See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283990881

Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III tanks of ship
carriers by numerical analysis

Article  in  Applied Thermal Engineering · October 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.09.112

CITATIONS READS

10 5,287

4 authors, including:

Mario Miana
ITAINNOVA
19 PUBLICATIONS   239 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mario Miana on 06 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III

Tanks of Ship Carriers by Numerical Analysis.

a a a b
Mario Miana *, Regina Legorburo , David Díez , Young Ho Hwang

a
ITAINNOVA, Instituto Tecnológico de Aragón, Materials & Components, María de Luna 7 – 8,

50018 Zaragoza (Spain).

b
DONGSUNG FINETEC, 120, Hyeopdongdanji – gil, Miyang – myeon, Anseong – si, Gyeonggi

– do, 456 – 843 (Republic of South Korea).

* Corresponding author. Tel: +34.976 01.11.57; Fax: +34 976.01.18.81; E-mail address:

mmiana@itainnova.es (M. Miana).

Abstract.

The heat flow from environment to LNG stored in Mark III of ship carriers is calculated in

this paper by numerical simulations. Four different approaches are defined and evaluated:

Approach 1 starts from simple 2D numerical computations of heat fluxes over representative

sections of the insulation barriers in 10 specific temperature configurations defined by published

data. Approach 2 evolves toward full 3D simulations of insulations layers under the same

temperature configurations. A Reduced Order Model is next developed by calculating equivalent

thermal conductivity for insulation barriers. This equivalent thermal conductivity is applied in the

fluid flow and heat transfer simulation from the environment to the LNG in 2D and 3D models by
3
Approaches 3 and 4, respectively. For a full ship with a capacity of 165000 m with 270 mm

thickness insulation barriers, the obtained BOR and the overall heat transfer coefficient vary
2 2
from 0.895 % and 0.0656 W/m ·ºC for Approach 2 to 0.0945 % and 0.0693 W/m ·ºC for

Approach 3. For Approach 4, the BOR and overall heat transfer coefficient is 0.0919 % and
2
0.0674 W/m ·ºC. When the thickness of the insulation barrier is increased to 400 mm, these
2
initial values are reduced to 0.0631 % and 0.0453 W/m ·ºC.

1
 M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Keywords.

Liquefied Natural Gas, Boil-Off Rate, Reduced Order Model, Heat Transfer, Computational Fluid

Dynamics, Finite Element Methods.

Nomenclature.

CNC natural convection correlation constant;

CEq equivalent thermal conductivity calculation constant, dimensionless;

CP heat capacity (J/kg ºC);

2
g gravitational acceleration (9.81 m/s );
2
h convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m ºC);

HVap LNG enthalpy of vaporization (511 kJ/kg);

L characteristic length (m);

m mass (kg);

Nu Nusselt number, dimensionless, Nu = h·L/;

Pr Prandtl number, dimensionless, Pr = / ;

Q heat flow (W);

2
q’’ heat flux (W/m );
2
R’’T thermal resistance (m ºC/W);

Rayleigh number, dimensionless, Ra = g··T·L /· ;

3
Ra

Re Reynolds number, dimensionless, Re = W·L/ ;

S conductive shape factor, dimensionless;

t thickness (m);

T temperature (ºC);
2
U overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m ºC);
3
V volume (m );

W characteristic velocity (m/s);

2
 M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Greek symbols.

 2
thermal diffusivity (m /s);

 thermal expansion coefficient (ºC );

-1

 wall angle with horizontal direction (rad);

 thermal conductivity (W/m ºC);

 kinematic viscosity (m /s);

2

 3
density (kg/m );

 difference.

Subscripts.

0 reference conditions;

App.1, App.2, App.3, App.4 Approach 1, 2, 3 or 4;

Cdam cofferdam;

Env environment (seawater or air);

Eq equivalent;

Ev evaporated;

i insulation layer;

IH inner hull;

Ld loaded;

Prw / Stn prow or stern;

Acronyms.

LNG Liquefied Natural Gas;

ROM Reduced Order Model;

CCS Cargo Containment System;

R-PUF Reinforced Polyurethane Foam;

FP Flat Panel;

C90 90º Corner;

3
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

C135 135º Corner;

BOR Boil-Off Rate, defined in equation 2 (% evaporated LNG mass / loaded LNG mass ·

day);

NG Natural Gas;

FEM Finite Element Method.

1. Introduction.

The grow of Natural Gas (NG) as an energy source after the oil shock in the early 1970s led

to an ever rising consumption of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). By 2013, Natural Gas accounted

for 25 % of global energy consumption [1]. NG is transported from reserves to consumer zones

by pipelines or shipped in liquid state or as compressed gas. Liquefied Natural Gas covers the

10 % of the global demand for NG, so the global LNG fleet has grown steadily: it stood at 357

vessels in 2013 and 31 new vessels were scheduled for delivery in 2014 [1].

The advantages of shipped LNG over pipeline systems are well known: firstly, a greater

adaptability to cover the growing distances from reserves to consumer zones; secondly, the

limiting export capacity of pipelines systems; and thirdly, the potential problems due to unstable

political situations when international pipelines entail the crossing of a number of countries and

borders [2]. However, LNG is not without its own problems. Liquefied Natural Gas is carried at

cryogenic temperatures near to its saturation temperature, typically about -162 ºC, and this

implies a net heat transfer from the environment, in spite of the excellent insulation of ship tanks.

This heat flow yields the generation of a boil-off gas that must be vented out of the tank to avoid

large rises in pressure that could damage its mechanical structure. Moreover, evaporation is not

homogeneous because LNG is a mixture of hydrocarbons and nitrogen. The most volatile

components (nitrogen and methane) evaporate first, which is known as the LNG ageing or

weathering. These methane losses imply worse liquid qualities when the ships arrive at the

regasification terminal [3]. The evaporation rate of LNG during shipping is often characterized by

4
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

the BOR parameter, which is the percentage of evaporated LNG per day with respect to the

initial LNG loaded.

In summary, the BOR prediction is the main figure to measure the heat transfer from the

environment to LNG stored in tanks for shipping. The BOR parameter plays a major role in the

economics of the LNG trading, since the evaporation of the methane contained in LNG involves

significant energy and financial losses [4]. To minimize this heat transfer, the walls of Cargo

Containment Systems (CCS) are composed of superb insulation layers made of perlite in NO-96

tanks or plywood, reinforced polyurethane foams (R-PUF) and membranes in Mark III tanks [5].

However, the calculation of the overall heat flow through the insulation barriers is not a trivial

task, given the following difficulties:

 The large dimensions of the tanks ( 40 m long) compared to the thickness of the

insulation barriers ( 0.27 m) or the thickness of the stainless steel membrane in

contact with the LNG ( 1.2 mm).

 The large number of involved heat transfer phenomena: LNG convection inside of

the tank; conduction through insulation layers; natural convection in ballast

compartments of irregular shapes; forced convection from ship to water and air

environment.

 The measurement of thermal properties for materials in a wide temperature range,

ranging from -162ºC to +45 ºC.

 The lack of detailed validation results for on-board LNG tanks.

To overcome these difficulties, numerical simulations are proposed in this paper as the
3
basic tool to predict the BOR parameter for a 165000 m capacity LNG ship carrier with 4 Mark

III tanks. The scientific literature on numerical simulations for LNG tanks covers different

aspects among which stress analysis [6, 7], studies on vibration caused by the sloshing

phenomena [8], or the thermal analysis of representative sections of a tank [9, 10]. Chen et al

[11] analyze the pressure and temperature changes in LNG storage tanks by means of dynamic

5
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

models while references [12 – 15] estimate the BOR using computational fluid dynamics
2
assuming an overall heat transfer coefficient of 0.411 kJ/h·m ·ºC. Experimental results have

been obtained only for very simplified geometries under laboratory conditions [16 – 20].

It should be noted that the solution of the energy transport equation by numerical methods

in any system needs the definition of a computational grid able to capture the main geometric

features, such as the different insulation layers to be considered with Mark III tanks. Although

mesh sizes can be enlarged in zones with small temperature changes, smooth transitions

between the different gap sizes are recommended. The previously defined typical length scales
12
ranging from 1.2 mm to 40 m can lead to creating grids of up to 7·10 cells to represent a
3
quarter of a 40000 m capacity ship tank.

As the number of computational cells is increased, the time to run simulations is extended

and the difficulties in analyzing such a detailed domain rise. By way of a comparison, one of the
12
largest numerical grids ever solved was composed of 4·10 cells [21]. Therefore, detailed

numerical simulations of all geometric features of LNG tanks are not affordable. Moreover, a

very large mesh also requires an extended computational time to be converged, and the detailed

information provided by such an enormous amount of data is not of interest for the analysis of

design modifications, where overall conclusions are more useful in the design stages than

comprehensive information about every point. Previous numerical studies on heat transfer in

LNG ship tanks [22 – 27] were based on finite difference approximations, only considering the

conduction through the different insulation layers.

To overcome all these inconveniences, this paper proposes a set of 4 efficient approaches

to predict the BOR in Mark III tanks combining detailed numerical simulations of fluid flow and

heat transfer and Reduced Order Models. Reduced Order Models (ROMs) are a group of well-

established technologies to reduce the size of the computational model with a minimum loss of

accuracy [28]. ROMs have been successfully applied in a wide number of applications including

transient heat transfer phenomena [29, 30] and aerodynamic loads [31].

6
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the problem to be investigated and

Section 3 defines the developed methodologies; Section 4 collates the results achieved by the

different approaches and judges their advantages and disadvantages. From these results, a new

design modification is proposed and evaluated consisting of an increase in the thickness of the

insulation barrier. Finally, section 5 summarizes the main conclusions drawn from this

investigation and outlines the planned future work.

2. Definition of the problem.

2.1. Description of Mark III Tanks on LNG ship carriers.

The problem to be investigated is the heat transfer from the external environment to the
3
LNG stored inside a 165000 m capacity ship carrier. The LNG ship contains 4 Mark III tanks

following the arrangement and the prismatic shapes shown in Figure 1 and having the

characteristic dimensions collected in Table 1.

According to IMO regulations [32], ships for carrying liquefied gases in bulk must be of the

double hull type. The external hull is 50 mm thick steel and the inner hull is 18 mm thick steel.

The space between the inner and the outer hull is divided into ballast compartments also

composed of 18 mm thick steel. These compartments are assumed to be filled up with air. The

insulation barriers are directly attached to the inner hull by a mastic layer. The prismatic shape of

the tanks is fitted with insulation layers by defining four different bodies, called Flat Panels, 90º

and 135º Corners and Trihedrons. These bodies are composed of a primary barrier, directly in

contact with LNG, and a secondary barrier which is thicker than the primary barrier. Between

these barriers, a 0.6 mm thick impermeable triplex layer prevents the LNG leaking through the

outside. The primary barrier is composed of a 1.2 mm thick corrugated stainless steel

membrane, a plywood layer and the R-PUF layer. The secondary barrier is composed of R-PUF

supported by two plywood layers. The initial detailed description of these CCS can be found in

[33]. Figure 2 shows the assembly of the Flat Panels and Corners.

7
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

The nomenclature of the different Flat Panels and Corners is described in Figures 1b and

1c. It depends on their relative position to the seawater or the air. The vertical walls are Flat

Panels 1, and they line to the cofferdam, which is the space between two consecutive tanks, or

directly to environment (seawater and air) at the prow and the stern of the ship. The bottom wall

is named as Flat Panel 2, and the top wall is Flat Panel 8. The sidewalls are Flat Panels 3 to 7,

starting from the bottom wall. The water line divides the vertical sidewall of Tanks 2, 3 and 4 into

Flat Panels 4, under the water line, and Flat Panel 5, over the water line. For Tank 1, the water

line falls within FP 3, so there is no FP 4. The lateral inclined top wall is further divided into two

Flat Panels: FP 6, wetted by LNG, and FP 7, wetted by NG. The name of each edge comprises

two figures: the first one indicates the angle of the edge and the second one represents the

name of one of the attached Flat Panels. Edges starting from 1 correspond to 90º Corners while

edges starting from 3 correspond to 135º Corners which are the same length as the tank. Lastly,

edges lining to the cofferdams are called CDAMS Edges, corresponding to 90º Corners,

likewise.

2.2. Properties of the Materials.

The insulation barriers and the external and inner hulls are composed of 7 different

materials; their thermal conductivities are given in Table 2. The thermal conductivity of the

plywood, the stainless steel and the R-PUF and are obtained from references [10, 34, 35]. For

the rest of materials, thermal conductivity was directly provided by suppliers. For the air filling the

compartments between the inner and the outer hull, density is modelled using equation 1,

following the Boussinesq approach:

   0 1   ·T  T0  (1)

where 0 is the reference density (1.209 kg/m ),  the thermal expansion coefficient (0.00348
3

-1
ºC ) and T0 the reference temperature (15 ºC). The specific heat, the thermal conductivity and

8
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

viscosity are obtained by linear interpolation with temperature using the values tabulated in Table

3 [36].

2.3. Sailing conditions.

IMO regulations [32] set the sailing conditions considering that the temperature of the

seawater is 32 ºC and that of the air is 45 ºC. The velocity of the ship is defined as 19 knots. The

LNG tanks are considered to be filled up to 98 % of capacity. The lower part is occupied by LNG

at -162ºC, while the upper area is filled with NG.

2.4. BOR definition.

BOR is defined as the percentage of the evaporated LNG mass per day with respect to the

initial loaded LNG mass [3], so the heat flow (Q) received by LNG is translated into BOR by

equation 2:

Q·24·3600·103
BOR  ·100 (2)
V ··H vap

where  is the density of LNG density and Hvap the enthalpy of vaporization of LNG (425 kg/m
3

and 511 kJ/kg) at -162 ºC and 1 bar. If BOR is calculated for each tank, Q and V are the total

heat flow received by the LNG stored inside of each tank and the total volume of this tank.

However, BOR can be calculated for the full ship too, so Q and V are the heat flow received by

the total LNG transported by the ship and the full ship capacity.

9
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

3. Numerical approaches for BOR calculation.

Four successive approaches are developed to obtain the heat flow transferred from the

environment to the LNG based on simplified numerical simulations and Reduced Order Models

of heat transfer through the insulation barriers of LNG tanks. The proposed approaches can be

classified into two groups depending on their working procedure and the applied geometrical

description, as shown in Figure 3.

Approaches 1 and 2 use the same compounding method: both approaches obtain the heat

flux transferred through Flat Panels and 90º and 135º Corners for some selected configurations

through numerical simulations. These heat fluxes are then multiplied by the total heat transfer

area giving the net heat flow transferred through global locations, for example, Flat Panel 1 or

Edge 3-6. The sum of all heat flows transferred through the walls of the tanks will provide the

input heat flow that will be used to calculate BOR. The difference between Approaches 1 and 2

is that Approach 1 runs 2D numerical simulations of simplified geometries of Flat Panels and

Corners, while Approach 2 considers the full 3D geometries of Flat Panels and Corners.

The second method applies the general framework of Reduced Order Models (ROMs) to

derive Approaches 3 and 4. Specifically, the ROMs technology applied to this system searches

for an equivalent thermal resistance while only considering a single material along the insulation

layers. This material will be defined by equivalent thermal conductivities to yield the same heat

transfer simulations as the above detailed numerical solutions. To achieve this, the running of

comprehensive numerical simulations of individual components like Flat Panels and 90º and

135º Corners is proposed. These comprehensive numerical simulations are the same as those

calculated in Approach 2.

From these highly detailed results, an effective or integration parameter is extracted. For

the insulation walls of Mark III tanks, the integration parameter is the equivalent thermal

conductivity of the materials that comprise the walls. An effective thermal conductivity will be

defined for Flat Panels and Corners to condense out all heat transfer resistances at the different

layers that compose the different bodies of the insulation barriers. Once more, the difference

10
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

between Approaches 3 and 4 is that Approach 3 runs 2D numerical simulations of fluid flow and

heat transfer in representative 2D slices of ship arrangement, while Approach 4 considers full 3D

sections of the tanks and the ballast compartments.

3.1. Approach 1: 2D Numerical Simulations of FP and Corners in Specific Con-

figurations.

The heat transfer from the environment to the LNG stored in MARK III tanks can be

modeled as the heat flux through a planar wall under different temperatures on either side. The

different layers that compose the tank walls act as like resistors in series for the heat transfer,

and therefore, applying Fourier’s law, the heat flux transferred through the wall is simply the

temperature difference divided by the total thermal resistance [37]:

TEnv  TLNG
q   (3)
RT

The total thermal resistance is the sum of the resistance of each layer that composes the

insulation barrier, and this resistance is a function of the thermal conductivity of the material that

composes the layer and the thickness and the conductive shape factor of said layer. The

dependence of the thermal conductivity of R-PUF on temperature makes a direct calculation of

the thermal resistance by analytical formula like, for example, the planar wall resistance [37]

complicated. To solve this problem, Approach 1 is divided into three steps. First, the heat fluxes

through Flat Panels and Corners are numerically calculated considering the properties of

materials defined in section 2.2 and the temperature for LNG and for the inner hull obtained from

the literature [25]. Trihedrons are not considered due to their small heat transfer area by

comparison with Flat Panels or Corners. The second stage is the calculation of the heat transfer

areas of Flat Panels and Edges defined in Figures 1b and 1c. The third step calculates the heat

flows transferred through the different walls by multiplying the previously obtained heat fluxes

and heat transfer areas, yielding the total heat flow which is finally translated into BOR using

11
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

equation 2.

The temperatures of the inner hull and the membrane reported by [25] are split in Table 4

into 10 specific configurations described in Figure 4. LNG is considered to be at -162ºC while

natural gas presented at the top of the tank is at -158 ºC. The temperatures in Table 4 are then

imposed as boundary conditions for the numerical model. The simplicity of this approach is

applied to the definition of the numerical domain too. Only the 2D representative sections of Flat

Panels and 90º and 135º Corners shown in Figure 5 are investigated. The numerical calculations

of heat fluxes are performed using the Finite Element Method by the ABAQUS 6.12 software

[38]. The numerical grids are composed of about 200,000 cells. The obtained values are

presented and analysed in section 4.1.

3.2. Approach 2: 3D Numerical Simulations of FP and Corners in Specific Con-

figurations.

Approach 2 follows the same method as above, in other words, the calculation of heat

fluxes through Flat Panels and Corners in the 10 specific configurations determined by [25].

However, Approach 2 increases the detail level of the obtained results because the heat fluxes

are achieved through 3D numerical simulations of the complete geometries of Flat Panels and

Corners, including the steel corrugations in contact with LNG, instead of the characteristic 2D

slices as in the previous section. The selected grids are composed of 2.2 millions cells for Flat

Panels and 700,000 cells for Corners. The obtained results are summarized in Section 4.1.

3.3. Definition of Reduced Order Models for Heat Transfer in Mark III Tanks.

A realistic prediction of BOR can be obtained through detailed numerical simulations of the

fluid flow and heat transfer considering the external hulls, the ballast compartments, the inner

hull, the metallic sheets that form the ballast compartments and the insulation walls. The heat

transfer from the environment to the inner hull will be simulated without any significant

12
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

simplification, defining a numerical grid to solve the continuity and the momentum and energy

transport equations in these zones. The Reduced Order Model is defined for the insulation walls,

which are discretized through a numerical grid of 10 cells in the normal direction, as shown in

Figure 6.

Such coarse mesh is not able to capture all geometrical features of the Flat Panels and

Corners. Thus, the Reduced Order Model proposes the definition of an equivalent material for

each insulation body (Flat Panels and 90º and 135º Corners), characterized by the density and

the heat capacity of the R-PUF as this accounts for the highest percentage of the total volume of

the barriers. The thermal conductivity of this equivalent material is determined to yield the same

thermal resistance as is obtained for Flat Panels and Corners in Approach 2, following equation

4:

qApp.2

Eq  R  PUF  R  PUF ·CEq (4)
qApp.2,
 Mod

where R-PUF is the thermal conductivity of R-PUF displayed in Table 2, q’’App.2 the heat flux

obtained in Approach 2 and q’’App.2,Mod the heat flux obtained in a “modified” Approach 2 where all

layers but the inner hull are only composed of R-PUF. The configuration with the largest

difference of temperature from the inner hull to LNG is selected, in other words, configuration D

for Flat Panels and 90º Corners and Configuration E for 135º Corners. As a result, the equivalent

parameter CEq integrates the exhaustive information from the 3D numerical models into a single

parameter to characterize the thermal resistance from inner hull to LNG.

3.4. Approach 3: ROM and 2D Numerical Simulations of LNG Tanks.

Approach 3 is based on 2D numerical simulations of fluid flow and heat transfer from the

environment to the LNG stored inside the Mark III tanks. Four different domains are built as

shown in Figure 7: two symmetrical transversal slices of the Tanks 1 and 2, one longitudinal

slice of the cofferdam between Tanks 1 and 2, and one longitudinal slice of Tank 1. This

13
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

conjugated fluid flow-heat transfer analysis is governed by the continuity, momentum and energy

transport equations [39]. These equations are solved by the ANSYS FLUENT software, Release

15.0, using the 2D double precision solver [40]. The fluid flow is assumed to be non-isothermal

incompressible turbulent flow, following the Navier - Stokes equations. Turbulence is modeled

using the k -  Realizable model [41] while the turbulence generation by walls is calculated

through Enhanced Wall Functions [40]. Pressure and velocity fields are coupled by the SIMPLE

algorithm [42]. Second order spatial discretization schemes are applied to the momentum,

energy, turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation rate, while pressure is discretized using

the Body Force Weighted scheme [40].

In all domains, the shell conduction from the inner hull to the external hull through the

different solid walls that form the ballast compartments is considered by meshing of these slim

walls with two cells along their thickness. The detailed geometries of the insulation barriers have

been replaced by equivalent thermal conductivities for Flat Panels and 90º and 135º Corners.

The shell conduction of the inner and outer hulls is directly modeled using 18 and 50 mm thick

steel meshed layers, respectively. The shell conduction of the stainless steel membrane is not

simulated horizontally; just a tiny thermal resistance is considered vertically, defined by 1.2 mm

thickness of stainless steel. The cell height attached to all walls is 7 mm to allow an accurate

capture of the thermal and viscous boundary layers. The structured mesh type is selected for

most of the regions except in zones with sharp angles. The selected meshes vary from 1.7

millions of quadrilateral cells for Tank 2 to 4.4 millions of cells for the cofferdam between Tanks

1 and 2.

The thermal boundary condition at the cofferdam walls imposes a temperature of 5 ºC,

while convective boundary conditions are applied at the external hull and at the membrane walls.

For the external hull walls, the air or the seawater temperature defined by the IMO sailing

conditions [32] is imposed and the convective heat transfer coefficient (h) is obtained from

correlation no. 5, which corresponds to the average Nusselt number for turbulent parallel flow

over a flat plate [39]:

14
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

4 1
Nu  0.037·Re 5 ·Pr 3
(5)

where Nu is the Nusselt number, Re is the Reynolds number and Pr is the Prandtl number.

Considering the length of the ship as the typical length scale ( 200 m) and the air and water
2
properties obtained from [36] and [39], the convective heat transfer coefficient is 12.40 W/m ·ºC
2
for the walls in contact with air and 6,529 W/m ·ºC for the walls in contact with water. These

values are of the same order of magnitude as the typical values of the convective heat transfer

coefficient collected in [39]. For the membrane walls in contact with LNG, is first assumed that

LNG is at -162ºC for the entire tank. The convective heat transfer coefficient is estimated from

correlation 6:

Nu  CNC ·Ra·cos 
n
(6)

Correlation 6 assumes that convection is the result of buoyancy forces alone, and ignores

the influence of sloshing LNG motion inside the tanks. The CNC constant varies from 0.1 to 0.54;

the exponent n varies from 1/4 to 1/3 depending on the orientation of the wall and  is the wall

angle compared to the horizontal [39]. The convective heat transfer varies in Tank 2 from 68.4
2 2
W/m ·ºC for FP 8 to 1067.8 W/m ·ºC for FP 3.

3.5. Approach 4: ROM and 3D Numerical Simulations of LNG Tanks.

Once the numerical model has been defined and applied in 2D domains for Approach 3, it

can be easily extended to 3D domains for the development of the Approach 4. This section only

describes significant differences with respect to Approach 3. First, the ship is divided into three

different domains, as shown in Figure 8. Tanks 2 and 3 are directly next to the cofferdams, so a

single simulation is enough to get the heat flow transferred from the environment to the LNG.

Meanwhile, Tanks 1 and 4 sit against the cofferdams or lie against the prow or the stern,

respectively. Considering the symmetrical behavior of the heat transfer in Tank 1 (see the

analysis of Figure 14 in section 4.2), just a single mesh of a quarter of Tank 1 is built. Since

15
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Tank 4 is larger than Tank 1, the symmetrical behavior of the heat transfer can be ensured too

for Tank 4, so just a single mesh is built too for Tank 4. The thermal boundary condition imposed

at the vertical limiting wall will define which the case is: if the convective heat transfer is applied

to seawater or the air, the simulation obtains the heat transfer from Tank 1 or 4 to the prow or

the stern; if a constant temperature of 5 ºC is set, the simulation represents the heat transfer

from the cofferdams.

The building of the computational grids is mainly based on the sweep of the 2D built for

Approach 3, including the meshing of the metal sheets that form the ballast compartments.

Mapped conformed meshes are selected for the most of the domain; zones as corner

compartments are meshed with pave schemes and swept along the normal direction to reduce

the high cell skewness. The selected meshes comprise 10.2 million cells for Tank 1 to 13.65

million cells for Tank 2. The external and the inner hulls are also included, together with the Flat

Panels and Corners. Finally, the PISO algorithm [43, 44] with skewness correction has been

selected for the pressure-velocity coupling.

4. Results and Discussions.

4.1. Results of Approaches 1 and 2.

A grid independence study is performed first to ensure the quality of the results. For

Approach 1, the number of cells from LNG to inner hull is doubled without any significant

difference in the heat fluxes for Configurations D and E. For Approach 2, several mesh

resolutions and domain extents are considered, resulting in the selected domains displayed in

the temperature contours shown in Figure 9. The uniform thickness of all insulation layers for

Flat Panels are highlighted by constant temperature profiles for height. However, the different

hardwood pieces and the angle geometry yield a non-uniform evolution of temperature from the

top to the bottom of Corners.

16
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Table 5 summarizes the heat transfer areas for the different Flat Panels and Corners in

Tanks 1 to 4 and Table 6 displays the heat fluxes obtained through the computational

simulations performed in Approaches 1 and 2. The heat flow transferred through each insulation

barrier can be obtained by multiplying the heat fluxes by the corresponding heat transfer areas.

Once the heat flows transferred from Flat Panels and Corners are obtained, the sum of all heat

flows are applied to calculate the BOR following equation 2. It can be seen that 3D heat fluxes

for Corners are 13 % to 16 % lower than 2D results. The 2D model considers that the hardwood

is continuous, while the 3D geometry correctly describes the distribution across the different

blocks of hardwood and R-PUF. Thus, a larger R-PUF content increases the thermal resistance

of the 3D corner and yields lower heat fluxes. The difference for Flat Panels is about 2 % and it

is caused by the simplification of the stainless steel corrugation. The 2D model only considers a

1.2 mm thick stainless steel layer, but the 3D model takes into account the real shape of the

corrugations, the wooden pieces that support them and the air that fill the gaps between the

membrane and the supporting pieces.

These differences are not directly translated in the BOR calculation. Figure 10 compares

the BOR obtained by the different approaches and for the different tanks. It can be seen that the

contribution of Corners to the total BOR varies from 4.9 % to 6.5 %, because the heat transfer

area of Corners is about 6 % of the total heat transfer area. In addition, it can be observed that

larger tanks yield a lower BOR, as the surface area density (the Surface to Volume ratio) is

reduced [45].

4.2. Results of Approaches 3 and 4.

Firstly, the equivalent thermal conductivities obtained from the procedure reported in

section 3.4 are reported here. Table 7 compares the obtained heat fluxes for the selected

configuration in the original and modified Approaches 2 and the equivalent constant to be

applied in Equation 4. The last row shows the obtained heat flux when the equivalent thermal

conductivity is applied. It can be concluded that this order reduction is suitable to capture the

17
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

global thermal behaviour of the insulation barrier, because the differences when using this

reduced model with respect to the detailed model are less than 0.17 %.

Once the equivalent thermal conductivities of Flat Panels and 90º and 135º Corners are

obtained, the numerical simulations can be performed. The grid independence study has been

performed by doubling the number of cells inside of the insulation barriers, yielding evident

differences in heat flows for all simulated domains in Approaches 3 and 4.

Qualitative results are given in Figures 11 and 12 through temperature and velocity

contours in the different analysed domains. The maximum fluid velocity is located in the bottom

compartments because they show the configuration that encourages the convective heat

transfer, having the cold wall high up and the bottom wall low down. The ballast compartments

at the corners show significant irregular velocity fields due to the instabilities caused by the

plumes generated from these cold walls [37]. The temperature contours reveal that the main

heat transfer resistance is obviously generated by the insulation barriers, because the drop in

temperature through the air compartments is noticeably lower than it is through the Flat Panels

and Corners, as it would be expected. The thermal bridges of the steel sheets comprising the

ballast compartments can be identified in Figure 13 by the significant rise in temperature in

these figures.

The symmetry of the thermal field in Tank 1 along its longitudinal section is demonstrated

by Figure 14. The profiles of the temperature difference for the inner and outer hulls are drawn

starting from the symmetry line. No significant differences are found for distances lower than 5

meters from the midpoint, so the different thermal boundary conditions imposed at cofferdam

walls and at stern or prow walls only influence in the region nearest to these zones. Thus, Tanks

1 and 4 can be divided by symmetry planes for Approach 4.

Table 8 compares the numerical temperatures obtained from Approaches 3 and 4 with

results reported by [25]. Only a rough comparison should be made because there are certain

differences between the simulated and the published cases. For example, the thermal

conductivity of R-PUF is 0.04 W/m·ºC in [25]; the LNG temperature varies in [25] from -162ºC to

18
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

-158 ºC in the vapour phase, while current numerical simulations are based on a constant

temperature of -162ºC and the geometries of the compartments are different, as shown in

Figure 15. Reference [25] considers just five ballast compartments, while the current numerical

model divides the fluid space into 12 compartments. For this reason, Table 8 shows the area-

weighted average of temperature for Approach 3 and the volume-weighted temperature for

Approach 4 contemplating the different compartments identified in Figure 15. Ballast

compartments 2 and 4 show small differences between the published and the obtained results,

due to a good concordance between the different geometries. For the inner hull temperatures for

configurations A to E and CR1 to CR3, the results shown for both Approaches 3 and 4 are the

area-weighted average of the wall that separates the inner hull from the ballast compartments or

the metal sheets. The temperatures in the configurations show larger differences, especially for

Approach 3, and for Configuration F, the top wall.

Table 9 compares the heat flow and BOR obtained from other available published data with

results from Approach 4. The significant differences between the geometries of MOSS and Mark

III tanks and the variations in thicknesses and material properties among these references avoid

a direct validation based on the reported values. However, it should noted that Approach 4 is

close to the values reported from [25], considering that only a quarter of the tank is simulated in

[25].

The calculation of BOR for Approach 3 is not straightforward because Edges 1-3, 1-4, 1-5

1-6 and 1-7 are not simulated while FP 2, FP 8 and Edges 1-2 and 1-8 in Tank 1 are simulated

twice. The proposed solution is to consider the missing data as the average of the nearest

simulated corners, while the repeated data is reduced by taking the average value between the

two simulated domains. Moreover, the 2D domains do not represent the exact geometry, so the

heat transfer area must be determined for the different edges based on the length of the tanks.

Computational results are cast into the different heat fluxes obtained at the membrane level,

while the heat fluxes obtained for Approaches 1 and 2 were calculated at the inner hull side.

Thus, only overall results are shown in terms of the BOR calculated for the heat transfer through

19
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Flat Panels and Corners in Figure 10 together with the overall BOR and the overall heat transfer

coefficient in Table 10.

The heat flow through Flat Panels is again the most important, but the relative importance

of edges increases by 12 % for Approach 3 and 16 % for Approach 4 due to the rise in the

equivalent thermal conductivity. However, the overall heat transfer rate does not change

dramatically: Table 10 reveals that the largest difference is about 6.6 % for Approaches 3 and 4

in Tank 1. In summary, the differences achieved in the overall BOR for the full ship lie below 3 %

for all approaches.

The overall heat transfer coefficient is defined by equation 7:

Q
U
ALNG ·TEnv  TLNG 
(7)

where Q is the overall heat flow received by each tank or by the full ship, ALNG is the heat

transfer area of the membrane in contact with LNG, TEnv is the area-weighted average

temperature of the environment, considering the respective surfaces exposed to seawater and

air and TLNG is the LNG temperature. The obtained value for the full ship in Approach 4 is 0.0674
2 2
W/m ·ºC, which can be compared with the value of 0.07 W/m ·ºC obtained from equation 8:

1
U [14]  (8)
1 t 1
 
hLNG  hEnv

Equation 8 was applied in [14] for a material with different thickness and constant thermal

conductivity, so a different value of U is reported in [14]. For the current case, the thermal

conductivity of R – PUF varies with temperature, so the value at mid temperature (-80 ºC) is

applied in equation 8. Then, equation 8 represents a good starting approach for BOR

calculation, since conduction through R – PUF layer is the most important thermal resistance.

However, if a detailed thermal analysis is required, the proposed approaches of the current

investigation yield a more comprehensive description of the thermal fields inside of LNG ship

tanks.

20
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

These overall heat transfer coefficients can then be cast into global thermal resistances

under the terms of equation 9:

TEnv  TLNG TEnv  TIH TIH  TLNG

Q   (9)
RT ROutIH RIH LNG

-5
The thermal resistances for the full ship obtained for Approach 4 are 4.7197·10 ºC/W for
-4 -4
RT, 4.8392·10 ºC/W for ROutIH and 5.3112·10 ºC/W for RIHLNG. It can be concluded that the

insulation barriers represents the 91.11 % of the overall thermal resistance.

Finally, Approach 4 yields the estimation of the heat flow required to have cofferdams at 5

ºC. The cofferdam between Tanks 1 and 2 needs 206 kW; 342 kW are required for the

cofferdam between Tanks 2 and 3; while 346 kW must be provided for the cofferdam between

Tanks 3 and 4, yielding an overall cooling power of 894 kW for the full ship. This overall cooling

power can be compared to the heat flow reported in [24], considering that reference data is just

for a quarter of a smaller tank, at colder sailing conditions with different materials and thickness.

4.3. Evaluation of the 4 Approaches.

Approach 1 is based on a published procedure [25], but devoted to a lower ship capacity of
3
137,000 m with different thermal insulation materials. Approach 1 can be calculated very

quickly, requiring less than 2 hrs. in a standard computer server. Approach 2 provides more

detailed information about heat transfer through Flat Panels and Corners than the previous

approach, but it requires more time to run (about 1 day) and it does not solve the previous

disadvantage regarding the definition of the temperatures on the inner hull side.

Approach 3 does not assume the simplifications regarding the inner hull temperatures and

it gives an initial estimation of the convective and conductive heat transfer resistances through

external and inner hulls and ballast compartments. However, the determination of the heat

transfer areas and the heat fluxes reduces the accuracy of this approach because it does not

represent the 3D behavior of the tanks. BOR is not directly calculated from numerical

21
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

simulations because it is still necessary to obtain average heat fluxes and heat transfer areas

from geometry files.

Approach 4 proposes the numerical simulation of heat transfer and fluid flow in 3D models

of the different tanks, considering the orientation of each tank to cofferdams or to the prow and

the stern of the ship. The meshing of the insulation layers cannot include all geometric features

such as the plywood, the triplex layers and the first and second barriers, so a Reduced Order

Model is defined to account for the different thermal conductivity of each insulation barrier. This

approach does not assume any simplifications about heat transfer areas. This increased model

complexity also yields a rise in the additional data provided by the numerical simulations, for

example, the required power to keep cofferdams at 5 ºC together with a full description of the

heat transfer and fluid flow in the ship. However, Approach 4 requires the longest times for pre -

processing and solving the different stages of numerical calculations. For example, 1 week is

needed to run the calculations for the 5 different numerical domains included in this task.

4.4. Proposal and evaluation of a design modification: increasing the thickness

of the secondary barrier.

Approach 4 is applied to calculate the BOR when the thickness of the secondary R-PUF

layer is increased from 160.4 mm to 290.4 mm. The objective of this modification is the

reduction of the heat transfer to the LNG with a minimum decrease in the capacity of the ship.

These thicker insulation layers are directly supported by the inner hull, so the external hull, the

ballast compartments and the inner hull remain unchanged from the previous section.

The procedure is as follows. The numerical grids built for Flat Panels and 90º and 135º

Corners in Approach 2 are modified by increasing the thickness of the secondary barrier. The

temperatures defined for the selected configuration in Table 5 are applied at the membrane and

inner hull sides, yielding the heat fluxes reported in Table 7. The constants for equivalent

thermal conductivities to be applied on Flat Panels and Corners are obtained as the quotient of

22
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

the previously obtained heat fluxes. Next, the mesh of Flat Panels and Corners is increased in

the various domains in Approach 4 and the new equivalent R-PUF materials are applied. The

numerical models described in section 3.5 and 3.6 are applied again, yielding the BOR and the

overall heat transfer coefficient shown in Figure 16 and Table 10.

The conclusion is clear: an increase of the thickness of the insulation barriers means a

reduction in the capacity of the ship by 2.2 %, but the heat flow received by LNG is significant

reduced (by up to 67 %) from the initial heat flow.

5. Conclusions and future work.

4 approaches have been developed to calculate the Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas

when shipped in Mark III tanks, from the simplest procedure using 2D simulations in 10 specific

configurations to 3D simulations of the fluid flow and heat transfer around the LNG tanks,

applying Reducing Order Models to define equivalent thermal properties that can describe the

heat transfer resistance through the insulation layers. The obtained results are in concordance

with the available published data, so these approaches can be used to estimate BOR or to

provide a detailed description of the thermal fields inside LNG ship carriers.

There is a three-fold plan for future work. First, Approach 1 can be easily incorporated into

a software application that can anticipate BOR in ship carriers using analytical calculations of

heat transfer through the different insulation layers if the shape factor for each layer has already

been obtained. Second, the measurement of experimental BOR data during real ship

transportation would provide very useful information to validate the current numerical

approaches. These measurements must include the ship geometry, the evolution over time of

LNG temperature, pressure and composition, the air and seawater temperatures, the ship speed

and the thermal properties of the insulation barriers to eliminate the effects of ageing in

polyurethane foams. Lastly, detailed numerical simulations of significant phenomena at the LNG

23
 M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

site including, for example, boiling, stratification, sloshing phenomena or mixing processes if the

ship carrier includes a reliquefaction plant would yield additional descriptions of the thermal

behavior of LNG when shipped.

Acknowledgements.

This dissemination work has been funded in part by the FEDER Operative Program for
Aragon (2007 – 2013).

References.

[1] International Gas Union: World LNG Report – 2014 Edition, International Gas Union, Office

of the Secretary General, C / O Statoil ASA, Norway. Available online at

http://www.igu.org/sites/default/files/node-page-field_file/IGU%20-
th
%20World%20LNG%20Report%20-%202014%20Edition.pdf Last access: May, 27 ,

2015.

[2] S Cornot – Gandolphe, O Appert, R Dickel, MF Chabrelie, A Rojey: The Challenges of

nd
Further Cost Reductions for New Supply Options (Pipeline, LNG, GTL), 22 World Gas

Conference, 1 – 5 June, 2003, Tokyo (Japan).

[3] D Dobrota, B Lalic, I Komar: Problem of Boil-Off in LNG Supply Chain, Transactions of

Maritime Science, 2 (2013), pp. 91–100.

[4] J Romero Gómez, M Romero Gómez, J López Bernal, A Baaliña Insua: Analysis and

Efficiency Enhancement of a Boil-Off Gas Reliquefaction System with Cascade Cycle on

board LNG Carriers, Energy Conversion and Management, 94 (2015), pp. 261 – 274.

[5] F Deybach, T Gavory: Very Large LNG Carriers: A Demonstration of Membrane Systems

Adaptability, Gastech 2008 Bangkok, available online at http://www.gtt.fr/wp-

24
 M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

content/uploads/2012/09/very-large-carrier-gastech-2008-pdf-0-6mo-mo-2012-04-
th
11.pdf, last access May, 27 , 2015.

[6] D Lee, SH Yoon, KH Kim, I Choi, DG Lee: Composite Anti–Buckling Structure for the

Corrugations of Liquefied Hydrogen Containers, Composite Structures 95 (2013) pp.

492–499.

[7] YH Yu, BG Kim, DG Lee: Cryogenic Reliability of the Sandwich Insulation Board for LNG

Ship, Composite Structures 95 (2013), pp. 547 – 556.

[8] KH Kim, SH Yoon, DG Lee: Vibration Isolation of LNG Containment Systems due to

Sloshing with Glass Fiber Composite, Composite Structures 94 (2012), pp. 469–476.

[9] HB Lee, BJ Park, SH Rhee, JH Bae, KW Lee, WJ Jeong: Liquefied Natural Gas Flow in the

Insulation Wall of a Cargo Containment System and its Evaporation, Applied Thermal

Engineering, 31 (2011), pp. 2605 – 2615.

[10] SW Choi, JU Roh, MS Kim, WI Lee: Analysis of Two Main LNG CCS (Cargo Containment

System) Insulation Boxes for Leakage Safety Using Experimentally Defined Thermal

Properties, Applied Ocean Research, 37 (2012), pp. 72 – 89.

[11] QS Chen, J Wegrzyn, V Prasad: Analysis of Temperature and Pressure Changes in

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Cryogenic Tanks, Cryogenics, 44 (2004), pp. 701 – 709.

[12] MM Faruqe Hasan, AM Zheng and IA Karimi: Minimizing Boil-Off Losses in Liquefied

Natural Gas Transport, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 48 (2009), pp.

9571 – 9580.

[13] MS Zakaria, K Osman, AA Yusof, MHM Hanafi, MNA Saadun, MZA Manaf: Parametric

Analysis of Boil-Off Gas Rate Inside Liquefied Natural Gas Storage Tank, Journal of

Mechanical Engineering and Sciences, 6 (2014), pp. 845 – 853.

25
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

[14] MS Zakaria, K Osman and MN Musa: Boil-Off Gas Formation inside Large Scale Liquefied

Natural Gas (LNG) Tank Based on Specific Parameters, Applied Mechanics and

Materials, 229 – 231 (2012), pp. 690 – 694.

[15] MS Zakaria, K Osman, MNA Saadun, MZA Manf and MHMHanafi: Computational

Simulation of Boil-Off Gas Formation inside Liquefied Natrual Tank using Evaporation

Model in ANSYS Fluent, Applied Mechanics and Materials, 393 (2013), pp. 839 – 844.

[16] D Boukeffa, M Boumaza, MX Francois and S Pellerin: Experimental and Numerical

Analysis of Heat Losses in a Liquid Nitrogen Cryostat, Applied Thermal Engineering, 21

(2001), pp. 967 – 975.

[17] O Khemis, M Boumaza, M Ait Ali and MX Francois: Experimental Analysis of Heat

Transfers in a Cryogenic Tank without Lateral Insulation, Applied Thermal Engineering,

23 (2003), pp. 2017 – 2117.

[18] O Khemis, R Bessih, M Ait Ali and MX Francois: Measurement of Heat Transfers in

Cryogenic Tank with Several Configurations, Applied Thermal Engineering, 24 (2004),

pp. 2233 – 2241.

[19] T Kanazawa, K Kudo, A Kuroda and M Tsui: Experimental Study on Heat and Fluid Flow in

LNG Tank Heated from the Bottom and the Sidewalls, Heat Transfer-Asian Research,

33 (2004), pp. 417 – 330.

[20] M Belmedany, A Belgacem and R Rebiai: Analysis of Natural Convection in Liquid Nitrogen

under Storage Conditions, Journal of Applied Sciences, 8 (2008), pp. 2544 – 2552.

[21] A Hamon: One Million Cores, A Breakthrough in CFD Simulation, International Science Grid

This Week, Available on line at http://www.isgtw.org/feature/one-million-cores-

th
breakthrough-cfd-simulation last access May, 27 , 2015.

[22] YM Kim, SC Ko, BI Chun, KK Kim: A Study on the Thermal Design of the Cryogenic LNG

Carrier, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Engineering, 17 (1993), pp. 1 – 10.

26
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

[23] JG Kim, YM Kim, CS Kim: A Study on Unsteady Temperature Distribution Analysis of Moss

Type LNG Carrier by Insulation System, Journal of Ocean Engineering and Technology,

11 (1997), pp. 159 – 168.

[24] JH Heo, YB Lee: Heat Flux Calculation for Thermal Equilibrium of Cofferdam in a LNG

Carrier, Journal of the Society of Naval Architects of Korea, 35 (1998), pp 98 – 106.

[25] SO Song, JH Lee, HP Jun, BY Sung, KK Kim, SG Kim: A Study on the Three – Dimensional

Steady State Temperature Distribution and BOR Calculation Program Development for

the Membrane Type LNG Carrier, Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Engineering,

Vol. 23 (1999), Is 2, pp. 140 – 149

[26] JH Lee, KK Kim, ST Ro, HS Chung and SG Kim: A Study on the Thermal Analysis of Spray

Cooling for the Membrane Type LNGC During the Cool-Down Period, Transactions of

the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers B, 27 (2003), pp. 125 – 134.

[27] JU Heo, YJ Lee, JR Cho, MK Ha, JN Lee: Heat Transfer Analysis and BOG Estimation of

Membrane – Type LNG Cargo during Laden Voyage, Transactions of the Korean

Society of Mechanical Engineers A, 27 (2003), pp. 393 – 400.

[28] B Shapiro: Creating Reduced Order Modelling for Electronic Systems: An Overview and

Suggested Use of Existing Model Reduction and Experimental System Identification

Tools, IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag.Technol., 26 (2003), pp. 165 – 172.

[29] S Somarathne, M Seymour, M Kolokotroni: Dynamic Thermal CFD Simulation of a Typical

Office by Efficient Transient Solution Methods, Building Environment, 40 (2005), pp. 887

– 896.

[30] F He, L Ma: Thermal Management of Batteries Employing Active Temperature Control and

Reciprocating Cooling Flow, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 83 (2015)

pp. 164 – 172.

[31] WA Silva: Discrete-time Linear and Nonlinear Aerodynamic Impulse Responses for Efficient

CFD Analyses, Ph.D. dissertation, College William Mary, Williamsburg, VA, 1997.

27
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

[32] IGC Code: International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying

Liquefied Gases in Bulk, International Maritime Organization, September 2003.

[33] J Roni and J Chauvin: The General Electric – Technigaz Mark III Containment System,

GASTECH, Monaco (1978).

[34] CY Ho and TK Chu: Electrical resistivity and Thermal Conductivity of Nine Selected AISI

Stainless Steels, CINDAS Report 45, Thermophysical and Electronic Properties

Information Analysis Center Lafayette In. (1977).

[35] CJ Tseng, M Yamaguchi and T Ohmori: Thermal Conductivity of Polyurethane Foam from

Room Temperature to 20 K, Cryogenics, 37 (1997), pp. 305 – 312.

[36] EW Lemmon, RT Jacobsen, SG. Penoncello and D Friend: Thermodynamic Properties of

AIr and Mixtures of Nitrogen, Argon, and Oxygen from 60 to 2000 K at Pressures to

2000 MPa, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 29 (2000), pp. 331-385.

rd
[37] JH Lienhard IV and JH Lienhard V: A Heat Transfer Textbook, 3 Edition, Philogiston

Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA (2008).

[38] SIMULIA: ABAQUS Analysis User's Manual, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp., Providence,

RI, USA (2012).

th
[39] FP Incropera, DP de Witt: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 5 Edition, John Wiley

& Sons, New York (USA), 2002.

[40] ANSYS: ANSYS Fluent Theory Guide, Release 15.0, Canonsburg, PA, USA (2014).

[41] TH Shih, WW Liou, A Shabbir, Z Yang, J Zhu: A New k –  Eddy – Viscosity Model for High

Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows – Model Development and Validation, Computers

Fluids, 24 (2005), pp. 227 – 238.

[42] SV Patankar, DB Spalding: A Calculation Procedure for Heat, Mass and Momentum

Transfer in Three – Dimensional Parabolic Flows, International Journal of Heat and

Mass Transfer, 15 (1972), pp. 1787 – 1805.

28
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

[43] RI Issa: Solution of the Implicity Discretizated Fluid Flow Equation by Operator – Splitting,

Journal of Computational Physics, 62 (1986), pp. 40 – 65.

[44] RI Issa, AD Gosman, AP Watkins: The computation of compressible and incompressible

recirculating flows by a non-iterative implicit scheme, Journal of Computational Physics,

62 (1986), pp. 66 – 82.

rd
[45] WM Rohsenow, JP Harnett, YI Cho: Handbook of Heat Transfer, McGraw – Hill, 3 Ed,

New York (1998).

29
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Tables.

Table 1. Characteristic dimensions of tanks.

Insulation
Tank 1 2, 3 4
thickness
3 270 mm 27009 49391 40713
Net Volume at 100 % loaded (m )
400 mm 26335 48353 39826
Breadth (m) 34.4 38.5 38.5
Height (m) 27.9 27.9 27.9
Length (m) 33.7 47.0 41.2

Table 2. Thermal conductivity of solid materials.

Material Temperature (ºC)  (W/m·ºC)

Epoxy -- 2.7
Plywood [10] 10 0.12
Stainless steel [34] -163 10.146
Steel -- 45
Triplex -- 0.35
-160 0.013
-80 0.019
R-PUF [35]
0 0.022
40 0.025
-160 0.014
-80 0.022
Glass wool
0 0.031
40 0.035

Table 3. Air properties as a function of temperature [36].

Temperature (ºC)  (W/m·ºC) CP (J/kg·ºC)  (kg/m·s)

–5
-20 0.02281 1005.74 1.620·10
–5
0 0.02436 1005.90 1.722·10
–5
20 0.02587 1006.36 1.821·10
–5
27 0.02640 1006.60 1.854·10
–5
35 0.02699 1006.92 1.893·10
–5
45 0.02772 1007.39 1.940·10

30
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Table 4. Temperatures reported by [25].

Configuration TLNG (ºC) TIH (ºC) Insulation barrier

A -162.00 20.02 FP 2, Edge 1–2
B -162.00 21.91 FP 3, Edge 1–3
C -162.00 29.19 FP 4, FP 5, Edge 1–4, Edge 1–5
D -162.00 31.51 FP 6, Edge 1–6
E -158.00 30.96 FP 7, Edge 1–7, Edge 3–8
F -158.00 32.44 FP 8, Edge 1–8
G -162.00 5.00 FP 1 CDAMS, Edge CDAMS
CR1 -162.00 27.44 Edge 3–3
CR2 -162.00 32.62 Edge 3–4
CR3 -162.00 38.09 Edge 3–6

Table 5. Heat transfer areas for Approaches 1 and 2 (inner hull side).
2 2 2
Zone Body Configuration Tank 1 (m ) Tanks 2, 3 (m ) Tank 4 (m )
Edge 1–8 C90 F 19.599 0.000 19.598
Edge 3–8 C135 E 34.939 48.680 42.690
Edge 1–7 C90 E 2.716 0.000 2.684
Edge 1–6 C90 D 13.566 0.000 18.818
Edge 3–6 C135 CR3 34.939 48.680 42.690
Edge 1–5 C90 C 4.809 0.000 9.910
Edge 1–4 C90 C 0.000 0.000 4.152
Edge 3–4 C135 CR2 34.939 48.680 42.690
Edge 1–3 C90 B 36.066 0.000 10.193
Edge 3–3 C135 CR1 34.939 48.680 42.690
Edge 1–2 C90 A 19.706 0.000 27.595
Edge CDAMS C90 G 96.462 306.978 107.014
Total Edges 332.679 501.699 370.724
FP 8 FP F 699.880 981.203 858.562
FP 7 FP E 94.015 528.690 462.591
FP 6 FP D 469.657 528.690 462.591
FP 5 FP C 160.252 1000.352 876.293
FP 4 FP C 0.000 406.864 356.395
FP 3 FP C 244.391 0.000 0.000
FP 3 FP B 1041.121 479.013 419.080
FP 2 FP A 703.807 1390.171 1216.430
FP 1 CDAMS FP G1 763.110 1892.325 946.163
FP 1 Prow / Stern FP C 763.110 0.000 946.163
Total FP 4939.342 7207.309 6544.266
Total Tank 5272.021 7709.009 6914.990

31
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Table 6. Heat fluxes obtained for Approaches 1 and 2.

2 2
q’’App.1 (W/m ) q’’App.2 (W/m )
Configuration FP C90 C135 FP C90 C135
A 13.467 12.828 -- 13.191 11.322 --
B 13.643 12.994 -- 13.364 11.470 --
C 14.333 13.646 -- 14.037 12.048 --
D 14.557 13.858 -- 14.255 12.235 --
E 14.255 13.558 16.053 13.962 11.982 13.757
F 14.399 13.694 -- 14.104 12.102 --
G 12.122 11.555 -- 11.872 10.195 --
CR1 -- -- 15.971 -- -- 13.672
CR2 -- -- 16.530 -- -- 14.152
CR3 -- -- 17.134 -- -- 14.670

Table 7. Heat fluxes obtained for the equivalent thermal conductivity.

270 mm 400 mm
FP C90 C135 FP C90 C135
2
q’’App.2 (W/m ) 14.255 12.235 13.757 9.505 8.208 9.589
2
q’’App.2,Mod (W/m ) 13.578 9.191 10.725 9.155 5.904 7.875
CEq 1.050 1.331 1.283 1.038 1.390 1.218
2
q’’App.2, Eq R–PUF (W/m ) 14.280 12.265 13.771 9.504 8.175 9.586

Table 8. Comparison of temperatures of ballast compartments and configurations of inner hull

with results for Tank 2 obtained by [25].

Ballast compartment
T[25] (ºC) TApp.3 (ºC) TApp.4 (ºC)
/ Configuration
t1 38.67 41.20 36.35
t2 39.12 38.69 37.65
t3 36.67 32.93 30.55
t4 29.00 29.87 28.62
t5 25.84 29.84 27.55
A 20.02 27.62 23.09
B 21.91 26.92 23.15
C 29.19 30.48 25.67
D 31.51 34.92 30.24
E 30.96 37.74 36.40
F 32.44 41.03 25.90
G 5.00 2.76 0.12
CR1 27.44 27.86 26.70
CR2 32.62 28.20 26.32
CR3 38.09 34.90 35.22

32
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Table 10. Comparison of BOR and the overall heat transfer coefficient obtained using the

different Approaches and the different thicknesses.

270 mm 400 mm
App. 1 App. 2 App. 3 App. 4 App. 4
BOR (% mEv / mLd·day) 0.1091 0.1061 0.1145 0.1074 0.0765
Tank 1 2
U (W/m ·ºC) 0.0670 0.0652 0.0703 0.0660 0.0458
BOR (% mEv / mLd·day) 0.0860 0.0836 0.0872 0.0856 0.0583
Tanks 2, 3 2
U (W/m ·ºC) 0.0676 0.0657 0.0686 0.0673 0.0448
BOR (% mEv / mLd·day) 0.0955 0.0929 0.0990 0.0969 0.0660
Tank 4 2
U (W/m ·ºC) 0.0676 0.0658 0.0701 0.0687 0.0457
BOR (% mEv / mLd·day) 0.0921 0.0895 0.0945 0.0919 0.0631
Ship 2
U (W/m ·ºC) 0.0675 0.0656 0.0693 0.0674 0.0453

33
 M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by Numerical Analysis.

Table 9. Comparison of current study with previous investigations reported in scientific literature.

Sailing Conditions Results

Type of Tank Insulation 
Reference 3 TAir Env TSea Env BOR Comments
Tank Volume (m ) thickness (m) (W/m·ºC) Q (W)
(ºC) (ºC) (% Ev / day)
[14] Mark III 40447 0.53 0.0605 5 0 157458 0.1552
-18 0 99820 0.1188
Tank volume estimated
[22] MOSS 41051 0.22 Unknown 25 18 123500 0.1470
from overall dimensions
45 32 136000 0.1619
-18 0 101500 0.1171
[23] MOSS 32960 0.22 0.030
45 32 132400 0.1527
Heat flow received
138000
[24] Mark III 0.24 0.0536 -18 0 89700 -- from Cofferdam; results
(full ship)
for 1/4 of tank
-18 0 16317 0.0863 Volume estimated from
[25] Mark III 7536 0.25 0.04 45 32 18972 0.1003 Q and BOR; results for
28 29 18469 0.0977 1/4 of tank
27009 71443 0.1074
Current Varying Heat flow and BOR
Mark III 49391 0.27 45 32 104197 0.0856
study with T from App. 4
40713 97224 0.0969

34
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Figures:

a) b)

c)

Figure 1: a) Tank layout; b) Tank 1: Dimensions and names of edges; c) Tanks 2, 3 and 4: Di-
mensions and Names of Flat Panels (Flat Panel n. 2 is the base of the tank)

a) b)

35
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

c)

Figure 2: Insulation barriers: a) Flat Panels; b) 90º Corner; c) 135º Corner and Trihedron.

Figure 3: Approaches for BOR calculation.

36
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Figure 4: Temperature configurations defined by [25].

a) b)

c)

Figure 5: 2D sections analysed in Approach 1: a) Flat Panel; b) 90º Corner; c) 135º Corner.

37
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Figure 6: Mesh of the Flat Panels and Corners in the Reduced Order Model (270 mm thickness).

a) b)

38
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

c) d)

Figure 7: 2D Numerical Domains simulated in Approach 3: a) Transversal section of Tank 1; b)

Transversal section of Tank 2; c) Longitudinal section of Cofferdam between Tanks 1 and 2; d)
Longitudinal section of Tank 1.

Figure 8: 3D Numerical Domains simulated in Approach 4.

39
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

a) b)

Figure 9: Temperature Contours (ºC) of Flat Panels and 90º and 135º Corners in Configuration
D: a) Approach 1; b) Approach 2.

a) b)

c) d)

Figure 10: BOR obtained for Approaches 1 to 4: a) Tank 1; b) Tanks 2 and 3; c) Tank 4; d) Ship.

40
M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

a) b)

Figure 11: Contours obtained for Approach 3: a) Air temperature (ºC); b) Air velocity (m/s).

a) b)

c) d)

Figure 12: Contours obtained for Approach 4: a) Air temperature (ºC), orientation to Cofferdam;
b) Air velocity (m/s), orientation to Cofferdam; c) Air temperature (ºC), orientation to Prow / Stern
d) Air velocity (m/s), orientation to Prow / Stern.

a) b)

Figure 13: Temperature contours (ºC) at the inner wall obtained for Approach 4: a) Orientation to
Cofferdam; b) Orientation to Prow / Stern.

41
 M. Miana et al: Calculation of Boil-Off Rate of Liquefied Natural Gas in Mark III Tanks of Ship Carriers by
Numerical Analysis.

Figure 14: Temperature difference for the cofferdam and the stern or prow sides.

Figure 15: Ballast compartments for temperature comparison with [25].

Figure 16: BOR obtained for 400 mm thick insulation.

42

View publication stats