Superba Knowledge — Bridging Regulations and Operations Beta
IT/EN
Download
Operational Guide · Registers & Logbooks

Next-Generation Coating: Planning the Dry Dock Choice

A biocide-free coating with a lifecycle of up to 10 years changes the economic calculation for the next dry dock entry: the choice of antifouling system is no longer just an environmental question, but a maintenance cycle planning one.

antifoulingbiocide-free coatingdry dock planningPSPC

Operational Explanation

The antifouling coatings sector is undergoing a transition toward biocide-free and silicone-based fouling-release technologies, offering longer coating lifecycles (up to 10 years according to manufacturers) than traditional biocidal systems, together with reduced hull frictional resistance. This trend responds both to growing regulatory pressure on traditional biocidal systems and to the search for operational energy savings consistent with IMO GHG emission reduction targets.

For dry dock planning, the choice of coating system is no longer just an isolated technical decision: a longer coating lifecycle changes the economic calculation of intervals between one dry dock entry and the next, with direct implications for long-term hull maintenance scheduling under the PSPC (Performance Standard for Protective Coatings).

Regulatory Reference

The PSPC (IMO Resolution MSC.215(82) and subsequent) governs surface preparation and application requirements for protective coatings; biocide-free antifouling technologies are not yet the subject of a single dedicated IMO standard, but fit within growing regulatory pressure on traditional biocidal systems observed internationally and in various national jurisdictions.

Scope of Application

Every ship planning a dry dock entry involving renewal of the antifouling system, with a comparative assessment between traditional biocidal systems and next-generation biocide-free/fouling-release technologies.

Procedure / How to Complete It

  1. Assess, during dry dock planning, the expected lifecycle of the chosen coating system relative to the planned date of the next dry dock entry.
  2. Compare total lifecycle costs (application cost, duration, expected energy savings) between traditional biocidal systems and next-generation biocide-free/fouling-release technologies.
  3. Verify the compatibility of the chosen coating system with applicable PSPC requirements and with the condition of the existing hull coating.
  4. Coordinate with the shipyard the specific surface preparation required by next-generation systems, often different from that for traditional biocidal systems.
  5. Document the coating system choice and the technical-economic rationale in the repair specification, for reference in subsequent dock cycles.

Practical Example

Example: during planning of a five-year dry dock entry, the Superintendent evaluates a biocide-free fouling-release coating system with an expected 10-year lifecycle, comparing its total cost with that of two successive renewals of a traditional biocidal system with a 5-year lifecycle, including in the assessment the expected energy savings from reduced frictional resistance.

Real Cases

Growing regulatory pressure on traditional biocidal antifouling systems, combined with the search for operational energy savings in line with the sector's decarbonization goals, is pushing a growing number of Companies to re-evaluate coating system choice as an integral part of hull maintenance cycle planning, no longer as an isolated decision at a single dry dock entry.

Common Mistakes Mistake Library

MistakeConsequenceHow to avoid it
Coating system choice based only on immediate application cost, without considering total lifecycleHigher total lifecycle cost in the long run, with more frequent dry dock entries than necessaryAlways evaluate total lifecycle cost, not just the immediate application cost of the coating
Specific surface preparation required by next-generation systems not coordinated in time with the shipyardDelays or non-compliance in applying the new coating systemCoordinate with the shipyard the specific surface preparation required, verifying it before dry dock entry
Rationale for the coating system choice not documented in the repair specificationLoss of useful information for comparative assessment in subsequent dock cyclesAlways document the technical-economic rationale for the coating choice for future reference

PSC Observations

The choice of coating system is not typically subject to direct PSC verification; PSCOs may verify the validity of the International Anti-fouling System Certificate and its consistency with the system actually applied, regardless of the specific technology chosen.

Operational Tips

Checklist

FAQ

What distinguishes a biocide-free coating from a traditional antifouling system?
Biocide-free systems (often silicone-based, fouling-release) do not release biocidal substances into the marine environment, typically offering longer lifecycles and reduced hull frictional resistance, unlike traditional biocidal systems.
Why does coating choice affect dry dock planning?
Because a longer coating lifecycle changes the economically advantageous intervals between one dry dock entry and the next, a factor to consider in long-term hull maintenance planning.
Do next-generation systems require different surface preparation?
Often yes: it is important to coordinate with the shipyard the specific surface preparation requirements of the chosen system, which may differ from those of traditional biocidal systems.
🎬 Additional photos, videos and interactive diagrams for this topic will be available in a future version of the platform.

Related Topics