Abstract
Carbon steel seawater piping in marine vessels is susceptible to corrosion resulting in the application of various coatings to reduce the corrosion rate and extend the life of the piping. Typically, coatings are selected primarily on the basis of corrosion protection without considering energy losses related to the friction of the resulting coated surface. Galvanizing is the most common method of coating seawater piping on marine vessels; however, galvanizing increases the internal pipe roughness and consequently, pressure drop, and energy consumed in pumping. This study determines the potential energy savings by comparing polyethylene coating to galvanized coating on marine vessel piping systems. The comparison was performed using both analytical and computational methods for the case of the reference vessel system. The energy savings for polyethylene coatings indicated between a 33% and 44% percent energy savings for pipe, without considering the fittings, depending on the Reynolds number of the flow. Energy saving for the pipe with fittings was obtained using CFD since there is no data for polyethylene coated fittings and found slightly lower because turbulence and eddies contribution to head losses. Results of the analytical study were further verified using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). The reduction in carbon emissions per year is then quantified to be around 20 tons. In addition, when deterioration of galvanized steel pipe is considered, the amount of emission reduced increases every year till reaching 40 tons/year after five years of operation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ANSYS Inc. (2015) ANSYS fluent user guide. ANSYS Inc. http://www.ansys.com
Crane Co. (1982) Flow of fluids through valves, fittings and pipe. https://www.amazon.com/Through-Valves-Fittings-Technical-Printing/dp/B0015E21UM. (Accessed 11 Mar 2021)
Durmusoglu, Y., Koçak, G., Deniz, C., Zincir, B., & Rijeci Pomorski fakultet Rijeka, S. (2015). Energy efficiency analysis of pump systems in a ship power plant and a case study of a container ship. 16 th IAMU annual general assembly opatija. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299600017. (Accessed 28 Feb 2021)
Düz, H. (2017). Impact of excess roughness on power consumption in pipe flows (Vol. 7).
Farshad, F. F., & Rieke, H. H. (2006). Surface-roughness design values for modern pipes.
Kocak, G., & Durmusoglu, Y. (2018). Energy efficiency analysis of a ship’s central cooling system using variable speed pump. Journal of Marine Engineering and Technology, 17(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2017.1283192
Reichert, J. K., & Azad, R. S. (1976). Nonasymptotic behavior of developing turbulent pipe flow. Canadian Journal of Physics, 54(3), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1139/p76-032
Schlichting, H., & Gersten, K. (2017). Boundary-layer theory (Ninth Edition). McGraw-Hill.
Speight, V. L. (2014). Impact of pipe roughness on pumping energy in complex distribution systems. In Procedia Engineering (Vol. 70, pp. 1575–1581). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.02.174
Third IMO GHG Study 2014 executive summary and final report. (2015). www.imo.org. (Accessed 11 Mar 2021)
Yelmanov, D., & Shutterstock, (2018). energy Efficiency existing ship index (EEXI) December 2020.
Yousefi, A. (2019). Head loss increase in service lines with time-With examples from Asker municipality. Norwegian University of life science.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank all who assisted in conducting this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None to declare.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hussain, M., Schaus, D. Effect of surface roughness and coating alternatives of seawater pipes on energy efficiency of ships. Int J Energ Water Res 6, 183–193 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-021-00164-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42108-021-00164-y