INCREASED CARGO TANK FILLING LIMITS ON LNG CARRIERS THE LR APPROACH AUGMENTATION DES LIMITES DE REMPLISSAGE DES CUVES

S DE TRANSPORTEURS DE GNL METHODE DAPPROCHE DE LR

W. S. Rogers Principal Surveyor D. J. Cox Senior Surveyor Lloyds Register of Shipping 29 Wellesley Road, Croydon CR0 2AJ, United Kingdom

ABSTRACT
Lloyds Register (LR) is increasingly requested to approve filling limits on LNG carriers above the 98% liquid full level referenced in Chapter 15 of the IMO Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying Liquefied Gases in Bulk (IGC Code). The IGC Code states in Chapter 15.1.1 that No cargo tanks should be more than 98% liquid full at the reference temperature.... The limit of 98% liquid full was introduced a number of years ago at which time it was considered a 2% cargo tank vapour space should be provided in cargo tanks. This 2% of vapour space would prevent, or at least delay the tank becoming liquid full in a fire situation, and also ensure that the inlets to the pressure relief valves always remain in the vapour phase. The IGC Code however also states that Administrations may allow higher filling limits subject to certain criteria being complied with. When Lloyds Register acts on behalf of an Administration and is requested to approve filling limits on LNG carriers above the 98% liquid full level, any LR appraisal is based on a review of safety considerations while appreciating the commercial and economic aspects. This paper will examine LRs approach to the assignment of increased filling limits, detailing the criteria applied and principles involved when considering different cargo containment systems in use throughout the world today.

6.31

RESUME
Lloyds Register (LR) reoit un nombre croissant de demandes pour lapprobation de la limite de remplissage des cuves cargaison des transporteurs de GNL, plus de 98% de leur volume. Cette limite est prvue au Chapitre 15 du Recueil IGC de lOMI (Recueil International de Rgles relatives la construction et lquipement des navires transportant des gaz liqufis en vrac). Le paragraphe 15.1.1 de ce Recueil est libell comme suit: Aucune cuve cargaison ne devrait tre remplie de liquide plus de 98% de son volume la temprature de rfrence.... La limite de remplissage, dont la mise en application a t prescrite il y a quelques annes, a pris en considration les 2% de la vapeur de cargaison dans les cuves. La provision des 2% devrait empcher, ou au moins retarder, le remplissage intgral de la cuve en cas dincendie et dassurer galement que les aspirations des soupapes de sret de pression restent toujours dans la phase vapeur. Le Recueil IGC cependant prcise que les Administrations Maritimes peuvent autoriser une limite de remplissage plus leve conditions que certains critres soient satisfaits. Dans le cadre de lautorisation accorde, lapprobation par LR des limites maximales admissibles de remplissage comprend une valuation fonde sur des critres du sret et une considration dlments tant commerciaux quconomiques. Lobjet de ce mmoire est dexaminer les propositions de LR quant lattribution de limites de remplissage plus lves et dexposer les critres applicables et les principles relatifs aux diffrents systmes en service dans le monde entier pour le confinement du GNL.

6.32

INCREASED CARGO TANK FILLING LIMITS ON LNG CARRIERS THE LR APPROACH

DEFINITIONS
Filling Limit The maximum liquid volume in a cargo tank, expressed as a percentage, relative to the geometrical tank volume, that is excluding the domes, when the liquid cargo has reached the reference temperature. Reference Temperature The temperature corresponding to the vapour pressure of the cargo at the set pressure of the relief valves. Maximum Loading Level The maximum allowable liquid volume relative to the geometrical tank volume to which a tank can be loaded such that it will not exceed the filling limit set when the cargo reaches the reference temperature.

CODE REQUIREMENTS AND INTRODUCTION

Chapter 15.1.1 of the IGC Code limits the cargo tank to 98% liquid full at the reference temperature. However, Chapter 15.1.3 of the IGC Code allows Administrations to accept filling limits higher than the 98% given in 15.1.1. and 15.1.2, subject to certain criteria being considered. As it is written 15.1.3 applies to both LNG and LPG cargoes. When considering the formula given in Chapter 15.1.2 of the IGC Code it is seen that the maximum volume to which the tank can be initially loaded is dependent on the relative density of the cargo at the loading condition. It is a straightforward matter to apply this formula to an LPG cargo. However, as LNG is a mixture of gases the chemical and physical properties vary. There are changes in these properties from port to port as well as during loading, when lighter elements such as nitrogen boil off. Consequently it can be difficult to determine the exact density of LNG at the time of loading. In practice LNG is loaded at a temperature relatively close to its boiling temperature and the application of the formula in 15.1.2 of the Code makes little difference to the loaded level. Following loading, both LNG and LPG cargoes will begin to heat up provided there is no external intervention such as reliquefaction. The rate of heat input will depend on various factors such as the cargo tank design and the efficiency of the tank insulation system. This heat input to the cargo will result in a change of density, expansion of the cargo and a corresponding rise in liquid level. 6.33

Commonly LPG cargoes are transported in pressurised tanks and the ships can be fitted with cargo compressors thus enabling reliquefaction of the cargo vapours. These measures are relatively efficient and economic. LNG cargoes on the other hand are generally transported at relatively low pressures and at a low carriage temperature in the region of -1600 C. It has not been economic up to the present time to reliquefy the LNG boil off gas in the same way that LPG vapours are reliquefied and it has been necessary to provide other arrangements in order to deal with the LNG boil off gas (BOG) which will inevitably be produced during transportation. These include such methods as warming the BOG to around ambient temperature and burning it in the main boilers, or alternatively, there is the possibility of compressing the gas to enable it to be used in duel fuel diesel/gas fired reciprocating engines, which may be either main engines or generators. The result of these different methods of carrying LNG and LPG is that in nearly every case an LNG cargo level will start to decrease soon after loading, while LPG cargo levels will either remain at the loaded level or rise due to expansion. It is because of this decrease in cargo level after loading that proposals for increased filling limits above the 98% liquid full level on LNG carriers can be considered. Approval Procedure Before considering any application for increased filling above that allowed by the IGC Code, it is necessary to understand the philosophy which lay behind the Code limit of 98% liquid full. It has been oil tanker practice to fill cargo oil tanks so that there was always 2% safety margin in the tanks. This 2% vapour space had been found to be an acceptable, and a practicable, safety measure, and it was therefore decided to also apply it to gas carriers where its application was intended to ensure that the cargo tanks would not become liquid full during normal operation, and that the inlets to the pressure relief valves would remain in the vapour space under all conditions. Bearing in mind these prime objectives, the following criteria need to be considered when deciding on the assignment of increased filling limits. a) Structural configuration of the LNG tank b) Orientation of the pressure relief valves and vapour return lines within the cargo tank c) Ship movement d) Accuracy of - Level gauges Temperature indication Pressure relief valves e) Strength of the ship structure f) Operational procedures LRs approvals for the assignment of increased filling limits have so far been limited to the spherical cargo tank design. The main reason for this is that with the spherical tank the surface area of the cargo is greatly reduced as it approaches the maximum filling level and hence the cargo height can be measured accurately. Further, the spherical tank shape 6.34

ensures that there is less chance of the formation of gas pockets which may be isolated from the pressure relief valves when the ship is heeled or trimmed (see Figure 1). It should be noted that the 100% cargo liquid full level does not include the volume of the tank dome. For a 135000 m3, 4 spherical tank, LNG carrier the dome volume may be in the region of approximately 45 m3 which is equivalent to 0.13% of the total cargo tank volume. This dome arrangement allows the pressure relief valves and vapour return lines to be located well above the 100% liquid full level which corresponds to the spherical portion of the cargo tank. While the height, volume and shape of the dome are not considered in calculations, it provides an additional measure of safety. By comparison, while the arrangement found in a membrane type ship of the same size is similar, with the relief valves and vapour return line again located inside the cargo tank dome, the vapour dome is normally considerably smaller on this type of containment system. Figure 1 Dome Arrangement

Vapour Return Line

Pressure Relief Valve 99.5% Level

98% Level

Factors Affecting Liquid Level Inside Tanks There are several factors which could combine to alter the liquid level inside a cargo tank, and the possible effect of each one is illustrated below by considering a typical 135000 m3, 4 spherical tank, LNG carrier with the following design characteristics:

6.35

Length Breadth Tank diameter Size of dome -

diameter height Loading temperature Relief valve type Set pressure of relief valve Reference temperature -

291 m 50 m 40.1 m 4m 3.5 m -1600 C POPRV 0.7 bar g. -1580 C

Tank dimensions. The value of cargo volume will vary due to the tolerance in cargo tank dimensional measurement (ac). A typical figure may result in a change of cargo volume at the 99.5% level of: ac = 0.02% Level gauge accuracy. The accuracy of any level gauging equipment will depend on the type of instrument and installation used. The accuracy of each device may also vary over the depth of the tank. However, a typical accuracy figure, measured at the top of the tank, could be taken as 0.02 %, giving a possible rise in liquid level of 8 mm. Considering the ship in our example, and assuming the loading conditions given in Table 1: Table 1 Cargo Tank Filling Level Percentage filling (%) 98.0 98.5 99.0 99.5 99.8 100 Height of liquid (m) 36.73 37.19 37.73 38.44 39.05 40.10 Volume of cargo (m3) 33075 33244 33412 33581 33682 33750

The percentage volume change with respect to height can then be determined, @ 99.5 % full or

(39.05 38.44)

(99.8 99.5)

= 0.49 % per m

0.0005 % per mm

Therefore using the value of 8mm given above, the increase in cargo volume due to this error (al) becomes: al = 0.0005 x 8 = 0.004 % Due to the tank shape, the percentage value will vary depending on the level in the tank. As a comparison, the same level gauge might be expected to give the following error at the 98% liquid full level: 6.36

@ 98.0% full -

. 36.73) (3719

(98.5 98.0)

= 108 . % per m

0.001 % per mm 0.001 x 8 = 0.008 % Temperature gauge accuracy. Again this will vary depending on the instrumentation used, but a typical error figure is taken as 0.20C. The relationship between cargo density, temperature and volume is as shown in Table 2. Table 2 Changes due to Temperature Total volume of cargo @ 99.5% liquid full - 33581.25 Weight of cargo @ reference temperature - 15531328 Temperature Density (0C) (kg/m3) Reference temp. -158 462.5 -159 464.0 -160 465.5 -161 467.0 -162 468.0 -163 469.5 m3 kg Volume (m3) 33581.25 33472.69 33364.83 33257.66 33186.60 33080.57

Filling Level (%) 99.5 99.18 98.86 98.54 98.33 98.02

The change of volume at the 99.5% liquid level is therefore: . ) (99.5 9918 = 0.32 (159 158) % per 0C

For the instrument error stated the expected change in cargo volume (at) is: at = 0.32 x 0.2 = 0.06 % The mathematical sum of the corrections (as) for the above errors is then:
2 2 as = a2 c + al + at

a s = 0.02 2 + 0.004 2 + 0.06 2 as = 0.06337 % This increase of 0.06337% due to the sum of the errors results in a total percentage liquid volume of: 99.5 + 0.06337 = 99.56337 % The equivalent height of cargo at 99.56337 % filling is: 38.545 m 6.37

After all the errors for tank calibration, level gauging and temperature measurement have been added together, an allowance must be made for the effects of list in compliance with the requirements of the IGC Code Chapter 8.2.17. The assumed dome arrangement is as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2 Dome Plan View

1.1m

0.95m

Pressure Relief Valve Inlet Pipes

List. Chapter 8.2.17 of the IGC Code requires that the inlets to the pressure relief valves remain in the vapour phase under 150 list. Applied to the subject ship, this results in an increase in liquid level at the pressure relief valve inlet pipe (h1). See Figure 3. h1 = tan 150 x (0.95 + 0.2) h1 = 0.308 m

6.38

Figure 3 Effect of List Centre Line 0.95m 0.2 m

Relief valve inlet pipe

Liquid level

150

h1

1.15 m

Trim. Similarly Chapter 8.2.17 of the IGC Code requires that the inlets to the pressure relief valves remain in the vapour phase under a trim equivalent to 0.015 x L. This results in an increase in liquid level at the pressure relief valve inlet pipe (h2). See Figure 4. h2 = 0.015 x (1.1 + 0.2) h2 = 0.019 m Figure 4 Effect of Trim Centre Line 1.1m 0.2 m h2

Relief valve inlet pipe

Liquid level

1.3 m

6.39

Applying all these factors to the assumed level at 99.5% liquid full at the reference temperature we have: Height at the reference temperature + errors List (h1) Trim (h2) Height of liquid at the pressure relief valve inlet pipe 38.545 0.308 0.019 38.872 m

It can be seen that this is less than the tank spherical diameter. As an additional factor of safety the inlet to the pressure relief valves is located 1.75 m above the 100% level inside the tank dome. It has been shown that, at the reference temperature, the pressure relief valves remain in the vapour phase after filling to 99.5% liquid full and allowing for all the errors detailed above. The method shown can be repeated for the inlet to the vapour return line. Therefore, when loading the formula given in the IGC Code Chapter 15.1.2 can be amended and applied as follows: VL = 0.995V R L where: VL = Maximum volume to which the cargo tank may be loaded V = Volume of cargo tank R = Relative density of cargo at the reference temperature L = Relative density of cargo at the loading temperature and pressure Relief valve accuracy. When determining the reference temperature, an allowance should also be made for any error in the operating setting of the pressure relief valve. Taking a typical accuracy of 10% this results in the tank relief valve, nominally set at 1.713 bar abs, operating in a range from 1.542 bar abs. to 1.884 bar abs. The higher value of operating pressure is taken for calculation purposes. For a cargo with the properties given in Table 3: Table 3 Cargo Properties Temperature (0C) -158 -159 -160 -161 -162 -163 Density (kg/m3) 462.5 464.0 465.5 467.0 468.0 469.5

6.310

The filling limit can be determined when loading at -1600C as follows; V =1 R = 462.5 L = 465.5 VL = 0.995 x 1 x (462.5/465.5) VL = 0.988 Therefore when loading at -1600C, tank filling would be permitted up to 98.8 % liquid full. Filling limits at other loading temperatures are shown in Figure 5: Figure 5 Percentage Filling % Filling
99.50

99.25

Heavy LNG
99.00

98.75

98,50

98.25

98.00 -158.0 -159.0 -160.0 -161.0 -162.0 -163.0

Loading Temperature

(0C)

Locked in tank. As previously stated, at the present time LNG cargoes are not cooled or reliquefied after loading. The gasses which boil off are generally taken from the cargo tanks and burnt in the boilers to generate steam. However when approving higher loading limits in tanks consideration must be given to the unlikely possibility that at some time it may not be possible to remove the boil off gas either to the boilers or back ashore. In this instance the liquid level would be left to rise due to natural heating from the surrounding environment. Calculations have shown that, in theory, for a tank of the size being considered in this example, the locked in tank would take several days before becoming entirely liquid full. However, experience has also shown that the pressure relief valves would be expected to lift long before the tank approaches the liquid full condition. 6.311

Calculation Summary The figures, for accuracy and associated effects on the cargo, which have been used in the above example are summarised in Table 4: Table 4 Effect of Errors Accuracy 150 0.015 x L 0.02% (top of tank only) 0.20k 0.02% 10% Height (mm) 36740 38440 38872 Effect 308 mm level rise 19 mm level rise 0.004 % volume increase 0.06 % volume increase 0.02 % volume increase 0.171 bar pressure rise Rise above 98% level (mm) 0 1710 2142

List Trim Level Gauge Temperature Indication Tank Dimensions Relief Valve

98% liquid full 99.5% liquid full 99.5% + errors Instrumentation

After the above criteria have been considered, and it has been established that the pressure relief valves will remain in the vapour phase under all anticipated conditions, it will be necessary to readjust cargo tank instrumentation to ensure the continued safe operation of the ship. With the types of instrumentation in use on todays LNG carriers it should be an easy task to re-set any alarm points. New settings are required for the cargo tank level alarms and ESD shutdowns and these will need to be advised. With regard to the high/high shut down, it will also be necessary for this to be arranged such that it will alarm early enough to allow adequate time for the ESD valves to close and prevent the cargo tank from becoming liquid full, without the risk of surge in the cargo lines which may occur if the ESD valves close too quickly. It will be necessary to closely control the operational procedures in order to prevent filling above the approved limit, and also prevent the cargo tank becoming entirely liquid full. In fact the assignment of increased filling levels may be limited due to the operational procedures, and this aspect will be considered on a case by case basis. Ship Structure In the foregoing consideration of the suitability of a cargo tank for the assignment of increased filling limits LR has only considered the position of the inlet to the safety relief valves and vapour return line. Also to be considered is the added weight of cargo and the effect this may have on the cargo tanks, skirts, and the adjacent ship structure in way of the cargo tanks, such as the double bottom arrangements. The values taken for the above example are based on a heavy LNG. In the case of an LNG carrier built to LR Class, the tanks, tank skirt and adjacent ship structure are designed for a 100% full tank, taking a 6.312

liquid specific gravity of 0.5. As this is the worst case possible, no extra work is involved in considering the longitudinal strength of the ship. However, for ships not originally Classed by LR, it must determined whether or not the increased filling level results in a greater mass of cargo in the tank than that for which the ship was originally designed, taking into account the specific gravity that was used in the original loading manual. Where a greater mass is to be loaded, then new loading conditions will need to be drafted and submitted for approval. Another aspect to consider is the effect of sloshing within the tanks. However while sloshing may be a problem at certain levels within the cargo tank, and filling may be barred over a certain range, it is understood that there is no additional problem when considering level increases above 98% liquid full. Following any approval of increased filling levels, revised information is incorporated into the loading manual which is then given to the master of the ship in accordance with the IGC Code Chapter 15.2. Certification It should be noted that while Lloyds Register is authorised to issue a certificate stating compliance with the Gas Carrier Code, it is the responsibility of the National Authority of the country in which the ship is registered to allow filling limits above 98% liquid full at the reference temperature. Therefore, following any approval by Lloyds Register of the calculations detailed above, the Ship owner will need to approach the relevant National Authority for their written acceptance of the increased filling limit, and their agreement for Lloyds Register to amend the Certificate of Fitness accordingly if this is applicable. Notwithstanding any approval by the National Authority, the relevant Port Authorities should also be approached in case they are unwilling to load ships to levels higher than 98% liquid full.

CONCLUSION
In this paper, reference has been made to Chapter 15 of the IGC Code, and specifically to the formula given in 15.1.2. It can be seen that when applying this formula the maximum volume to which the tank can be loaded is dependent on the relative density of the cargo at the loading condition. As the Code is written 15.1.2 does not differentiate between LNG and LPG cargoes. It is a straightforward matter to apply this formula to an LPG cargo using the known properties. However, as LNG is a mixture of gases, and this mixture varies, the exact chemical and physical properties of the LNG are often not know at the time of loading. It therefore becomes impossible to apply the formula given in the Code. In practice this means LNG cargoes may be loaded without reference to the Code requirements. The purpose of this paper has therefore been to propose a method whereby formal justification can be made for the safe loading of LNG at levels above 98% in accordance 6.313

with the intent of the Code. That is, that the inlets to the pressure relief valves remain in the vapour phase under the conditions stated. The approach adopted has been conservative in that it assumes the worst margin of error in each case and combines all these aspects together, assuming that they all occur at the same time. However, this now ensures that LR can have confidence in the safe carriage and operation of LNG carriers loaded to levels above the 98% liquid full level. An increased filling level of 99.5% has been used for the above example. However, this paper is not intended to be prescriptive to the topic of increased filling limits, but rather to show the many aspects which a designer and Operator should consider when contemplating any formal request for the assignment of increased filling limits for their ship, and also to give a general indication of the effect of each aspect on the resulting level of cargo inside the cargo tank. To date LR has approved increased filling limits on several LNG carriers. Initially approvals were restricted to the spherical tank type, due to the greater accuracy in measuring the cargo level within the tank. However, recently proposals have been considered for the assignment of increased filling limits on ships with membrane and prismatic type tanks.

6.314