International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 6
Number 4
December 2012
1 INTRODUCTION
The most commonly an oil accident is considered as
a result of an oil tanker cargo spill. However this
sort of disaster is rising the most the public
awareness, hopefully cargo spills are not the most
common ones (ITOPF, 2011). The most frequent oil
spill accidents are those related to accidental
discharges from bunker tanks of all vessels, not only
tankers.
Contrary to tankers transporting heavy oil as
cargo, ships’ bunker tanks are not required to have a
double hull structure as protection. The statistics on
the oil spills provided by The International Tanker
Owners Pollution Found reveal that the significant
amount of oil spills of a size in a range 7-700 tones
come from accidents like collisions and groundings
(Fig. 1) (ITOPF, 2011).
In the past 40 years there were 1249 minor spill
accidents, whereas 444 cases account for the major
oil spills of a size above 700 tons, and only tankers
are considered. Taking into account all types of
ships this number can be expected significantly
higher. These data shows that the minor size oil
spills should not be neglected in any risk analysis
related to maritime traffic, as they are the most
frequent oil spills to occur.
At present there are two recognized and adopted
methods for the bunker spill size estimation. Both of
them seem to be quite general in nature and rough in
results.
Figure 1. The distribution of causes of minor oil spills (7-700
tons) (ITOPF, 2011)
One approach is based on historical data. This
approach is relatively easy, fast and straightforward,
thus it has gained popularity among researches and
was adopted in some general studies (HELCOM
Modeling of Accidental Bunker Oil Spills as a
Result of Ship’s Bunker Tanks Rupture a Case
Study
P. Krata & J. Jachowski
Gdynia Maritime University, Poland
J. Montewka
Aalto University School of Engineering, Espoo, Finland
Maritime University of Szczecin, Poland
ABSTRACT: AIS (Automatic Identification System) data analysis is used to define ship domain for
grounding scenarios. The domain has been divided into two areas as inner and outer domains. Inner domain
has clear border, which is based on ship dynamic characteristics. Violation of inner domain makes the
grounding accident unavoidable. Outer domain area is defined with AIS data analyzing. Outer domain shows
the situation of own ship in compare with other similar ships that previously were in the same situation. The
domain can be used as a decision support tool in VTS (Vessel Traffic Service) centers to detect grounding
candidate vessels. In the case study presented in this paper, one type of ship, which is tanker, in a waterway to
Sköldvik in the Gulf of Finland is taken into account.
495
1990, Safetec 1999, Gucma&Przywarty 2007,
Nyman 2009). The limitations of this approach and
its weak areas were pointed out by
Michel&Winslow (1999) and Eide et al (2007),
where the main concern about historical data was
that they are not necessarily representative to today’s
accident scenarios, mostly due to changes in ship
construction or layout of the tanks.
Another method, included in the IMO guidelines
for approval of alternative tanker designs (IMO
1995, IMO 2003), contains a probabilistic-based
procedure for estimating oil outflow performance.
Probability density functions describing the location,
extent and penetration of side and bottom damage
are applied to a vessel's compartmentation,
generating the probability of occurrence and
collection of damaged compartments associated with
each possible damage incident. All oil is assumed to
outflow from tanks penetrated in collisions, whereas
outflow from bottom damage is based on pressure
balance calculations. This method sounds, however,
more reliable than the previous it still lacks the time
component. The method does not provide this vital
information on the rate of the spill nor the time
needed for tank to be released. From the
preparedness and response point of view this
parameter is essential, as the bunker spills occur in a
close vicinity of a shore and the response time is
usually very limited.
Recently a methodology has been introduced
based on the analytical calculations and time domain
simulations in order to calculate the volume of oil
outflow and outflow rate versus time (Tavakoli et al.
2008, Tavakoli et al. 2010). The method addresses
accidental cargo spills from tankers.
In this paper a method for bunker spill estimation
in spatial-temporal domain is presented. The
methodology takes into account the fluid dynamics,
the size of a tank rupture is estimated with the use of
the IMO methodology. However the damaged tank
is assumed not to be a subject to longitudinal and
transverse motions.
2 BUNKER OIL SPILL MODELING BY 3-D
CFD METHODS
The technique for oil spill modeling applied in the
paper makes use of Computational Fluid Dynamics.
Authors propose the methodology aiming at
estimation a quantity of the bunker spill, a rate of
such a spill and time for the bunker to release. The
method can contribute some information to the
probabilistic approach utilized in previously
mentioned IMO methodology. CFD based solution
seems to be useful for better understanding the oil
outflow process and its duration.
The proposed methodology has a wide range of
applications and is free of the constraints typical for
IMO statistical approach. In the paper a model for
bunker spill estimation is put forward and finally a
case study is presented, which is assumed as an
exemplary grounding accident.
The 3-dimentional simulations of oil trickling and
disseminating in water phenomenon were performed
by the use of the commercial code “Fluent”. The
software is an universal and flexible tool designed
for modeling of liquids dynamics. Most commercial
CFD codes use the finite-volume or finite-element
methods which are well suited for modeling flow
past complex geometries (Bhaskaran&Collins). The
Fluent code uses the finite-volume method (FVM),
and uses the volume of fluid (VOF) method for free
surface problems (Dongming&Pengzhi 2008, Fluent
2006).
The numerical simulations of the oil dispersing in
water phenomenon were performed for a number of
damage extend configuration (Fig.4) and tank
geometry corresponding to the relevant parameters
of the selected bulk carrier. The cross section of a
vessel and the location of a damaged double bottom
tank is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. The cross section of a ship and her double bottom
tank to be ruptured
In the course of the study a typical double bottom
bunker tank of an exemplary bulk carrier is
considered. The characteristic dimensions of the
damaged tank are as follows:
length – 40.0 m;
breadth – 9.6 m;
double bottom height – 1.9 m.
The shape of the double bottom bunker tank is
presented in Figure 3.
496
Figure 3. The damaged tank shape and dimensions
A leakage of bunker oil might take place due to a
variety of reasons among which collision or
grounding are the most common (Fig.1). There are
available statistical analyses of damage locations in
all three dimensions within ships hulls and damage
extends. Usually collision and grounding are
researched separately and nowadays some widely
accepted distributions of hull damage size are in use.
Nevertheless the diversity of damage location is
noticed, for the purpose of the case study one
exemplary double bottom tank is considered and one
elevation of the damage above the ship keel. The
vertical extend of tank damage and its location is
shown in Fig. 4.
Figure 4. The location and span of the damage in double
bottom tank (an exemplary case study)
The numerical simulations of oil spill were
carried out for a number of tank damage lengths, i.e.
10%, 40%, 70%, 85% and 100% of compartment
length (Fig. 5). This was to estimate how far
nonlinear effects influence the final results,
especially in terms of a rate of the outflow. The
variable damage length was modeled by the use of
removable panels concept which was convenient
from the computational mesh creation point of view.
When the considered geometry of the damaged
tank was established a set of assumptions required
for the numerical simulations needed to be set up.
The assumptions are related to the computational
mesh creation, Courant number range, time step,
fluid viscosity modeling, etc. Then the boundary
conditions were defined.
Figure 5. Removable panels used for modeling of different
length shell damage
A variable computation time step was applied in
the solution of the conservation equations for mass,
momentum, and volume fraction of the both liquids
water and oil. All numerical simulations were based
on a 3D quadrilateral mesh created in GAMBIT. The
setup of computational mesh is shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 6. The computational mesh applied in 3D simulations
performed by use of Fluent code
497