Architecture of the oil tanker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Oil tankers generally have from 8 to 12 tanks. [1] Each tank is split into two or three independent
compartments by fore-and-aft bulkheads.[1] The tanks are numbered with tank one being the
forwardmost. Individual compartments are referred to by the tank number and the athwartships
position, such as "one port", "three starboard", or "six center."[1]

A cofferdam is a small space left open between two bulkheads, to give protection from heat, fire,
or collision.[1] Tankers generally have cofferdams forward and aft of the cargo tanks, and
sometimes between individual tanks.[2] A pumproom houses all the pumps connected to a tanker's
cargo lines.[1] Some larger tankers have two pumprooms. [1] A pumproom generally spans the total
breadth of the ship.[1]

Contents
[hide]

 1 Hull designs
o 1.1 Phased out types
 1.1.1 PreMARPOL tanker
 1.1.2 MARPOL tanker
 1.1.3 Category 3
o 1.2 New types
 1.2.1 Double hull
 1.2.2 Mid-Deck Oil Tanker
 1.2.3 Coulombi Egg Tanker
 2 Inert gas system
 3 See also
 4 References
o 4.1 Notes
o 4.2 Bibliography
 5 Further reading
 6 External links

Hull designs[edit]
A major component of tanker architecture is the design of the hull or outer structure. A tanker
with a single outer shell between the product and the ocean is said to be single-hulled.[3] Most
newer tankers are double-hulled, with an extra space between the hull and the storage tanks.[3]
Hybrid designs such as double-bottom and double-sided combine aspects of single and double-
hull designs.[3] All single-hulled tankers around the world will be phased out by 2026, in
accordance with amendments to Annex I of the MARPOL Convention.[3] IMO distinguishes three
categories of tankers that will be phased out:[4]

(Marpol 73/78 is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 as
modified by the Protocol of 1978. ("Marpol" is short for marine pollution and 73/78 short for the years
1973 and 1978.))

 Category 1 - oil tankers of 20,000 tonnes deadweight and above carrying crude oil, fuel
oil, heavy diesel oil or lubricating oil as cargo, and of 30,000 tonnes deadweight and
above carrying other oils, which do not comply with the requirements for protectively
located segregated ballast tanks (commonly known as Pre-MARPOL tankers)
 Category 2 - as category 1, but complying with protectively located segregated ballast
tank requirements (MARPOL tankers), and
 Category 3 - oil tankers of 5,000 tonnes deadweight and above but less than the tonnage
specified for Category 1 and 2 tankers

Phased out types

PreMARPOL tanker

PreMARPOL tanker

Category 1 tankers have been phased out in 2005. These so-called preMARPOL tankers were
single hull only with some segregated ballast tanks. Around one third of the cargo tanks also
acted as ballast tanks. During ballast discharge oil was released into the environment. These
tankers did not extend high above the water line, allowing Hydrostatically Balanced Loading
(HBL), so relatively little oil was spilled in case of bottom damage. [5]

30 percent of the side shell in way of the tanks of a MARPOL tanker should be non-cargo.

MARPOL tanker

Category 2 tankers were used for a number of years[when?] and were planned to be phased out by
2010 at the latest, depending on the year of delivery. [citation needed] With MARPOL tankers, it is not
allowed to use ballast tanks as cargo tanks. This has reduced operational spillage drastically. The
downside is designs based on MARPOL spill more oil when damaged than a preMARPOL
tankers. This is due to several factors:
 1. as ballast tanks could not be used as cargo tanks anymore, cargo space was lost. To
compensate for this, tanks were made taller, which means that more oil is spilled before
hydrostatic balance is reached,
2. a MARPOL rule is that 30 percent of the side shell in way of the tanks of a MARPOL
tanker should be non-cargo. The cheapest way to reach this, is by making these tanks as
narrow as possible. This means that centre tanks became extremely large, so in case of
damage, the amount of spillage increased,
3. in a preMARPOL tanker ballast tanks were also filled with inert gas, as these were also
used as cargo tanks, which reduced corrosion. Ballast tanks of MARPOL tankers are not
protective this way, causing structural failure by corrosion on the Erika, Castor and
Prestige,
4. the painted area[clarification needed] tripled, increasing required maintenance and corrosion in case
this maintenance is done poorly.[5]

Category 3

These small tanker will also be phase out by 2010.

New types

After the Exxon Valdez disaster, public outcry became so strong that authorities were forced to
come with preventive measures. Especially the double hull design was favoured and although
this is not the best design in all cases, because of OPA 90, this is the only design currently in
operation.[6]

Double hull tanker

Double hull

OPA 90 caused the phasing out of single hull tankers in the United States between 1997 and
2000 — apart from tankers lightering off the coast, which are allowed to be single hull until
2015. In this design, cargo tanks are protected by ballast tanks of at least 2 metres. As long as
this barrier is not breached, there will be no spillage.

In 1998, the Marine Board of the National Academy of Science conducted a survey of industry
experts regarding the pros and cons of double-hull design. Some of the advantages of the double-
hull design that were mentioned include ease of ballasting in emergency situations, [7] reduced
practice of saltwater ballasting in cargo tanks decreases corrosion, [8] increased environmental
protection,[8] cargo discharge is quicker, more complete and easier, [8] tank washing is more
efficient,[8] and better protection in low-impact collisions and grounding.[8]
The same report lists the following as some drawbacks to the double-hull design, including more
expensive to build,[9] higher canal and port expenses,[9] ballast tank ventilation difficult, [9] ballast
tanks need continual monitoring and maintenance, [9] increased transverse free surface, [9] more
surfaces to maintain,[9] explosion risk in double-hull spaces if vapor detection system not fitted, [10]
cleaning mud from ballast spaces a bigger problem. [10]

In all, double-hull tankers are said to be safer than a single- hull in a grounding incident,
especially when the shore is not very rocky. [11] The safety benefits are less clear on larger vessels
and in cases of high speed impact.[8]

Other downsides of this design are:

1. as small leakages from cargo tanks do not spill in sea, they can go unnoticed for a long
time. This can cause an explosive mixture in ballast tanks, as there is no requirement to
connect these to the IG system,
2. the painted area is three times as large as on a MARPOL tanker, and almost tenfold
compared to a preMARPOL tanker.[12]

Although double-hull design is superior in low energy casualties and prevents spillage in small
casualties, in high energy casualties where both hulls are breached, oil can spill through the
double-hull and into the sea and spills from a double-hull tanker can be significantly higher than
designs like the Mid-Deck Tanker, the Coulombi Egg Tanker and even a pre-MARPOL tanker,
as the last one has a lower oil column and reaches hydrostatic balance sooner.[13]

Mid-Deck Oil Tanker

Mid-Deck Tanker, damage up 3 m. Light gray is oil, dark gray is seawater.

Coulombi Egg, damage up 3 m. Light gray is oil, dark gray is seawater.

A Mid-Deck Tanker is a tanker design, which includes an additional deck intended to limit spills
if the tanker is damaged. The extra deck is placed at about the middle of the draft of the ship.

With double hull tankers, in high energy casualties where both hulls are breached, oil can spill
through the double-hull and into the sea. In grounding events of this type, a mid-deck design
overcomes this by eliminating the double-bottom compartments that are void with air. Since the
density of seawater is greater than that of oil, water comes into the tanks instead of oil escaping
out, and rather than spilling, oil is vented upwards into overflow tanks.

If the Exxon Valdez had been a Mid-Deck ship, she would have spilled very little oil.[14]

Coulombi Egg Tanker

A variation on the Mid-Deck Tanker is the Coulombi Egg Tanker, which was approved by IMO
as an alternative to the double hull concept. The design consists of a series of centre and wing
tanks that are divided by horizontal bulkheads. The upper wing tanks form ballast tanks and act
as emergency receiver tanks for cargo should the lower tanks be fractured. The lower tanks are
connected to these ballast tanks by non-return valves. The United States Coast Guard does not
allow this design to enter US waters, effectively preventing it from being built.

When a lower tank is damaged, the incoming sea water pushes the oil in the damaged tank up
into the ballast tank. Because of the hydrostatic pressure, there is an automatic transfer out of the
damaged tank. The double-hull design is aimed at the probability of zero outflow. In low energy
casualties where only the outside hull is penetrated, this will be the case. However, in high
energy casualties both hulls are penetrated. As the tanks of a double hull tanker are larger than
those of MARPOL-tankers and preMARPOL-tankers and the height of the cargo above the water
line is higher, the resulting spill can be much larger than these single hull designs. In the
Coulombi Egg design spillage is greatly reduced, possibly to zero.
Where a double hull VLCC has a ballast tank coated area of about 225,000 m³, in a Coulombi
Egg tanker this area is reduced to 66,000 m³. This reduces maintenance and corrosion risks,
which otherwise may result in structural failure. [15]

Inert gas system

An oil tanker's inert gas system is one of the most important parts of its design. [16] Fuel oil itself is
very difficult to ignite, however its hydrocarbon vapors are explosive when mixed with air in
certain concentrations.[17] The purpose of the system is to create an atmosphere inside tanks in
which the hydrocarbon oil vapors cannot burn. [16]

As inert gas is introduced into a mixture of hydrocarbon vapors and air, it increases the lower
flammable limit or lowest concentration at which the vapors can be ignited. [18] At the same time it
decreases the upper flammable limit or highest concentration at which the vapors can be
ignited.[18] When the total concentration of oxygen in the tank reaches about 11%, the upper and
lower flammable limits converge and the flammable range disappears. [19]

Inert gas systems deliver air with an oxygen concentration of less than 5% by volume. [16] As a
tank is pumped out, it's filled with inert gas and kept in this safe state until the next cargo is
loaded.[20] The exception is in cases when the tank must be entered. [20] Safely gas-freeing a tank is
accomplished by purging hydrocarbon vapors with inert gas until the hydrocarbon concentration
inside the tank is under about 1%.[20] Thus, as air replaces the inert gas, the concentration cannot
rise to the lower flammable limit and is safe. [20]

See also[edit]
Nautical portal

 List of oil spills

 List of replenishment ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary
 List of tankers
 List of Type T2 Tanker names
 Marine transfer operations

References[edit]
Notes[edit]
1. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Turpin and McEven, 1980:8-24.
2. Jump up ^ Turpin and McEven, 1980:8-25.
3. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Hayler and Keever, 2003:14-4.
4. Jump up ^ IMO, Revised phase-out schedule for single-hull tankers enters into force, 4 April 2005
5. ^ Jump up to: a b Devanney, 2006, p. 327-336.
6. Jump up ^ Devanney, 2006, p. 43-49.
7. Jump up ^ Marine Board, 1998, p. 259.
 8. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Marine Board, 1998, p. 260.
9. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Marine Board, 1998, p. 261.
10. ^ Jump up to: a b Marine Board, 1998, p. 262.
11. Jump up ^ Joem K. Paik and Tak K. Lee, Damage and Residual Strength of Double-Hull Tankers in
Grounding, International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 4, December 1995.
12. Jump up ^ Devanney, 2006, p. 46-47.
13. Jump up ^ Devanney, 2006, p. 381-383.
14. Jump up ^ Devanney, 2006, p. 381.
15. Jump up ^ Devanney, 2006, p. 379-383.
16. ^ Jump up to: a b c Hayler and Keever, 2003:14-11.
17. Jump up ^ Turpin and McEwin, 1980:16-42.
18. ^ Jump up to: a b Transport Canada, 1985:4.
19. Jump up ^ Transport Canada, 1985:5.
20. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Transport Canada, 1985:9.

Bibliography[edit]

 Central Intelligence Agency (2007). CIA World Factbook 2008. Skyhorse Publishing.
ISBN 1-60239-080-0. Archived from the original on 28 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-
02-22.
 Det Norske Veritas (2008). "Knock Nevis". DNV Exchange. Det Norske Veritas.
Retrieved 2008-04-08.
 Devanney, Jack (2006). The Tankship Tromedy: The Impending Disasters in Tankers
(PDF). Tavernier, FL: The CTX Press. ISBN 0-9776479-0-0.
 Douet, M (July 1999). "Combined Ships: An Empirical Investigation About Versatility".
Maritime Policy and Management (Taylor and Francis, Ltd.) 26 (3): 231–248.
doi:10.1080/030888399286862. Retrieved 2008-04-07.
 Encyclopædia Britannica (1911). "Petroleum". In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia
Britannica 21 (11th ed.). pp. 316–322. Retrieved 2008-02-22.
 Encyclopædia Britannica (1911). "Ship". In Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica
24 (11th ed.). pp. 881–889. Retrieved 2008-02-22.
 European Commission / European Maritime Safety Agency (2005). Double Hull
Tankers: High Level Panel of Experts Report.
 Evangelista, Joe (2002). "WS50" (PDF). Surveyor (Houston: American Bureau of
Shipping) (Winter 2002): 10–11.
 Hayler, William B.; Keever, John M. (2003). American Merchant Seaman's Manual.
Cornell Maritime Pr. ISBN 0-87033-549-9.
 Huber, Mark (2001). Tanker operations: a handbook for the person-in-charge (PIC).
Cambridge, MD: Cornell Maritime Press. ISBN 0-87033-528-6.
 Hendrick, Burton Jesse (2007). The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page Volume II.
BiblioBazaar, LLC. ISBN 1-4346-0691-0.
 Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (2005). "ISL Market Analysis" (PDF).
Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics. p. 3. Archived (PDF) from the original on
27 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-26.
 International Chamber of Shipping (1996). International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers
and Terminals (ISGOTT). New York: Hyperion Books. ISBN 1-85609-081-7.
 Marine Board (1998). Double-Hull Tanker Legislation: An Assessment of the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (1998). Marine Board Commission on Engineering and Technical
 Systems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-06370-1. Retrieved
2007-04-10.
 Marine Log (2008). "The Liberty Ship and the T-2 Tanker (1941)". Ships of the Century.
Marine Log. Archived from the original on 5 May 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
 Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) (2008-01-30). "Process: Tank
Cleaning". Shipbuilding and Ship Repair - Hazards and Solutions. Department of Labor.
Archived from the original on 1 April 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
 Office of Data and Economic Analysis (July 2006). "World Merchant Fleet 2001–2005"
(PDF). United States Maritime Administration. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21
February 2007. Retrieved March 13, 2007.
 Overseas Shipholding Group (2008-02-22). "Overseas Shipholding Group Fleet List".
Overseas Shipholding Group. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
 Overseas Shipholding Group (2008-02-28). "Overseas Shipholding Group Enters FSO
Market". Press Releases. Overseas Shipholding Group. Retrieved 2008-04-08.
 Sawyer, L. A.; Mitchell, W. O. (1987). Sailing ship to supertanker: the hundred-year
story of British Esso and its ships. Lavenham, Suffolk: Terence Dalton. ISBN 0-86138-
055-X.
 Singh, Baljit (July 11, 1999). "The world's biggest ship". The Times (of India). Archived
from the original on 25 March 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-07.
 Tarman, Daniel; Heitmann, Edgar (2008-04-07). "Case Study II: Derbyshire, Loss of a
Bulk Carrier". Educational Case Studies. Washington, D.C.: Ship Structure Committee.
Archived from the original on 2 April 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-07.
 Tolf, Robert W. (1976). "4: The World's First Oil Tankers". The Russian Rockefellers:
The Saga of the Nobel Family and the Russian Oil Industry. Hoover Press. ISBN 0-8179-
6581-5.
 Transport Canada (1984). Standard for Inert Gas Systems (PDF).
 Turpin, Edward A.; McEwen, William A. (1980). Merchant Marine Officers' Handbook
(4th ed.). Centreville, MD: Cornell Maritime Press. ISBN 0-87033-056-X.
 United Nations Council on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2006). Review of
Maritime Transport, 2006 (PDF). New York and Geneva: United Nations.
 Woodman, Richard (1998). The History of the Ship: The Comprehensive Story of
Seafaring from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York: Lyons Press. ISBN 1-
55821-681-2.

Further reading[edit]
 Spyrou, Andrew G. From T-2 to Supertanker: Development of the Oil Tanker, 1940-
2000. [United States]: iUniverse, Inc. ISBN 0-595-36068-8.
 Sullivan, George (1978). Supertanker!: The Story of the World's Biggest Ships. New
York: Dodd Mead. ISBN 0-396-07527-4.
 Stopford, Martin (1997). Maritime economics. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-
15309-3.

External links[edit]
 Wikimedia Commons has media related to Oil tankers.

 Bill Willis. Supertankers

 Intertanko - the society of International Tanker Operators
 The International Maritime Organization - Tanker Safety (for double-hulls)