This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Yuka SAGISHIMA* Member
Summary The ballast water management is focused on to minimize the introduction of unwanted organisms from the discharge of ballast water in their local jurisdictions in these days. The ballast exchange at the deep ocean is the most practical approach to minimizing the introduction of aquatic species from ballast. This study provides key findings of the case study applying the ballast exchange for 14 ABS class vessels, and due to the results, we discuss the problems what we should care, and focus on in view of the safety concerns.
Many non-indigenous species have been introduced into the marine environment through ships’ ballast water. The environmental and economic impact of these unwanted aquatic organisms is substantial and growing. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted voluntary standard calling for ships to implement procedure to minimize the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms from ballast water in 1993, and in 1997 adopted the IMO guideline for management of ships’ ballast water. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also requires signatory nations to “take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control the international or accidental introduction of species, alien or new, to any part of the marine environment, which may cause significant or harmful changes thereto.” Lack of mandatory international regulations has led to a series of national and regional regulations beginning in 1989. The tentative schedule for developing the necessary regulation is directed towards convening of a diplomatic conference during the 4th quarter of 2002. Three general approaches are available for minimizing the introduction of new species. These are: 1) eliminating the discharge of ballast in port and coastal waters; 2) treating the ballast to eradicate harmful organisms prior to discharge; and 3) managing ballast operations such that only open-ocean ballast is discharged in port. At this time, ballast management and deep ocean ballast exchange is the most practical approach to minimizing the introduction of aquatic species from ballast. ABS has conducted a study on ballast water exchange procedures using fourteen vessels covering a number of single and double hull tankers, bulk carriers and container carriers as indicated in Table 1. Based on the results of case studies, we discusses the key findings and problems arising from the ballast water exchange procedures. * ABS Pacific – Yokohama Table 1 Principal Particulars
Vessel Type Single Hull Tanker General Description 35,000 DWT Suezmax VLCC 40,900 DWT Suezmax (A) Suezmax (B) Suezmax (C) VLCC Handysize Panamax Capesize Feeder (1200 TEU) LBP (m) 168.0 261.0 313.0 174.3 258.0 289.8 274.0 317.0 160.3 215.0 270.0 190.2 Breadth (m) 30.4 50.0 56.6 32.2 46.0 46.2 50.0 58.0 27.2 32.2 45.0 23.8 Depth (m) 16.2 25.1 28.6 19.2 23.9 25.3 24.5 31.4 13.6 18.7 23.8 14.3
Double Hull Tanker
2.6 2 Exchange of Ballast at Sea Ballast water exchange is currently considered the single most practical method for ballast water management. as operational effectiveness will not be seriously impaired by additional trim.2 260. The MARPOL draft was applied for both tankers and bulk carriers.2 39. five double hull tankers and three typical bulk carriers were evaluated using sequential exchange methods. Longitudinal strength The permissible still-water bending moments and shear forces at sea in accordance with ABS Rules are assumed as target values. Ballast water exchange can be accomplished by either the sequential empty-refill method or by flow through method. high sloshing pressures. trim by the bow is avoided.0 + 0. A.Vessel Type General Description Panamax (2500 TEU) Post-Panamax (4800 TEU) LBP (m) 205.8 Breadth (m) 32. List List affects stability. There are no statutory or rule requirements which limit small angles of list.3 23. Intact stability Intact stability is assumed in compliance with the criteria of IMO Res. Ballast water exchange operations should be performed in deep water away from coastal shelves and estuarine influences. whichever is less. bridge visibility. This MARPOL requirement was applied for both tankers and bulk carriers. higher stresses.015L) in accordance with MARPOL Annex I Reg. The primary considerations in assessing sequential exchange scenarios focused on vessel stability.1.13 for tankers. Draft aft 100% propeller immersion is assumed as the minimum requirement for the aft draft. A secondary effect of reduced forward draft would be an increased probability of bow slamming. These methods are about 95% effective in eliminating aquatic organisms. In this study. This limits the dead zone forward of the bow to 500 meters or two ship lengths. hull girder strength.4 Depth (m) 20. Draft forward The forward draft measured in meters is maintained within the MARPOL requirements (fwd draft ≥ 2. Emptying of certain tanks may lead to significantly reduced stability.1 Single Hull Tankers . Visibility Visibility at arrival and departure are maintained within SOLAS requirements.13 for tankers. Trim may also be limited by the draft and visibility requirements. 1 degree is assumed as a reasonable limit.0125L) in accordance with MARPOL Annex I Reg. primarily by reducing range of stability and downflooding angle. Trim As far as possible.1 Sequential Method The sequential method entails completely emptying ballast tanks and refilling with open-ocean water. and/or reduced forward drafts. The trim limit was considered a “soft” constraint. and list angle as defined below. Trim by stern is limited to the MARPOL requirements (0. propeller immersion. Minimum draft was not a critical constraint for the container carriers. 2.167. Three single hull tankers.
5 100 4.1A 0.1 137 39. Table 2 shows the peak values from the sequence for the single hull tankers.1S 99 61 14.3 5 8 12 8. although designs one Suezmax and the VLCC each have one “U” tank. the forward draft tends to become very light and is often reduced by more than 50% during the sequence. (%) Draft FP (m) Trim Perps-Max (m) Static Heel (deg) Bending Mom (%Allow) Shear (%Allow) GMt (m) Bridge Visibility Deadzone %(%IMO) [max] Time to perform exchange sequence (hours) Number of tanks in exchange sequence Number of steps in exchange sequence Number of ballast movements for sequence Max. (%) #4 DH #5DH #6DH Suez-B #7DH Suez-C #8 DH Panamax Suez-A VLCC Lgt Nrm Lgt/ Nrm Hvy Lgt Lgt/ Nrm Lgt Lgt/ Nrm Lgt Lgt/ Hvy Nor Hvy Hvy 100 100 100 101 96 132 142 177 100 100 113 101 100 .1S 76 80 17. large ballast tanks. It is difficult to satisfy all of the criteria using the sequential method for single hull tankers and most of these sequences are suitable for favorable weather conditions only. For many ships.2 162 29.2 263 41.3 114 15 5 9 16 2.5 6 9 16 9.Prop Imm. • • 2.18 5.2 Double Hull Tankers These designs incorporate typical tank arrangements for modern double hull tankers.8 #2 SH Suezmax Normal Heavy 91 2. Table 3 shows the peak values from the sequence for the double hull tankers. Table 3 Peak Values During Sequential Exchange for Double Hull Tankers Ship Condition Draft AP . Table 2 Peak Values During Sequential Exchange for Single Hull Tankers Ship Condition Draft AP .81 7.1P 99 67 16. Bending moments approach 100% allowable during the sequence.3 6 5 12 8.0A 0. with two-across cargo tanks for the Panamax and Suezmax sizes. Due to the few.1.9 General trends observed when developing exchange for single hull tankers are listed below: • • • • Propeller immersion can be difficult to maintain. the fore and aft wing ballast tanks do not have identical capacities.46 5.5S 99 37 5. To prevent excessive heeling when diagonally opposite side tanks are emptied in pairs.5 #3 SH VLCC Normal 100 2. Trim can be quite high. the larger wing tanks must be initially pumped down to the volume same as the other tank. And due to the large trim by stern.3A 0. Most of the ballast tanks are the “L” tank.These vessels incorporate a standard MARPOL 73/78 segregated ballast tank arrangement.4A 0.25 5. and three-across cargo tanks for the VLCC.Prop Imm. with ballast located in alternate wing tanks. time to ballast to original drafts (hours) #1 SH Panamax Normal 130 2. bridge visibility is often not sufficient during these sequences.
particularly in the 5 tank long ballast tank arrangement typical of double hull VLCC’s.7A 3. in smaller vessels.8 86 15 105 9.4P 1. Some of the design features impacting sequences are as follows: 1.4S 79 73 0 41 60 0 62 54 0 0.3A 3.4P 0. 4.27 5.7A 4.6 9.1P 0.4P 1. time to ballast to original drafts (hours) 14 26 1. small differences in the consumables could have a significant effect on the loading conditions and exchange sequence suitability.3 10 7 14 0.3 12 12 24 3.46 6 5.) 2. In certain vessel designs.2P 0.8 11 14 14 9 13 6 14 N/A 8 21 N/A 10 28 3. use of the forepeak and aftpeak tanks may lead to large bending moments making them unusable in the planning of ballast sequences.1 Listed below are key findings arising from the ballast water exchange analysis of double hull tankers: • The degree to which a vessel is suited to sequential ballast exchange is highly dependent on the vessel design.1P 62 85 92 51 49 67 11.3 18. while the other three vessels had required more complex sequences.3 13.29 6.81 4. Two of the vessels that were studied had very efficient sequences.81 3.06 6.16 4. due to the large trim by stern.6 14.0A 1.8A 0. • • • Bridge visibility is often not sufficient during these sequences. 2.3 12 12 24 3. Ships with large aggregate ballast volumes and a relatively larger number of ballast tanks provide greater flexibility for sequential exchange.Draft FP (m) Trim Perps-Max (m) Static Heel (deg) Bending Mom (%Allow) Shear (%Allow) GMt (m) Bridge Visibility Deadzone %(%IMO) [max] 4.3 26. Other factors.6 7. the static heel becomes excessive when performing diagonal exchange of ballast.3 10 7 14 0.0A 5.1 28.7 158 161 161 102 19 12 14 26 1.5P 0.7A 2. 3. such as maintaining the vessel within list. Sequences for normal and heavy weather conditions were evaluated for each bulk carrier.9A 3.52 4. In designs where there is significant variations in tank ballast capacities fore and aft. . Smaller ballast tanks located at the ends of the cargo block can assist in the development of efficient ballast exchange sequences.1.06 6.9A 0. “U” tanks present problems.3 19.8 82 14.19 4. 5.21 4.88 3.6S 0.3 Bulk Carriers These ships are arranged with topside tank and hopper tank. Table 4 shows the peak values from the sequence for the bulk carriers.7 29.1 103 14.8A 4.3 Number of tanks in exchange sequence 11 10 Number of steps in exchange sequence Number of ballast movements for sequence Max. The “U” tank precludes the option of diagonally exchanging ballast to control bending moment and trim.1 6.1 7.8A 2.7 13. and each design has one cargo hold intended to carry ballast in heavy weather condition. Relatively speaking.4 103 107 107 109 150 122 9.6 10 18 N/A 13 23 N/A Time to perform exchange sequence (hours) 18.8A 3.7 15.5 20. trim.6S 56 56 56 100 99 73 76 32 32 32 85 81 15 82 9. strength.2 27. and stability limits may determine whether or not a sequence is desirable.6 15. Bending moments typically approach allowable values when large midships tanks are emptied.5 12 23 5.7 12 9 26 N/A 7.9A 6. (Efficiency does not necessarily imply the least amount of time.
therefore.Prop Imm.2 Flow Through Method The flow through method involves pumping open-ocean water into a full ballast tank.Table 4 Peak Values During Sequential Exchange for Bulk Carriers Ship #9 BC Handysize #10 BC Panamax Condition Normal Heavy Normal Heavy Draft AP .7S Bending Mom (%Allow) 97 83 100 92 Shear (%Allow) 67 115 79 101 GMt (m) 6.1S 0.2S 0.9 Number of tanks in exchange sequence 22 23 29 31 Number of steps in exchange sequence 19 13 12 17 Number of ballast movements for sequence 28 46 58 65 Max.34 Trim Perps-Max (m) 1. The cargo holds intended to carry ballast.02 4. Therefore. (%) 100 101 97 101 Draft FP (m) 3. stress and . This may preclude exchanging ballast in the holds during severe weather conditions.2 12 13 16 19 28 31 3.85 3. the drafts are greatly reduced to near those in the light ballast condition. Ballast equal to approximately three times the tank capacity must be pumped through the tank to achieve 95% effectiveness in eliminating aquatic organisms.2 2. Applying the flow through method does not alter the stability. as excessive shear forces are encountered. It is difficult to concurrently maintain adequate propeller immersion and forward draft. In situations where the hold is emptied.8A 4.8A 1.1 8. the bulk carrier is fitted with overboard valves in the topside ballast tanks.6A Static Heel (deg) 0.1S 0. For the vessels investigated the sequences require many steps between 12 and 19 independent steps. safe application of these sequences will require careful monitoring by the ship’s crew.2 6. and up to 65 ballast movements.9 Bridge Visibility Deadzone %(%IMO) [max] 106 82 88 72 Time to perform exchange sequence (hours) 27.8 #11 BC Capesize Normal Heavy 101 102 3.5 6. Bending moments approach the 100% allowable value for each of the bulk carrier exchange sequences.3A 0. shear force and bending moment criteria. These ships were not designed to have ballast tanks emptied during the course of the voyage and.8 44. it is difficult to exchange ballast in the cargo hold while maintaining compliance with forward draft.9S 0 96 96 73 108 12. In general. are generally designed for full or empty ballast loading.1 39. It may not be possible to exchange the some ballast tanks when the cargo hold is filled with ballast water.77 4.7 Listed below are key findings arising from the ballast water exchange analysis of bulk carriers: • Sequences are relatively complex as forward draft.6 7. Shear force values for all three heavy weather condition sequences are close to allowable limit. significantly reducing the sequence time and providing more flexibility in how the pumps are used.3 3.4 8.8 28. This allows quick gravity discharge of the ballast.17 2.7A 5. time to ballast to original drafts (hours) 2. Capesize vessels generally have large double bottom ballast tanks extending two holds in length.6 16.9A 3. and bending moments frequently approach the target values. • • • • • • 2. careful planning is necessary to ensure that bending moments are maintained within acceptable levels. And for all designs. aft draft.4 10.85 5.9 151 143 35.
While it may take longer to carry out. A typical voyage may consist of ten or more port calls. tanks can often be initially ballasted in the deep ocean. a 2500 TEU Panamax containership operating between the U. This raises a number of concerns: the removal and replacement of covers to assure sufficient venting is labor intensive. For these reasons. . and in response to operational requirements such as draft limitations. Through planning. and it was not possible to exchange ballast water in the deep ocean. there is a case using standpipes and valves to overboard discharge of ballast through the shell just above the deep ballast waterline. 2. which further reduces the need for exchange. and Japan. effective ballast water management procedures can be implemented with little impact on vessel operations and with no loss of container payload. • • 2. there is less total "attention time" than with the sequential method from the ship’s personnel. However. A substantial portion of the voyage for 1200 TEU vessel studied involved inter-port transits through shallow waters.S. Using the flow through method eliminates concerns related to shallow forward and aft drafts and extreme trims for the single hull tankers and some cases of double hull tankers. and damage stability/survivability were considered.4 Additional Considerations in Assessing Sequential Exchange In addition to primary considerations described 2. potential safety risks to personnel accessing the upper deck will limit flow through exchange to favorable weather conditions only. Listed below are key findings arising from the ballast water management analysis of containerships: • The 1200 TEU feedership does not have heeling tanks or other means for internally transferring ballast from one side to another. as many tanks can be maintained either full or empty during the course of the voyage. With the exception of the above mentioned problem of controlling heel on the feedership.-Far East trade. there is no alternative but to discharge ballast in port. and the overflow of ballast on deck is prone to icing in cold environments. with containers generally loaded and off-loaded at each port. the effects of ballast water exchange on slamming. sloshing. In preparation of a port call. eliminates concerns of exceeding shear force and bending moment limits for bulk carriers heavy ballast condition and also eliminates the light draft problem for the Capesize heavy ballast condition. the amount of ballast exchange can be minimized. and a 4800 TEU PostPanamax containership operating in the U. Hawaii.1. and thus the flow through exchange may be more attractive than the sequential exchange. For containerships the procedure is more of a "management plan" than a ballast exchange process. it is important to assess piping and overflow arrangements to ensure that the tank will not be over-pressurized. Ballast is allocated during the course of the voyage to accommodate changes in the distribution of cargo and consumables. West Coast. resulting in unavoidable in-port discharge of coastal waters. This study investigated the entire voyages for three containerships.ship attitude.3 Containerships Containerships rarely operate in “ballast only” conditions. The ships selected for this analysis include a 1200 TEU feedership operating between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean Sea. Since ballast adjustments are required to control list during cargo operations. it was found that for the three voyages and ships analyzed.S.
In order to consider the implications of the reductions in forward draft. a seakeeping analysis was performed.1 Slamming It was common to have a decrease in forward draft during ballast exchange sequence operations.2 Sloshing The sloshing analysis was performed on larger tanks of the three single hull tankers and cargo holds of two bulk carriers.2. Moderate Gale). Table 5 shows the maximum significant wave heights for the acceptable slam probability. Table 5 Maximum Significant Wave Heights for the Acceptable Slam Probability Ship #1 SH Panamax #2 SH Suezmax #3 SH VLCC #4 DH Panamax #5 DH Suezmax-A #6 DH Suezmax-B #7 DH Suezmax-C #8 DH VLCC #9 BC Handysize Size 40kDWT 150kDWT VLCC 40kDWT 150kDWT 150kDWT 150kDWT VLCC Load Case Normal / IMO / IMO-1 Normal / IMO / IMO-1 Normal / IMO / IMO-1 Normal IMO / IMO-1 Normal / IMO / IMO-1 Normal / IMO / IMO-1 Normal / IMO / IMO-1 Normal / IMO / IMO-1 Normal Normal-1 #10 BC Panamax #11 BC Capesize #12 CC Feeder #13 CC Panamax Panamax Capesize Feeder PanaMax Heavy / Normal Normal-1 Heavy / Normal / Normal-1 Full Load Full-2 / Full-4 Full Load Full-2 Full-4 #14 CC Post-Pmax PostPan Full Load Full-2 Full-4 Max Slam Probability 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Max H1/3 for Exchange 8 12 12 9 8 12 12 12 12 11 9 10 12 11 12 12 10 12 11 10 12 11 12 HandySize Heavy 2. The acceptance criteria for slamming used in the study was a 3% (3 in 100 pitch oscillations) slam probability for tankers and bulk carriers. ABS rules for tankers were used in the evaluation of bulk carriers as well as tankers.4. This was particularly evident in the case of tankers and bulk carriers. and a 5% for slam probability for containerships. The acceptable slam probabilities are achieved for all vessels at sea states of significant wave heights below 8 meters (approximately Beaufort Force 7. .4.
3 Conclusion Two general conclusions emanating from this study are.4. Ideally.3 Damage Stability and Survivability Survivability was assessed based on a probabilistic damage stability analysis for a limited number of vessels.4. ABS Rules require that sloshing strength has been assessed. Sloshing in partially filled holds on bulk carriers may be due to pitch and/or roll motion resonance. Reference  American Bureau of Shipping : Advisory Notes on Ballast Water Exchange Procedures (1999) . the probability of completing a 44 hour exchange sequence in any gives 44 hour period is over 95%. For ballasting of bulk carrier cargo holds. The conclusion of our assessment was that because the conditions involved were ballast conditions. ballast capacity. In general. the survivability was quite high. From published data it is concluded that even with a series of conservative assumptions. as human error and equipment failure could potentially endanger the vessel. sloshing loads would be brought down to acceptable limits. therefore no problem may be expected on those tanker designs. The ballast system layout. For the Suezmax tanker considered in this study. Further sloshing study for bulk carrier should be needed. 2. For new double hull tanker designs. However. the overflow system should be arranged so that flow through can be carried out without risk of overpressurizing tanks. In order to cope with the problems identified above. tank configuration. similar operational limits would not be practical. both for the normal ballast and for the “worst case” exchange condition. When sequential exchange is impractical. 2. 1. In the case of single hull tankers it is possible to reduce sloshing motion amplitudes and to bring the loads on the structure within acceptable limits.4 Probability of Completion of Ballast Water Exchange Assuming no interruptions. this is not the desired behavior.Sloshing in tankers is generally limited to pitch resonance. ABS continues to study the ballast water exchange procedures and will include in our Rules provisions for ballast water and sediment management procedures in due course. by limiting the vessel's pitch amplitude to that encountered in seastates of Beaufort Force 7 or less. once the ballast exchange sequence has begun it should proceed until completion. a ballast sequence can be interrupted and continued with some additional time requirements to return from the ballast condition required to operate in the higher sea conditions. and can usually be rectified with only modest mitigation design measures. and hull girder strength are a few of the design decisions which influence the ability to sequentially exchange ballast. and is a major concern that is not easy dealt with. particularly on older ships. Ballast exchange should be given due consideration during the design process. Personnel training will be an essential part of a ballast water management program. the duration of exchange sequences evaluated in this study ranged from ½ day to 2 days. System reliability must also be addressed. The complexity of exchange sequences on certain vessels present safety concerns. 2.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.