Slide 1: Sustainable Hull Maintenance Strategies and decision support tool HullMASTER
Sustainable Hull Maintenance Strategies and decision support tool HullMASTER Lena Granhag, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden lena.granhag@chalmers.se
Slide 2: The antifouling research group
The antifouling research group *o-~32d30@ Lena Granhag Erik Ytreberg Maria Lagerstrom EmilieAdouane Youngrong Kim Pauline Bollongino _—Peiyu Hou Associate professor ‘Senior researcher ‘Researcher, PhD Post doc Post doc PRD student PhD student CHALMERS Research areas Assessment of antifouling techniq
Slide 3: HullMASTER
HullMASTER Hull Maintenance Strategy for Emission Reduction • Vessel-tailored decision-support tool • Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis – both economic and societal (health + environment) costs • Goal: cost comparison between different hull maintenance scenarios for a single ship and route input output
Slide 4: Reference: A novel tool for cost and emission reduction
Oliveira, D. R., Lagerström, M., Granhag, L., Werner, S., Larsson, A. I., & Ytreberg, E. (2022). A novel tool for cost and emission reduction related to ship underwater hull maintenance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 356, 131882. 4
Slide 5: Data sources
Data sources Socio- Fouling growth Biocide release Operator costs environmental model model damage costs • Own field studies • Own field studies • Price estimates • Scientific literature • Scientific literature from industry (IWHC) Field testing of Biocide release Price estimates from industry Scien
Slide 6: Fouling growth model - Static Immersion Tests in European Seas
Fouling growth model - Static Immersion Tests in European Seas Gothenburg, Sweden + 3 locations on the Immingham, UK Copenhagen, Denmark Swedish coastline (HÅLL) Vlaardingen, Netherlands Trieste, Italy Ghent, Belgium Pendik, Turkey 7 locations in Europe Source: Copernicus Marine Service (https://mar
Slide 7: Experimental set-up
Experimental set-up Typical sea level Lowest tide Depth 1 meter Random Natural water placement of flow panels Weights Sea bed 2025-09-11
Slide 8: Fouling growth model (12 months static immersion)
Fouling growth model (12 months static immersion) Copenhagen Ghent Immingham Vlaardingen Gothenburg Pendik Trieste Biocide-free inert coating (1 product) Antifouling biocidal copper coating (2 products) Foul-release with biocide silicone coating (1 product) Foul-release biocide-free silicone coating
Slide 9: Fouling Rating Scale
Fouling Rating Scale Soft Visual Inspection Clean Fouled Coverage surface surface Hard Degree of fouling (frNSTM) 𝟏 𝒏 𝑴𝒆𝒂𝒏(𝒇𝒓𝑵𝑺𝑻𝑴) = / 𝒄𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆𝒊 ×𝒇𝒓𝑵𝑺𝑻𝑴𝒊 𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝒊"𝟏 *9/30 2025-09-11 US Naval Ships’ Technical Manual (2006)
Slide 10: Fouling growth model
Fouling growth model • Based on field data from static long- term testing of coatings • Evaluation of fouling rating • HullMASTER assumption: fouling only occurs during ship idle times. • Salinity-dependent Inert coating Antifouling biocidal Foul-release biocide-free copper coating silicone coating
Slide 11: The different steps of HullMASTER
The different steps of HullMASTER 11 2025-09-11 9/10/25
Slide 12: 2. Modelling
2.MODELLING 12 Metal release from coating e Only modelled for biocidal coating e Salinity-dependent Cu release rate e Release during and after IWHC depends on user-specified degree of wear negligible moderate high assumed 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 salinity “Ninerage —=_ _ — between ports — Ko Time + + > + > I
Slide 13: 2. Modelling
2.MODELLING Propulsion penalty e Fouling on hull assumed homogeneous and to only occur during idle periods e Powering penalty calculated relative to hydraulically smooth hull e Roughness height (k,) of hull = coating roughness + fouling roughness e Granville similarity-law scaling method used to der
Slide 14: 3. Output
3.OUTPUT e Results for the alternative scenario given as the difference in cost relative to the BAU scenario e Results presented with propagated uncertainties operator costs & emission costs A costs (€) = modelled COStS ghernative ~ Modelled costs p4y 14 9/10/25
Slide 15: Validation of powering penalties
Validation of powering penalties HullMASTER compared to onboard measurements: % increase in propulsion power (kW) for a rough hull compared to smooth hull Dry-dock Dry-dock • Voyage data, 10-min o 3-mo average - HullMASTER | Dry-docking Antifouling Antifouling Foul-release 15 2025-09-11 9/10/25
Slide 16: Validation of powering penalties
Validation of powering penalties • HullMASTER predictions show good agreement with measured propulsion penalties • average difference of -3.2 ± 3.8 percentage points 16 2025-09-11
Slide 17: Cost calculation
Cost calculation Operators + Society = Total Diff. BAU Economics Climate, air and marine Total water quality *BAU = biocidal antifouling coatings Cost comparison with baseline scenario Health impact, Climate change impact, Bunker penalty, Surface Marine eutrophication (N), Marine treatment & coating
Slide 18: Scenarios from the Baltic Sea
Scenarios from the Baltic Sea 18 2025-09-11
Slide 19: Vessel specs & operational profiles
Vessel specs & operational profiles v Ship detail v Operational profile Speed [knots] 19 Time [days] 2025-09-11
Slide 20: Hull maintenance scenarios
Hull maintenance scenarios 20 * Assuming 93 different hull maintenance scenarios in 10 years operation 2025-09-11
Slide 21: Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cost-Benefit Analysis Best scenario for each coating type No IWHC Savings for operators up to €9.3 million, and socio-environmental damage €7.9 21 million compared to baseline. 2025-09-11
Slide 22: Input from experts like you most welcome!
Input from experts like you most welcome! Current version [Baltic Sea Region] Funded by Lighthouse Swedish Maritime Competence Centre 22/8 under the “Hållbar sjöfart” program 2025-09-11
Slide 23: ) Y ul = — < L O
) Y ul = — < L O