Marine Technology, Vol. 31, No. 3, July 1994, pp.

175-182

Implications of OPA 90 in General and Its Effect on the T-AO 187

Class Oilers in Particular
H a n s H o f m a n n , 1 G e o r g e K a p s i l i s , 1 Eric S m i t h , 2 a n d R o b e r t W a s a l a s k i 2

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 has mandated that by the year 2015 all oil tankers operating in waters
subject to jurisdiction of the United States must have double hulls. This paper examines the Act and
the status of regulatory initiatives it has generated. Guidance for new hull construction and retrofit
of existing vessels is outlined, and both IMO (International Maritime Organization) and U.S. Coast
Guard requirements are discussed. Finally, the structural changes necessary to convert the U.S.
Navy's T-AO Class oil tankers to meet the requirements of the Act are specified and illustrated.

Introduction ther analysis and studies. The report as published, however,

OIL SPILLSfrom tank vessel accidents have caused increas-
ing environmental concern. The present potential release of
80 000 tons of oil from the tanker Braer at the Shetland Is-
lands and the closer-to-home release of 35 000 tons of oil into
Prince William Sound in the Exxon Valdez grounding in
1989 are only two of the most recent spills. The Valdez
grounding resulted in the expeditious passage of the U.S. Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), reference [1].3 OPA 90
mandates that by the year 2015 all oil tankers operating in
waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction must have double hulls.
These two incidents are small by comparison to some of the
larger recent spills. Table 1 enumerates a few of the larger
tanker accidents that have occurred since 1967.
OPA 90 defines a time frame for compliance which is de-
pendent on the age and deadweight of the tanker. All single
hull tankers, regardless of age, must comply by the year
2015. Double hulls are required for all tank vessels for which
a building contract, or a contract for a major conversion, was
placed after 30 June 1990, or for vessels delivered after 31
December 1993. U.S. Navy vessels and other so-called "pub-
lic vessels" are normally exempted from these requirements,
but based on direction from Congress, the Navy ordered that
the last three ships of the T-AO 187 Class be delivered as
double hull tankers.
OPA 90 charged the Secretary of Transportation with con-
ducting a study assessing alternatives to the double hull and
recommending legislative changes to Congress. The results
of this study were issued in February 1991 [3] and basically
endorse the OPA 90 requirement for double hulls. The NRC
report, "Tanker Spills: Prevention by Design" [3] examines
17 design concepts and 3 hybrids. The report's executive sum-
mary states, "The committee did not identify any design as
superior to the double hull for all accident scenarios." The
report stresses that hull configuration is simply one factor in
a very complex risk scenario and recommends extensive fur-
provides no basis for recommending to Congress changes to
the double hull requirement. In March '91, ABS issued an
excellent overview report [2] describing antipollution efforts
of U.S. and international regulatory agencies. Reference [2]
identifies several significant international regulatory initia-
tives in process, the most notable of these being the current
activities of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
At the November 1990 meeting of IMO's Marine Environ-
mental Protection Committee (MEPC) consideration was
given to a U.S. proposal (draft Regulation 13F) for amend-
ment of Regulation 13E (Prevention of Oil Pollution in the
Event of Collisions or Strandings). Regulation 13F closely
parallels OPA 90. The MEPC working group for 13F has
endorsed double hulls but would allow the use of equally
effective alternative designs. This could, eventually, open the
door to such concepts as the mid-deck tanker which relies on
hydrostatic differential to limit outflow. Also in March '91,
SNAME issued a general position paper [4] which included
recommendations for further studies in eight areas.
OPA 90 assigned responsibility for definition of specific
requirements for double hull compliance to the U.S. Coast
Guard. USCG Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular
(NVIC) 2-90, of 21 September 1991 [5], which cited Regula-
tion 13E of MARPOL, originally defined these requirements.
The NVIC has since been superseded by the Interim Final
Rule (IFR) for Double Hull Standards for Vessels Carrying
Oil in Bulk [6]. It should be noted that total outflow limits are
a major consideration for the large crude carriers, but for the
relatively small T-AO tanks this is not a consideration.
Status of regulatory initiatives
As currently defined, the requirements of OPA 90, as in-
terpreted by the Interim Final Rule (IFR) effective Septem-
ber 11, 1992, are complete and precise, at least with respect
to double hull configuration.

1 M. Rosenblatt & Son, Inc., Arlington, Virginia.
2 Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C.
3 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
Presented at the January 12, 1993 meeting of the Chesapeake
Section of THE SOCIETYOF NAVALARCHITECTSAND MARINEENGI-
NEERS.
[The views expressed herein are the opinions of the authors and
not necessarily those of the Department of Defense or the Depart-
ment of the Navy.]
USCG requirements
Section 4115 of OPA 90 establishes the double hull re-
quirement and the time frame for its implementation. The
USCG NVIC 2-90 provided guidance for new construction
and retrofit of tankers with double hulls. NVIC 2-90 recom-
mended standards based primarily on existing internation-
al requirements. Reference is made to Regulation 13E of
MARPOL 73/78 as reprinted in 33 CFR 157, Appendix C and
to NVIC 1-81. Appendix C establishes a minimum double

JULY 1994 0025-3316/94/3103-0175500.41/0 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 175

 Table 1 Tanker accidents, 1967 to present
II
Date el Ship Spill (LT) Incident Location

Mar 1 9 6 7 TORREYCANYON 119,000 Grounded Lands End, UK

Dec 1972 SEA STAR 115,000 Collision Gulf Oman

May 1 9 7 6 URQUIOLA 100,000 Grounded La Corona, Spmn

Feb 1 9 7 7 HAWAIIANPATRIOT 99,000 Fire North Pacific

Mar 1 9 7 8 AMOCO CADIZ 223,000 Grounded Northwest France

Jul 1 9 7 9 ATLANTIC EMPRESS/ 300,000 Collision Trinldad/Tobago

AEGEAN CAPTAIN

Aug 1 9 8 3 CASTILLODE 250,000 Fire Cape Town, SA

BELLVER

1989 EXXON VALDE.Z 35,000 Grounded Pdnce William Sound

Jan 1 9 9 3 BRAER(potential) 80,000 Grounded Shetland Isles

hull spacing (sides and bottom) of 2 m (6.56 ft) for ships of the
b e a m of the T-AO and NVIC 1-81 provides guidance for mea-
suring this spacing at the t u r n of the bilge. NVIC 2-90 also
establishes spacing at the stern and r e i t e r a t e s the prohibi-
tion of cargo fuel forward of t h e collision bulkhead. The guid-
ance of NVIC 2-90 has been replaced by the r e q u i r e m e n t s of
the I n t e r i m F i n a l Rule [6], which is very s i m i l a r in content.
IMO draft and trim limits
In the b a l l a s t condition, the m i n i m u m IMO (formerly
IMCO) midship draft l i m i t for T-AO 187, is 19.13 ft, with a
t r i m limit of 9.43 ft by the stern. Propeller i m m e r s i o n re-
quires a draft of 21.00 ft at 610.25 ft aft of the forward per-
pendicular.

Intact s t a b i l i t y c r i t e r i a O P A 90 r e q u i r e m e n t s

Public vessel exemptions--OPA 90 (46 U.S.C. 2109) pro-

The 46 CFR Section 170.170 r e q u i r e m e n t is for an initial
vides for the exemption of "public vessels" from vessel
metacentric h e i g h t t h a t is equal to or g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t based
inspection and pollution prevention regulations. Determi-
on the w e a t h e r criteria. S u p p l e m e n t a l r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s are
nations of public vessel s t a t u s are m a d e on a case-by-case
contained in NVIC 4-92 [8].
basis. N a v a l vessels have in the past, and m a y be eligible
for such an exemption. The I n t e r i m F i n a l Rule does not
address such d e t e r m i n a t i o n s .
Damaged stability criteria
Total tank outflow limitations--Tank size l i m i t s based on
l i m i t i n g total outflow existed in the Code of F e d e r a l Reg-
The 46 C F R Section 172.065 r e g u l a t i o n s for e x t e n t of dam- ulations and M A R P O L prior to O P A 90. These limits still
age for d a m a g e d s t a b i l i t y a n a l y s i s are as follows: apply but, as these limits are based on t a n k sizes for large
L = length between p e r p e n d i c u l a r s crude carriers, t h e y have no impact on the r e l a t i v e l y
B = m a x i m u m b e a m a t s u m m e r load line small cargo oil t a n k s of t h e T-AO 187 Class.
Tank dimensions of double hull--All cargo fuel t a n k s ,
(a) For side damage and all ships fuel t a n k s located in the cargo block, m u s t
l o n g i t u d i n a l extent: 0.495L 2/3 or 47.6 ft, whichever be s e p a r a t e d from the shell by a double hull with t h e
is less following dimensions. Double sides m u s t extend for t h e
t r a n s v e r s e extent: B/5 or 37.74 ft, whichever is full depth of the vessel's side, or from t h e u p p e r m o s t deck,
less to the top of the double bottom. A t any cross section t h e
vertical extent: from baseline u p w a r d without molded width of the double side, m e a s u r e d a t r i g h t angles
limit to the side shell shall not be less t h a n w, where w = [0.5
(b) For bottom damage forward of O.3L + (dwt/20 000)] m or 2.0 m, whichever is less, but in no
l o n g i t u d i n a l extent: 0.495L 2/3 or 47.6 ft, whichever case less t h a n 1.0 m. At any cross section, the molded
is less depth of the double bottom, m e a s u r e d a t r i g h t angles to
t r a n s v e r s e extent: B/6 or 32.81 ft, whichever is the bottom, m u s t not be less t h a n h. The symbol h =
less but not less t h a n 16.41 ft beam/15 or 2.0 m, whichever is less, b u t in no case less
vertical extent: B/15 or 19.7 ft from baseline t h a n 1.0 meters. A t the t u r n of the bilge oil t a n k s m u s t be
upward, whichever is less located inboard of the shell, a t levels up to 1.5 h above the
(c) For bottom damage aft of 0.3L baseline not less t h a n the distance h, and, at levels
l o n g i t u d i n a l extent: L/IO or 16.41 ft, whichever is g r e a t e r t h a n 1.5 h above the baseline, not less t h a n t h e
less distance w. F i g u r e 157.10d(c) of reference [7] i l l u s t r a t e s
t r a n s v e r s e extent: 16.41 ft these dimension limits.
vertical extent: B/15 or 19.7 ft from baseline
upwards, whichever is less Oil m u s t not be carried in a n y t a n k e x t e n d i n g forward of
(d) Raking damage NVIC 4-92 [8]. F o r t a n k e r s over 20 000 the collision b u l k h e a d or, in the absence of a collision bulk-
tons dwt and u n d e r 75 000 dwt, the l o n g i t u d i n a l e x t e n t of head, the t r a n s v e r s e plane p e r p e n d i c u l a r to t h e centerline
bottom r a k i n g d a m a g e shall be 0.4L (measured from the for- t h r o u g h a point located the lesser of 10 m or 5 p e r c e n t of the
w a r d perpendicular). The t r a n s v e r s e e x t e n t shall be B/3, any- vessel length but in no case less t h a n 1.0 m aft of t h e forward
where on the bottom. The vertical e x t e n t shall be the breach perpendicular. Oil m u s t not be carried in a n y t a n k e x t e n d i n g
of the outer hull only. aft to a n y point closer to the stern t h a n w.

176 JULY 1994 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 S e g r e g a t e d ballast t a n k s - - O i l is explicitly prohibited
from being carried in the spaces between the inner and
outer hulls. The spaces between the inner and outer hulls
must be watertight. The ballast which the ship will carry
to comply with draft and trim limits must be "clean," or
segregated, ballast. The double hull spaces may be used to
carry this segregated ballast, distributed to achieve the
required trim control and to minimize the ballast piping.
MARPOL Regulation 13F contains a new provision for pro-
tectively locating segregated ballast tanks, for ballast re-
quired by the existing CFR 157.10(b), that have a total ca-
pacity which is greater than the volume of double hull
spaces. This requirement specifies that the increased ballast
required be accommodated by increasing w and/or h to max-
imize protection. In addition Regulation 13F requires that
the ballast be located as uniformly as practicable along the
cargo tank length. The intent of these requirements is simply
to provide the greatest possible protection to the cargo fuel
with the required segregated ballast.
The CFR 157.10 requirement for segregated ballast, how-
ever, applies only to product carriers over 30 000 dwt. To
meet the intent of OPA 90, however, it may be desirable, if
the required ballast exceeds the double hull capacity, to in-
crease w and/or h.
B a l l a s t a n d cargo p i p i n g - - B a l l a s t piping and other pip-
ing, such as sounding and vent piping to ballast tanks,
shall not pass through cargo tanks. Cargo piping and sim-
ilar piping to cargo tanks shall not pass through ballast
tanks. Exemptions to this requirement may be granted
for short lengths of piping provided that they are com-
pletely welded. Also, existing requirements in CFR
157.19(d) and (e) place additional restrictions on cargo
piping located near the outer shell. These restrictions con-
tinue to apply in double hull spaces not used for ballast.
S u c t i o n wells in cargo t a n k s - - S u c t i o n wells in cargo
tanks may protrude into the double bottom provided that
such wells are as small as practicable and the distance
between the well bottom and bottom shell plating is not
less than 0.5h.
IMO requirements
The following IMO requirements are provided for informa-
tion only. For U.S. flag vessels the OPA 90 USCG require-
ments take precedence over IMO requirements.
M A R P O L R e g u l a t i o n 1 3 F - - T h e United Nations Interna-
tional Maritime Organization (IMO) sponsored the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of Pollution by
Ships in 1973 and, subsequently, the Protocol of 1978
(MARPOL), addressing pollution in general and, in An-
nex I, Oil Pollution Prevention. In particular, Regulation
13F of Annex I establishes international requirements for
double hulls. Regulation 13F was updated in March 1992
by IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee
(MEPC).
The United States, however, reserved its position during
the adoption of Regulation 13F in March due to differences
between Regulation 13F and OPA 90 regarding the applica-
bility of double hull requirements to certain categories of
vessels and the allowance of the mid-deck concept as an al-
ternative to the double hull.
A l t e r n a t i v e s to double h u l l - - - O P A 90 specifically requires
a double hull configuration and does not provide the Coast
Guard with any discretion to implement alternatives for
vessels over 5000 gross tons. The Act did, however, charge
JULY 1994
the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a study assess-
ing alternatives to the double hull and to recommend leg-
islative changes to Congress. This study [3], issued in
February 1991, examined a number of alternatives and
basically confirmed the requirement for a double hull.
Meanwhile the MEPC, based on tank tests conducted in
Japan, endorsed the mid-deck concept as an alternative to
the double hull. It appears the mid-deck concept is now
acceptable under Regulation 13F but not under OPA 90
for vessels operating in U.S. waters.
Tank tests conducted in the U.S., at David Taylor Research
Center (DTRC), have not resulted in Coast Guard support of
the mid-deck concept. Reference [7] states that the Coast
Guard has not yet completed its evaluation of any alterna-
tive, including the mid-deck concept, and that further legis-
lation would be required to authorize the Coast Guard to
implement any such alternative. If recommended by the
Coast Guard and approved by Congress, such alternatives
would be the subject of future rulemaking. At this point it
can be concluded that the mid-deck concept is unlikely to be
available as a USCG-approved alternative, at least in the
near future.
M A R P O L m i d - d e c k r e q u i r e m e n t s - - D o u b l e sides and bot-
tom may be dispensed with, provided that the design is
such that the cargo and vapor pressure exerted on the
bottom shell plating do not exceed the external hydro-
static water pressure, as expressed by the following for-
mula:
(D(hc)(Rc)(g) + (100)(dP) =< (dn)(Rs)(g)
where
hc = height of cargo in contact with bottom (meters)
Rc = max. cargo density (tons/cubic meter)
dn = min. operating draft (meters) (all conditions)
Rs = density of sea water (tons/cubic meter)
dP = max. set pressure of pressure/vacuum valve
provided for the cargo tank (bars)
f = safety factor = 1.1
g = standard acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/sec 2)
Any horizontal partition necessary to fulfill the above re-
quirements shall be located at a height not less than B / 6 or 6
m, whichever is the lesser, but not more than 0.6D above the
baseline, where D is the molded depth amidships.
Wing tank configuration shall comply with double hull re-
quirements except that below a level of 1.5h above the base-
line the cargo tank boundary may be vertical down to the
bottom plating.
All U.S. vessels that call at foreign ports in countries that
are parties to Annex I of MARPOL will have to meet or
exceed the requirements of Regulation 13F. Accordingly, the
Coast Guard has participated in the development of the re-
vision of Regulation 13F (March 1992) and has been success-
ful in developing an Interim Final Rule which is consistent
with the MARPOL requirements. In particular, the USCG
double hull dimension requirements are consistent with
those in Regulation 13F.
OPA 90 impact on the T-AO 187 Class
The double hulling of the T-AO was handled as a conver-
sion rather than a modified repeat or repeat design. The dis-
tinction here is that new longitudinal bulkheads and inner
bottom were designed into the current hull and structural
design. A new midbody was not designed from the baseline
up to take advantage of structural changes and new design
MARINE TECHNOLOGY 177
approaches; i.e., the existing T-AO design was modified to
satisfy the double hull requirements. A new design of a dou-
ble hull vessel would not necessarily have the same config-
uration.
Ship description--The T-AO 187 Class is a fleet oiler op-
erated by MSC, in general designed to commercial stan-
dards except for certain "fenced areas" which comply
strictly with U.S. Navy criteria. The T-AO's principal
characteristics are as follows:
Length overall, molded 677.5 ft
Length between perpendiculars 650.0 ft
Beam, molded 97.5 ft
Depth, molded, at side 50.0 ft
Draft, max. 36.0 ft
Displacement of max. draft 42 380.0 LT
Deadweight 27 960.0 LT
Figure 1 provides a general overview of the ship configu-
ration, which is the typical "cargo forward/house-machinery
aft" tanker arrangement. The ship has two longitudinal
bulkheads in the cargo area, resulting in three tanks abreast
as also illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2.
The T-AO's as designed have a segregated ballast system
and meet all of the pre-OPA 90 pollution requirements.
The goal was to find a configuration of the T-AO that com-
plies with OPA 90 while minimizing ship changes and loss of
cargo capacity.
For the purpose of this paper the unaffected ship machin-
ery and accommodations are not discussed. Also, the cargo
handling system is only discussed where affected.
Configuration options--Within the constraints of the
rules, only four basic options were identified (Fig. 2). The
following summarizes the results of a quick-look assess-
ment of these options.
The main characteristics common to all four options are:
(a) reduced cargo capacity
(b) increased ballast capacity
(c) a requirement for some ballast in full load condition to
reduce trim
(d) higher cargo center of gravity
(e) larger number of both cargo and ballast tanks
Options 1 and 2 (Fig. 2) resulted in unacceptable losses in
cargo capacity. For Option 1, a 360-ft plug was required for
recovery of the lost cargo capacity. Plug length was reduced
to 240 ft when tanks were raised to the 01 level (Option 2).
Option 4 incurred the greatest structural changes and pre-
sented potential damaged stability problems. Option 3 was
selected for further study since it required the least struc-
tural modification and preserved maximum cargo capacity
and flexibility.
Option 3 results--Table 2 provides the significant differ-
ences between the double hull T-AO and existing ships of
the T-AO 187 Class.
(a) Cargo and ballast tank configuration--Figure 2 pro-
vides plan and elevation illustrations of the cargo and ballast
tank configurations. Figure 2 also shows section views at
frames 26 and 51. The section at frame 26 illustrates the
ineffectiveness of continuing the centerline cargo tank fur-
ther forward. No oil is carried forward of frame 26.
There are 24 cargo fuel tanks in the T-AO double hull, an
increase of two over T-AO 187, and 29 ballast tanks, an in-
crease of 16 over T-AO 187. This represents a loss of cargo
capacity of approximately 17 percent and an increase of 42
percent in available ballast tankage (see Table 2). The larg-
est cargo fuel tanks have a capacity of 1865 LT for center and
178 JULY 1994
781 LT for wing tanks. Lost cargo fuel capacity (31 140 bbl)
could be restored by adding a 50-ft hull plug.
With 50% excess ballast volume, consideration could be
given to eliminating piping to selected tanks. Here all ballast
tanks are piped for damage control. Trim limits dictate a
requirement for approximately 1380 tons of ballast forward
in the full load condition for the double hull T-AO, the single
hull T-AO requires zero ballast in the full load condition.
Structures--
(a) Double bottom and bulkhead scantlings--The scant-
lings for most of the plating and stiffeners on the new longi-
tudinal bulkheads are identical to the existing bulkheads,
and are not candidates for scantling reduction. The existing
transverse web frames are extended 2 ft-3 in. to the new
longitudinal bulkheads. Figure 3 illustrates the double hull
midship section.
The inner bottom is designed to the ABS Rules. As the ship
narrows forward and aft, the inner bottom and the canted
transition plates to the new longitudinal bulkheads are tai-
lored to the required two-meter clearance at the turn of the
bilge. Forward of frame 31 the existing longitudinal bulk-
heads will be made oiltight and will serve as the OPA bulk-
head.
Access to the side ballast tanks will be through a highly
stressed deck area and must be designed accordingly, and
there can be access difficulties for fabrication and mainte-
nance throughout the double hull, particularly at the turn of
the bilge.
To allow better access for construction, maintenance and
later surveys, the longitudinal girders in the side double hull
spaces at 15.0 and 32.5 ft above baseline have been reconfig-
ured to also serve as permanent platforms on which to walk
fore and aft in each tank.
(b) Longitudinal strength--The hull girder moment of
inertia and section modulus for the existing ship and for the
double hull Option 3 were calculated. The calculations show
that the double hull increases the effective sectional area of
steel by about 37 percent, resulting in a section modulus
increase of 12 percent at the main deck and 22 percent at the
bottom. As a result the neutral axis shifts approximately two
feet toward the baseline.
The double hull results in a steel weight increase of about
711 LT. It is important to note that the longitudinal center
and distribution of the additional hull weight has only a
small but beneficial effect on the hull girder bending moment
in the majority of load cases. In particular, the maximum
bending moment in the lightship condition, which is an ex-
treme case of hogging, is reduced by approximately 4 percent.
(c) Scantlings reduction--Analysis of local loading and
observation of the appropriate ABS rules indicate that most
of the scantlings between frames 31 and 60, (cargo block) do
not exceed the ABS requirements. Therefore, there is not a
significant potential for scantling reduction.
The main deck, along with the upper sections of the longi-
tudinal bulkheads, are the principal candidates for scantling
reduction. However, in the double hull configuration, the
neutral axis shifts toward the baseline, increasing the sec-
tion modulus at the main deck to only 12 percent above the
existing design. Scantling reductions resulting in weight
savings can only be achieved by significant structural modi-
fications.
Weights--Table 3 provides a comparison of the seven ba-
sic weight groups. The significant changes (increases) are
located in groups 1, 5 and 6.
As expected, the largest change occurs in the steel weight,
MARINE TECHNOLOGY
r-
84~

7
60

:.:, ! :.: "'% ! %

~SlOE
7~ CARGOOIL 8AL~ BAL

1.:.:.,.:.:.:.:. :.:.:.:.'z..:.:.:
~ PROTECTfVEBALLAST I
I
I
FRAME 51 TANK ARRGT FRAME 26 TANK ARRGT

___(7-- i:.:. ........,...........,

U/V////,
/ ~'////,/2"/,,~///,
"
,.~.:.:.:........,.,...............,...,.,.%..,..:;:]:;:.:.:.:t:
X ~ ' . .......
: : : ~ . r ~ - ~

</~ Y / / / , L / . d 4 / / / / ~ / / / / ~
4 ...... . . ~

Fi 9. 1 T a n k a r r a n g e m e n t c o m p l y i n g w i t h OPA 90
 Extltlt~i T-AO 187
the same speed and radius of turn. High-speed turns are of
course not a problem for regular tankers with maximum
speed of about 15 knots.
The more even longitudinal distribution of ballast in
the T-AO double hull will allow better trim control and
performance in off load conditions than in the single hull.
Stability-
(a) Intact stability--The intact stability of the T-AO dou-
ble hull was evaluated according to the T-AO 187 Class ship
Option 1: Double Bottom Only 09tlon 2: Added Hull Depth requirements and U.S. Coast Guard criteria. The load condi-
tions evaluated were Full Load, Half Load and Minimum

1 IHO(N}
Option 3: Double Bottom =rod Sldee
L J,
Ik~O(N) 1 Operating Condition. These conditions are representative of
the entire operating range. The analysis shows the T-AO
double hull to have adequate GM for the USCG weather cri-
teria.
I (b) Roll period--The roll period was evaluated based on
the full load condition and no appreciable changes were
l found.
(c) Damaged stability--Damaged stability was evalu-
ated according to U.S. Coast Guard criteria as specified in 46
Option 4; Modified B~Jlkheadl CFR Subpart D, Section 172.065. Two load conditions were
evaluated for damaged stability; full load and minimum op-
IHI~N) erating conditions.

]iii;i ii,/7';T
~ N ) ,~ I ~"~m7 In several cases of flooding it was found that, within 20 deg
i ..... ,
iiii,:ii~i,
I beyond the equilibrium angle of heel, downflooding points on
I', ~,ll!i!l I the main deck were submerged. However, these downflood-
!!!!!'iiilLiiii::il !!!!!ii ii I[- Ii
ing points are weathertight, which is acceptable under USCG
requirements. Therefore, the T-AO double hull meets the
.,,.,..V I, \.,,, III(N)'~ damaged stability requirements.

Fig. 2 Options Cargo and ballast handling--The ballast system was

modified, in a conventional manner, by adding a single
Table 2 Differences between T-AO 187 and T-AO double hull pipe run and tailpipe to each of the additional 16 ballast
tanks. The pipes were sized to support flow from the 3000
iTEM I T-AO187 T-AO I CHANGE gpm ballast pumps. The additional weight from the new
FULL LOAD CONDITION ballast piping is estimated to be 78.0 LT. The added
Light Ship Weight (LT) 14,711 15,367 656
weight due to the additional ballast manifolds is esti-
Cargo Oil Tanks (BBL) 185,386 154,246 -31,140" mated to be 7.5 LT for a total weight gain of 85.5 LT for
(LT) 24,221 20,128 -4,093 the ballast system.
Ballast Required (LT) 0 1,672 1,672
Total Displacement (LT) 40,942 39,562 -1,380
The liquid cargo systems required modifications to only
BALLAST (BBL) 83,405 118,182 34,777** three tank groups, including the removal of piping which
Draft, Full Load (FT) 35.00 34 00 -1.00 served the DFM tanks 1 (P/S), which became ballast tanks in
KG, Full Load (FT) 32.23 32.89 0.66
Roll Period (SEC) 14 40 14.78 0.38 the conversion. The pipes were sized to support the 1500 gpm
to the cargo fuel tanks port and starboard and 3000 gpm for
MISCELLANEOUS
center tanks. The additional weight from the cargo piping
Group 1 Weight (LT) 9,848 10,559 711 modifications is estimated to be 6.45 LT. The additional
Group 5 Weight (LT) 2,132 2,343 211
Min,mum Midship Section weight of the new valves is 2.3 LT for a total weight gain of
Modulus (FT-IN=) 66,099 74,234 8,135 8.7 LT for the liquid cargo systems.
* - 17% Decreased
** -42% Increased
Maintenance and safety---

(a) Inspection--ABS [2] advises that they do not foresee

Section 1. Note t h a t the values in Table 3 are approximate
and for comparison only.
Draft and trim--For the T-AO double hull to achieve zero
trim in the full load condition, it is necessary to carry
about 1380 LT of ballast. The draft and trim meets the
IMO guidelines.
Performance--For the T-AO double hull, the reduction in
draft results in an increase in speed of 0.8 percent for the
same cruising power level.
The rise in K G of 0.7 ft for the minimum operating condi-
tion will affect the T-AOs in a small measure during high-
speed turns by increasing the heel moment by 7 percent for
an increase in the frequency of required inspections for dou-
ble hull tankers. The inspection process, however, is signifi-
cantly more complicated and time consuming with a double
hull, with the increase in welding, structure, and painted
area. Access and ventilation are critical.
(b) Access--Access to the side and centerline ballast
tanks is a basic design issue. As the side deck areas are
highly stressed it was more cost effective to provide access
through manholes r a t h e r than more conventional t a n k
hatches with coamings. Access to the centerline bottom tanks
would be through the side tanks. All tanks must provide
access for rescue equipment as well as for personnel entering
the tanks.
(c) Hazardous atmosphere and explosion risk--Although

180 JULY 1994 MARINE TECHNOLOGY

 le (Q SP'$ 2'-4~:~2'1~ I 10 (Q P'$ ~'-7 1/2"e211"3"~

i t t t ; t
I I l I"~'t I I

'2 0~s
\
,q----~

,r

w ~ t 0 4 V~L

- - /

L L L L LCL ~ ~
"-2C' ~ J

..,,eL.
~,~'1
L L
I
L
r}
k...~
t-'-~
./~

\
~,
\
-~--.

,,, ,~/
-,,, /
/ ,z'[*"

ITF f T T T T T "[..~ /" L

SS'-? ~/2"

Fig. 3 Midship section

Table 3 Weight comparison Summary and conclusions

(LT) (LT) NET CHANGE
While the U.S.-promoted double hull regulations, in con-
TITLE T-AO 187 T-AO DBL HULL (LT) (%) junction with MARPOL Regulation 13F, provide a large step
1 Hull Structure 9,848 10,559 711 7.2
in the right direction to avoid environmental disasters, these
regulations in themselves are not of course a perfect solution.
2 Propulsion 1,106 1,106 0 0 The majority of tanker accidents that have occurred in the
3 Electric Plant 560 560 0 0 past can be allocated to human error rather than mechanical
failure. This is true even though some of the accidents are
4 Command & Surveillance 125 125 0 0 precipitated by mechanical failures, but closer scrutiny indi-
5 Auxiliary Systems 2,132 2,343 211 10.0
cates that the mechanical failure occurred because of inade-
quate maintenance or maintenance procedures. Only a com-
6 Outfit & Furnishings 1,089 1,130 41 3.8 prehensive approach to tighten regulatory and inspection/
maintenance procedures, while at the same time increasing
7 Armament 22 22 0 0
officer and crew training and licensing requirements together
TOTAL 14,882 15,845 963 6,5 with the design requirements, can result in a substantially
improved condition.
In addition to double hulling crude oil carriers, and emer-
ABS could not identify a specific example of a double bottom gency planning procedures, including a cargo-ballast mani-
tank explosion, there is concern in the industry, related pri- fold emergency cross connection could be of value. This cross
marily to cargo oil leaks into the empty double hull ballast connection when properly integrated with cargo load com-
tanks. Inerting systems could be employed but this is not puter and supplementary suction arrangements within the
normal practice for ballast tanks. Furthermore, the T-AO cargo tanks would permit a rapid engagement of the ship's
187 Class is a Grade E fuel carrier, which does not require cargo pumps to transfer cargo and seawater from the dam-
cofferdams, inerting or intrinsically safe equipment. aged tank(s). This procedure could, in many instances, min-
(c) Tank cleaning--The double hull configuration re- imize the oil outflow. Under today's rules this procedure is
duces structural obstructions in the cargo tanks which facil- illegal and violates tonnage and pollution regulations in it-
itates cleaning of these tanks. However, the ballast tanks, self, but since the cross connection can easily be equipped
with framing on both sides, are particularly difficult to clean. with a tell-tale device to indicate that cargo has been trans-
(d) Corrosion--Ballast tanks are susceptible to serious ferred to ballast tanks, and considering that, especially in
corrosion problems. Coatings in the double hull ballast tanks bottom damage, a large amount of cargo could be transferred
will be particularly difficult to maintain. into ballast tanks with a potentially large oil outflow reduc-

JULY 1994 MARINE TECHNOLOGY 181

t i o n , t h i s w o u l d b e a p r e f e r a b l e c o n d i t i o n . I t is f a r c h e a p e r to
s e p a r a t e oily w a t e r m i x t u r e f r o m t h e b a l l a s t t a n k i n a con-
t r o l l e d s h o r e e n v i r o n m e n t t h a n to a t t e m p t to r e c o v e r oil
spills f r o m t h e w a t e r .
R e m o t e r e l e a s e of s h i p ' s a n c h o r s , w h i c h is a l r e a d y p r e s e n t
o n s o m e r e c e n t l y c o n s t r u c t e d v e s s e l s , w i l l go a l o n g w a y to-
wards assisting the vessel in keeping from floundering.
T h e c r e w s o n n o n - U . S , flag or c o n v e n i e n c e v e s s e l s a n d
their multi-nationality provide another obstacle by having a
d e t r i m e n t a l effect o n c o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n c e i t is n o t u n c o m -
m o n t h a t n o t all c r e w m e m b e r s a r e c o n v e r s a n t i n a t l e a s t o n e
common language.
Acknowledgments
W e w i s h to t h a n k V i r g i n i a M o n a g h a n , w i t h o u t w h o s e h e l p
t h i s p a p e r w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n possible.
References
Refer also to the reference listing in the NRC report, reference [3]
below, for an extensive bibliography.
182 JULY 1994
1 U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, dated Aug. 18, 1990.
2 "Double Hull Tank Vessels, A Review of Current Regulatory Efforts,
Design Considerations and Related Topics of Interest," American Bureau
of Shipping, March 1991.
3 "Tanker Spills: Prevention by Design, Committee on Tank Vessel
Design," Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and Technical Sys-
tems, National Research Council, Pre-Publication Copy, Feb. 12, 1991.
4 SNAME News Release (Professional Statement), Maritime Safety
and Marine Environmental Protection, March 15, 1991.
5 U.S. Department of Transportation (USCG) Navigation and Vessel
Inspection Circular No. 2-90 (NVIC 2-90) dated Sept. 21, 1990.
6 Interim Final Rule (IFR) for Double Hull Standards for Vessels Car-
rying Oil in Bulk, published Aug. 12, 1992, with an effective date of Sept.
11, 1992.
7 Czimmek and Jourdan, "Optimization of Segregated Ballast Distri-
bution and Its Impact on Tanker Economics," MARINETECHNOLOGY,Vol.
18, No. 2, April 1981.
8 NVIC 4-92, Recommended Intact and Damaged Stability Design Cri-
teria for New Tank Vessels, U.S. Coast Guard, 1992.
Metric Conversion Factors
1 ft = 0.3048 m
1 in. = 2.54 cm
1 gal = 3.785 litres
1 bbl = 0.159 m ~
MARINE TECHNOLOGY