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

net/publication/277297352

Simulation and Optimisation of Cargo Handling Operations of AFRAMAX

Tankers

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment · June 2015
DOI: 10.1177/1475090215589643

CITATIONS READS

0 1,342

4 authors, including:

Timoleon Plessas Dionysia Chroni

National Technical University of Athens National Technical University of Athens
14 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   18 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Apostolos Papanikolaou
Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt GmbH
385 PUBLICATIONS   2,241 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Advanced Marine Vehicles (AMV) View project

ROROPROB View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Apostolos Papanikolaou on 22 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part M:

J Engineering for the Maritime Environment
1–10
Simulation and optimisation of cargo Ó IMechE 2015
Reprints and permissions:
handling operations of AFRAMAX sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1475090215589643

tankers pim.sagepub.com

Timoleon Plessas1, Dionysia Chroni1, Apostolos Papanikolaou1

and Nikolaos Adamopoulos2

Abstract
This article focuses on the optimisation of cargo handling operations of tankers. A combined hydraulic-energy model has
been developed and adapted to the design characteristics of AFRAMAX tankers, allowing the simulation of a tanker’s
cargo discharging procedures, while monitoring all related ship parameters, like characteristics of pumps/manifolds, pip-
ing system, flow rates, pressures, ship responses, etc. A preference-based multi-criteria optimisation methodology has
been additionally applied to the modelled simulation procedure, which results in practical guidelines for the optimisation
of discharging procedure in terms of energy–fuel consumption and discharging time. These guidelines have proven very
valuable in the decision-making process during cargo handling operations.

Keywords
Tanker operation, discharging simulation, energy modelling, cargo handling optimisation, decision making, multi-criteria
optimisation, MATLAB

Date received: 9 January 2015; accepted: 27 March 2015

Introduction requirements: real-time simulation and easy adjustment

The efficient simulation/prediction of the behaviour
and energy consumption of any system or sub-system
of a ship is of significant importance, because a proper
operation/selection of the crucial parameters for indi-
vidual sub-systems can provide significant savings in
terms of energy/fuel consumption and time. In tanker
operations, one of the most energy consuming sub-
system is the cargo handling system and the accurate
prediction of its behaviour is crucial in view of a safe
and efficient operation. Therefore, there is a need for
the development of simulation tools, which may sup-
port the decision-making procedure of the operator dur-
ing cargo discharging procedures. This is the main focus
of this article, which was conducted in the frame of the
EU-funded project REFRESH,1 and a parallel bilateral
project of MARAN Tankers and NTUA-SDL.
Since tanker cargo discharging procedures are com-
plicated procedures, with many parameters and con-
straints (like pressure at the manifolds, flow rates, time
spent at port, etc.) which can vary not only between dif-
ferent terminals, but also during the procedure itself, the
development of a properly functioning on-board decision
support tool needs to comply with two basic software
to possible changes of externally posed constraints, for
example, to the characteristics of a new terminal. In this
context, we demonstrate in the following the capabilities
of a developed software tool for simulation/optimisation
of tanker discharging procedures and conclude on valu-
able guidelines for the efficiency of ship operation, which
are available for and may be exploited by ship operators.
Literature review
Public domain studies related to the modelling of tan-
ker’s cargo handling systems are limited. Gunner’s2
study (2001) outlines some guidelines regarding the
basic principles of pumping calculations and the
1
Ship Design Laboratory, National Technical University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
2
Operations Department, MARAN Tankers Management, Athens,
Greece
Corresponding author:
Apostolos Papanikolaou, Ship Design Laboratory, National Technical
University of Athens, 9, Heroon Polytechniou, Athens 15 773, Greece.
Email: papa@deslab.ntua.gr

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015

2 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment

required methods for the relevant calculations. The

fundamental properties of the pumping system of a
crude oil tanker and methods for on-board estimation
of the required pump speed for achieving certain mani-
fold pressure were elaborated in Adamopoulos’3 study.
Independently, liquid cargo handling simulators are
available to the shipping industry, but they are not ela-
borated in public domain. Indicatively, some modelling
aspects of the cargo handling system of a tanker we
found in two studies related to the development of the
TRANSAS simulator.4,5 Finally, the modelling of the
cargo handling system of an AFRAMAX tanker and
some preliminary simulation results were shown in a
study conducted by the authors of this article.6
Figure 1. Simplified shore system piping network.

Description of the examined system

The study ship presented herein is an existing 105,000
DWT AFRAMAX, with 6 3 2 cargo tanks (six ports
and six starboards) plus two slop tanks (one port and
one starboard). The examined hydraulic network con-
sists of two basic sub-systems, namely, the ship piping
network and the shore system piping network. Note that
the ballast network is also included in the developed
simulation model, but the results presented below focus
herein only on the cargo handling system.
Cargo piping network
The description of the ship piping network is being dis-
posed by the vessel operator/yard and it consists of the
cargo tanks, the piping and the fittings from the tanks
to the pumps and the manifolds, as shown in Figure 1.
The hydraulic network has been modelled following the
basics of hydraulics of piping.7 Flow rates are calcu-
lated by using the Linear Method (Appendix 1), which
is a fast and accurate method for defining the flow in
complex hydraulic networks.8 This methodology was
implemented to the cargo piping network of tankers.
The entire simulation software was developed in the
MATLAB environment.9 It should be noted that the
case study vessel is equipped with common steam-driven
cargo pumps;10 therefore, in order to estimate the asso-
ciated energy–fuel consumption, relationships between
steam generation and fuel consumption need to be mod-
elled; this was herein accomplished by modelling rele-
vant relationship graphs provided by the manufacturers
of the steam turbines and the boiler. In addition to that,
the cargo system is capable of handling cargoes of dif-
ferent properties (density and viscosity), which alter sig-
nificantly the behaviour of the discharging procedure.11
The developed model was adapted to this and validated
against actual discharging cases, based on available logs
from the examined vessel.
ship commonly operates between numerous, different
terminals, where the piping arrangement/diameters on
the shore differ from one to another. In addition, there
can also be changes during the discharging procedure.
Therefore, an equivalent simplified shore-based arrange-
ment is generated representing the main parameters
that affect the discharging procedure, namely:
 The elevation of the tank from the sea level;
 The distance of the shore tank from the vessel;
 The diameter of the piping network.
The first two parameters can be provided by the
shore authorities. The third parameter is often difficult
to find, since the exact piping arrangement differs
between the terminals, and even if the vessel is dischar-
ging at the same terminal, different shore tanks and
associated piping might be used.
In this respect, it can be assumed that the equivalent
shore piping network consists of a pipe that connects
the manifolds of the vessel with the shore tank, having
an elevation and length equal to the one provided by
the shore officer; it is noted that the actual length may
be replaced by an equivalent length that disposes the
same degree of losses/resistance of flow due to piping,
valves, fittings, etc. Based on the above assumptions,
the equivalent diameter is the only undefined/uncertain
parameter among the three required parameters that
define the simplified shore piping network. Taking into
consideration all the above, the three parameters (dia-
meter of the shore pipes, height of the tank and length
of the piping) are being examined parametrically, based
on typical dimension ranges, which represent existing
terminals. In this context, the selected ranges for the
parametric examination can be defined by taking into
consideration characteristic terminals of the worldwide
storage facilities of the oil industry.12

Shore piping network Defining the shore piping network

Regarding the shore piping network characteristics, the For proper modelling of the shore piping network, the
available information is usually limited. The case study characteristics of the largest terminals around the world

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015

Plessas et al. 3

Table 1. Examined shore system characteristics.

Shore system characteristics

Length Height Shore pipe diameter
Terminal Range (m) Case studies (m) Range (m) Case studies (m) Range (m) Case studies (m)

Houston Over 150 70/150/700/1000 5–20 5/15 0.1–0.6 0.3/0.4/0.5/0.6

Rotterdam
Fujairah
Singapore

Amsterdam up to 150 70/150 5–20 5/15 0.1–0.6 0.3/0.4/0.5/0.6

Hamburg
Sao Paolo
Shanghai
Shandong
Jiangyin
Dalian

Figure 2. Location of major oil storage terminals.

were adapted (Figure 2).13 The ranges of terminal para-
meters that were covered by the conducted simulations
are summarised in Table 1. In general, when shore-
based tanks are located at smaller distances from the
pier/berthing vessel (up to about 150 m), smaller equiv-
alent piping diameters are used (0.3–0.4 m). On the con-
trary, in ports with shore tanks very far away from the
pier (over about 150 m), larger equivalent diameters are
used (0.5–0.6 m).
On the basis of a systematic parametric simulation
study of the port parameters listed in Table 1, it is pos-
sible to develop useful guidelines for the optimal dis-
charging operation of a study vessel, while considering
the minimisation of fuel consumption and of the time
at port. The implemented optimisation methodology
and some indicative results are presented in this study.
divided into two main categories. The first one is refer-
ring to the shore system characteristics (Equivalent
Shore System Information) and the second one to the
vessel’s system characteristics (Discharging Plan
Information).
Equivalent shore system information:
 Distance of shore tanks from vessel;
 Height of shore tanks from the sea level;
 Equivalent diameter of the shore piping network.
Discharging plan information:
 Number of pumps in use;
 Rotation per minute (RPM) of the pumps;
 Loading condition;
 Cargo type.

Setting up the optimisation problem

Cargo handling system optimisation problem
Input parameters The cargo handling with a steam-driven pump system
Taking all the above into consideration, the main input of an AFRAMAX tanker is being optimised with
parameters that affect the discharging procedure can be respect to the overall energy consumption and the

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015

4 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment
efficiency of the discharging operation in terms of the
time spent at port. The development of the model is
based on the mathematical modelling of the physics of
the cargo fluid, as it flows through the individual
components of the hydraulic system (see Appendix 1
for the essential theoretical background). Two different
approaches were practically examined: Dynamic
Modelling14 and Quasi-steady Modelling. The results
presented in this article are produced by the quasi-
steady model, which is computationally less demand-
ing, but the differences, compared to the dynamic
model, are herein insignificant.
It should be noted that in practice, many times, the
discharging procedure is interrupted or altered due to
shore orders. In order to consider this variability into
the simulation software and optimisation procedure,
the simulation/optimisation should be performed if pos-
sible in real time, allowing the adjustment to possible
changes that might show up due to shore orders.
Various optimisation methods were herein consid-
ered and practically examined.15 We briefly present in
the following the mathematical formulation of the mod-
elled multi-objective constrained optimisation problem:
The calculated output parameters are as follows:
 Flow rate (m3/h)
 Hours left to complete discharging;
 Fuel consumption;
 Manifold pressure;
 Pump pressure;
 Pump efficiency.
Optimisation variables are the parameters that can
be controlled before or during a cargo discharging,
namely:
 Number/selection of pumps that will be used;
 RPM of each pump;
An additional parameter that can be controlled is
the sequence of the discharging procedure (e.g. which
tanks will be emptied and how much cargo will be dis-
charged from each tank during the procedure). The
results presented in this article refer only to homoge-
nous discharging procedures (all tank valves are fully
open).
From the output parameters, the following two are
selected as objective functions:
 min t = f1 (xi )
where t is the discharging time.
 min FOC = f2 (xi )
where FOC is the fuel oil consumption at the boilers
during the discharging procedure. It should be noted
that for the fuel consumption optimisation, the para-
meter (m3 fuel/m3 cargo) is used in order to conclude
Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015
which is the optimum solution that will use the least
possible fuel for the maximum amount of discharged
cargo.
xi are the optimisation variables, which affect the
total discharging time (t) and the FOC.
Constraints are as follows:
 670 r/min 4 pump RPM 4 1330 r/min;
 5 kg/cm2 4 pressure at the manifolds 4 8.8 kg/cm2
 Flow rate 4 7950 m3/h (50,000 bbls/h)
 Total discharging time 4 24 h
 Pumps must operate within their defined opera-
tional zone, given by the manufacturer.
Preference-based multi-criteria decision-
making methodology
The ultimate goal of the developed software is to offer
a fully automated discharging plan with guidelines
regarding the cargo handling operations as well as the
ballasting procedure for a specific tanker ship, calling
at a specific terminal. Of course, the software cannot
replace the experience of the operator; thus, the final
decisions are always taken by the officer-in-charge.
Therefore, the herein presented preference-based
approach enables the operator to consult the developed
tool, which offers an interactive interface to the user
that supports his decisions.
Based on the above-defined objective functions, a
preference-based multi-criteria decision-making metho-
dology is applied,16 which allows the operator to select
an optimum solution based on his preferences regard-
ing the objective functions. This is achieved by using
the ‘normed weighted sum method’, where the prefer-
ence of the decision maker (DM) is expressed in terms
of weights on each objective function.17 Those weights
will reflect the DM’s preference regarding each objec-
tive function.
More specifically, the weights are herein
wFuel savings , wTime in port where
wFuel savings + wTime in port = 1 ð1Þ
For example, if the DM believes that the fuel savings
are more important than the time spent in port, then
the weights could be
wFuel savings = 0:8, wTime in port = 0:2
For the production of a single unique solution for
multi-criterion optimisation problem, the multiple cri-
teria are substituted by a scalar preference function P,
by using a linear weighted sum function like the
following
X
K
P½fk ðxÞ = ½wk  fk ðxÞ ð2Þ
k=1
Plessas et al. 5

Table 2. Discharging simulation for different RPMs for two pumps (vessel 70% loaded).

RPM 930 1060 1200 1330

Flow rate (m3/h) 3545.7 4122.9 4736.1 5300.4
Efficiency (%) 86 86 85 86
Hours left to complete discharging 23.4 20.1 17.5 15.7
Fuel consumption (m3 fuel/m3 cargo) 3 104 2.7 3.1 3.7 4.4
Average manifold pressure (kg/cm2) 4.5 6.0 7.8 9.6
Average pump pressure (kg/cm2) 6.3 7.8 9.7 11.6

Table 3. Discharging simulation for different RPMs for three pumps (vessel 70% loaded).

RPM 930 1060 1200 1330

Flow rate (m3/h) 3806.0 4426.1 5085.6 5692.1
Efficiency (%) 77 78 78 78
Hours left to complete discharging 21.8 18.8 16.3 14.6
Fuel consumption (m3 fuel/m3 cargo) 3 104 3.6 4.1 4.8 5.7
Average manifold pressure (kg/cm2) 5.2 6.8 8.9 11.0
Average pump pressure (kg/cm2) 6.9 8.6 10.7 12.9

X
K initial stages of the discharging procedure, based on the
wk = 1 ð3Þ pressure readings at the manifolds.
k=1

Because the various criteria fk ðxÞ can have different

scales and units, it is important to normalise (non-
dimensionalise) them with a reference value that places
fk (x)=fk, ref in the range between 0 and 1. This provides
numerical solution advantages and makes the choice of
weights more intuitive. Therefore, each criterion is nor-
malised by fk0 , the value obtained by solving the optimi-
sation problem for that criterion alone. This approach
is called the ‘normed weighted sum optimum’, which
can be described in mathematical form as follows
 
X
k
fk (x)
P½fk (x) = ½wk
k=1
f0k
Case study
Problem definition
Assume that the modelled AFRAMAX tanker is 70%
loaded and is approaching the terminal in Houston.
Based on the available information regarding the dis-
tance and the height of the shore tank, the operator
can utilise the developed software in order to have an
estimation for the overall behaviour of the discharging
procedure within a few minutes. For instance, if the
vessel is carrying a certain cargo type (Olmeca – API:
39.1–829 kg/m3– 3.8 CST at 30 °C),18 the distance of
the shore tank from the vessel’s manifolds (which is
provided by the Shore Officer) is 1000 m and the height
of the shore tank 15 m above sea level, the behaviour of
the discharging procedure will probably be captured by
a larger equivalent diameter of the shore piping system,
for example, 0.5–0.6 m (for smaller distances, smaller
diameters will be generally used). Note that the equiva-
lent diameter can be calculated more accurately at the
On-board utilisation of the developed software
The developed software is capable of providing tables
showing the overall behaviour of the system for differ-
ent pump arrangements and RPMs (Tables 2 and 3). In
addition, the optimum RPM is provided for each exam-
ined objective function, where all the constraints
regarding the pressure, the flow rate, the time spent in
port and the pump’s operational zone are satisfied
(Tables 4 and 5). In our case (vessel 70% loaded, cargo
type: OLMECA, distance of shore tank: 1000 m, height
ð4Þ of shore tank: 15 m, equivalent shore pipe diameter:
0.5 m), the software provides a table quantifying the
discharging procedure as a result of an offline simula-
tion. The decision about the number of the pumps that
will be used and their RPM is eventually that of the
officer-in-charge. The developed tool will provide him
with all the necessary information supporting his deci-
sion. Therefore, the results of the decision support tool
include different possible scenarios (e.g. using two or
three pumps), allowing the operator to select the most
appropriate.
In the results, the instantaneous fuel consumption is
calculated in volume of fuel consumption per volume
of discharged cargo: (m3 fuel/m3 cargo) 3 104. In order
to have an estimation for the overall fuel consumption
(in tons), at the end of the procedure, based on the
instantaneous consumption, the provided value should
be multiplied by 7.56 (e.g. 81,330 (m3) 0.93 (tons/m3)
1024), where 70% of the cargo volume = 81,330 m3
and 0.93 tons/m3 is the boiler fuel density.
Figure 3 shows the results of conducted discharging
simulations for the performance of two versus three
employed pumps, running at different speeds, with
respect to fuel consumption and discharging time. Two

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015

6 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment

Table 4. Optimisation results for two pumps (vessel 70%

loaded).

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

wfuel 0 1 0.5
wtime 1 0 0.5
Optimum RPM 1270 980 1070
Fuel consumption 4.1 2.9 3.1
(m3 fuel/m3 cargo) 3 (104)
Time in port (h) 16.5 22.0 19.9
Average manifold 8.7 5.1 6.1
pressure (kg/cm2)

Table 5. Optimisation results for three pumps (vessel 70%

loaded).
Figure 4. Shear forces and bending moments diagram.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

wfuel 1 0 0.5 within acceptable limits set by regulations. This calls

wtime 0 1 0.5 for continuous longitudinal strength and stability cal-
Optimum RPM 1190 920 1070 culations, which significantly affect/constrain the out-
Fuel consumption 4.8 3.6 4.1 come of the optimisation procedure, while eliminating
(m3 fuel/m3 cargo) 3 104
Time in port (h) 16.5 22.08 18.6 possible risks of hull structure failure due to uneven
Average manifold 8.7 5.0 7.0 distributed loads during loading and discharging.
pressure (kg/cm2)

Stability and strength calculations

The above discharging model is directly linked to a sta-
bility and strength assessment module (Appendix 2),
which ensures that the ship complies with all relevant
class/IMO regulations and restrictions at any given
loading condition. In our case, the draught of the vessel
is 11.06 m and the trim 20.65 m. The diagram of the
shear forces and the bending moments (Figure 4),
which is provided as software output, gives the operator
a complete overview of every aspect of the discharging
procedure. The operator is provided with an overview
of the behaviour of the system that will facilitate the
decision-making procedure during discharging (selec-
tion of pumps, RPM, tanks that will be emptied, etc.).

Notes regarding the ballasting procedure

Figure 3. Tanker discharging optimisation – Pareto front.
clear Pareto fronts can be observed, which indicates
that the formulated optimisation problem is well posed.
Clearly, the two pumps operation is herein preferable.
Stability and strength calculation module
General
In order to ensure proper/safe discharging operation of
the ship, her draught and the trim, as well as the result-
ing shear forces and bending moments must be con-
tinuously calculated/monitored, to ensure that they are
The ballasting procedure is not demonstrated in this
article, though simulated in the developed software; the
stability and strength calculations are disposed to the
operator in order for him to make the appropriate deci-
sions regarding the ballasting procedure. A proper bal-
lasting plan is necessary to maintain the vessel within
acceptable limits in terms of draught/trim and bending
moments/shear forces. In the examined cases, homoge-
nous unloading scenarios are examined, where the
cargo is being discharged from all the cargo tanks
simultaneously (all cargo tanks valves fully open). A
common practice for the ballasting plan is to start the
ballasting procedure by gravity (e.g. no use of pumps),
taking advantage of the acting pressure head on the
empty ballast tanks, whose bottom is below the sea sur-
face. The head provided by the draught of the ship is

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015

Plessas et al.
sufficient to fill the ballast tanks at the beginning of the
discharging procedure. Then, the ballast pumps take
over and continue the ballasting procedure.
Concluding remarks
This study led to the following general observations
regarding the study tanker’s operation:
 As could be expected, operation of the discharging
pumps at lower RPM resulted in less steam/fuel con-
sumption. The potential fuel savings can be quantified
beforehand by the software. It should be noted, how-
ever, that it is difficult to vary the RPM due to shore
side limitations, which cannot be overlooked.
Assuming, however, that at the beginning of the pro-
cedure a lower pressure than the maximum allowable
can be agreed upon (without disregarding other con-
straints, such as the time spent in port), it is possible
to have significant savings, especially in terminals with
shore tanks in long distances from the quay, such as
Houston, Rotterdam, Fujairah and Singapore.
Indicatively, a reduction in the manifold pressure by
10% can provide up to 8% less fuel consumption.
 The use of less number of pumps for maintaining a
certain pressure at the manifolds should be pre-
ferred. Fuel savings vary depending on the shore
system characteristics from 5% to 15% by using
two pumps instead of three, while keeping a certain
pressure at the manifolds.
 Above findings are to a great extent confirmed by
the operator of the study tanker.
Acknowledgements
This study is the result of a bilateral project of NTUA-
SDL and MARAN Tankers Management. The
European Commission and the authors shall not in any
way be liable or responsible for the use of any knowl-
edge, information or data presented, or of the conse-
quences thereof.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
The study was financially partly supported by the EU-
funded project REFRESH, aiming at the analysis and
optimisation of ship energy systems. This study was
supported by the European Commission research proj-
ect REFRESH (285708), FP7-SST-2011-RTD-1.
References
1. REFRESH – EU funded, project, 2012–2015. FP7-SST-
2011-RTD-1(285708).
2. Gunner T. An explanation and guideline for pumping cal-
culations. Oslo: INTERTANKO, 2001.
Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015
7
3. Adamopoulos N. Pumping calculations and under-
performance evaluation in crude oil tankers. In: SNAME
conference on design, maintenance and shipbuilding,
Athens, 8–9 November 2012. Athens: SNAME.
4. Tarasov S, Kiptily D and Lebedev D. An object-oriented
approach to the development of liquid cargo handling
simulators in TRANSAS. In: 7th Vienna international
conference on mathematical modelling, Vienna, 14–17
February 2012. Vienna: MATHMOD.
5. Tarasov S, Kiptily D and Lebedev D. Component model-
ling of ship systems in TRANSAS liquid cargo handling
simulators. In: 7th IFAC conference on manufacturing
modelling, management, and control, St. Petersburg, Rus-
sia, 19–21 June 2013. St. Petersburg: IFAC MIM.
6. Plessas T, Boulougouris E, Papanikolaou M, et al. Simu-
lation of loading/discharging procedure of tankers. In:
IMAM conference on ship design, A Coruna, 14–17 Octo-
ber 2013. A Coruna: IMAM.
7. Crane Co.Flow of fluids through valves, fittings, and pipe.
New York: Crane Co, 1982.
8. Jeppson R. Steady flow analysis of pipe networks: an
instructional manual. Logan, UT: Utah Water Research
Laboratory, 1974.
9. MathWorks. Matlab, 2013, www.mathworks.com
10. Lobanoff VS and Ross RR. Centrifugal pumps: design &
application. 2nd ed. Houston, TX: Gulf Professional Pub-
lishing, 1992.
11. ANSI/HI 9.6.7:2010. Effects of liquid viscosity on rotody-
namic (Centrifugal and vertical) pump performance. Par-
sippany, NJ: Hydraulic Institute.
12. Al Masah Capital Management Limited. Oil & gas stor-
age services market. Report, Al Masah Capital Manage-
ment Limited, United Arab Emirates, 2013, http://
almasahcapital.com/uploads/report/pdf/report_90.pdf
13. Ports.com.Port general information, http://ports.com
(accessed May 2014).
14. Chroni D. Simulation of loading/discharging procedure of
tankers. Master Thesis, National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, 2014.
15. Rao S. Engineering optimization: theory and practice.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009.
16. Sen P and Yang JB. Multiple criteria decision support in
engineering design. London: Springer, 1998.
17. Parsons M and Scott R. Formulation of multicriterion
design optimization problems for solution with scalar
numerical optimization methods. J Ship Res 2004; 48(1):
61–76.
18. Energy Institute HMC-4 Oil Transportation Measure-
ment Committees. Crude oil data, http://www.oil-trans-
port.info (accessed May 2014).
Appendix 1
Theoretical background
The solution of the hydraulic network and the defini-
tion of the flow rate at every branch of the piping net-
work derive from the Bernoulli equation
r  U2in r  U2out
Pin + r  g  hin + = Pout + r  g  hout +
2 2
ð5Þ
8 Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment

Pressure losses due to friction in the pipe’s wall The system is subdivided into different branches that
Pressure losses due to friction in the pipe walls are cal- are connected through junction nodes. The flow rate of
each branch needs to be calculated. The procedure for
culated by using the Darcy–Weisbach formula
calculating the flow rates is as follows:
Li  r  U2
dPi = f  ð6Þ  Arbitrary directions of the flow are defined for
2d
every branch. Also, an arbitrary flow rate is
where Li is the length of the pipe, d is the diameter and assumed at every branch. Usually, the flow rate is
f is the friction loss coefficient which depends on taken Q = 1 m3/s for every branch.
Reynold’s number and the relative roughness (e/d) of  For every branch in the network, the value Ri is cal-
the pipe wall, where e is the roughness of the pipe. The culated for the assumed flow rate.
Reynolds number is calculated by the formula  For every junction node (e.g. connection of differ-
ent branches), a mass conservation equation is
Ud
Re = ð7Þ formed
v X X
where v is the kinematic viscosity of the liquid. Qin = Qout ð14Þ
The solution of the Colebrook equation gives the  For every closed loop of pipes in the network, an
friction coefficient f energy equation is formed which ensures that from
  a single point of the loop, the energy losses when
1 e=d 2:51
pffiffi =  2 log + pffiffi ð8Þ ‘travelling’ around the loop, back to this particular
f 3:7 Re  f
point, must be zero
If Re \ 2300 then f = 64/Re. X
In addition, in order to include pressure losses due to Ri  Q2i = 0 ð15Þ
other components (e.g. valves) the following equation  For each branch, a linearisation factor ai is calcu-
derives lated
r  U2 ai = R i  j Q i j ð16Þ
dPj = nj  ð9Þ
2
 So, the energy equations are rewritten as follows
where nj is the added resistance coefficient and it is dif- X 0
ferent for every component. Ri  jQi j  Qi = 0 ð17Þ
When dealing with complex hydraulic networks, the
definition of the flow rate at each branch can be calcu- 0

lated by using the linear method. where Qi is the new flow rates that will derive after sol-
ving the formed linear system.
 In the next iterations, Qi(n) = Qi(n 2 1) for the second
Linear method iteration and Qi(n)= (Qi(n 2 1) + Qi(n 2 2))/2 for the
rest iterations.
By rewriting the equation for pressure loss due to fric-
tion in the pipe walls and the equation for pressure
The method is modified in order to take into account
losses due to other components, the following equa-
tanks and pumps in the network.
tions derive.
 4Q 2
f  Li  r  U2 f  Li  r  pd 2 Inclusion of tanks
dPi = =
2d 2d In order for tanks to be included in the system, an
 
8  f  Li assumption is made that there is a pseudo-loop which
=  Q2 = Ri  Q2 ð10Þ
g  p 2  d5 consists of a route between two tanks, and a ‘no-flow’
 4Q 2 pipe between those two tanks. The energy equation in
nj  r  U 2 nj  r  pd 2 this case takes into account the difference in the pres-
dPj = =
2 2 sure between the two tanks
 
8  nj X
=  Q2 = Rj  Q2 ð11Þ Ri  Q2i = H1  H2 ð18Þ
g  p 2  d4

where
Inclusion of pumps
8  f  Li
Ri = ð12Þ Every pump’s characteristic curve must be expressed by
g  p 2  d5
a quadratic equation.
8  nj
Rj = ð13Þ
g  p 2  d4 hp = A  Q 2 + B  Q + H 0 ð19Þ

Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015

Plessas et al.
In order to insert the pump into the created linear
system of equations, the following transformation must
be made
B 
G=Q+
2A
So, the pump’s characteristic curve is rewritten as
follows
hp = A  G 2 + h0
where
B2
h0 = H 0 
4A
In summary, if pumps and tanks exist in a pipe net-
work, and there are N pipe branches, whose flow rate
must be calculated, the linear theory is applied as
follows:
 J linear junction continuity equations are formed.
 L non-linear energy equations are formed around
real loops in the piping network.
 K additional pseudo-loops are defined by ‘no-flow’
pipes between tanks and energy equations are writ-
ten around these pseudo-loops. The number of
these pseudo-loops must equal the difference
Figure 5. Software flow chart.
Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015
9
between the number of unknown flow rates, for
example, K = N 2 (J + L).
 M additional pump transformation equations are
formed, where M is the number of the pumps.
The non-linear equations are linearised with the use
ð20Þ
of the linearisation factor a. For the pumps, factor
a is calculated as follows
a = Ai  jGi j ð23Þ
ð21Þ
The linear system is solved iteratively until conver-
gence occurs.
ð22Þ Appendix 2
Chart of software modules
The software consists of three basic modules:
 The ‘simulation’ module, which refers to the calcu-
lation of the parameters that are related to the
cargo handling equipment of the tanker (pressure
and flow rate at pumps/manifolds, fuel consump-
tion, etc.)
 The ‘stability and strength’ module, which ensures
the compliance with the restrictions/regulations that
are related to the vessel’s stability (maximum/mini-
mum allowable draft) and strength (shear forces
10
and bending moments throughout the discharging
procedure).
 The ‘optimisation’ module, which is capable of
defining the pumps that will be used and their cor-
responding RPM, based on the restrictions that are
provided by the shore authorities (maximum/mini-
mum allowable pressure at the manifolds, maxi-
mum/minimum allowable flow rate, etc.). The
Downloaded from pim.sagepub.com by guest on June 22, 2015
View publication stats
Proc IMechE Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment
optimisation module offers a preference-based
approach to the problem and allows the operator
to make the final decisions based on the needs of
each discharging procedure.
The software modules and their interaction are out-
lined in Figure 5.