Ice Briefing 20190404
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Ice Briefing 20190404 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 6,394
- Pages: 24
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Ice-class tankers Niels Overgaard, Business Manager – Tankers Rob Tustin, Manager - Plan Approval Services Korea Lloyd’s Register April 16, 2004
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Growing interest in ice-class tankers Lloyd’ Lloyd’s List, 2 April 2004
TradeWinds, 12 December 2003
Fortum’ Fortum’s Tempera, Tempera, first Aframax with Ice Class 1AS, 2002
During 2003 we saw a rush to order ice strengthened tankers. What makes this unusual is both the number and large sizes (up to aframax/suezmax). We also saw the delivery of Fortum’s double-acting tankers (DATs), Tempera and Mastera (delivered 2002 and 2003). Tempera was the largest tanker in the world to be built to Lloyd’s Register 1A Super Ice Class notation. It is also the world’s first double-acting tanker, which means that it can proceed through light ice conditions ahead and through heavy ice conditions astern, due to its azipod propulsion configuration, specially designed aft end and ability to turn through 180 degrees. Lloyd’s Register also classes Tempera’s sister-ship, Mastera, which is shown in action on the slide.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Objectives
•
To explain the underlying reasons for the increased interest in operating tankers in iceinfested waters
•
To provide an introduction to the various ice classes and associated technical issues
•
To give examples of key technical challenges and Lloyd’s Register’s response
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Today’s schedule
•
Coffee 9
•
Presentations Market overview 10 minutes Technical briefing 30 minutes
•
Q&A 30 minutes
•
Buffet Lunch at 12 pm -1 pm
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Underlying trends
•
FSU: engine of global oil supply growth
•
Helped by OPEC price policy
•
Approximately 50% up since 1996
•
Russia’s output now similar to Saudi Arabia’s
•
Can the growth be sustained?
•
The Middle East is losing ground to FSU, but still own most of the reserves
•
Believed that FSU is here to stay as a major player
The former Soviet Union (FSU), which first and foremost includes Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, has been the engine of global oil supply growth. This has been made possible by the OPEC price target policy (currently believed to be around $28/barrel), which adjusts output to control price levels. As the FSU states are not members of OPEC, they have been able to increase their output. Since 1996, FSU output has grown by around 50%, getting closer to the highs achieved during the Soviet rule, and a substantial part of this has been made available for export. In fact, Russia’s oil production output in January this year is reported to have exceeded the output of Saudi Arabia! There are issues concerning the rapid depletion of existing oil fields in Russia and a lack of investment for the future. It is therefore uncertain whether these growth rates can be sustained in the long term. However, with increased foreign investment and joint ventures in the FSU, output is expected to grow substantially over the short to medium term. The Middle East has lost ground in the battle for oil market share, mainly due to OPEC policy, but should of course not be dismissed as it still owns around 2/3 of the world’s known oil reserves. Also, Saudi Arabia has spare capacity which can be called upon when the oil market is shaken by external events. Nevertheless, we believe the FSU is here to stay as a major player in the oil market.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Exports from ice-bound/low temp ports •
Shipments from North Baltic •Export set to double in the next 5 years •Low temperatures/ice formation during the winter •Up to aframax/suezmax size
•
Increasing interest in the large oil and gas reserves in the Artic and Far Eastern areas of Russia •100-150 million tonnes per year in the future? •High infrastructure investments (terminals, pipelines, etc) •Harsh climate is a real challenge •Shuttles, various sizes, up to aframax •Murmansk transhipments, up to VLCC size
There are many oil fields located in the vast FSU area. Some of these are located in almost inaccessible areas with harsh low temperature climates. Pipelines and other transport modes such as rail are used to move the oil from onshore oil wells to ports where the oil can be shipped to foreign buyers. In terms of ice-bound/low-temperature ports of shipment - the topic of today’s presentation - the main areas are 1) the north Baltic, 2) the Russian Arctic/ northern parts of Russia 3) the far eastern areas of Russia The north Baltic, with a particular focus on the Port of Primorsk, is set to double output over the next five years. In 2002, the port loaded 12 million tons of oil. This could become 90 million tons in five years’ time, maybe up to 135 million tons if local plans are successful. Low temperatures and ice infestation of the waters in the north Baltic are a fact of life during the winter, typically November/December to March. The optimum size appears to be aframax size around 110,000 dwt (possibly we will see suezmaxes deployed, but there are draft limitations in the port and also in the Danish Straits). There are large reserves in Siberia, and these could soon be exploited on a large scale. There is a strong possibility that the oil could be shipped to a transhipment port in Murmansk, which is ice free all year due to its location. In the first instance smaller ice-strengthened shuttle tankers would be used to ship the oil from smaller ports in the area to Murmansk until planned pipelines become a reality. Needless to say, the areas in the northern parts of Russia have a very harsh climate with high levels of ice and very low temperatures. There will also be high investment requirements in terms of building terminals, pipelines and general shipping infrastructure in the area. As a result, the cost of shipping will be higher than normal. To make the concept financially viable a large scale operation is needed. This could mean output reaching 100-150 million tons per year over the next decade. In terms of shuttle tankers, various sizes could be used, from 20,000 dwt possibly up to aframax size. In terms of shipments from Murmansk, VLCCs (300,000 dwt) could be used. Lloyd’s Register is currently involved in the European Commission’s Arctic Operational Platform (ARCOP) project, the aim of which is to develop the transport of natural resources, particularly oil and gas, in the Arctic regions of Russia. A total of 21 organisations from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Italy, Russia and Norway are participating in the study, and the project is being led by Kvaerner Masa-Yards. Website: www.arcop.fi In the Russian far east there are several projects underway, in particular around the Sakhalin Islands with the intention to ship oil to Korea and Japan.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Tonnage requirements •
Depends on the actual output achieved…
•
and the destination of the oil
•
Examples: • 30 million tonnes from Primorsk in 2010 to US would equate to 35 aframaxes (110,000 dwt) • 75 million tonnes from ice-free, low temperature Murmansk in 2010 to US would equate to 32 VLCCs (300,000 dwt)
•
Whichever scenario one chooses, it is clear that operation to ice-bound ports will have increasing significance in the future
•
Availability of suitable tonnage is crucial to ensure safe operation
We have already seen a rush to order ice-strengthened tankers. This is mainly driven by the expected expansions of output to the Baltic port Primorsk, but also with some of the new developments in mind. Tonnage demands will depend on the actual output of oil achieved, which ports it will be made available for export from and the final destination of the oil. The share between short haul destinations such as western Europe and long haul destinations such as the US will be crucial. Example: 30 million tons from Primorsk in 2010 to US would equate to 35 aframaxes (110,000 dwt) 75 million tons from ice-free, low temperature Murmansk in 2010 to US would equate to 32 VLCCs (300,000 dwt) Various scenarios can be put together, but they all come with a level of uncertainty attached. The future will determine the reality, and this will dictate how much tonnage will actually be required. There are many challenges - financial, technical, environmental and political - to overcome, but the importance of enabling the safe operation of tanker tonnage to ice-bound ports will nevertheless remain paramount. For owners, this represents a specialised market opportunity with the possibility of high returns. Tankers operating in these areas must be suitable for the operation. This is the subject of the more technical part of our presentation.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
The why’s, who’s and what’s of ice class
•
WHY do we have ice class rules?
•
WHO requires ships to have ice class?
•
WHAT is the philosophy of ice class?
•
WHAT is different about first and multi-year ice?
•
WHAT does ice class 1AS mean?
•
WHAT are the Finnish-Swedish ice classes?
•
WHAT is different in an ice class ship?
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Why do we have ice-class rules?
To permit the safe operation of ships in ice-covered sea areas
Fundamentally … to permit the safe operation of ships in ice covered sea areas
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Who requires an ice class? •
Coastal states with seasonal or year-round ice-covered oceans and seas
•
Specific oceans and sea areas as well as applicable ice classes: BALTIC SEA: Bay and Gulf of Bothnia, Gulf of Finland Finnish Swedish Ice Class Rules (FSICR) Gulf of Finland (Russia territorial waters) Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice-Class Rules (Non-Arctic Sea Area Requirements) ARCTIC OCEAN: Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian and Chukchi Seas Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice-Class Rules Beaufort Sea, Baffin Bay, etc Canadian Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Rules (CASPPR) OHKOTSK SEA: Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice-Class Rules (Non-Arctic Sea Area Requirements)
Coastal states with seasonal or year-round ice-covered oceans and seas Specific oceans and sea areas in the context of current and earlier commercial shipping developments for ice operation as well as applicable ice classes: BALTIC SEA: •Bay and Gulf of Bothnia, Gulf of Finland – Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (FSICR) •Gulf of Finland (Russia territorial waters) - Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice Class Rules ARCTIC OCEAN: •Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian and Chukchi Seas - Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice Class Rules •Beaufort Sea, Baffin Bay, etc - Canadian Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Rules (CASPPR) OHKOTSK SEA: •Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice Class Rules There are also ice class rules and regulations for commercial ship operations on inland lakes e.g. the Great Lakes …
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What is the philosophy of an ice class? •
Fundamentally: Safety of the hull and essential propulsion machinery Sufficient installed power for safe operation in ice covered waters
•
Safety of hull structure and propulsion train under ice interaction loading scenarios: Hull structure - level ice design basis for first-year ice design Propeller and propeller shaft – ice piece impact design basis
•
Criteria for installed propulsion power: Minimum power for maintaining ship speed in re-frozen (brash ice) fairway navigation channel (Finnish-Swedish Rules) Maximum power for prevention of hull & propulsion system damage (Canadian Rules)
Fundamentally: •safety of the hull and essential propulsion machinery •sufficient installed power for safe operation in ice covered waters Safety of hull structure and propulsion train under ice interaction loading scenarios e.g. •hull structure - level ice design basis for first-year ice design •propeller and propeller shaft – ice piece impact design basis Criteria for installed propulsion power e.g. •minimum power for maintaining ship speed in re-frozen (brash ice) fairway navigation channel (FSICR Rules) •maximum power for prevention of hull and propulsion system damage (CASPPR) This criteria for installed propulsion power is dependent on the ice-class philosophy of the coastal state e.g. •the FSICR criteria are driven by the need for maintenance of ship speed in ice with an underlying philosophy/objective of maintenance of continuity of trade during the winter season in the Baltic Whereas •the Canadian criteria are driven by a need to limit the potential risks of hull and machinery system damage with an underlying philosophy/objective of prevention of pollution due to ship damage
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What is different about first and multi-year ice? •
Sea ice categories: First-year ice - not more than one winter’s growth Multi-year ice - sea ice that has survived at least one summer’s melt
•
Characteristics of sea ice categories: First-year ice - up to 120 cm thick and low ice-strength properties Multi-year ice - up to 3 m or more thick and high ice-strength properties
•
First and multi-year ice characteristics and properties reflected in different ice-class requirements: Finnish-Swedish ice-class Rules - first year ice class IACS polar ship Rules – multi-year ice class (being finalised) Russian Maritime Register Rules - non-arctic sea area first-year ice class Russian Maritime Register Rules - Arctic sea area multi-year ice class
Sea ice categories (World Meteorology Organisation) are: •First-year ice … not more than one winter’s growth •old ice (or multi-year ice) … sea ice than has survived at least one summer’s melt Characteristics of sea ice categories: •first-year ice … up to 120 cm thick and low ice-strength properties •multi-year old ice … up to 3 m or more thick and high ice-strength properties High ice-strength properties of multi-year ice are caused by the progressive leeching out of salts and minerals trapped when the ice is first formed. With the progressive leech out of these impurities the ice becomes very much stronger. As a consequence of both thicker ice sheets as well as the higher strength of multi-year ice, a ship designed for operation in multiyear ice is substantially different in configuration from a first-year ice class ship. First and multi-year ice characteristics and properties reflected in different ice class requirements: •Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules …first-year ice class •IACS Polar Ship Rules … multi-year ice class … these are currently being finalised and represent a harmonisation of the multi-year ice classes of all the IACS societies •Russian Maritime Register Rules … non-Arctic sea area first-year ice class •Russian Maritime Register Rules … Arctic sea area multi-year ice class
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What does ice class 1A mean? •
Finnish-Swedish 1A, for example, technically: Hull side structure and rudder designed for pressure loading of a 0.8 m thickness level ice Propeller and shafting designed for impact loads from ice pieces Installed propulsion power is suitable for maintenance of 5 knots ahead speed
•
commercially: Vessel is suitable for assisted navigation in first-year ice in the Northern Baltic with icebreaker assistance
Considering a Finnish-Swedish Ice Class example … ice class 1A … Technically: •hull side structure and rudder arrangements (within operational draughts potentially in contact with ice) are designed for notional and extreme (design) ice pressure loads for a 0.8 m thickness level first-year ice sheet. •propeller and shafting designed for notional and extreme (design) loads from impact of ice pieces. For the propeller and shaft system the design philosophy is for the propeller blade to fail first, rather than the shaft. This is on the assumption that with damage or loss of a propeller blade through ice piece contact, the ship should still be navigable with the remaining undamaged elements of the propeller. •installed propulsion power is suitable for maintenance of 5 knots ahead speed in a 1.0 m (design) thickness brash ice fairway channel (brash ice is the terminology used for a fairway channel which has been cut by an icebreaker and continuously broken and re-frozen with the passage of shipping). As described earlier, this criteria for installed propulsion power is supported by the underlying philosophy of the FSICR for continuity and maintenance of trade. Commercially: •vessel is suitable for assisted navigation in first-year ice in the northern Baltic subject to the operational restrictions of the Finnish-Swedish maritime administrations In essence, these restrictions are icebreaker assistance, ice conditions suitable (these are published weekly for the northern Baltic area) for the vessel’s ice class (i.e. within design parameters of vessel) as well as other requirements of the coastal state for navigation and operation of the vessel being fulfilled. In practice, an Ice Class 1A vessel will be able to operate year round in northern Baltic in all but the most severe ice conditions that could be expected. In the photograph above the podded propulsor to be installed in the Ice Class 1AS Fortum DAT is shown in the drydock at the builders in Japan.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What are the Finnish-Swedish ice classes?
•
Hull
•
Ice Class 1AS - 1.0m
•
Machinery
•
Ice Class 1A
- 0.8m
•
Engine power
•
Ice Class 1B
- 0.6m
•
Ice Class 1C
- 0.4m
•
Class II
•
Class III
Looking at the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (FSICR). Note that in the context of current commercial newbuilding orders, the FSICR have become the de facto standard for new tonnage (even for Russian oil trades). The FSICR fairway due ice classes along with the design notional level thicknesses are: •Ice Class 1AS - design notional level ice thickness of 1.0m •Ice Class 1A
- design notional level ice thickness of 0.8m
•Ice Class 1B
- design notional level ice thickness of 0.6m
•Ice Class 1C
- design notional level ice thickness of 0.4m
Class II and Class III vessels are open water vessels with no ice strengthening. The FSICR as well as the system of ice navigation operated during the winter months in the Northern Baltic are the most well developed criteria and standards for ice navigation. The system of ice navigation comprises three fundamental elements: •ice class merchant vessels (compliant with the FSICR for navigation in the northern Baltic) •fairway navigation channels •ice breaker assistance Year-round navigation and continuity of trade using the above three fundamental elements was first introduced in the northern Baltic sea areas during the 1960s, and the current FSICR Rule set (as well as the system of ice navigation) has evolved over the years (FSICR in 1971, 1985 and 2002) to its current highly developed state, with a further evolution being currently researched in a joint IACS/FMA (Finnish Maritime Administration) research project. Note that a similar approach and philosophy … as well similar systems of ice navigation and Rule sets are operated in Russian and Canadian ice-covered sea areas. The origins of the modern FSICR Rules date back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, with the first set of scientifically based rules beingt published in 1971 based upon an analysis of ice damage to vessels to determine the ice loads associated with the observed damage. This work was carried out based upon damage reports for incidents that occurred after the introduction of year-round ice navigation, with the work being carried out by a now long retired Lloyd’s Register surveyor (Bent Johanssen) from our Gothenburg office.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What is different in an ice class ship? •
Visible features that identify an ice-classed vessel (in comparison with a conventional vessel): Heavy scantlings as well as possible ice operation design of bow shape (particularly for icebreaking or multi-year ice vessels) Larger diameter shaft and thicker propeller blade root Ice knife to prevent possible rudder and steering gear damage when manoeuvring astern in ice
Visible features that identify an ice-classed vessel (in comparison with a conventional vessel): •heavier scantlings in the side shell structure in way of the operating waterlines where the ship might be transiting ice (known as the ice belt), as well as possible ice operation design of bow shape (special bow shape … particularly for ice-breaking or multi-year ice vessels) •larger diameter shaft and thicker propeller blade root, a reflection of the design scenario for shafting under ice loads •ice knife … to prevent possible rudder and steering gear damage manoeuvring astern in ice. A little context about open water design and ice operation hull form design: Typically when hydrodynamicists and ship designers are involved in developing hull forms for operation in ice there is a delicate balance and compromise in the design of the hull for optimum open water and ice-going performance. Current upgrades in Korea of aframax and suezmax tonnage are generally an upgrade to fulfil the possibility of future operations in ice-covered seas and are consequently being optimised for open water navigation. The ultimate expression of the compromise in hull form design between open water and ice operation is the Fortum doubleacting tanker, where the design solution to achieve the best compromise (between open water and ice operation) is to operate the ship in a different mode (astern in ice). This is the fundamental philosophy behind the double-acting tanker concept. In the case of the Lloyd’s Register-classed vessel the Arctic shown in the photograph, a new bow was fitted early on in her career to improve ice-going performance. Ice model tests to demonstrate and validate the new bow shape ice operation characteristics were carried out Note that there are only a handful of commercial ice model test basins (e.g. HSVA in Hamburg, MARC (Masa Arctic Research Centre) in Helsinki). Specialist ice scientists employed by these basins can interpret the full scale ice going performance of a hull based upon model trials in model ice. Some of the findings and judgements made on ice going performance are based upon observation only (as some of the model ice properties cannot be scaled), consequently ice model testing requires very specialist skills and acquired knowledge in the ice scientists employed to oversee such work.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
The how’s of ice class • • •
How are ice class rules implemented?
•
How are designers solving the technical challenges of ice class upgrading?
• •
How are ships operated in sea ice areas?
•
How is Lloyd’s Register involved in current and future ice class tanker projects?
How to select an ice class? How are large tanker projects currently being specified for ice operations?
How is Lloyd’s Register involved in ice shipping developments?
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How are ice class rules implemented?
•
Ice-class Rules are incorporated into the Rules of IACS Classification Societies
•
FSICR de-facto standard for first-year ice class and incorporated into Rules of every IACS Class (except RMRS)
•
Administrations of the Coastal states delegate authority to the ship’s Classification Society to verify the design and build for ice class
•
Ice class notations are reflected in the assigned classification of the vessel and the onboard certification (also in the Register Book)
Ice class Rules are incorporated into the Rules of IACS Classification Societies. FSICR are the de facto standard for first-year ice class and incorporated into the Rules of every IACS Class (except RMRS). The Russians who act in a quasi-governmental role also have stability (intact and damage) requirements in their ice class Rules. When an owner/yard is specifying a ship for operation in ice, the ice class is indicated in the classification notation. This ice class will be reflected in the ship’s certification (as well as the Register Book) Administrations of the coastal states delegate authority to the ship’s classification society to verify the design and build for ice class. The process of delegation by the maritime administrations of the coastal states involves: •assessment of equivalence of ice class by comparison of classification Rules with the administration. •publication of a table and assessment of the basis of equivalent classes. •periodic auditing and examination of ships when in service (usually first visit) to ports covered by inspectors from the maritime administration of the coastal state for which an ice class has been assigned. It is important to note that the incorporation of the coastal state requirements e.g. FSICR into the Lloyd’s Register Rules may not represent the full extent of requirements for low temperature operation incorporated in the Rules for Lloyd’s Register classification; rather it represents the minimum required standard to be achieved for assignment of an FSICR ice class.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How to select an ice class
•
Requirements of national Administrations
•
Area of operation (ice levels, temperatures)
•
Level of operational support (tugs, icebreakers)
•
Charterer requirements
•
Future flexibility
selection basis for ice class
Five key aspects to consider: •requirements of national administrations •area of operation (ice levels, temperatures) •level of operational support (i.e. icebreakers, tugs) •chartering requirements •future flexibility of operation. The trend at the moment for large tanker tonnage is to design and build to FSICR standards to ice class 1A, even when the intended trade may be for Russian sea areas. The decision to select and specify a high ice class such as FSICR 1A, which is commonplace in current orders, appears to be driven by the need to provide for flexibility for future chartering in other icecovered sea areas. In the aframax sector the charter rates are currently commercially attractive for ice class ships and some of the investment in tonnage upgrading is being done on a speculation basis i.e. to provide for possible future chartering for ice operations. Anticipated area of operation needs to be understood, including potential of ice ridging in the area (ice sheets piling on top of each other), level of ice coverage, temperatures, wind etc. Ice charts showing historic data are available from various sources, and this can be combined with ice measurements and ice operation trials e.g. trials that were carried out using a tanker operated by the Primorsk Shipping Company in 2000 to Sakhalin Island in the Sea of Ohkotsk with representatives from ice research institutes in Russia (CNIIMF and AARI). The ice conditions that prevail in the sea areas at the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland, from where (Primorsk in Russia) yearround export of oil in larger ice class tonnage is being contemplated, are typically as follows: •early sea ice forms at the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland in the early part of the winter season and the sea ice sheet grows westwards towards Latvia and Estonia •at its maximum southern extent the sea ice will typically join the ice sheet growing (south from the north) in the Gulf and Bay of Bothnia and extend south to a latitude south of Stockholm •older sea ice will thicken with age during the winter season and the prevailing wind from the west will drive the ice sheet towards the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland with the ice sheet tending to pile up and form deep ridges •at mid-winter season a typical measured average level thickness of 50 centimetres with deep ridging in the ice field. In these conditions a vessel of FSICR 1A class could possibly be anticipated to be required by the FMA for operation in Finnish territorial waters.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How are large tanker projects currently being specified for ice operations?
•
Most projects are specification upgrades
•
Some projects are ice operation upgrades of existing contract option vessels
•
Single-screw with aft engine room
•
Hull form optimised for open water performance
•
Specification upgrading typically includes low temperature operation of deck equipment
•
Increased installed engine power
In terms of current large tanker projects with Lloyd’s Register, the following trends can be seen for specification of large, i.e. aframax and suezmax tankers for ice operations: •most projects are specification modifications to conventional standard designs •some projects are ice operation upgrades of existing contract options •conventional layout of vessel with single screw (possibly with CPP) and aft engine room •typically the hull form is being optimised for open water performance, i.e. conventional hull forms with minimal ice design of the hull •design ambient temperatures and special operating arrangements are being proposed for deck outfitting and equipment for low temperature operation. This specification forms part of the purchase and design criteria for suppliers of these elements •increased installed engine power, typically an additional cylinder on the main engine, for the highest ice classes with ice model testing being carried out to verified the installed power against the 5 knot ahead speed performance criteria of the FSICR.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How are designers solving the technical challenges of ice class upgrading?
•
Ice model testing using open water hull form Objective being to achieve highest ice class with minimum increase in installed power for open water hull
•
Structural analysis for ice belt strengthening Objective being to optimise structural arrangements for ease of build with wide frame spacing
Two key design challenges (for specific design objectives) for current large aframax and suezmax ice-class tanker tonnage: •ice model testing using open water hull form - objective being to achieve highest ice class with minimum increase in installed power for open water hull •structural analysis for ice belt strengthening - objective being to optimise structural arrangements for ease of build with wide frame spacing. Ice model testing using open water hull forms are being carried out for current projects to develop standard ice-class hulls for aframax and suezmax tankers. These ice model tests are allowed for by the FSICR as a direct determination of required installed power for compliance with the performance criteria of 5 knots ahead speed in a brash ice channel. Note that the formulations for the minimum powering requirement of the FSICR were derived from full scale and ice model tests of smaller sizes of vessels (less than panamax beam). This size and type of vessel is typical of that operated in the northern Baltic. Consequently, application of these formulations to larger size aframax and suezmax tankers may possibly offer unreliable results. This is the driver to carry out ice model testing for a direct determination of required installed power. For the aframax hull form shown in the photograph under test at MARC in Helsinki the installed power increase determined out of ice model testing for ice class 1A required the engine power (and size) to increase (by one cylinder and to MC-C type) from a 6S60 MC (12.3 mW) to 7S60 MC (14.3 mW). Structural analysis for ice belt strengthening using FMA (Finnish Maritime Administration) “Tentative guidelines for application of direct calculation methods for longitudinally framed hull structure”. The methodology of application of these guidelines is to do comparative non-linear finite element for side shell structure under ice pressure loading. The objective of this work is to optimise the structural arrangements for ease of build and in-service maintenance with wide frame spacing longitudinals. The first application, as well as early development of the tentative guidelines, was done by Lloyd’s Register with the FMA in April 2003 for an ice class 1C upgrade of an aframax design to be built by Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries. Since this pioneering work last year Lloyd’s Register has carried out multiple applications of the methodology as part of an ongoing joint IACS/FMA research project to update the FSICR for application to larger tonnage vessels.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How are ships operated in sea ice areas? • • • • •
Consider the example of an iceclass vessel sailing to a Finnish port in the Gulf of Bothnia in winter Operational restrictions (i.e. minimum ice class) published weekly based upon ice field thickness Ice-class vessel met by icebreaker at the ice field edge (maximum 4 hours for traffic continuity) Icebreaker-assisted passage to navigable fairway channel and to port limits Fairway dues charged for assisted passage based upon ice class and tonnage (higher ice classes pay less dues)
Consider an example of an ice class vessel sailing to a Finnish port in the Gulf of Bothnia in winter: •the operational restrictions i.e. ice thicknesses, ice sheet conditions (ridging, etc) and minimum ice class are published weekly, based upon ice sheet observations and ice sheet thickness measurement (example shown is a map from March 2003) •our example ice class vessel (which we assume satisfies the published ice operation criteria of the FSICR) is met by an icebreaker at the ice field edge. Note that the Finns have a performance standard that no ship shall wait more than 4 hours for ice breaker assistance. •single ship or convoy icebreaker assisted passage to navigable fairway channel and to port limits •fairway dues charged for assisted passage based upon ice class and tonnage. Note that fairway dues are charged on a per voyage basis using a fairway due scale determined based upon gross tonnage. Note that an ice class 1A vessel will pay less fees than a lower ice class, e.g. 1B or 1C. Premise behind the fairway due scales are that the level of ice breaker assistance required is reduced for higher ice class vessels. This example of ship operation in sea ice areas with ice breaker assistance, fees and dues based upon ice class, as well as design of the vessel to certain ice class for that operation is, in its fundamental elements, also adopted by other coastal states, e.g. Russia, Canada, in other sea ice areas. Note also that ordinarily vessels are ice-breaker assisted and independent navigation is unusual.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How is Lloyd’s Register involved in ice shipping developments? •
Continuously since the mid-1990s
Including ARCDEV, IACS Polar Rules now FSICR hull Rules and ARCOP
•
FSICR Rules (September 2003 to date)
Requirements for hull framing – provoked because of the step-up in size from the smaller tonnage to wider frame spacing solutions
•
ARCOP project (March 2003 to date)
ARCOP pulls together conclusions from three previous projects Deliverable will be concept for an arctic operational platform Application for exploitation of commercial opportunities in Russian Arctic via Northern Sea Route
•
Guidance to owners for cold climate navigation
For recent specification upgrades we offer owners advice to help to ensure that the ship is recognised to the highest ice standards possible
Lloyd’s Register has been continuously involved in ice shipping developments since the mid-1990s including: •ARCDEV – EU funded Arctic Development Voyage project for Northern Sea Route passage in Russian Arctic •IACS Polar Ship Rules – originally as chair of the IACS working party for harmonisation of multi-year ice-class rules. These Rules would be applied to tonnage for exploitation of commercial opportunities in Arctic sea areas •FSICR Hull Rules – on-going joint IACS/FMA project instigated in September 2003 to develop rules out of the FMA “Tentative guidelines for application of direct calculation methods for longitudinally framed hull structure” •ARCOP – on-going EU funded Arctic Operational Platform project Looking at the two of the current on-going projects: FSICR Rules (September 2003 to date) This on-going joint IACS/FMA project was instigated in September 2003 to develop rules out of the FMA “Tentative guidelines for application of direct calculation methods for longitudinally framed hull structure”. This research project materialised directly out of the adoption of wide frame spacing solutions with the step-up in size from smaller size to large iceclass tankers ARCOP project (March 2003 to date) This on-going EU funded project aims to utilise the findings of three earlier research projects: •INSROP – a Russian, Norwegian, Japanese funded project to investigate the Northern Sea Route passage (19931998) •ICE ROUTES – an EU-funded ice meteorology study for the Northern Sea Route passage •ARCDEV – an EU-funded Arctic Development Voyage project using a Fortum tanker assisted in navigation by Russian icebreakers in the Northern Sea Route passage in the Russian Arctic. The objective of Arctic Operational Platform is to find practical solutions to major problems identified in the earlier projects to establish a system of ice operation and concepts for shipping solutions for the Northern Sea Route. The probable application of the arctic operational platform ship design concepts will be shuttle tankers for transfer of oil to the western year round icefree port of Murmansk. Guidance to owners for cold climate navigation For recent specification upgrades we offer owners advice to help to ensure that the ship is recognised to the highest ice standards possible.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How is Lloyd’s Register involved in current and future ice class tanker projects?
•
DATs – LR’s flagship project and the concept that we believe will come out of the ARCOP project
•
Looking at some current projects we’ve got in Korea: DSME - Ice Class 1A aframaxes for Teekay (x2) and Essberger (x2) SHI - Ice Class 1A aframaxes for BP (x4) HHI - Ice Class 1C and 1A aframaxes in Samho (Mokpo) and Ice Class 1C suezmaxes in Ulsan, all for Greek owners
What ice-class and ice-shipping projects have Lloyd’s Register recently been involved with or are currently underway? Fortum double-acting tankers – a flagship project for Lloyd’s Register. That is the shipping solution concept that was pioneered by Kvaerner Masa Yards and is being considered as a possible solution for the shipping requirements for the North Sea Route passage in Russian Arctic Sea areas in the ARCOP project. Looking at current newbuild projects we’ve got in Korea, where the majority of ice-class specification upgrades are being built: •DSME - first order (Essberger) and first option upgrade (Teekay …ahead of the first order) for ice class 1A aframaxes •SHI – final four vessels in a series of 12 aframaxes ordered for BP are being upgraded to ice class 1A •HSHI - first aframax projects to upgrade in the design stage were to ice class 1C in spring 2003 and then to ice class 1A for Greek owners •HHI - in the third quarter of last year, we contracted the first order of an ice-class 1C suezmax with the Lloyd’s Register basis design being offered for 1A suezmaxes also.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Building better business
THANK YOU
Services are provided by members of the Lloyd’s Register Group
Lloyd’s Register - Working together to improve safety and business performance.
[END]
Ice-class tankers
Ice-class tankers Niels Overgaard, Business Manager – Tankers Rob Tustin, Manager - Plan Approval Services Korea Lloyd’s Register April 16, 2004
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Growing interest in ice-class tankers Lloyd’ Lloyd’s List, 2 April 2004
TradeWinds, 12 December 2003
Fortum’ Fortum’s Tempera, Tempera, first Aframax with Ice Class 1AS, 2002
During 2003 we saw a rush to order ice strengthened tankers. What makes this unusual is both the number and large sizes (up to aframax/suezmax). We also saw the delivery of Fortum’s double-acting tankers (DATs), Tempera and Mastera (delivered 2002 and 2003). Tempera was the largest tanker in the world to be built to Lloyd’s Register 1A Super Ice Class notation. It is also the world’s first double-acting tanker, which means that it can proceed through light ice conditions ahead and through heavy ice conditions astern, due to its azipod propulsion configuration, specially designed aft end and ability to turn through 180 degrees. Lloyd’s Register also classes Tempera’s sister-ship, Mastera, which is shown in action on the slide.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Objectives
•
To explain the underlying reasons for the increased interest in operating tankers in iceinfested waters
•
To provide an introduction to the various ice classes and associated technical issues
•
To give examples of key technical challenges and Lloyd’s Register’s response
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Today’s schedule
•
Coffee 9
•
Presentations Market overview 10 minutes Technical briefing 30 minutes
•
Q&A 30 minutes
•
Buffet Lunch at 12 pm -1 pm
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Underlying trends
•
FSU: engine of global oil supply growth
•
Helped by OPEC price policy
•
Approximately 50% up since 1996
•
Russia’s output now similar to Saudi Arabia’s
•
Can the growth be sustained?
•
The Middle East is losing ground to FSU, but still own most of the reserves
•
Believed that FSU is here to stay as a major player
The former Soviet Union (FSU), which first and foremost includes Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, has been the engine of global oil supply growth. This has been made possible by the OPEC price target policy (currently believed to be around $28/barrel), which adjusts output to control price levels. As the FSU states are not members of OPEC, they have been able to increase their output. Since 1996, FSU output has grown by around 50%, getting closer to the highs achieved during the Soviet rule, and a substantial part of this has been made available for export. In fact, Russia’s oil production output in January this year is reported to have exceeded the output of Saudi Arabia! There are issues concerning the rapid depletion of existing oil fields in Russia and a lack of investment for the future. It is therefore uncertain whether these growth rates can be sustained in the long term. However, with increased foreign investment and joint ventures in the FSU, output is expected to grow substantially over the short to medium term. The Middle East has lost ground in the battle for oil market share, mainly due to OPEC policy, but should of course not be dismissed as it still owns around 2/3 of the world’s known oil reserves. Also, Saudi Arabia has spare capacity which can be called upon when the oil market is shaken by external events. Nevertheless, we believe the FSU is here to stay as a major player in the oil market.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Exports from ice-bound/low temp ports •
Shipments from North Baltic •Export set to double in the next 5 years •Low temperatures/ice formation during the winter •Up to aframax/suezmax size
•
Increasing interest in the large oil and gas reserves in the Artic and Far Eastern areas of Russia •100-150 million tonnes per year in the future? •High infrastructure investments (terminals, pipelines, etc) •Harsh climate is a real challenge •Shuttles, various sizes, up to aframax •Murmansk transhipments, up to VLCC size
There are many oil fields located in the vast FSU area. Some of these are located in almost inaccessible areas with harsh low temperature climates. Pipelines and other transport modes such as rail are used to move the oil from onshore oil wells to ports where the oil can be shipped to foreign buyers. In terms of ice-bound/low-temperature ports of shipment - the topic of today’s presentation - the main areas are 1) the north Baltic, 2) the Russian Arctic/ northern parts of Russia 3) the far eastern areas of Russia The north Baltic, with a particular focus on the Port of Primorsk, is set to double output over the next five years. In 2002, the port loaded 12 million tons of oil. This could become 90 million tons in five years’ time, maybe up to 135 million tons if local plans are successful. Low temperatures and ice infestation of the waters in the north Baltic are a fact of life during the winter, typically November/December to March. The optimum size appears to be aframax size around 110,000 dwt (possibly we will see suezmaxes deployed, but there are draft limitations in the port and also in the Danish Straits). There are large reserves in Siberia, and these could soon be exploited on a large scale. There is a strong possibility that the oil could be shipped to a transhipment port in Murmansk, which is ice free all year due to its location. In the first instance smaller ice-strengthened shuttle tankers would be used to ship the oil from smaller ports in the area to Murmansk until planned pipelines become a reality. Needless to say, the areas in the northern parts of Russia have a very harsh climate with high levels of ice and very low temperatures. There will also be high investment requirements in terms of building terminals, pipelines and general shipping infrastructure in the area. As a result, the cost of shipping will be higher than normal. To make the concept financially viable a large scale operation is needed. This could mean output reaching 100-150 million tons per year over the next decade. In terms of shuttle tankers, various sizes could be used, from 20,000 dwt possibly up to aframax size. In terms of shipments from Murmansk, VLCCs (300,000 dwt) could be used. Lloyd’s Register is currently involved in the European Commission’s Arctic Operational Platform (ARCOP) project, the aim of which is to develop the transport of natural resources, particularly oil and gas, in the Arctic regions of Russia. A total of 21 organisations from Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, Italy, Russia and Norway are participating in the study, and the project is being led by Kvaerner Masa-Yards. Website: www.arcop.fi In the Russian far east there are several projects underway, in particular around the Sakhalin Islands with the intention to ship oil to Korea and Japan.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Tonnage requirements •
Depends on the actual output achieved…
•
and the destination of the oil
•
Examples: • 30 million tonnes from Primorsk in 2010 to US would equate to 35 aframaxes (110,000 dwt) • 75 million tonnes from ice-free, low temperature Murmansk in 2010 to US would equate to 32 VLCCs (300,000 dwt)
•
Whichever scenario one chooses, it is clear that operation to ice-bound ports will have increasing significance in the future
•
Availability of suitable tonnage is crucial to ensure safe operation
We have already seen a rush to order ice-strengthened tankers. This is mainly driven by the expected expansions of output to the Baltic port Primorsk, but also with some of the new developments in mind. Tonnage demands will depend on the actual output of oil achieved, which ports it will be made available for export from and the final destination of the oil. The share between short haul destinations such as western Europe and long haul destinations such as the US will be crucial. Example: 30 million tons from Primorsk in 2010 to US would equate to 35 aframaxes (110,000 dwt) 75 million tons from ice-free, low temperature Murmansk in 2010 to US would equate to 32 VLCCs (300,000 dwt) Various scenarios can be put together, but they all come with a level of uncertainty attached. The future will determine the reality, and this will dictate how much tonnage will actually be required. There are many challenges - financial, technical, environmental and political - to overcome, but the importance of enabling the safe operation of tanker tonnage to ice-bound ports will nevertheless remain paramount. For owners, this represents a specialised market opportunity with the possibility of high returns. Tankers operating in these areas must be suitable for the operation. This is the subject of the more technical part of our presentation.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
The why’s, who’s and what’s of ice class
•
WHY do we have ice class rules?
•
WHO requires ships to have ice class?
•
WHAT is the philosophy of ice class?
•
WHAT is different about first and multi-year ice?
•
WHAT does ice class 1AS mean?
•
WHAT are the Finnish-Swedish ice classes?
•
WHAT is different in an ice class ship?
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Why do we have ice-class rules?
To permit the safe operation of ships in ice-covered sea areas
Fundamentally … to permit the safe operation of ships in ice covered sea areas
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Who requires an ice class? •
Coastal states with seasonal or year-round ice-covered oceans and seas
•
Specific oceans and sea areas as well as applicable ice classes: BALTIC SEA: Bay and Gulf of Bothnia, Gulf of Finland Finnish Swedish Ice Class Rules (FSICR) Gulf of Finland (Russia territorial waters) Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice-Class Rules (Non-Arctic Sea Area Requirements) ARCTIC OCEAN: Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian and Chukchi Seas Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice-Class Rules Beaufort Sea, Baffin Bay, etc Canadian Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Rules (CASPPR) OHKOTSK SEA: Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice-Class Rules (Non-Arctic Sea Area Requirements)
Coastal states with seasonal or year-round ice-covered oceans and seas Specific oceans and sea areas in the context of current and earlier commercial shipping developments for ice operation as well as applicable ice classes: BALTIC SEA: •Bay and Gulf of Bothnia, Gulf of Finland – Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (FSICR) •Gulf of Finland (Russia territorial waters) - Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice Class Rules ARCTIC OCEAN: •Barents, Kara, Laptev, East Siberian and Chukchi Seas - Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice Class Rules •Beaufort Sea, Baffin Bay, etc - Canadian Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Rules (CASPPR) OHKOTSK SEA: •Russian Maritime Register (RMR) Ice Class Rules There are also ice class rules and regulations for commercial ship operations on inland lakes e.g. the Great Lakes …
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What is the philosophy of an ice class? •
Fundamentally: Safety of the hull and essential propulsion machinery Sufficient installed power for safe operation in ice covered waters
•
Safety of hull structure and propulsion train under ice interaction loading scenarios: Hull structure - level ice design basis for first-year ice design Propeller and propeller shaft – ice piece impact design basis
•
Criteria for installed propulsion power: Minimum power for maintaining ship speed in re-frozen (brash ice) fairway navigation channel (Finnish-Swedish Rules) Maximum power for prevention of hull & propulsion system damage (Canadian Rules)
Fundamentally: •safety of the hull and essential propulsion machinery •sufficient installed power for safe operation in ice covered waters Safety of hull structure and propulsion train under ice interaction loading scenarios e.g. •hull structure - level ice design basis for first-year ice design •propeller and propeller shaft – ice piece impact design basis Criteria for installed propulsion power e.g. •minimum power for maintaining ship speed in re-frozen (brash ice) fairway navigation channel (FSICR Rules) •maximum power for prevention of hull and propulsion system damage (CASPPR) This criteria for installed propulsion power is dependent on the ice-class philosophy of the coastal state e.g. •the FSICR criteria are driven by the need for maintenance of ship speed in ice with an underlying philosophy/objective of maintenance of continuity of trade during the winter season in the Baltic Whereas •the Canadian criteria are driven by a need to limit the potential risks of hull and machinery system damage with an underlying philosophy/objective of prevention of pollution due to ship damage
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What is different about first and multi-year ice? •
Sea ice categories: First-year ice - not more than one winter’s growth Multi-year ice - sea ice that has survived at least one summer’s melt
•
Characteristics of sea ice categories: First-year ice - up to 120 cm thick and low ice-strength properties Multi-year ice - up to 3 m or more thick and high ice-strength properties
•
First and multi-year ice characteristics and properties reflected in different ice-class requirements: Finnish-Swedish ice-class Rules - first year ice class IACS polar ship Rules – multi-year ice class (being finalised) Russian Maritime Register Rules - non-arctic sea area first-year ice class Russian Maritime Register Rules - Arctic sea area multi-year ice class
Sea ice categories (World Meteorology Organisation) are: •First-year ice … not more than one winter’s growth •old ice (or multi-year ice) … sea ice than has survived at least one summer’s melt Characteristics of sea ice categories: •first-year ice … up to 120 cm thick and low ice-strength properties •multi-year old ice … up to 3 m or more thick and high ice-strength properties High ice-strength properties of multi-year ice are caused by the progressive leeching out of salts and minerals trapped when the ice is first formed. With the progressive leech out of these impurities the ice becomes very much stronger. As a consequence of both thicker ice sheets as well as the higher strength of multi-year ice, a ship designed for operation in multiyear ice is substantially different in configuration from a first-year ice class ship. First and multi-year ice characteristics and properties reflected in different ice class requirements: •Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules …first-year ice class •IACS Polar Ship Rules … multi-year ice class … these are currently being finalised and represent a harmonisation of the multi-year ice classes of all the IACS societies •Russian Maritime Register Rules … non-Arctic sea area first-year ice class •Russian Maritime Register Rules … Arctic sea area multi-year ice class
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What does ice class 1A mean? •
Finnish-Swedish 1A, for example, technically: Hull side structure and rudder designed for pressure loading of a 0.8 m thickness level ice Propeller and shafting designed for impact loads from ice pieces Installed propulsion power is suitable for maintenance of 5 knots ahead speed
•
commercially: Vessel is suitable for assisted navigation in first-year ice in the Northern Baltic with icebreaker assistance
Considering a Finnish-Swedish Ice Class example … ice class 1A … Technically: •hull side structure and rudder arrangements (within operational draughts potentially in contact with ice) are designed for notional and extreme (design) ice pressure loads for a 0.8 m thickness level first-year ice sheet. •propeller and shafting designed for notional and extreme (design) loads from impact of ice pieces. For the propeller and shaft system the design philosophy is for the propeller blade to fail first, rather than the shaft. This is on the assumption that with damage or loss of a propeller blade through ice piece contact, the ship should still be navigable with the remaining undamaged elements of the propeller. •installed propulsion power is suitable for maintenance of 5 knots ahead speed in a 1.0 m (design) thickness brash ice fairway channel (brash ice is the terminology used for a fairway channel which has been cut by an icebreaker and continuously broken and re-frozen with the passage of shipping). As described earlier, this criteria for installed propulsion power is supported by the underlying philosophy of the FSICR for continuity and maintenance of trade. Commercially: •vessel is suitable for assisted navigation in first-year ice in the northern Baltic subject to the operational restrictions of the Finnish-Swedish maritime administrations In essence, these restrictions are icebreaker assistance, ice conditions suitable (these are published weekly for the northern Baltic area) for the vessel’s ice class (i.e. within design parameters of vessel) as well as other requirements of the coastal state for navigation and operation of the vessel being fulfilled. In practice, an Ice Class 1A vessel will be able to operate year round in northern Baltic in all but the most severe ice conditions that could be expected. In the photograph above the podded propulsor to be installed in the Ice Class 1AS Fortum DAT is shown in the drydock at the builders in Japan.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What are the Finnish-Swedish ice classes?
•
Hull
•
Ice Class 1AS - 1.0m
•
Machinery
•
Ice Class 1A
- 0.8m
•
Engine power
•
Ice Class 1B
- 0.6m
•
Ice Class 1C
- 0.4m
•
Class II
•
Class III
Looking at the Finnish-Swedish Ice Class Rules (FSICR). Note that in the context of current commercial newbuilding orders, the FSICR have become the de facto standard for new tonnage (even for Russian oil trades). The FSICR fairway due ice classes along with the design notional level thicknesses are: •Ice Class 1AS - design notional level ice thickness of 1.0m •Ice Class 1A
- design notional level ice thickness of 0.8m
•Ice Class 1B
- design notional level ice thickness of 0.6m
•Ice Class 1C
- design notional level ice thickness of 0.4m
Class II and Class III vessels are open water vessels with no ice strengthening. The FSICR as well as the system of ice navigation operated during the winter months in the Northern Baltic are the most well developed criteria and standards for ice navigation. The system of ice navigation comprises three fundamental elements: •ice class merchant vessels (compliant with the FSICR for navigation in the northern Baltic) •fairway navigation channels •ice breaker assistance Year-round navigation and continuity of trade using the above three fundamental elements was first introduced in the northern Baltic sea areas during the 1960s, and the current FSICR Rule set (as well as the system of ice navigation) has evolved over the years (FSICR in 1971, 1985 and 2002) to its current highly developed state, with a further evolution being currently researched in a joint IACS/FMA (Finnish Maritime Administration) research project. Note that a similar approach and philosophy … as well similar systems of ice navigation and Rule sets are operated in Russian and Canadian ice-covered sea areas. The origins of the modern FSICR Rules date back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, with the first set of scientifically based rules beingt published in 1971 based upon an analysis of ice damage to vessels to determine the ice loads associated with the observed damage. This work was carried out based upon damage reports for incidents that occurred after the introduction of year-round ice navigation, with the work being carried out by a now long retired Lloyd’s Register surveyor (Bent Johanssen) from our Gothenburg office.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
What is different in an ice class ship? •
Visible features that identify an ice-classed vessel (in comparison with a conventional vessel): Heavy scantlings as well as possible ice operation design of bow shape (particularly for icebreaking or multi-year ice vessels) Larger diameter shaft and thicker propeller blade root Ice knife to prevent possible rudder and steering gear damage when manoeuvring astern in ice
Visible features that identify an ice-classed vessel (in comparison with a conventional vessel): •heavier scantlings in the side shell structure in way of the operating waterlines where the ship might be transiting ice (known as the ice belt), as well as possible ice operation design of bow shape (special bow shape … particularly for ice-breaking or multi-year ice vessels) •larger diameter shaft and thicker propeller blade root, a reflection of the design scenario for shafting under ice loads •ice knife … to prevent possible rudder and steering gear damage manoeuvring astern in ice. A little context about open water design and ice operation hull form design: Typically when hydrodynamicists and ship designers are involved in developing hull forms for operation in ice there is a delicate balance and compromise in the design of the hull for optimum open water and ice-going performance. Current upgrades in Korea of aframax and suezmax tonnage are generally an upgrade to fulfil the possibility of future operations in ice-covered seas and are consequently being optimised for open water navigation. The ultimate expression of the compromise in hull form design between open water and ice operation is the Fortum doubleacting tanker, where the design solution to achieve the best compromise (between open water and ice operation) is to operate the ship in a different mode (astern in ice). This is the fundamental philosophy behind the double-acting tanker concept. In the case of the Lloyd’s Register-classed vessel the Arctic shown in the photograph, a new bow was fitted early on in her career to improve ice-going performance. Ice model tests to demonstrate and validate the new bow shape ice operation characteristics were carried out Note that there are only a handful of commercial ice model test basins (e.g. HSVA in Hamburg, MARC (Masa Arctic Research Centre) in Helsinki). Specialist ice scientists employed by these basins can interpret the full scale ice going performance of a hull based upon model trials in model ice. Some of the findings and judgements made on ice going performance are based upon observation only (as some of the model ice properties cannot be scaled), consequently ice model testing requires very specialist skills and acquired knowledge in the ice scientists employed to oversee such work.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
The how’s of ice class • • •
How are ice class rules implemented?
•
How are designers solving the technical challenges of ice class upgrading?
• •
How are ships operated in sea ice areas?
•
How is Lloyd’s Register involved in current and future ice class tanker projects?
How to select an ice class? How are large tanker projects currently being specified for ice operations?
How is Lloyd’s Register involved in ice shipping developments?
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How are ice class rules implemented?
•
Ice-class Rules are incorporated into the Rules of IACS Classification Societies
•
FSICR de-facto standard for first-year ice class and incorporated into Rules of every IACS Class (except RMRS)
•
Administrations of the Coastal states delegate authority to the ship’s Classification Society to verify the design and build for ice class
•
Ice class notations are reflected in the assigned classification of the vessel and the onboard certification (also in the Register Book)
Ice class Rules are incorporated into the Rules of IACS Classification Societies. FSICR are the de facto standard for first-year ice class and incorporated into the Rules of every IACS Class (except RMRS). The Russians who act in a quasi-governmental role also have stability (intact and damage) requirements in their ice class Rules. When an owner/yard is specifying a ship for operation in ice, the ice class is indicated in the classification notation. This ice class will be reflected in the ship’s certification (as well as the Register Book) Administrations of the coastal states delegate authority to the ship’s classification society to verify the design and build for ice class. The process of delegation by the maritime administrations of the coastal states involves: •assessment of equivalence of ice class by comparison of classification Rules with the administration. •publication of a table and assessment of the basis of equivalent classes. •periodic auditing and examination of ships when in service (usually first visit) to ports covered by inspectors from the maritime administration of the coastal state for which an ice class has been assigned. It is important to note that the incorporation of the coastal state requirements e.g. FSICR into the Lloyd’s Register Rules may not represent the full extent of requirements for low temperature operation incorporated in the Rules for Lloyd’s Register classification; rather it represents the minimum required standard to be achieved for assignment of an FSICR ice class.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How to select an ice class
•
Requirements of national Administrations
•
Area of operation (ice levels, temperatures)
•
Level of operational support (tugs, icebreakers)
•
Charterer requirements
•
Future flexibility
selection basis for ice class
Five key aspects to consider: •requirements of national administrations •area of operation (ice levels, temperatures) •level of operational support (i.e. icebreakers, tugs) •chartering requirements •future flexibility of operation. The trend at the moment for large tanker tonnage is to design and build to FSICR standards to ice class 1A, even when the intended trade may be for Russian sea areas. The decision to select and specify a high ice class such as FSICR 1A, which is commonplace in current orders, appears to be driven by the need to provide for flexibility for future chartering in other icecovered sea areas. In the aframax sector the charter rates are currently commercially attractive for ice class ships and some of the investment in tonnage upgrading is being done on a speculation basis i.e. to provide for possible future chartering for ice operations. Anticipated area of operation needs to be understood, including potential of ice ridging in the area (ice sheets piling on top of each other), level of ice coverage, temperatures, wind etc. Ice charts showing historic data are available from various sources, and this can be combined with ice measurements and ice operation trials e.g. trials that were carried out using a tanker operated by the Primorsk Shipping Company in 2000 to Sakhalin Island in the Sea of Ohkotsk with representatives from ice research institutes in Russia (CNIIMF and AARI). The ice conditions that prevail in the sea areas at the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland, from where (Primorsk in Russia) yearround export of oil in larger ice class tonnage is being contemplated, are typically as follows: •early sea ice forms at the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland in the early part of the winter season and the sea ice sheet grows westwards towards Latvia and Estonia •at its maximum southern extent the sea ice will typically join the ice sheet growing (south from the north) in the Gulf and Bay of Bothnia and extend south to a latitude south of Stockholm •older sea ice will thicken with age during the winter season and the prevailing wind from the west will drive the ice sheet towards the eastern end of the Gulf of Finland with the ice sheet tending to pile up and form deep ridges •at mid-winter season a typical measured average level thickness of 50 centimetres with deep ridging in the ice field. In these conditions a vessel of FSICR 1A class could possibly be anticipated to be required by the FMA for operation in Finnish territorial waters.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How are large tanker projects currently being specified for ice operations?
•
Most projects are specification upgrades
•
Some projects are ice operation upgrades of existing contract option vessels
•
Single-screw with aft engine room
•
Hull form optimised for open water performance
•
Specification upgrading typically includes low temperature operation of deck equipment
•
Increased installed engine power
In terms of current large tanker projects with Lloyd’s Register, the following trends can be seen for specification of large, i.e. aframax and suezmax tankers for ice operations: •most projects are specification modifications to conventional standard designs •some projects are ice operation upgrades of existing contract options •conventional layout of vessel with single screw (possibly with CPP) and aft engine room •typically the hull form is being optimised for open water performance, i.e. conventional hull forms with minimal ice design of the hull •design ambient temperatures and special operating arrangements are being proposed for deck outfitting and equipment for low temperature operation. This specification forms part of the purchase and design criteria for suppliers of these elements •increased installed engine power, typically an additional cylinder on the main engine, for the highest ice classes with ice model testing being carried out to verified the installed power against the 5 knot ahead speed performance criteria of the FSICR.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How are designers solving the technical challenges of ice class upgrading?
•
Ice model testing using open water hull form Objective being to achieve highest ice class with minimum increase in installed power for open water hull
•
Structural analysis for ice belt strengthening Objective being to optimise structural arrangements for ease of build with wide frame spacing
Two key design challenges (for specific design objectives) for current large aframax and suezmax ice-class tanker tonnage: •ice model testing using open water hull form - objective being to achieve highest ice class with minimum increase in installed power for open water hull •structural analysis for ice belt strengthening - objective being to optimise structural arrangements for ease of build with wide frame spacing. Ice model testing using open water hull forms are being carried out for current projects to develop standard ice-class hulls for aframax and suezmax tankers. These ice model tests are allowed for by the FSICR as a direct determination of required installed power for compliance with the performance criteria of 5 knots ahead speed in a brash ice channel. Note that the formulations for the minimum powering requirement of the FSICR were derived from full scale and ice model tests of smaller sizes of vessels (less than panamax beam). This size and type of vessel is typical of that operated in the northern Baltic. Consequently, application of these formulations to larger size aframax and suezmax tankers may possibly offer unreliable results. This is the driver to carry out ice model testing for a direct determination of required installed power. For the aframax hull form shown in the photograph under test at MARC in Helsinki the installed power increase determined out of ice model testing for ice class 1A required the engine power (and size) to increase (by one cylinder and to MC-C type) from a 6S60 MC (12.3 mW) to 7S60 MC (14.3 mW). Structural analysis for ice belt strengthening using FMA (Finnish Maritime Administration) “Tentative guidelines for application of direct calculation methods for longitudinally framed hull structure”. The methodology of application of these guidelines is to do comparative non-linear finite element for side shell structure under ice pressure loading. The objective of this work is to optimise the structural arrangements for ease of build and in-service maintenance with wide frame spacing longitudinals. The first application, as well as early development of the tentative guidelines, was done by Lloyd’s Register with the FMA in April 2003 for an ice class 1C upgrade of an aframax design to be built by Hyundai Samho Heavy Industries. Since this pioneering work last year Lloyd’s Register has carried out multiple applications of the methodology as part of an ongoing joint IACS/FMA research project to update the FSICR for application to larger tonnage vessels.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How are ships operated in sea ice areas? • • • • •
Consider the example of an iceclass vessel sailing to a Finnish port in the Gulf of Bothnia in winter Operational restrictions (i.e. minimum ice class) published weekly based upon ice field thickness Ice-class vessel met by icebreaker at the ice field edge (maximum 4 hours for traffic continuity) Icebreaker-assisted passage to navigable fairway channel and to port limits Fairway dues charged for assisted passage based upon ice class and tonnage (higher ice classes pay less dues)
Consider an example of an ice class vessel sailing to a Finnish port in the Gulf of Bothnia in winter: •the operational restrictions i.e. ice thicknesses, ice sheet conditions (ridging, etc) and minimum ice class are published weekly, based upon ice sheet observations and ice sheet thickness measurement (example shown is a map from March 2003) •our example ice class vessel (which we assume satisfies the published ice operation criteria of the FSICR) is met by an icebreaker at the ice field edge. Note that the Finns have a performance standard that no ship shall wait more than 4 hours for ice breaker assistance. •single ship or convoy icebreaker assisted passage to navigable fairway channel and to port limits •fairway dues charged for assisted passage based upon ice class and tonnage. Note that fairway dues are charged on a per voyage basis using a fairway due scale determined based upon gross tonnage. Note that an ice class 1A vessel will pay less fees than a lower ice class, e.g. 1B or 1C. Premise behind the fairway due scales are that the level of ice breaker assistance required is reduced for higher ice class vessels. This example of ship operation in sea ice areas with ice breaker assistance, fees and dues based upon ice class, as well as design of the vessel to certain ice class for that operation is, in its fundamental elements, also adopted by other coastal states, e.g. Russia, Canada, in other sea ice areas. Note also that ordinarily vessels are ice-breaker assisted and independent navigation is unusual.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How is Lloyd’s Register involved in ice shipping developments? •
Continuously since the mid-1990s
Including ARCDEV, IACS Polar Rules now FSICR hull Rules and ARCOP
•
FSICR Rules (September 2003 to date)
Requirements for hull framing – provoked because of the step-up in size from the smaller tonnage to wider frame spacing solutions
•
ARCOP project (March 2003 to date)
ARCOP pulls together conclusions from three previous projects Deliverable will be concept for an arctic operational platform Application for exploitation of commercial opportunities in Russian Arctic via Northern Sea Route
•
Guidance to owners for cold climate navigation
For recent specification upgrades we offer owners advice to help to ensure that the ship is recognised to the highest ice standards possible
Lloyd’s Register has been continuously involved in ice shipping developments since the mid-1990s including: •ARCDEV – EU funded Arctic Development Voyage project for Northern Sea Route passage in Russian Arctic •IACS Polar Ship Rules – originally as chair of the IACS working party for harmonisation of multi-year ice-class rules. These Rules would be applied to tonnage for exploitation of commercial opportunities in Arctic sea areas •FSICR Hull Rules – on-going joint IACS/FMA project instigated in September 2003 to develop rules out of the FMA “Tentative guidelines for application of direct calculation methods for longitudinally framed hull structure” •ARCOP – on-going EU funded Arctic Operational Platform project Looking at the two of the current on-going projects: FSICR Rules (September 2003 to date) This on-going joint IACS/FMA project was instigated in September 2003 to develop rules out of the FMA “Tentative guidelines for application of direct calculation methods for longitudinally framed hull structure”. This research project materialised directly out of the adoption of wide frame spacing solutions with the step-up in size from smaller size to large iceclass tankers ARCOP project (March 2003 to date) This on-going EU funded project aims to utilise the findings of three earlier research projects: •INSROP – a Russian, Norwegian, Japanese funded project to investigate the Northern Sea Route passage (19931998) •ICE ROUTES – an EU-funded ice meteorology study for the Northern Sea Route passage •ARCDEV – an EU-funded Arctic Development Voyage project using a Fortum tanker assisted in navigation by Russian icebreakers in the Northern Sea Route passage in the Russian Arctic. The objective of Arctic Operational Platform is to find practical solutions to major problems identified in the earlier projects to establish a system of ice operation and concepts for shipping solutions for the Northern Sea Route. The probable application of the arctic operational platform ship design concepts will be shuttle tankers for transfer of oil to the western year round icefree port of Murmansk. Guidance to owners for cold climate navigation For recent specification upgrades we offer owners advice to help to ensure that the ship is recognised to the highest ice standards possible.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
How is Lloyd’s Register involved in current and future ice class tanker projects?
•
DATs – LR’s flagship project and the concept that we believe will come out of the ARCOP project
•
Looking at some current projects we’ve got in Korea: DSME - Ice Class 1A aframaxes for Teekay (x2) and Essberger (x2) SHI - Ice Class 1A aframaxes for BP (x4) HHI - Ice Class 1C and 1A aframaxes in Samho (Mokpo) and Ice Class 1C suezmaxes in Ulsan, all for Greek owners
What ice-class and ice-shipping projects have Lloyd’s Register recently been involved with or are currently underway? Fortum double-acting tankers – a flagship project for Lloyd’s Register. That is the shipping solution concept that was pioneered by Kvaerner Masa Yards and is being considered as a possible solution for the shipping requirements for the North Sea Route passage in Russian Arctic Sea areas in the ARCOP project. Looking at current newbuild projects we’ve got in Korea, where the majority of ice-class specification upgrades are being built: •DSME - first order (Essberger) and first option upgrade (Teekay …ahead of the first order) for ice class 1A aframaxes •SHI – final four vessels in a series of 12 aframaxes ordered for BP are being upgraded to ice class 1A •HSHI - first aframax projects to upgrade in the design stage were to ice class 1C in spring 2003 and then to ice class 1A for Greek owners •HHI - in the third quarter of last year, we contracted the first order of an ice-class 1C suezmax with the Lloyd’s Register basis design being offered for 1A suezmaxes also.
Ice class: why, who, what and how
Ice-class tankers
Building better business
THANK YOU
Services are provided by members of the Lloyd’s Register Group
Lloyd’s Register - Working together to improve safety and business performance.
[END]
