Ballast Water Exchange Procedures and their Problems

by

Akira AKIYAMA*

Fumio UETSUHARA*

Yuka SAGISHIMA* Member

Summary
The ballast water management is focused on to minimize the introduction of unwanted organisms from the
discharge of ballast water in their local jurisdictions in these days. The ballast exchange at the deep ocean
is the most practical approach to minimizing the introduction of aquatic species from ballast. This study
provides key findings of the case study applying the ballast exchange for 14 ABS class vessels, and due to
the results, we discuss the problems what we should care, and focus on in view of the safety concerns.

Introduction

Many non-indigenous species have been introduced into the marine environment through ships ballast
water. The environmental and economic impact of these unwanted aquatic organisms is substantial and
growing. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted voluntary standard calling for ships to
implement procedure to minimize the introduction of unwanted aquatic organisms from ballast water in
1993, and in 1997 adopted the IMO guideline for management of ships ballast water. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea also requires signatory nations to take all measures necessary to prevent,
reduce and control the international or accidental introduction of species, alien or new, to any part of the
marine environment, which may cause significant or harmful changes thereto. Lack of mandatory
international regulations has led to a series of national and regional regulations beginning in 1989. The
tentative schedule for developing the necessary regulation is directed towards convening of a diplomatic
conference during the 4th quarter of 2002.
Three general approaches are available for minimizing the introduction of new species. These are: 1)
eliminating the discharge of ballast in port and coastal waters; 2) treating the ballast to eradicate harmful
organisms prior to discharge; and 3) managing ballast operations such that only open-ocean ballast is
discharged in port. At this time, ballast management and deep ocean ballast exchange is the most practical
approach to minimizing the introduction of aquatic species from ballast. ABS has conducted a study on
ballast water exchange procedures using fourteen vessels covering a number of single and double hull
tankers, bulk carriers and container carriers as indicated in Table 1. Based on the results of case studies, we
discusses the key findings and problems arising from the ballast water exchange procedures.
* ABS Pacific Yokohama
Table 1 Principal Particulars
Vessel Type
Single Hull Tanker

Double Hull Tanker

Bulk Carrier

Containership

General Description
35,000 DWT
Suezmax
VLCC
40,900 DWT
Suezmax (A)
Suezmax (B)
Suezmax (C)
VLCC
Handysize
Panamax
Capesize
Feeder (1200 TEU)

LBP (m)
168.0
261.0
313.0
174.3
258.0
289.8
274.0
317.0
160.3
215.0
270.0
190.2

Breadth (m)
30.4
50.0
56.6
32.2
46.0
46.2
50.0
58.0
27.2
32.2
45.0
23.8

Depth (m)
16.2
25.1
28.6
19.2
23.9
25.3
24.5
31.4
13.6
18.7
23.8
14.3

Vessel Type

General Description
Panamax (2500 TEU)
Post-Panamax (4800 TEU)

LBP (m)
205.2
260.8

Breadth (m)
32.2
39.4

Depth (m)
20.3
23.6

Exchange of Ballast at Sea

Ballast water exchange is currently considered the single most practical method for ballast water
management. Ballast water exchange can be accomplished by either the sequential empty-refill method or
by flow through method. These methods are about 95% effective in eliminating aquatic organisms. Ballast
water exchange operations should be performed in deep water away from coastal shelves and estuarine
influences.

2.1 Sequential Method

The sequential method entails completely emptying ballast tanks and refilling with open-ocean water.
Emptying of certain tanks may lead to significantly reduced stability, higher stresses, high sloshing
pressures, and/or reduced forward drafts. A secondary effect of reduced forward draft would be an increased
probability of bow slamming.

Three single hull tankers, five double hull tankers and three typical bulk carriers were evaluated using
sequential exchange methods. The primary considerations in assessing sequential exchange scenarios
focused on vessel stability, hull girder strength, propeller immersion, bridge visibility, and list angle as
defined below.
Draft aft 100% propeller immersion is assumed as the minimum requirement for the aft draft.
Draft forward The forward draft measured in meters is maintained within the MARPOL requirements (fwd
draft 2.0 + 0.0125L) in accordance with MARPOL Annex I Reg.13 for tankers. The MARPOL draft was
applied for both tankers and bulk carriers. Minimum draft was not a critical constraint for the container
carriers.
Trim As far as possible, trim by the bow is avoided. Trim by stern is limited to the MARPOL requirements
(0.015L) in accordance with MARPOL Annex I Reg.13 for tankers. This MARPOL requirement was
applied for both tankers and bulk carriers. The trim limit was considered a soft constraint, as operational
effectiveness will not be seriously impaired by additional trim. Trim may also be limited by the draft and
visibility requirements.
Intact stability Intact stability is assumed in compliance with the criteria of IMO Res. A.167.
List List affects stability, primarily by reducing range of stability and downflooding angle. There are no
statutory or rule requirements which limit small angles of list. In this study, 1 degree is assumed as a
reasonable limit.
Visibility Visibility at arrival and departure are maintained within SOLAS requirements. This limits the
dead zone forward of the bow to 500 meters or two ship lengths, whichever is less.
Longitudinal strength The permissible still-water bending moments and shear forces at sea in accordance
with ABS Rules are assumed as target values.
2.1.1 Single Hull Tankers

These vessels incorporate a standard MARPOL 73/78 segregated ballast tank arrangement, with ballast
located in alternate wing tanks. Table 2 shows the peak values from the sequence for the single hull tankers.
Table 2 Peak Values During Sequential Exchange for Single Hull Tankers
Ship
Condition

#1 SH Panamax
Normal

Draft AP - Prop Imm. (%)

Draft FP (m)
Trim Perps-Max (m)
Static Heel (deg)
Bending Mom (%Allow)
Shear (%Allow)
GMt (m)
Bridge Visibility Deadzone %(%IMO) [max]
Time to perform exchange sequence (hours)
Number of tanks in exchange sequence
Number of steps in exchange sequence
Number of ballast movements for sequence
Max. time to ballast to original drafts (hours)

130
2.25
5.3A
0.5S
99
37
5.3
114
15
5
9
16
2.8

#2 SH Suezmax
Normal
Heavy
91
2.46
5.1A
0.1P
99
67
16.2
162
29.3
5
8
12
8.5

100
4.18
5.0A
0.1S
99
61
14.1
137
39.5
6
9
16
9.5

#3 SH VLCC
Normal
100
2.81
7.4A
0.1S
76
80
17.2
263
41.3
6
5
12
8.9

General trends observed when developing exchange for single hull tankers are listed below:

Propeller immersion can be difficult to maintain.

Due to the few, large ballast tanks, the forward draft tends to become very light and is often reduced
by more than 50% during the sequence.

Trim can be quite high. And due to the large trim by stern, bridge visibility is often not sufficient
during these sequences.

For many ships, the fore and aft wing ballast tanks do not have identical capacities. To prevent
excessive heeling when diagonally opposite side tanks are emptied in pairs, the larger wing tanks
must be initially pumped down to the volume same as the other tank.

Bending moments approach 100% allowable during the sequence.

It is difficult to satisfy all of the criteria using the sequential method for single hull tankers and most
of these sequences are suitable for favorable weather conditions only.

2.1.2 Double Hull Tankers

These designs incorporate typical tank arrangements for modern double hull tankers, with two-across cargo
tanks for the Panamax and Suezmax sizes, and three-across cargo tanks for the VLCC. Most of the ballast
tanks are the L tank, although designs one Suezmax and the VLCC each have one U tank. Table 3
shows the peak values from the sequence for the double hull tankers.
Table 3 Peak Values During Sequential Exchange for Double Hull Tankers
Ship
Condition
Draft AP - Prop Imm. (%)

#4 DH
#5DH
#6DH Suez-B
#7DH Suez-C
#8 DH
Panamax
Suez-A
VLCC
Lgt Nrm Lgt/ Nrm Hvy Lgt Lgt/ Nrm Lgt Lgt/ Nrm Lgt Lgt/
Hvy
Nor
Hvy
Hvy
100 100 100 101

96

132

142

177

100 100 113 101

100

Draft FP (m)
Trim Perps-Max (m)

4.19 4.21 4.16 4.46 6 5.27 5.88

3.7A 3.8A 3.8A 4.8A 2.7A 4.3A 3.9A

7.29 6.06 6.06 6.52 4.81 4.81

3.0A 1.7A 2.9A 3.0A 5.9A 6.8A

Static Heel (deg)

Bending Mom (%Allow)

0.4P 0.5P 0.4P 1.4P 1.1P 0.2P 0.6S

56
56 56 100 99 73
76

0.4S
79

0
41

0
62

0 0.6S 0.1P
62 85
92

73

60

54

51

Shear (%Allow)

32

GMt (m)
Bridge Visibility Deadzone %(%IMO) [max]

7.1 7.1 6.6 15.7

158 161 161 102

32

32

85

81

86

82

15
82

15
105

14.1
103

11.7 15.7 13.3 13.3 19.2 27.4

103 107 107 109 150 122

49

67

Time to perform exchange sequence (hours) 18.3 18.3

Number of tanks in exchange sequence
11
10

19
12

9.3
12

9.3
10

9.3
10

14.7
12

9.3
12

14.5 20.3 26.1 28.7 29.8

11
14
14
9
13

Number of steps in exchange sequence

Number of ballast movements for sequence

14
26

12
23

14
26

12
24

7
14

7
14

9
26

12
24

6
14

8
21

10
28

10
18

13
23

Max. time to ballast to original drafts (hours)

1.5

5.1

1.6

3.6

0.8

0.8

N/A

3.6

N/A

N/A

3.6

N/A

N/A

Listed below are key findings arising from the ballast water exchange analysis of double hull tankers:

The degree to which a vessel is suited to sequential ballast exchange is highly dependent on the
vessel design. Two of the vessels that were studied had very efficient sequences, while the other
three vessels had required more complex sequences. Some of the design features impacting
sequences are as follows:
1. Ships with large aggregate ballast volumes and a relatively larger number of ballast tanks
provide greater flexibility for sequential exchange. (Efficiency does not necessarily imply
the least amount of time. Other factors, such as maintaining the vessel within list, trim,
strength, and stability limits may determine whether or not a sequence is desirable.)
2. In certain vessel designs, use of the forepeak and aftpeak tanks may lead to large bending
moments making them unusable in the planning of ballast sequences.
3. U tanks present problems, particularly in the 5 tank long ballast tank arrangement typical
of double hull VLCCs. The U tank precludes the option of diagonally exchanging
ballast to control bending moment and trim.
4. In designs where there is significant variations in tank ballast capacities fore and aft, the
static heel becomes excessive when performing diagonal exchange of ballast.
5. Smaller ballast tanks located at the ends of the cargo block can assist in the development of
efficient ballast exchange sequences.

Bridge visibility is often not sufficient during these sequences, due to the large trim by stern.

Bending moments typically approach allowable values when large midships tanks are emptied.

Relatively speaking, in smaller vessels, small differences in the consumables could have a
significant effect on the loading conditions and exchange sequence suitability.

2.1.3

Bulk Carriers

These ships are arranged with topside tank and hopper tank, and each design has one cargo hold intended to
carry ballast in heavy weather condition. Sequences for normal and heavy weather conditions were
evaluated for each bulk carrier. Table 4 shows the peak values from the sequence for the bulk carriers.

Table 4 Peak Values During Sequential Exchange for Bulk Carriers

Ship
#9 BC Handysize #10 BC Panamax
Condition
Normal Heavy Normal Heavy
Draft AP - Prop Imm. (%)
100
101
97
101
Draft FP (m)
3.02
4.17
2.77
4.34
Trim Perps-Max (m)
1.8A
1.8A
4.9A
3.6A
Static Heel (deg)
0.1S
0.2S
0.1S
0.7S
Bending Mom (%Allow)
97
83
100
92
Shear (%Allow)
67
115
79
101
GMt (m)
6.2
2.2
6.3
3.9
Bridge Visibility Deadzone %(%IMO) [max]
106
82
88
72
Time to perform exchange sequence (hours)
27.1
39.6
16.8
28.9
Number of tanks in exchange sequence
22
23
29
31
Number of steps in exchange sequence
19
13
12
17
Number of ballast movements for sequence
28
46
58
65
Max. time to ballast to original drafts (hours)
2.4
8.5
6.4
10.8

#11 BC Capesize
Normal Heavy
101
102
3.85
3.85
5.7A
5.3A
0.9S
0
96
96
73
108
12.1
8.9
151
143
35.8
44.2
12
13
16
19
28
31
3.6
7.7

Listed below are key findings arising from the ballast water exchange analysis of bulk carriers:

Sequences are relatively complex as forward draft, aft draft, and bending moments frequently
approach the target values. For the vessels investigated the sequences require many steps between
12 and 19 independent steps, and up to 65 ballast movements. Therefore, safe application of these
sequences will require careful monitoring by the ships crew.

Bending moments approach the 100% allowable value for each of the bulk carrier exchange
sequences. These ships were not designed to have ballast tanks emptied during the course of the
voyage and, therefore, careful planning is necessary to ensure that bending moments are maintained
within acceptable levels.

It is difficult to concurrently maintain adequate propeller immersion and forward draft.

Shear force values for all three heavy weather condition sequences are close to allowable limit. And
for all designs, it is difficult to exchange ballast in the cargo hold while maintaining compliance
with forward draft, shear force and bending moment criteria.

Capesize vessels generally have large double bottom ballast tanks extending two holds in length. It
may not be possible to exchange the some ballast tanks when the cargo hold is filled with ballast
water, as excessive shear forces are encountered. In situations where the hold is emptied, the drafts
are greatly reduced to near those in the light ballast condition.

The cargo holds intended to carry ballast, are generally designed for full or empty ballast loading.
This may preclude exchanging ballast in the holds during severe weather conditions.

In general, the bulk carrier is fitted with overboard valves in the topside ballast tanks. This allows
quick gravity discharge of the ballast, significantly reducing the sequence time and providing more
flexibility in how the pumps are used.

2.2 Flow Through Method

The flow through method involves pumping open-ocean water into a full ballast tank. Ballast equal to
approximately three times the tank capacity must be pumped through the tank to achieve 95% effectiveness
in eliminating aquatic organisms. Applying the flow through method does not alter the stability, stress and

ship attitude, and thus the flow through exchange may be more attractive than the sequential exchange.
Using the flow through method eliminates concerns related to shallow forward and aft drafts and extreme
trims for the single hull tankers and some cases of double hull tankers, eliminates concerns of exceeding
shear force and bending moment limits for bulk carriers heavy ballast condition and also eliminates the light
draft problem for the Capesize heavy ballast condition. While it may take longer to carry out, there is less
total "attention time" than with the sequential method from the ships personnel. However, it is important to
assess piping and overflow arrangements to ensure that the tank will not be over-pressurized. This raises a
number of concerns: the removal and replacement of covers to assure sufficient venting is labor intensive,
potential safety risks to personnel accessing the upper deck will limit flow through exchange to favorable
weather conditions only, and the overflow of ballast on deck is prone to icing in cold environments. For
these reasons, there is a case using standpipes and valves to overboard discharge of ballast through the shell
just above the deep ballast waterline.

2.3 Containerships
Containerships rarely operate in ballast only conditions. A typical voyage may consist of ten or more port
calls, with containers generally loaded and off-loaded at each port. Ballast is allocated during the course of
the voyage to accommodate changes in the distribution of cargo and consumables, and in response to
operational requirements such as draft limitations. For containerships the procedure is more of a
"management plan" than a ballast exchange process.

This study investigated the entire voyages for three containerships. The ships selected for this analysis
include a 1200 TEU feedership operating between Northern Europe and the Mediterranean Sea; a 2500 TEU
Panamax containership operating between the U.S. West Coast, Hawaii, and Japan; and a 4800 TEU PostPanamax containership operating in the U.S.-Far East trade. Listed below are key findings arising from the
ballast water management analysis of containerships:

The 1200 TEU feedership does not have heeling tanks or other means for internally transferring
ballast from one side to another. Since ballast adjustments are required to control list during cargo
operations, there is no alternative but to discharge ballast in port. A substantial portion of the
voyage for 1200 TEU vessel studied involved inter-port transits through shallow waters, and it was
not possible to exchange ballast water in the deep ocean, resulting in unavoidable in-port discharge
of coastal waters.

With the exception of the above mentioned problem of controlling heel on the feedership, it was
found that for the three voyages and ships analyzed, effective ballast water management procedures
can be implemented with little impact on vessel operations and with no loss of container payload.

Through planning, the amount of ballast exchange can be minimized, as many tanks can be
maintained either full or empty during the course of the voyage. In preparation of a port call, tanks
can often be initially ballasted in the deep ocean, which further reduces the need for exchange.

2.4 Additional Considerations in Assessing Sequential Exchange

In addition to primary considerations described 2.1, the effects of ballast water exchange on slamming,
sloshing, and damage stability/survivability were considered.

2.4.1 Slamming
It was common to have a decrease in forward draft during ballast exchange sequence operations. This was
particularly evident in the case of tankers and bulk carriers. In order to consider the implications of the
reductions in forward draft, a seakeeping analysis was performed. The acceptance criteria for slamming
used in the study was a 3% (3 in 100 pitch oscillations) slam probability for tankers and bulk carriers, and a
5% for slam probability for containerships. Table 5 shows the maximum significant wave heights for the
acceptable slam probability. The acceptable slam probabilities are achieved for all vessels at sea states of
significant wave heights below 8 meters (approximately Beaufort Force 7, Moderate Gale).

Table 5 Maximum Significant Wave Heights for the Acceptable Slam Probability
Ship

Size

Load Case

Max Slam Probability

Max H1/3 for Exchange

#1 SH Panamax

40kDWT

Normal / IMO / IMO-1

3%

#2 SH Suezmax

150kDWT

Normal / IMO / IMO-1

3%

12

#3 SH VLCC

VLCC

Normal / IMO / IMO-1

3%

12

#4 DH Panamax

40kDWT

Normal

3%

IMO / IMO-1

3%

#5 DH Suezmax-A

150kDWT

Normal / IMO / IMO-1

3%

12

#6 DH Suezmax-B

150kDWT

Normal / IMO / IMO-1

3%

12

#7 DH Suezmax-C

150kDWT

Normal / IMO / IMO-1

3%

12

#8 DH VLCC

VLCC

Normal / IMO / IMO-1

3%

12

#9 BC Handysize

HandySize Heavy

3%

11

Normal

3%

Normal-1

3%

10

Heavy / Normal

3%

12

Normal-1

3%

11

#10 BC Panamax

Panamax

#11 BC Capesize

Capesize

Heavy / Normal / Normal-1

3%

12

#12 CC Feeder

Feeder

Full Load

5%

12

Full-2 / Full-4

5%

10

Full Load

5%

12

Full-2

5%

11

Full-4

5%

10

Full Load

5%

12

Full-2

5%

11

Full-4

5%

12

#13 CC Panamax

#14 CC Post-Pmax

PanaMax

PostPan

2.4.2 Sloshing
The sloshing analysis was performed on larger tanks of the three single hull tankers and cargo holds of two
bulk carriers. ABS rules for tankers were used in the evaluation of bulk carriers as well as tankers.

Sloshing in tankers is generally limited to pitch resonance, and can usually be rectified with only modest
mitigation design measures. Sloshing in partially filled holds on bulk carriers may be due to pitch and/or roll
motion resonance, and is a major concern that is not easy dealt with. In the case of single hull tankers it is
possible to reduce sloshing motion amplitudes and to bring the loads on the structure within acceptable
limits. For the Suezmax tanker considered in this study, by limiting the vessel's pitch amplitude to that
encountered in seastates of Beaufort Force 7 or less, sloshing loads would be brought down to acceptable
limits. For new double hull tanker designs, ABS Rules require that sloshing strength has been assessed,
therefore no problem may be expected on those tanker designs. For ballasting of bulk carrier cargo holds,
similar operational limits would not be practical. Further sloshing study for bulk carrier should be needed.
2.4.3 Damage Stability and Survivability
Survivability was assessed based on a probabilistic damage stability analysis for a limited number of vessels.
The conclusion of our assessment was that because the conditions involved were ballast conditions, the
survivability was quite high, both for the normal ballast and for the worst case exchange condition.

2.4.4 Probability of Completion of Ballast Water Exchange

Assuming no interruptions, the duration of exchange sequences evaluated in this study ranged from day to
2 days. In general, a ballast sequence can be interrupted and continued with some additional time
requirements to return from the ballast condition required to operate in the higher sea conditions. However,
this is not the desired behavior. Ideally, once the ballast exchange sequence has begun it should proceed
until completion. From published data it is concluded that even with a series of conservative assumptions,
the probability of completing a 44 hour exchange sequence in any gives 44 hour period is over 95%.

Conclusion

Two general conclusions emanating from this study are;

1. The complexity of exchange sequences on certain vessels present safety concerns, as human error and
equipment failure could potentially endanger the vessel. Personnel training will be an essential part of a
ballast water management program. System reliability must also be addressed, particularly on older
ships.
2. Ballast exchange should be given due consideration during the design process. The ballast system
layout, ballast capacity, tank configuration, and hull girder strength are a few of the design decisions
which influence the ability to sequentially exchange ballast. When sequential exchange is impractical,
the overflow system should be arranged so that flow through can be carried out without risk of overpressurizing tanks.
In order to cope with the problems identified above, ABS continues to study the ballast water exchange
procedures and will include in our Rules provisions for ballast water and sediment management procedures
in due course.

Reference
[1]

American Bureau of Shipping : Advisory Notes on Ballast Water Exchange Procedures (1999)