Altair Containement System

The Application of a New Tank Containment System to
ULTRA-Large LNG Carriers

Regu Ramoo
Altair ProductDesign
Troy, Michigan
USA
and
Thomas Lamb
University of Michigan
Michigan
USA
Abstract
The maximum size of LNG Carriers on order has doubled in the past few years. These
ULTRA-large LNG Carriers introduce a number of unique problems because of their size,
such as liquid sloshing and the requirement that they must stay within the current draft
restriction of 12.2 m even as their deadweight doubles. This means that their length, beam
and/or block coefficient must be increased more than for ships without draft restrictions. It
also suggests that because of the draft restriction there may be a practical size limit for LNG
Carriers. This also impacts efficient propulsion, building, and operating costs. Another
somewhat lesser problem is the significant increase in the above water profile area.
The paper examines the size problem and reports on the benefits of the Cubic Doughnut
tank containment system on the supporting ship design. The new tank containment system
is described for its specific advantages for large capacity LNG Carriers, but it is noted that
these benefits also apply to existing size LNG Carriers, LPG Carriers, and Floating LNG/Oil
and LNG Production and Storage Offshore Units.
1.0 Introduction
The transport of LNG by sea started in the late 1960s and has continued to grow, almost
constantly, since then. Economic trends suggest that this will continue for the near future
with new fields and new consumers entering the market. With the growth in demand the
size of the LNG Carriers also increased. The recent annual growth in size has been
about10% over a number of years until the jump from 135,000 to over 250,000 m3 in 2006
(NOBLE, LEVINE & COLTON 2004 and SCHEIBACK, NOBLE & BROMAN 2006).
These ULTRA-large LNG Carriers introduce a number of unique problems because of their
size. Liquid sloshing limits the carriage of LNG in large side to side membrane tanks to be
either over 80% or less than 10% full to avoid damage to the tank lining and insulation. The
current draft restriction of 12.2 m is a significant design constraint as LNG Carriers increase
in size. The 267,000 m3 LNG Carriers can only increase the draft by 10% (11 m to 12.2 m)
compared to 138,000 m3 LNG Carriers though the deadweight and thus displacement
almost doubles. This means that the length, beam and block coefficient must all be
increased greater than normal for ships without draft restrictions. This also adversely
impacts efficient propulsion, building, and operating costs. It is possible that a technical size
limit exists at some point because of this draft restriction. Another somewhat lesser problem
© Altair Engineering 2009 X-1

is the significant increase in the above water profile area. This can require improved
propulsion, steering, and other design features to maintain acceptable maneuverability.
The paper will consider these problems (and the resulting design opportunities) by reporting
on a ship design synthesis study to find if there is a technical size limit. It will be seen that
this limit is well above the current 267,000 m3 LNG Carriers; however the associated
sloshing problems will be more severe for these larger ships. The sloshing problem may be
the factor that restricts the ship size. A new containment tank system, the Cubic Doughnut
Tank System (CDTS) is described for its specific advantages for very large LNG Carriers,
but it is noted that these benefits also apply to existing size LNG Carriers, LPG Carriers,
and Floating LNG/Oil and LNG Production and Storage Offshore Units.
2.0 Size Trends

The first LNG Carrier had a capacity of 26,000 m3 and was delivered in 1965. Other size
achievements were 75,000 m3 in 1969, 83,000 m3 in 1973, and 126,000 m3 in 1975. This
was an average growth rate of 10,000 m3 per year. After that there was a 30 year period
with a relatively slow capacity growth of only 833 m3 per year. Then in 2005 there was a
leap to over 250,000 m3 with orders for 265,000 m3 in 2006. Such leaps in size are not
normal and they beg questions about performance. The obvious question is how large can
they be? For LNG Carriers with their restricted draft it is reasonable to believe that there
may be a maximum limit. In order to determine what the limit may be, a series of preliminary
design ship sizing calculations were performed utilizing the Michigan Ship Design Synthesis
System (MSDSS).
LNG Carriers are the ocean transportation part of the total production to user system. So it
is possible that some other part of the system, such as receiving terminal capacity, may be
the factor that limits the size of future LNG Carriers. This paper does not consider this
complete system: an economic/design synthesis analysis was performed using the MSDSS
for the sea transportation part. This ship design synthesis system was described in previous
papers (LAMB 1974 and LAMB & KOTINIS 2003). For a Membrane ship, and both the
restricted and unrestricted draft situations, the MSDSS was run for one ship for a range of
annual cargo delivered and the maximum size derived for a number of speeds and the
results are summarized in Figures 1 through 4.
The study showed, what is generally known to be the case for other transport systems, that
the largest carrier with the lowest speed gave the best Required Freight Rate (RFR). It can
be seen from Figure 1 that there are design solutions up to 340,000 m3 for a restricted draft
of 12.2 m and up to 500,000 m3 and probably beyond even this when there is no draft
restriction.
© Altair Engineering 2009 The Application of a New Tank Containment System to ULTRA-Large LNG Carriers 5-2
Figure 1. Size versus RFR for a Fixed Speed of 19.5 knots and a
Round Trip Voyage of 24,000 n.m. for Membrane LNG Carriers
The size of a 500,000 m3 LNG Carrier is similar to 300,000 TDWT Bulk Carrier in Table 1,
but the draft is half. The unrestricted draft for a 340,000 m3 LNG Carrier with a length of
360 m is 14.5 m. Figure 1 also shows that the draft restriction appears to cause a 5%
operating cost penalty for a 340,000 m3 LNG Carrier. The building cost penalty is about
10%.
From the study, it appears that there is no design limit from a technical point of view if the
draft restriction is eliminated. Rather, practical availability of building docks or berths and
repair dock size are what dictates the maximum size of LNG Carriers. The largest ship ever
built was the Knok Nevis tanker. Its dimensions are given in Table 1. The FPSOs currently
being built are also large, and typical dimensions for an FPSO are given in Table 1. The
current largest ships are tankers, bulk carriers and containerships. Dimensions for the
largest of these are also given in Table 1. It can be seen that containerships have
dimensions similar to LNG Carriers including the draft restriction but not as severe. Of
course containerships have a much finer hull form because of their higher speed
requirements.
Table 1 - 340,000 M3 Carrier Size Comparisons with Other Ship Types
The table shows that the 340,000 m3 LNG Carrier with membrane tanks would be larger
than all the others except the 565,000 TDWT Tanker. Unfortunately there are less than 7
shipyards in the world that could build a ship of length 390 m and breadth 64 m without
resorting to innovative building approaches that allow larger size vessels to be constructed,
but at an additional cost. If the length can be restricted to 340 m then the number of
shipyards that can build the ship would be almost 20. The same applies to the availability of
drydocks for maintenance and repair. There would be less than 10 in the world that could
dock a 390 m long ship. It is therefore suggested that the maximum LNG carrier using
membrane lined tanks will be about 340,000 m3 and probably it will have to have a
centerline longitudinal double surface bulkhead to eliminate sloshing problems. Even this
work-around will require special design characteristics to get the length down from 390 to
340 m so that more shipyards would be able to build them.
Figure 2 shows the effect of the draft restriction on Length between Perpendiculars (LBP)
and Figure 3 shows the effect on the other principle dimensions for membrane LNG
Carriers. Figure 4 shows the relationship of speed on the required capacity, build cost, and
RFR for a constant quantity of LNG delivered annually for a 13,000 n.m. round trip.
Figure 2. LBP versus Capacity Showing Effect of Restricted Draft
Figure 3. Effect of Restricted Draft on Membrane LNG Carrier Dimensions
Figure 4. Speed versus RFR for a Constant Quantity of LNG Delivered

Annually for 13,000 n.m. Round Trip (Membrane LNG Carriers)
3.0 Size Problems
There are several problems for LNG carriers as their size increase. Some of these have
been corrected with proven work-a-rounds for other very large ship types, such as restricted
draft, single screw versus twin screw propulsion, and maneuvering. However, there are
unique issues associated with LNG carriers because of the nature of LNG, such as tank
sloshing, loading/unloading rate, and tank size. The problems resulting from restricted draft
was shown in previous sections of this paper to be both an acquisition and an operational
cost penalty as LNG carrier size increases. The other problems have been extensively
covered in other papers and articles. In this paper only the tank sloshing problem will be
further addressed, specifically how the new tank containment system significantly reduces
the problem.
Tank sloshing has been around with ship designers and operators since liquids were first
carried in ships. However the liquids were carried in tanks with much smaller capacities
(dimensions). Even the tanks in the largest tankers were less than 50 m in length and 30 m
in breadth whereas LNG tanks can be over 50 m in length and over 40 m in breadth. Also
the tanks in tankers are integral structural tanks and thus more able to withstand the
sloshing loads and occasionally have a transverse SWASH Bulkhead at mid-length of the
tanks which reduces the fore and aft sloshing loads on the tight transverse bulkheads,
whereas the current trend in LNG carriers is the membrane lined and insulation box
supported tanks, which has been shown to have sloshing problems (damage to lining and
insulation) as size increases. It is expected that as membrane LNG carriers increase in size
they will have to adopt a centerline bulkhead to reduce the sloshing loads. This design
alternative doubles the number of tanks and all the systems that go with each tank,
including significantly more structural steel, resulting in significant increase in cost.
4.0 CDTS Description

The CDTS was developed over 30 years ago but nothing was done with it as interest in
importing LNG disappeared along with the cessation of diplomatic relations with Algeria.
The basis for its design was constructing a self-standing tank surface composed of 12
identical, in form, intersecting cylinders that formed the twelve edges of a cube that would
have a significantly better volumetric efficiency than a spherical tank. Where the intersecting
cylinders met in the center of each face a closing cap was provided. Figure 5 (from the
original patent) shows the form of the tank.
It was expected that the tank surface thickness would be significantly less than those of an
equal volume spherical tank because of the less than half radius of the cylinders compared
to the sphere. The initial idea was that the cylindrical shape would provide the strength to
support the liquid inside the tank.
Figure 5. Cubic Doughnut Tank System (CDTS)
In 2005 Regu Ramoo joined Lamb in developing the CDTS using their advanced structural
analysis and simulation systems. It became immediately clear that the original tank
structural objectives could not be attained as proposed but they could be attained by
connecting all the center caps together by a cross bracing structure as can be seen in
Figure 6. A concept without the spherical end caps is shown in Figure 7. This concept also
includes the central cross brace which is not shown in the figure.
Figure 6. CDTS with Cylindrical Forms and Spherical Caps
Figure 7. CDTS with All Cylindrical Forms
5.0 CDTS Description

Due to the magnitude of the sloshing loads that are generated, significant design
efficiencies can be realized if the profile of the containment volume itself contributes to
attenuating the liquid impingement forces on the tank walls. Fluid Structure Interaction (FSI)
simulations using Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) were carried out to compare the
performance of the Cubic Doughnut Tank System (CDTS) to a conventional prismatic
shaped tank. Figure 8 shows two 40,000 m3 tank models containing equal quantities of
liquid in the tanks. The tank is rotated about its base from -30° to +30° simulating an 8-
second period. Figure 9 shows the sinusoidal roll profile of an 8-second roll period and
Figure 10 shows the model setup.
Figure 8. Model Description
Figure 9. Roll Profile
Figure 10. Model Setup
To simulate the motion of the ship in beam, bow, and bow-quartering seas, the tanks were
oscillated about their longitudinal, transverse and mid off-axes to simulate the influence of
different ship motions on sloshing loads (rolling, pitching and mixed). Figures 11 and 12
depict the fluid motion during the rolling of the ship when the tank is 80 percent full.
Figure 13 shows a comparison of the sloshing loads on the sides of tanks when the tank is
80 percent full. It can be seen that after a 3 period, the forces on the sides of the tank are
comparable. The CDTS tank does not provide any significant of advantage when the tank is
filled at 80%. Figures 14 and 15 depict the fluid motion during the rolling of the ship when
the tank is 50% full. Figure 16 shows a comparison of the sloshing loads on the sides of
tanks when the tank is 50 percent full. When the tank is 50% full the sloshing loads are
significantly lower on the CDTS tank. The cross brace of the CDTS reduces the velocity of
the fluid before it impacts the side of the tank.
Figures 17 and 18 depict the fluid motion in case of the case of a pitching motion when the
tank is 50% full. Figure 19 shows a comparison of the sloshing loads on the sides of tanks
when the tank is 50 percent full. When the tank is 50% full the sloshing loads are
significantly lower on the CDTS tank walls. The cross brace of the CDTS reduces the
velocity of the fluid before it impacts the side of the tank. Figures 20 and 21 show
corresponding results for quartering seas.
Figure 11. Membrane Tank 80% Full - Rolling motion
Figure 12. CDTS Tank 80% Full - Rolling motion
Figure 13. Comparison of Sloshing Loads with Tank 80% Full
Figure 14. Membrane Tank 50% Full - Rolling Motion
Figure 15. CDTS Tank 50% Full - Rolling Motion
Figure 16. Comparison of Sloshing Loads under roll motion with

Tank at 50% Capacity
Figure 17. Membrane Tank 50% Full - Pitching Motion
Figure 18. CDTS Tank 50% Full - Pitching Motion
Figure 19. Comparison of Sloshing Loads in Pitch with Tank At 50% Capacity
Figure 20. CDTS Tank 50% Full Bow/Stern-Quartering Seas
Figure 21. CDTS Tank 50% Full Bow-Quartering Seas
6.0 CDTS Structural Design and Analysis

The structural analyses of the CDTS was performed using OptiStruct which is a finite
element software developed by ALTAIR Engineering Inc. Topology optimization was
performed in order to determine the load path and strengthen the initial concept (baseline
design) by adding reinforcements and support structures. Thickness optimization was then
performed in order to determine an optimal thickness distribution that would meet the
required stress level. A brief description of the analyses is presented in the remainder of this
section.
The finite element model of the CDTS is shown in Figure 22. The top portion of the model
has been removed, in the right hand view, to show the central cross brace. The model
comprises of first order quadrilateral and triangular elements. The load was the hydrostatic
pressure of liquid natural gas (specific gravity of 0.5) occupying about 95% of the tank. A
uniform shell thickness of 50mm was initially assumed since thickness optimization was to
be performed subsequent to topology optimization in order to determine an optimal
thickness distribution. The weight of the baseline model is 3055 Ton. The material used for
the tank is nickel steel with a modulus of 210,000 MPa and Poisson ratio of 0.3. The
constraints applied to the finite element model are shown in Figure 23 where 1, 2, and 3
denote the x, y and z translations in a global cartesian coordinate system. The stress
distribution is shown in Figure 24. The cylindrical portions and the spherical end caps at the
corners of the tank have been partially masked in one of the contour plots in Figure 24 in
order to show the stress distribution at the interior cross braces.
Design Synthesis: Developing the Optimal Design

As can be seen in Figure 24, the stress level is very high in the baseline design due to the
hydrostatic pressure load. A topology optimization was performed on the baseline design in
order to determine a load path and strengthen the baseline design by adding
reinforcements and support structures. Topology Optimization is a mathematical technique
that produces an optimized shape and material distribution for a structure within a given
package space. By discretizing the domain into a finite element mesh, OptiStruct calculates
material properties for each element. The objective of the optimization problem was
minimization of the compliance with a constraint on the volume fraction of the material as
30%. The mass of this design is 3,823 Tonnes with a constant shell thickness of 50 mm. No
doublers are used in the design. However, it is known that the shell plate thickness will
vary with location and depth in the tank. So a Free – Size Optimization was performed on
the topological optimized design.
Figure 22. FE Model of the Baseline CDTS Design
Figure 23. Constraints used in the FE Model of the Baseline CDTS Design
Free - Size optimization
With the topologically optimized design, the stresses in the supporting cross brace of the
modified design are observed to be lower and more uniformly distributed. However, the
weight of the modified design is higher than that of the baseline design. A free size
optimization was performed on the modified design in order to determine an optimal
thickness distribution that reduces the weight and yet maintain an acceptable stress level. A
free size optimization is similar to conventional thickness optimization except that the
thickness of every element in the finite element model of the design space is a design
variable. Unlike conventional thickness optimization, free-size optimization results in
continuously variable shell thickness in the design space. A variable thickness part is
typically far more expensive to manufacture and may not be a viable choice at first glance. It
should be emphasized that the results of free-size optimization should not be considered as
a final design. The relative difference of thickness between the elements should be
considered as a good indication of the optimal thickness distribution of the structure. Based
on this result, the design space could be subdivided into smaller zones and a conventional
gauge optimization could be performed to fine tune the thickness of the different zones. The
design variables in this case would be the thickness of the various zones and they could be
either continuous or discrete variables. The cost and feasibility of manufacturing could be
taken into consideration when subdividing the design space.
Cross Brace Type Tank Support

One of the earlier considerations for supporting the tank was through the use of a structural
cross brace and a vertical base stanchion. With this arrangement, the tank would be
supported using transverse and longitudinal beams integrated with the of an extension. The
cross brace would be supported through a self centering wedge type arrangement on the
hull and the separating bulkheads between tanks.
The free-size optimization was posed as minimization of compliance with a stress constraint
of 250 MPa and weight constraint of 2500 T. This results in a stress level which is under
57% of the ultimate strength [for fatigue endurance targets] of 9% nickel steel which is
about 587 MPa on average (varies from 552 to 621 MPa). The thickness was allowed to
vary from 15 mm to 75 mm. The thickness distribution obtained from the free-size
optimization which is continuously variable is shown in Figure 25. Based on these results
the thickness was assigned to different parts so that the structure is easier to manufacture.
This thickness distribution is shown in Figure 26. The resulting stress distribution is shown
in Figure 27. The final weight of the optimized steel tank is 2,404 tonnes, a significant
reduction from the baseline 3,823 tonnes.
Figure 24. Von Mises Stress in MPa due to

Hydrostatic Pressure (Baseline Design)
Figure 25. Continuously Variable Thickness Distribution
from Free-Size Optimization
Figure 26. Discrete Manufacturable Thickness Distribution (2404 T)
Figure 27. Von Mises stress in MPa due to Hydrostatic Pressure on the Design with
Discrete Manufacturable Thickness Distribution
Base Skirt Type Tank Support

It was observed that the high stresses in the cross braces (Figure 24) was mainly due to
supporting the tank on the sides. The thickness of the web of the cross braces was high in
order to mitigate the high stresses. In a subsequent design the side supports were
eliminated. Instead the tank was supported on the hull using an outer skirt and an inner skirt
as shown in Figure 28. The cross braces were reduced from 4m squire dimension to 2m. A
slice of the hull was also included in the finite element model. Both the hydrostatic and
sloshing load cases were considered for the tank. Gravity was included in both the load
cases. The initial thickness of all the components including the hull was set to 50mm. The
stress on the tank in this baseline configuration is shown in Figure 29. Only the sloshing
load case is shown as this is more severe than the hydrostatic load case.
Figure 28. Tank Support
Free size optimization was performed with the objective and constraint as mentioned above.
The hull was not considered for the free size optimization. The thickness and stress
distribution after the free size optimization are shown in Figure 30. Though the stress level
after size optimization has reduced significantly, it is still higher than the allowable stress of
250 MPa. This packaging approach through the use of a skirt instead of equatorial supports
in the transverse and longitudinal planes has some inherent advantages. Installation of the
tank could be less labor intensive. The hull sides would require no more stiffeners than a
conventional vessel since all the weight will be transferred through the base. Positioning
and centering during installation would also be simpler since it would involve just one
horizontal datum.
Figure 29. Stress Distribution on the Tank due to Sloshing Load
(Combination of Pitching and Rolling Motion when Tank is 50% Full)
Figure 30. Thickness and Stress Distribution after Free Size Optimization
(Sloshing Load Case)
Based on the results of the initial optimization, thicker shell plating would be required at the
seams of the lobes as before. Corners of intersecting cylinders would also require thicker
shell plating as shown above. Work is ongoing on further optimizing the tank and the tank
support structure and also with the hull structure included in the optimization.
7.0 Comparison of CDTS with other Containment Systems
Figure 31 shows the outlines in two views of membrane, spherical and CDTS tanks of
equal volume. It can be seen that the spherical tank is larger in all dimensions whereas the
membrane tank is only larger than the CDTS in length and breadth.
Table 2 shows the relative weights for tanks and insulation for the various containment
systems. It was developed for use in the MSDSS and the values are representative for
preliminary design and should not be used in final design decision. It can be seen that the
CDTS with aluminum tanks is the same total tank and insulation weight as the membrane
system. Figure 32 shows the Volumetric Efficiency of the various tank containment
systems. The CDTS has a volumetric efficiency between the current membrane tanks
system and the proposed PRISM membrane system (Noble 2005). The volumetric
efficiency of different types of tanks is compared in Table 3. It can be seen from the table
and Figure 30 that the CDTS is 60% better that spherical tanks.
Figure 31. Comparison of Outlines for Different

Containment Tank Systems for Equal Volume
Next the use of ship space was compared. Table 4 shows the “hold” space required by
each of the systems being compared for a 138,000 and 400.000 m3 LNG Carrier. An
illustration of hold space is shown in Figure 33. It can be seen that the space usage for the
CDTS is better than the other systems.
Table 2. Relative Weight Ratios for Tanks and

Insulation for 135,000 m3 LNG Carrier
Figure 32. Volumetric Efficiency of some LNG Containment Systems
Table 3. Comparison of Tank Volumetric Efficiency
Figure 33. Tank Space Required by Tank Containment System for 300,000 m3
Capacity - Membrane, Spherical and CDTS
Table 4. Comparison of Hold Space Required by Prismatic, Membrane,
Spherical and CDTS
8.0 Impact of CDTS on Ship Design

The CDTS would be designed as an Independent Type B, leak before failure, marine LNG
containment system. It would have an insulated spill tray under the containment tank on the
ship’s tank top, similar to the Moss Rosenberg spherical tank.
The reduced hold length and width for the CDTS is the clear advantage of the CDTS and
results in a smaller ship (length and beam). This benefit is somewhat reduced for the case
of restricted draft LNG Carriers as the only way the required displacement can be achieved
is by a workable combination of length, breadth and block coefficient. Nevertheless Figure
34 shows the clear advantage of the CDTS. The Figure is based on actual ships up to
140,000 m3 and for the Membrane tank system ships up to the proposed 267,000 m3. The
CDTS line is based on preliminary designs. An interesting benefit of the CDTS is that, within
the existing draft limit, an LNG carrier utilizing the CDTS can carry 50,000 more cubic
meters of LNG than a membrane LNG carrier. If the draft limit can be increased to say 15 m
then a 500,000 m3 LNG carrier utilizing the CDTS is feasible within the existing building
dock limit of 390 m, which is 100,000 m3 more than the comparable membrane carrier. A
final item to note from the figure is that the draft restriction effect occurs for significantly
smaller carriers than the membrane, namely 150,000 versus 270,000 m3.
Figure 34. LNG Carrier LBP versus LNG Capacity
Table 5 shows the difference in ship characteristics for a hypothetical 300,000 m3 LNG
Carrier for the various tank containment systems. It can be seen from the table that the
CDTS offers significant Build Cost, Gross Tonnage and weight savings but most importantly
power and thus fuel savings. Figure 35 shows the General Arrangement of a large LNG
carrier using the CDTS.
Table 5. Predicted Ship Characteristics for 300,000 M3 19.5 Knot LNG Carrier
Figure 35. CDTS LNG Carrier Profiles
The Impact of the CDTS on the ship’s structural arrangement can be seen from Figure 36,
the Midship Section and Figure 37, the Centerline Profile. They also show the preferred
support arrangement, which was selected after examining many concepts of support using
ALTAIR’s advanced structural analysis software, and is discussed in more detail later in the
paper.
Figure 36. Midship Section
Figure 37. Center Line Profile
9.0 Construction Benefits

A major construction benefit results for the CDTS by uncoupling the tank building and
installation schedule from the ship construction schedule, that is that the Membrane Tank
System LNG ships require a significant time afloat to install the insulation and membrane
lining, often as long as the hull erection time.Like other independant tank systems the CDTS
would significantly reduce the tank installation time afloat to almost zero compared to the
membrane tank system.
The CDTS offers all the benefits of the independent tank systems such as the spherical and
prismatic self-standing tank systems, but with a simpler ship hull construction and tank/hull
integration such as:
• no need to stage the hold to apply insulation and lining to the structure,
• tanks can be installed in one piece at the best time in the ship construction build
sequence,
• tanks can be constructed from aluminum or special steel,
• tanks can be structurally and leak tested before installation in the ship,
• eliminates the significant welding of the insulation and lining securing strips and the
lining onboard the ship,
• is not subject to the same damage from dropped items as the membrane tank
containment system,
• a smaller skirt system compared to the spherical tank containment system,
• the service/maintenance benefit in that the internal ship’s structure and the tank
insulation can be inspected, and
• tank insulation is shaped only in two dimensions not three as in spherical tanks
Further, the CDTS can be constructed using typical shipyard rolling and forming equipment.
It is made up of 12 identical partial cylindrical tubes (made from identical or mirror image
plates) and 8 identical spherical corners. One version (Figure 19) even deletes the
spherical corners to simplify the construction and increase capacity, but at an additional
material cost and design complexity.
While the CDTS offers benefits just from the tank design, construction and installation in the
ship, it offers unique benefits in the design of the ship including shorter length, which has
construction benefits in less work content for the same capacity ship compared with any
other system.
10.0 Impact on Cost

Building Cost Estimates were made for the comparison LNG tank containment systems in
vessels, and the results are shown in Table 6 where the original membrane design with
UNRESTRICTED draft is given the value of100. It can be seen that the LNG Carrier utilizing
the CDTS has a potential building cost saving of 11% for the unrestricted draft and 7% for
the restricted draft. In addition there will be operating cost benefits from the lower power
and thus fuel costs and the reduced Gross Tonnage further reducing the RFR. From the
ship design synthesis program it appears that the RFR benefit could be 18% for a 340,000
m3 LNG Carrier.
Table 6. Building Cost Comparison for LNG Carriers
11.0 Family of Ships Approach

Sometimes when a major component of a ship is repeatable a “family of ships” approach is
developed to save design cost and time and the resulting building cost benefits from the
approach. For example a standard tanker design which is made into a family by adding or
deleting one or more cargo tank lengths. The disadvantage is that only one member of the
family will be the least cost design. Also it is possible that each of the other members could
be built for less if a unique design was developed. To be acceptable the savings from the
family approach must be more than the savings from the unique design approach.
The “family of ships” approach was examined for the design of a number of LNG Carriers
using a CDTS tank of 40 m cubic dimensions with a 52,000m3 capacity to see if the benefits
it offered were greater than the unique ship design approach. The base ship would be a 4
tank design with the family offering 5 and 6 tank derivatives. Each of the derivatives would
be developed by “plugging in” a cargo tank space of 46 m length. Table 7 shows the
particulars of each ship.
It is possible that the family of ships approach may be acceptable; say in the case of the
Spherical Tank System design due to the high retooling cost. The CDTS does not have the
high retooling cost, and thus eliminates the benefit of the family of ships approach. Table 8
compares the family of ships largest ship with a unique design for the same capacity and it
can be seen that the difference is substantial and the additional cost of the family approach
is estimated to be between 20 and 30%. The family design would have six 40 m cubic tanks
whereas the unique design would have four 44 m. Finally the family design would cost 15%
more than the unique design. Figure 38 shows the arrangement of the three ships in the
family.
Table 7. “Family of Ships” Design Particulars
Table 8. Comparison of “Family” and Unique Designs
Figure 38. Family of Ships Arrangements
12.0 Support Approach

The support approach is based on supporting the CDTS by a skirt at the bottom around its
perimeter and in the center. The skirt system is similar to that used on the spherical tank
system. The approach can be seen in Figure 39. As previously mentioned in the paper this
aspect of the structural analysis is just starting and a major decision is how the load will be
shared between the base support and the horizontal cross brace extensions.
System level optimization studies that factor design robustness, ease of fabrication, access
and serviceability, and cost are being performed. The hull and tank were structurally
optimized as a system to ensure that the structural rigidity of the hull and the free-standing
CDT tanks are compatible and complementary. A Design of Experiments (DoE) approach
was used to develop a supporting system that optimally distributes the contact loads to the
supporting structures and surfaces.
Figure 39. CDTS Skirt Support Approach
13.0 Conclusions
The paper has shown that with the existing draft restriction of 12.2 m, there is a size limit for
the current LNG containment systems If the draft restriction could be increase by 2 meters,
there would really be no limit to the size that LNG carriers could be designed within the
current maximum size of other ships but that the limit would be set by available building and
repair docks that could accommodate them. It also showed the benefits of a new LNG Tank
Containment System, namely the CDTS, that:
• significantly reduces the overall construction schedule compared to the membrane

tank system,
• eliminated the restriction on partial filling of tanks for sloshing,
• reduced the estimated cost of LNG carrier by 11% with no draft restriction and 7%
with draft restriction,
• enabled the design of a LNG Carrier 50,000 m3 larger than the maximum
membrane carrier with the existing draft limit and 100,000 m3 if the draft is
increased by 2 meters,
• provided ease of construction and ease of installation in the ship,
• offered superior structural efficiency,
• reduced ship size resulting in less installed power and thus fuel savings in service,
and,
• utilized simple support system,
all combining to offer a cost effective solution for LNG carriers of any size but especially the
Ultra Large carriers being considered for the future marine transportation of LNG. The use
of the CDTS also eliminates any benefit from the “family of ships” approach.
The high sloshing loads in large tanks that can cause failure of membrane lining and the
supporting insulation boxes are effectively attenuated in the CDTS. The containment profile
comprising of curved walls and the internal cross-brace significantly reduces the
impingement forces on the walls of the tank by as much as 40%. This eliminates the liquid
level restriction of more than 80% full or less than 10% full associated with membrane
tanks. The lower sloshing loads also provide opportunities for designing a more mass
efficient structure and in-turn lower lightship weight and associated cost savings.
There is still significant structural analysis to be preformed but that performed to date is
encouraging and expectations continue to drive the design effort to completion.
14.0 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge with thanks the support of ALTAIR Engineering and
their vision of a future for the CDT system. The application of their advanced CAE tools to a
practical idea has enabled this concept to be further developed and proven its feasibility.
15.0 References
LAMB, T, “The Effects of Intended Trade Route on the Optimum Size of LNG Tankers,”
(1974) LNG-4 Conference, Algeria, June 27
LAMB, T., and KOTINIS, M, “A Set-based Ship Design Synthesis System,” (2003) IMDC
2003, Athens, Greece
NOBLE, P., LEVINE, R., and COLTON, T., “Planning the Design, Construction and
Operation of a New LNG Transportation System – Ships, Terminals and Operations,”
(2004) RINA International Conference on the Design & Operations of Gas Carriers,
September 2004, London
SCHEIBACH, K., NOBLE, P., and BROMAN, C., “The Next Generation of Large LNG
Carriers.” (2006) The Ninth International Marine Design Conference, IMDC 2006, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, May 2006

Altair Containement System

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Altair Containement System

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Application of a New Tank Containment System to

ULTRA-Large LNG Carriers

© Altair Engineering 2009 X-1

2.0 Size Trends

Table 1 - 340,000 M3 Carrier Size Comparisons with Other Ship Types

Figure 2. LBP versus Capacity Showing Effect of Restricted Draft

Figure 3. Effect of Restricted Draft on Membrane LNG Carrier Dimensions

Figure 4. Speed versus RFR for a Constant Quantity of LNG Delivered

4.0 CDTS Description

Figure 6. CDTS with Cylindrical Forms and Spherical Caps

5.0 CDTS Description

Figure 8. Model Description

Figure 10. Model Setup

Figure 12. CDTS Tank 80% Full - Rolling motion

Figure 13. Comparison of Sloshing Loads with Tank 80% Full

Figure 15. CDTS Tank 50% Full - Rolling Motion

Figure 16. Comparison of Sloshing Loads under roll motion with

Figure 18. CDTS Tank 50% Full - Pitching Motion

Figure 21. CDTS Tank 50% Full Bow-Quartering Seas

6.0 CDTS Structural Design and Analysis

Design Synthesis: Developing the Optimal Design

Figure 22. FE Model of the Baseline CDTS Design

Cross Brace Type Tank Support

Figure 24. Von Mises Stress in MPa due to

Figure 26. Discrete Manufacturable Thickness Distribution (2404 T)

Base Skirt Type Tank Support

Figure 28. Tank Support

Figure 31. Comparison of Outlines for Different

Table 2. Relative Weight Ratios for Tanks and

Table 3. Comparison of Tank Volumetric Efficiency

8.0 Impact of CDTS on Ship Design

Figure 34. LNG Carrier LBP versus LNG Capacity

Figure 35. CDTS LNG Carrier Profiles

Figure 37. Center Line Profile

9.0 Construction Benefits

10.0 Impact on Cost

Table 6. Building Cost Comparison for LNG Carriers

11.0 Family of Ships Approach

Table 7. “Family of Ships” Design Particulars

Table 8. Comparison of “Family” and Unique Designs

Figure 38. Family of Ships Arrangements

12.0 Support Approach

Figure 39. CDTS Skirt Support Approach

• significantly reduces the overall construction schedule compared to the membrane

S-ar putea să vă placă și