MSC.285(86) and Code for gas-fuelled ships (IGF-Code) – technical challenges … · 2016. 11....

GL – Your competitive edge Take the lead through innovation

MSC.285(86) and Code for gas-fuelled ships (IGF-Code) – technical challenges and perspective -

Dr Gerd Würsig, Benjamin Scholz,

GASTECH 2011 | March 2011 | No. 2

Summary •  compared to conventional fuel oil based ship fuels liquefied gases have significant

advantages with regard to environmental effects •  environmental legislation (NOx, SOx), CO2 reduction targets and cost benefits are

the key factors to make liquefied natural gas (LNG) an attractive fuel for shipping •  In principle LNG is available. In Europe the import terminals are going to be

prepared to export LNG •  Small scale LNG carriers to distribute LNG are existing •  With more than 20 vessels in operation the prove of safe operation has been given •  Germany is deeply involved in the development of technology for the next

generation of gas fuelled ships •  Important safety aspects are:

•  Bunkering during normal harbour operation •  collision risk and ranking of collision consequences •  storage tank design

•  The IMO IGF-Code is of utmost importance to provide an international legal framework for the technology


•  IMO agreed to reduce SOx-emissions by controlling the Sulphur content in marine fuels from 2015 onwards.

•  Within SECA’s, ship owners need to switch to cleaner fuels like marine gas oil (MGO) with 0.1% Sulphur, if alternative technologies are not or cannot be used.

•  Recent studies point to possible modal shifts from sea to road around the north European SECAs and US ECA

•  Low-Sulphur fuel and distillate demand a costs premium today

•  plus 30$/t for fuel with 1.5% Sulphur •  plus 300$/t for distillate with 0.1%

  Alternative fuels could offer a solution

Why gas as fuel? Environment and Economics


Conventional fuel becomes unatractive •  For new vessels operating in ECA’s from 2016 onwards, 80% reduction of NOx-emissions versus

2010 level is required catalytic converters or extreme EGR is needed

Current and potential emission control areas


No Chicken Egg problem for Fuel Supply


LNG/LPG Tanker Norgas Innovation GL-112578, in service since January 2010

I.M. Skaugen SE/Norgas: 6 Newbuildings 10.000 to 12.000 m3, 2009/2011

Source: GL, I.M. Skaugen


Gas as Fuel for Shipping


Gas fuelled vessels – Mai 2010 -

2000: car/passenger ferry 2003: two offshore vessels 2006: one car/passenger ferry 2007: four car/passenger ferries 2008:one offshore vessel 2009: four car/passenger ferries, one patrol vessel, one offshore vessel 2010: three car passenger ferries, two patrol vessels

2000

2003

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

car passenger vessels: two different owners offshore vessels: two different owners patrol vessels: one owner Source: DNV; Wärtsilä LNG Seminar,

Waalwik, 2010-05-28

IGF Guideline Proposed to IMO DE 48/19 – Norway 2004-12-16


GL Guideline for the use of Gas as Fuel for Ships (VI-3-1)

In Force – 2010-05-01


IGF-Code IMO Rules for gas as ship fuel

MSC-86 (Mai 2009): IGF Interim Guideline: MSC Resolution MSC-285-86

footnote to SOLAS Reg. II-1/26


The GL classed chemical tanker “Bit Viking” of Tarbit Shipping will be converted to LNG as fuel

Particulars Deadweight 24,783 MT Length over all 177,03 m Beam 26,30 m Cubic capacity 27,310 m³ 98% Main engines 2 x WÄRTSILÄ 6L46B 5,850 kW

Classed GL* 100A5 E3 ESP IW NAV-OC Chemical Tanker Type-2 GF GL Register No 111552 To be converted until end of September 2011


1200 TEU CV basic design (2009: GL, MAN, TGE) – tank arrangement -

TGE-Marine Gas Engineering GmbH


428 XXX

MAN 9L51/60DF XXXXX

9000 XXX 1244 XXX

16 XXX

DF


R&D project: Gaspax: - Cruise Ship, RoPax, Mega Yacht -

Gross Tonnage: 63,000 GT LOA: 238 m Breadth: 32.2 m Passengers/ Crew: 2050 + 570 Crew Engines: Dual fuel (2 x 6 MW; 2 x 8 MW) Fuel: 2x1000 m3 LNG/ 800 m3 MGO

Hazard Identification carried out Next step: Failure Mode and Effects Analysis no showstoppers have been identified so far


Bunkering scenario Port close to urban areas Port close to urban Bunkering during

unloading and loading

Truck and cars Passengers

Very short time in port

LNG & MGO Source: FKAB


Project Proposal „BunGas“: Development of Bunker Boat and Bunker Requirements

(2011/2012) •  Meyer Werft •  MAN Diesel •  TGE-Marine Gas Engineering •  Germanischer Lloyd •  Det Norske Veritas •  AIDA Cruises •  Bernhard Schulte

Ship - based

bunkering


CV 18,000 TEU

L=400m B=59m H=30.10m

Fuel-Flexibility 40 days range on HFO 33 days range on HFO

7 days range on LNG

7 days range on HFO

33 days range on LNG

DUAL FUEL for main engine and auxiliaries


LNG-fuelled large container vessel (DSME)

DSME, 2011-03-12


Basic design and cost studies for different types of vessels


Scope of IGF-Code •  should provide safety measures for ships using gas/ low flashpoint liquids as fuel

including liquefied gas tankers. •  is intended to address natural gas fuel, other gas fuel types such as butane, hydrogen,

propane and low flashpoint liquids namely ethanol, methanol and synthetic fuels. •  will cover the energy conversion systems of relevance (low and high pressure ICE, gas

turbines, boilers, fuel cells) •  should only address issues not already covered by SOLAS and serve as an addition to

SOLAS. •  should revoke the interim guidelines and Chapter 16 of the IGC Code. •  should be set into force with SOLAS 2014


BLG-15 CG on IGF-Code - Status

Results of CG work to IMO BLG 15: Nov 2010

Initial draft prepared by Germany 2010-05-31 (includes the MSC.285(86))

IMO BLG-15 WG: Feb 2011 CG on IGF-Code and IGC-Code: Feb 2011 to Nov 2011

Submission Completion Date 2014

all independent and membrane tank types of IGC-Code accepted


some principles for the IGF-Code - page 1 -

•  Assessment of the collision risk (risk = frequency * consequences) definition of accepted risk

•  Assessment of required collision resistance definition of accepted damage conditions

•  Equivalence between storage tank systems fixed installed and portable •  Assessment of risk during bunker procedure definition of accepted risk

•  Limiting of consequences limiting of releasable amount of gas •  Reduction of failure frequencies safety of connection system (couplings, flexible pipes/

hoses) •  exclude gas release in the vessel:

•  Limiting failure consequences secondary barrier for subsystems (failure of first barrier does not lead to safety relevant consequences)

•  Reduce failure frequency reliable storage systems, connections, valves etc.


some principles for the IGF-Code; - page 2 -

•  Control of accidental gas releases •  Gas release in case of tank failure •  Gas release by safety devices •  Gas release from process equipment (leakages)


Challenges in safety level: e.g. Type-C Tanks (Ch 4 IGC-Code) versus IMDG-Code pressure vessel

No leak into hold space no secondary barrier (proved that crack propagation is low enough)

No piping from tank into hold space

No double bottom, no double hull (IGC: 3.2.4.)

Minimum pressure P0 > 2 bar g (IGC: 4.2.4.4)

Minimum distance of tank: - 760 mm from side shell - less of 2 m or B/15 (IGC: 2.6)

Hold space

Dome

P0> 2 bar g

No additional thermal protection of ship structure

Type C Tank on liquefied gas carriers


Some important characteristics of tank containers

Designed according pressure vessel code (no Type C design)

bottom lines

Piping between storage tank and outer hull

(vacuum jacket)

Carbon steel vacuum jacket

Source: Germanischer Lloyd


Equivalent level of safety for movable tank systems: Tanks which are not permanently installed on board

•  equivalent tank design Tank design has to be equivalent to permanent installed tanks during operation •  The design has to comply with requirements given for the containment system of permanent

installed tanks •  equivalent monitoring A monitoring system onboard of the vessel has to be

provided as for permanent installed tanks •  equivalent safety against spill and gas release The connection of all necessary

tank systems (piping, controls, safety system, relief system etc.) to the gas system of the vessel is part of the “bunkering” process and has to be finished prior to ship departure from the bunkering station •  Connection of portable tanks during the sea voyage or maneuvering should not be permitted.


important aspects of ongoing work (from IMO BLG-15)

•  One Correspondence Group to BLG-16 for IGF- and IGC-Code •  Harmonisation of both Codes intended •  Submission Completion for IGF-Code Date 2014 •  all independent tanks and the membrane tanks are included in the IGF-Code •  tanks must comply with Ch 4 of the IGC-Code

•  also portable tanks have to comply with Ch4 requirements •  portable tanks have to be equivalent to fixed installations


Thank you for your attention

Dr Gerd Würsig, GL Coordinator Gas Technology

[email protected]

MSC.285(86) and Code for gas-fuelled ships (IGF-Code) – technical challenges … · 2016. 11....

Documents

Transcript of MSC.285(86) and Code for gas-fuelled ships (IGF-Code) – technical challenges … · 2016. 11....