Lloyd's Register's guidance on the operation of membrane LNG ships to avoid the risk of sloshing

damage

by

Jim MacDonald BSc, C.Eng, MRINA - Lloyd’s Register EMEA

John Maguire BSc, PhD, CEng, FICE, FIStructE, FIMarEST, MRINA – Lloyd’s Register EMEA

Lloyd’s Register, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are,
individually and collectively, referred to in this clause as the ‘Lloyd’s Register Group’. The Lloyd’s
Register Group assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or
expense caused by the reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided,
unless that person has a signed contract with the relevant Lloyd’s Register Group entity for the provision
of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and
conditions set out in that contract.

The authors of this paper retain the right of subsequent publication, subject to the sanction of the
Committee of Lloyd’s Register. Any opinions expressed and statements made in this paper and in
subsequent discussions are those of the individuals and not those of Lloyd’s Register.

© Lloyd’s Register 2008. All rights reserved. Except as allowed under current legislation no part of this
work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,
transmitted, restored or reproduced in any form or means, without the prior permission of the copyright
owner.

Enquiries should be addressed to Lloyd’s Register EMEA, 71 Fenchurch Street, London EC3M 4BS,
England
1. Introduction

Sloshing pressures are a major design factor for membrane LNG tanks, but little is known about operation
to reduce the risk of sloshing, and it cannot readily be identified when severe sloshing is occurring on
board.

Generally, ships are designed with sufficient robustness to survive the range of hazards which may be
experienced with, at worst, only localised damage under extreme conditions; and ship’s officers are
trained to handle most hazardous situations which can arise on board.

Thus, for example, ships are capable of withstanding fore end slamming, and the officers know that if this
is occurring regularly - which they can recognize from the way water is shot out horizontally from the fore
end and from the shock wave which is transmitted down the ship - they should change course or speed,
and perhaps ballast the fore end down, to alleviate the situation. In this way both the designers and the
ship’s crew contribute towards the safety of the ship, a situation which promotes the safety of shipping.

However, with regard to sloshing in membrane LNG ships, although sophisticated design methodologies
are being developed to try to ensure that the cargo tanks are strong enough, the extent of the ship’s
officers knowledge is typically limited to knowing that sloshing can occur when the ship is moving in a
seaway (rolling, pitching, etc) when the tanks are partially filled, and that specific filling restrictions are
stated in the ship’s Loading Manual or other documents. They do not normally have any means of
recognising when severe sloshing impacts are occurring, or what actions can be applied to reduce it.

This is regarded as an unsatisfactory situation which this Paper is intended to begin to address.

2. Summary

This Paper summarises the methodology by which the permissible tank filling ranges are established for
new designs of membrane LNG ships, and points out that the methodology is complex with multiple
stages and has not yet been fully calibrated against sloshing pressure measurements on ships in service.
This methodology is based on the generally good service experience of the LNG fleet to date, taking
account of known sloshing incidents.

The filling restrictions allow a reasonable degree of flexibility of operation, but the present state-of-the-art
is not able to identify precisely the seastate and filling level at which the sloshing activity may be severe
enough for damage to begin to occur.

However, the current methodology helps shed light on recognising the situations when sloshing may be
potentially damaging, and what countermeasures can be taken. A description is made of charts which
could be provided showing what combinations of filling level, seastate, and ship’s course and speed give
rise to synchronisation between the ship motion and the natural period of the liquid contents of the tank -
which is a prerequisite for severe sloshing to occur. By making changes to the ship’s course and speed
the risk of severe sloshing could be reduced.

The Paper goes on to provide guidance on the mitigating actions to take if a ship has to depart a terminal
with the tanks partially filled, and describes the type of risk assessment which is recommended for ships
trading to exposed terminals. It describes the type of damage to look for in tanks which have unavoidably
been exposed to conditions which may have caused high sloshing pressures, and suggests methods for
onboard monitoring of sloshing activity.

It is pointed out that Lloyd’s Register has recently published this information in greater detail in the
“Guidance Notes on the Operation of Lloyd’s Register Classed Membrane LNG Ships to Avoid the Risk of
Sloshing Related Damage”. It is noted that LNG shipping has a good service record, and every effort
should be made to maintain this situation. For sloshing on membrane LNG ships, this can be achieved by

1
all parties (designers, builders, owners, class) co-operating together to avoid the cargo tanks being
exposed to conditions in which sloshing damage could occur.

3. The designer’s perspective

The study of sloshing is one of the greatest technical challenges

presently facing today’s designers. This is at least partly because
sloshing is a “stochastic” phenomenon which means that sloshing
impacts cannot be predicted with certainty, and impact magnitudes for
apparently similar sloshing motions can vary widely.

Other factors influencing sloshing include:

• Tank shape and size
• Tank filling levels
• Loading condition of the ship
• Sea conditions
• Seakeeping characteristics of the ship

With regard to tank shape and size in relation to filling levels,

containment system designer GTT’s recommendations on tank shape
and proportions arose from sloshing incidents in the 1970s. The
Fig 1. GTT’s sloshing rig,
modern cross-section shape is intended to reduce the tank width at the
photo included with their
surface for operational filling levels. This serves to avoid
permission
synchronisation between the tank natural period and the normal range
of ship motion period, which helps to reduce sloshing activity.

The methodology for sloshing pressure prediction progresses through evaluation of ship motion, to testing
on a scale sloshing test rig, statistical post-processing, and scaling up to full-size. Comparison is then
made to a “reference design” (comparative approach), or to results of finite element strength analysis or
tests on relevant portions of containment system duly and inner hull adjusted for hydroelastic effects,
temperature and other effects (absolute approach).

It is not a simple matter to estimate the strength of the

containment system subject to sloshing impacts because
sloshing is a shock loading effect which can last only a few
milliseconds duration, for which the response is different
from static loading. Furthermore, sloshing impacts can
induce very high peak pressures concentrated over a small
area (of the order of mm2), also high pressures spread over
a larger area (of the order of m2). Hence both the local Fig 2. High peak pressures over a small
detail arrangements, and the more general arrangements of area, and lower average pressures on
the containment system, need to be considered. larger areas

In summary, the methodology is complex and multi-stage, and the predicted pressures and structural
responses are yet to be fully calibrated by full scale measurement in service. In the meantime, the results
of this approach can be regarded as the best available confirmation of the containment system’s ability to
meet the degree of filling flexibility which the LNG trade desires.

During the course of sloshing evaluations various situations have been revealed which would benefit from
handling the ship in certain ways, and these form the basis of the guidance provided in the subsequent
sections of this Paper.

2
As an aside, it is worth recalling that the IGC Code requires a full secondary barrier for membrane
systems. This is considered a very important requirement which provides the margin of safety and avoids
the ship being gravely endangered even if the primary barrier fails in a sloshing damage incident.

4. Identifying conditions when sloshing activity is likely to be more severe

Although barred fill ranges are applied there is no cut-off value at

Fill Ht Description
which sloshing activity becomes negligible. On the contrary,
significant sloshing may still occur in severe seastates if fill levels “Full”
Normal/
are near to the permitted limits, and in moderate seas if the ship desirable
95%H
speed and heading result in resonant wave conditions.

However, keeping the tanks filled within the normal range, ie Permissible

greater than 95% or less than 5% of tank height, is desirable 70%H

because this also helps to reduce sloshing activity and because of

the much greater service experience within these ranges. Filling
outside these ranges involves increasing risk, as illustrated in
Figure 3.
Barred
Synchronisation between the ship motion and the tank period is
also a prerequisite for significant sloshing activity. It is therefore
possible to draw up charts for particular ships illustrating the degree
of synchronisation for a range of fill heights and wave periods, see 10%L
Figure 4. In permissible range
for many ships, but
It does not follow that advice should be
sought before
significant sloshing impacts will 10%H individual voyages
occur in the identified
heading/speed combination at Permissible
given fill heights, but some 5%H

confidence may be had that Normal/

severe sloshing will not occur Empty
desirable
for heading/speed
combinations shown as lower Fig 3. Degree of sloshing activity
risk. against fill height

Fig 4. Chart of synchronization
between ship motion and
natural period of the cargo for a
given fill height
The sample chart shown in Figure 4 illustrates that for the given fill
height and load condition, beam seas give the highest risk for greater
than normal heels of cargo, and this situation should be avoided by a
change of course. In some cases, changing speed may also be found
advantageous.

Fig 5. Facility to
5. Unplanned departure with the tanks partially filled interconnect between the
tank vapour space and IBS
There are occasions when ships have to depart terminals at short notice in
the event of uncontrollable venting of gas from the ship, a safety alert at
the terminal, or other reasons.

It is possible that the quantities of cargo in some or all of the tanks at this
time are in the barred fill range, in which case it should be redistributed to
within the permitted ranges if there is time to do so. If this cannot be done,
it may be taken into account that less risk may exist at 60% to 70% fill
height than at other fill heights in the barred range, and the risk is minimal
if the wave height en route to safe anchorage is less than about 2m and

3
synchronisation is avoided, as described above. However, the Class Society’s advice must always be
sought for any deviation from the approved filling limits.

One possible reason for unplanned departure is venting of gas from leakage through the primary barrier
leading to uncontrolled venting of gas. It is not recommended shutting off the relief arrangements
because the interbarrier space’s ability to resist internal pressure is low.

One means of avoiding venting gas in this situation is to have the ability to interconnect between the tank
vapour space and interbarrier space (IBS), as shown in Figure 5. This is only permitted alongside to
enable completion of unloading because the IBS is required to have a functioning system of inerting and
leak detection. The Class Society should be informed of its use, and the proposed actions leading to the
repair of the primary membrane which necessitated the use of this facility.

6. Exposed terminals and offshore loading and unloading

If the intended operation involves increased risk of the tanks being partially filled in an exposed location
such that ship motions may be greater than negligible at or in the vicinity of the terminal, it is
recommended that a risk assessment is undertaken. The procedure arising from such a study would
need to be particular to each ship design and terminal. It should include advice on changing the
loading/discharge pattern to limit the number of partially filled tanks when severe weather conditions are
forecast, and recommendations on the route to the sheltered anchorage depending on the forecast
weather conditions. It should also contain similar guidance to that described in paragraph 5 above to
cover situations when the ship is forced to depart at short notice with partially filled tanks in the barred fill
range, and sloshing risk charts similar to that shown in Figure 4.

The risk assessment can be undertaken by Lloyd’s Register or by another expert body. If the latter,
Lloyd’s Register would need to review and confirm its validity for ships of its class.

7. Survey for sloshing damage

If a ship has encountered severe weather with the tanks outside the desirable normal fill range or has had
to leave a terminal prematurely and subsequently experiences significant ship motions with the tanks
outside the normal range, tank inspection should be undertaken at the next available opportunity even if
there is no detectable increase in gas concentrations in the inter-barrier space of the tank.

In NO type tanks, the most likely form of damage is the insulation box top being set in – even by small
amounts - between the internal partitions set at around 125mm spacing for standard boxes, as shown in
green in Figure 2 above.

In Mk type tanks, it is considered that the critical components are the primary corrugations which may be
distorted or buckled, the insulation underneath the primary membrane failing in compression causing a
slight general inwards depression between corrugations, or the back plywood failing between the lines of
mastic securing it to the inner hull, though this latter form of damage may not be readily detectable.

8. On-board indication of sloshing activity

Plans exist to fit some ships with equipment to measure sloshing pressures directly in order to gather data
for application to future designs. This equipment could be adapted to provide real time indication of
sloshing pressures back to the bridge.

It is understood to be feasible to develop radar systems to indicate the instantaneous local surface height
in the tank such that a number could give an indication of the overall surface profile so that sloshing
activity could be “seen” remotely.

4
A simpler, but less direct, method would be to site microphones adjacent to the cargo tanks to monitor
sound levels.

By monitoring the ongoing boil-off rate using the equipment already fitted on ships in service, some
general indication of the level of sloshing activity may be gained.

Lloyd’s Register would be pleased to provide advice on developing on-board sloshing measurement
systems.

9. Conclusions

Lloyd’s Register has recently published “Guidance Note on the Operation of Lloyd’s Register Classed
Membrane LNG Ships to Avoid the Risk of Sloshing Related Damage” which describes the subject in
greater detail.

LNG shipping has a good service record. Every effort should be made to maintain this situation. For
sloshing on membrane LNG ships, this requires cooperation between all parties (designers, builders,
owners, class) including responsible operation by the shipowner from a position of knowledge of the
conditions in which sloshing can become as significant factor – and how to mitigate the risk when such
situations occur.

10. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank in particular their Lloyd’s Register colleague Nigel White for his comments,
suggestions and encouragement, also all other colleagues who by their work on sloshing investigations
have contributed to the contents of this paper.

11. References

“Guidance Notes on the Operation of Lloyd’s Register Classed Membrane LNG Ships to Avoid the Risk of
Sloshing Related Damage”. Lloyd’s Register ShipRight, Linked Supporting Services publication