fuel oil
increase for
㪄㪉㩼
21 year-old
㪄㪊㩼 ship.
㪄㪋㩼
Ferry E Ferry A Ferry S
18
LFC effect * ( 100 – 3.6 ) 㬭 ( 100 + 1.5 )
= 96.4 㬭 101.5 = approx 95
Under All Weather Conditions Æ 4.4 % improved by LFC effect
( vs previous year )
Engine Efficiency FO(L)/Dist. FO(L)/Hr. LFC effect
Ferry E 1.5% worsened - 2.8 % - 3.6 % - 4.4 %
Ferry A No Data - 0.1 % -1.4 % Not Calculable
Ferry S No Data 1.7 % 0.9 % Not Calculable

㪉㪅㪇㩼 Engine Efficiency

㪈㪅㪇㩼 FO(L)/Distance
㪇㪅㪇㩼 FO(L)/Hour
㪄㪈㪅㪇㩼 LFC effect
㪄㪉㪅㪇㩼
Actual ship test :
㪄㪊㪅㪇㩼 LFC effect = LFC effect is obviously
㪄㪋㪅㪇㩼 (- 4.4 %) confirmed on Ferry E.
㪄㪌㪅㪇㩼
= Reduction of fuel oil consumption
Ferry E Ferry A Ferry S is confirmed on Ferry A.
= No accurate data was obtained
㶎 Ferry E : Calculated with digital flow on Ferry S due to her old age.
㶎 Ferry A & S : Calculated with counter reel.

19
 Ferry E䋺Distance 䋨mile / day䋩 from 2002 to 2006 (5 years)
(mile per day)
310
㪊㪈㪇 Ferry E
䈋䈵䉄䋺㪟㪈㪊㪄㪟㪈㪏䇭⥶ⴕ〒㔌㪆㪻㪸㫐
㪉㪐㪇
290
270
㪉㪎㪇

250
㪉㪌㪇

230
㪉㪊㪇
(eg. 240 miles at 700th day)
210
㪉㪈㪇

190
㪈㪐㪇

170
㪈㪎㪇
(days after 1st drydock )
150
㪈㪌㪇
㪇
0 㪉㪇㪇
200 㪋㪇㪇
400 㪍㪇㪇
600 㪏㪇㪇
800 㪈㪇㪇㪇
1000 㪈㪉㪇㪇
1200 㪈㪋㪇㪇
1400 㪈㪍㪇㪇
1600 㪈㪏㪇㪇
1800

Ferry E dry-docked every year after the 1st dry-dock of newbuilding.

Under weigh distance per day of this vessel is consistent during
the past 5 years.
Based on this monitoring data, fuel oil consumption was evaluated.

20
Ferry E䋺 2002 to 2006 ( 5 years )
LFC effect thus verified !
(Index)
104
LFC AF
CURRENT AF Keeps worsening
102 Engine Efficiency
FO (L) / Distance
100 FO (L) / Hour
Fuel Efficiency
98 LFC effect

96 FOC reduction !
LFC AF applied
94 LFC effect
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 ( Year )

Data 2006 is a result of the LFC AF applied

at previous dock (2005).
Lowest fuel consumption data is recorded
in 2006 since 2002, which verifies LFC effect.

21
 Influence of blasting on fuel oil consumption and
its consequential aging effect
㪈㪇㪈
Blast effect 㪈㪇㪇 䋺FO䋯Distance
䋺FO䋯Hour
㪐㪐
The Japan Society of 㪐㪏
Naval Architect and 㪐㪎
Ocean Engineers 㪐㪍 Degradation
Vol.4 December 2006 ႢႵႅ႔峠縠
Page 193 㪐㪌 蝳藸挰輀 with time
㪐㪋
Blasting 1st year 2nd years
25 after Blasting after Blasting
FOC keep increasing due to hull damage with
20 time by 1% and degradation of engine
15 efficiency by 0.5% per year.
10 Î1.5% degradation per year in total
5 LFC AF fights back to overcome

FOC Increase (%)

0 this degradation !
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ( year )
Fig3 FOC Increase due to Fouling and Aging Effect 22
8. Product List & Standard Spec.
for Ocean-Going Vessels

{ —ŒG–G { —ŒG–G uŒž‰œ“‹•Ž

w™–‹œŠ›G˨
wˆ•› z— z›ˆ•‹ˆ™‹Gz—ŒŠ
h““
jœG ]WGtGš—ŒŠ ஂX\ංX^G’•–›šஃ
smTzŒˆGY\WGo i vŠŒˆ•T
hŠ™ “ˆ›Œ }ViaGZGŸX[WɆSGGmViaGYGŸGXZ\Ɇ
n–•ŽGš—š

• ப஝஝ ZWGtGš—ŒŠ ஂX^ංYW ’•–›šஃ

smTzŒˆGYWWW
hŠ™ “ˆ›Œ j–•›ˆ•Œ™ }ViaGYGŸGXYWɆSGGmViaGYGŸG_WɆ

¾ 60 M life spec of LF-Sea 2000 to be marketed on our reference list / track

records.
¾ Please consult with Nippon Paint Marine Coatings as the above shows standard
DFT and may differ depending on the ship’s operating conditions.
¾ Special AF for outfitting, if necessary, is recommended in case of applying
LF-Sea 2000.

23
9. Cost Impact Simulation

Fuel Oil Saving

* Simulation for Your Vessels
㸡
Click here

24
10. Cost Impact for Application (5 year-scheme)
Current AF / LFC AF and SILICON AF

* M & R ( Application Process ) in vertical table

* M & R ( Application Process ) in horizontal table

* Comparison Table =M&R=

* Comparison Table =Newbuilding=

* M&R Simulation for Your Vessel

25
 M & R ( Application Process ) No rainy day basis vertical table
Current AF & LFC AF DAY SILICON AF
Hull : *FWW 1 Hull : *FWW

Hull : *SSB, AC t/u, AF t/u, T/S : Finish f/c 2 Hull : *SB + *HP f/c *DS *WS

B/M : AF 1st f/c + AF 2nd f/c 3 Hull : *SB + *HP f/c *DS *WS

B/M : AF 3rd f/c 4 Hull : *SB + *HP f/c *DS *WS

= Dock Out = 5 Hull : *FWW

- 6 T/S, B/T : Finish f/c B/M : AC 1st f/c

- 7 B/T : *AWG (2m width) *PS

- 8 B/M : AC 2nd f/c + Silicon TC f/c

- 9 B/M : Silicon AF f/c *Take-off of AWG

- 10 Drying time ( 24 H @30䍽C )

- 11 = Dock Out =
*
FWW : Fresh Water Washing SB : Sand Blasting, HP : Holding Primer
SSB : Spot Sand Blasting DS : Disposal of Sand, WS : Water Sprinkle
AC : Anti-Corrosive, AF : Anti-Fouling AWG : Awning, TC : Tie Coat
t/u : touch-up, f/c : full coat PS : Paint Shelter
26
 M & R ( Application Process ) horizontal table
No rainy day basis
&C[Î 㧝 㧞 㧟 㧠 㧡 㧢 㧣 㧤 㧥 㧝㧜 㧝㧝

Current FWW SSB AF f/c1 AF Dock - - - - - -

AF AC t/u AF f/c2 f/c3 Out
ll AF t/u
LFC AF T/S f/c

FWW SB SB SB FWW T/S, B/T B/M AF f/c Flood Dock

B/T AC Take -ing Out
off time
HP f/c HP f/c HP f/c FC f/c AWG f/c2
AWG 24H
B/M +
SILICON
AF FWW AC PS TC f/c
f/c1 Min 4 H ~ Max 8 H
Sand Disposal (30㷄䋩
*Interval 4 Hrs
+ Water Sprinkle

for Sunshade &

Dust Prevention
Paint Shelter 2m

27
Comparison Table =M&R=
1. Blasting
2. Painting Spec (AC)
3. Painting Spec (AF)
eg. 15~17knots
4. Drydock period
5. Disposal of Sand
6. Holding Primer
7. Awning for B/T (& T/S)
8. Paint Shelter
9. Package of AF
10. Coating Interval
*DD Prolongation risk due to Rain
11. Take-off of Awning
12. Drying time before flooding
13. Paint mist protection at site
14. Designated spray machine
㸡 Item 4 ~ 14 : Demerits of SILICON AF
䂾 Necessary, X Not necessary
Current AF = LFC AF SILICON AF
Spot Full ( Sa 2.5 )
t/u x 1 NOA 10 M (min175 u) f/c x 2 (250) + TC f/c x 1(100)
V/B : t/u x 1 + f/c x 2 ~ 3
V/B & F/B : 150 u
F/B : t/u x 1 + f/c x 1 ~ 2
5 days 11 days
X 䂾 (䂦)
X 䂾 (䂦)
X 䂾
X 䂾 (䂦)
1 pack 3 packs
AC 㹤 AF AC 㹤 TC
Min 3 H ~ Max 3 D (30䍽C) Min 4 H ~ Max 8 H (30䍽C)
X 䂾
> 12 H (30䍽C) > 24 H (30䍽C)
X 䂾
X 䂾
28
Comparison Table =Newbuilding= 䂾 Necessary, X Not necessary

Current AF = LFC AF SILICON AF

1. Painting Spec. AC x 2 + AF x 2 ~ 3 AC x 2 + TC x 1 + AF x 1

2. PDD ( Pre-Delivery Dock ) Depends MUST

3. PDD dock interval 4 days 11 days
4. Days needed for FWW at PDD 1 day 3 days
5. Awning for B/T (& T/S) X 䂾
6. Paint Shelter X 䂾
7. Package of AF 1 pack 3 packs
8. Coating Interval AC 㹤 AF AC 㹤 TC
*DD Prolongation risk due to Rain Min 3 H ~ Max 3 D (30䍽C) Min 4 H ~ Max 8 H (30䍽C)
9. Take-off of Awning X 䂾
10. Drying time before flooding > 12 H (30䍽C) > 24 H (30䍽C)
11. Paint mist protection at site X 䂾
12. Designated spray machine X 䂾
㸡 Item 2~ 12 : Demerits of SILICON AF
29
* M&R Simulation for Your Vessel
㸡
Click here

30
LFC

Thank you !

31