Pumping Calculations and Under-Performance Evaluation in Crude
Oil Tankers
N.Adamopoulos
Maran Tankers Management, Greece, mail@marantankers.gr
Abstract
Pumping calculations in crude oil tankers are important
for the appropriate assessment of the pumping system in
order to meet the receivers' requirements, minimizing at
the same time the energy consumption. Finding the
optimum RPM and flow rate requires a good knowledge
of the pump's characteristics and the piping system's
configuration as well as the ability to perform
calculations of the pressure drop between different
points of the system. Such calculations along the
discharge line in tankers are explained with emphasis
given at the pressure at the ship's manifold, where the
performance of the ship is monitored and evaluated. A
method is presented to calculate the flow rate at a
hypothetical pressure at the manifold if the flow rate at
another pressure at the manifold is known. This answers
a long standing question of finding a practical way to
calculate the time lost due to ship's inability to meet a
charter party requirement of maintaining a required
pressure at the manifold, a matter often encountered in
demurrage disputes.
Keywords: tankers; crude oil; pumps; demurrage.
Nomenclature
diameter of pipe line.
density of the liquid.
It is related to the API.
! height of liquid level in cargo tank
from reference point.
! height of the pump from reference
point.
! height of manifold from reference
point.
! height of liquid in the receiving tank
from reference point.
! pressure inside the cargo tank.
! pressure at discharge side of the
pump. It can also be written as ! .
! pressure at manifold. It can also be
written as ! .
! pressure inside the receiving tank.
! pressure at the suction side of the
pump.
discharge rate (volume per unit time).
rounds per minute of the pump.
1
1. Introduction
Pumping calculations in crude oil tankers have been the
subject of discussions in the tanker industry for long.
This applies to both crude oil tankers (Gunner, 2001) as
well as chemical and product tankers (Banaszek and
Petrovic, 2010). The officers on board the ships need to
have a good understanding of the pumps operation, the
piping of the ship and of the shore installation and at the
same time to be able to discharge the crude oil at an
agreed time or to meet specific restrictions like
maintaining a minimum discharge rate or a minimum
pressure at the ships manifold at the main deck level.
Although the piping of the ship is known in detail, the
piping of the shore installation is not known to the
ships officers, and this does not allow the performance
of pumping calculations of the entire piping system
from the cargo tanks to the receiving tanks.
Pumping calculations on the other hand appear in
demurrage disputes between owners and charterers
when the ship has not been able to meet the minimum
required pressure at the manifolds and an arbitrator
needs to quantify the time lost.
In this regard, pumps characteristics and operation are
presented below with emphasis given on the relation
between the discharge rate and the pressure at the
manifold, these two parameters being the two most
important ones recorded in the ships pumping log.
At first, the most important concepts of the flow of
crude oil along a pipeline will be presented together
with the fundamental formulae for performing the
calculations needed by the pump operator.
We will examine then the various head losses as the
fluid is flowing from the pump to the manifold at the
deck level and to the receiving tank.
A description of the system curve will follow which will
allow us to find the operating point of the pump for any
flow rate as well as to assess whether the discharge rate
asked by the receivers can be met by one pump or two
or three pumps running in parallel.
The analysis which follows will lead to a relation
between the flow rate and the pressure at the manifold.
This will form the core of the present study. The
methodology to be presented will correct the flaws of
the existing one and can form a valuable tool to evaluate
the under-performance of a pump when the required
pressure at the manifold has not been met.
SI units will be used except in cases where it is !! !!! !!! !!!!
! = + + ! ! + ! (3)
unavoidable to use other units since in practice the SI !" !!
units are seldom used in the tanker industry.
We can use the same methodology to express the total
2. Flow of crude oil in a pipeline head of the pump by using the energy conservation
between the suction point of the pump, where pressure
A sketch of a simplified pumping system is shown is ! , and the discharge point of the pump, where
!
!! !!! !! !!!!
below (Fig.1). Point 1 signifies the top of liquid level in pressure is ! . Then, ! will be ! = + , the
!" !!
the cargo tank, 2 is the pump located at the bottom of
total head of the pump. For a typical centrifugal pump
the pump room and 3 is the manifold at the deck level.
installed in a VLCC tanker, the pump curves, of which
The system ends at the receiving tank at point 4.
the total head in meters as a function of the capacity, or
flow rate, in m3/hr is one such curve, are provided by
the manufacturers. This is a very useful curve for the
pump operator and its use has been suggested also for
the prediction of maintenance (Beebe, 2004). An
example is shown below (Fig.2a). The curve of head vs
capacity is usually given for a family of different pump
revolutions or RPM. The curve for any intermediate
RPM can be drawn using the Affinity Law !
(Lobanoff and Ross, 1992).

Fig.1: Schematic diagram of a pumping system

2.1 Energy Per Weight Unit and Bernoulli Equation

Between any two points and along a flow line the

conservation of energy per weight unit takes the form of
the generalized Bernoulli equation (Pantzalis, 2008):

!! !!! !!! !!!!

+ + ! ! = ! + ! ! , (1)
!" !!

where !,! is the pressure, !,! is the speed of the fluid,

!,! is the elevation, ! are the energy losses due to Fig.2a: Characteristic curve of SHINKO pump, model
friction, ! is the energy exiting the system (energy KV500-2
given by the system to its environment) and ! is the
energy given to the system (i.e. by a pump). We can find the total head of the pump at any operating
! !! point. If we observe, for example, that the pump is
At each point the sum + + is the total head (the
!" !! delivering at 5000 m3/hr and is running at 1005 rpm or
sum of energy of pressure forces, of kinetic energy and 92% of the rated capacity, we can graphically see that
of dynamical energy per weight unit). the total head of the pump is 120 m.
In the case of ideal flow with ! equal to zero and The characteristic curves of a centrifugal pump depend
with ! = ! = 0, or ! + ! ! = 0, the above on the viscosity of the liquid (Girdhar and Moniz,
equation becomes the Bernoulli equation. 2005). For this reason manufacturers also provide
!! !!! !!! !!!! pumping curves at various viscosities (Fig.2b).
+ + ! ! = 0, or
!" !!
!! !!! !! !!!
+ + ! = + + ! =const. (2)
!" !! !" !!

2.2 Pump Characteristic Curve

For the system of Fig.1 the energy conservation

between points 1 and 3 becomes:

! + ! = ! + ! , where
!! !!!
! = + + ! ,
!" !!
!! !!!
! = + + ! ,
!" !!

Fig.2b: Characteristic curves of SHINKO pump, model

with ! being the head given by the pump to the fluid.
KV500-2, at various viscosities
Then:

2
 !
When a viscous liquid passes through the pumps ! ! = ! /2 ,
following effects take place: i. the horsepower
requirements increase, ii. there is a reduction in the head where is the friction factor, is the equivalent length,
generated by the pump, iii. capacity reduction occurs, and is the velocity of the liquid (Crane, 1999). The
iv. there is a decrease in the pump efficiency. The friction factor for laminar flow (! < 2000) is a
dependence of the head vs capacity curve on the function of the Reynolds number ! , whereas for
viscosity has important implications to the handling of turbulent flow (! > 4000) it is also a function of the
the liquid during discharging. Viscous oils such as fuel character of the pipe wall (Crane, 1999).
oil or Doba crude oil must be heated to decrease the
viscosity and be discharged with the cargo pumps As the Reynolds number is determined by the relation
running at reduced RPM to make the discharge ! = /, being the kinematic viscosity of the fluid,
operation feasible. it is calculated that for a diameter =0.5 m, a moderate
flow rate in crude oil tanker discharge operations of
2.3 Calculation of the Velocity Head Difference 2000 m3/hr or speed = 2.83 m/sec, and kinematic
viscosity of 60 cst or 60 10-6 m2/sec, the Reynolds
The speed of the fluid in the pipe passing through the number is 23,333 and the flow clearly falls within the
volume = , being the distance covered, is turbulent flow regime.
As discussed above, when the flow is turbulent the
!" !
= = ! (4) friction factor depends not only upon the Reynolds
!" !( )!
! number but also upon the roughness of the pipe walls,
or more specifically upon the ratio of the roughness to
where is the flow rate in m3/sec. Conversion from the diameter. Consequently, friction losses are sensitive
flow rate to speed is given in Table 1 for = 0.5 . to changes in the diameter and the roughness of the pipe
(Crane, 1999).
Table 1: Velocity derived from flow rate
For turbulent flow the friction factor may be calculated
Flow Rate Flow Rate Speed by various methods, such as the Colebrook equation.
2000 m3/hr 0.56 m3/sec 2.83 m/sec Alternatively, it can be deducted graphically from the
3000 m3/hr 0.83 m3/sec 4.25 m/sec Moody Chart. For smooth internal piping and turbulent
4000 m3/hr 1.11 m3/sec 5.66 m/sec flow, the friction factor is close to 0.02. Experience has
5000 m3/hr 1.39 m3/sec 7.08 m/sec shown that the internal piping of the cargo lines in crude
6000 m3/hr 1.67 m3/sec 8.49 m/sec oil tankers is smooth, however a different friction factor
can be used in case there is evidence that the internal
As discussed above, one of the terms appearing in the pipe walls are such that the smooth limit cannot be used.
conservation of energy and the total head formula of a
The equivalent length is the sum of the actual length
pump is (!! !! )/2 between two points i and j.
of the piping and of the additional length due to valves,
bends and varying pipeline diameters (Mulley, 2004).
The velocity head difference between points 2 and 3 is For a VLCC tanker vessel the actual length is about 150
zero since ! = ! for steady uniform flow. meters and the additional equivalent length of fittings
The velocity head difference between point 1, where from the pump to the manifold is about 70 meters
! = 0, and point 3 will be (!! !! )/2 = !! /2. according to Gunners calculations (Gunner, 2001).
The same value of velocity head difference exists
between the suction side and the discharge side of the Using the actual piping configuration of a particular
pump. This term, which will appear later in this ship one can calculate both the actual length as well as
analysis, is evaluated in Table 2 for various flow rates the equivalent length of the fittings using well
and for =0.5 m. established tables for equivalent lengths for various
bends, T junctions, changes in the diameter of piping,
Table 2: Velocity head difference derived from flow rate various types of valves and other fittings.
Flow Rate Speed !! /2
2000 m3/hr 2.83 m/sec 0.41 m The friction losses for various flow rates are given in
3000 m3/hr 4.25 m/sec 0.92 m Table 3.
4000 m3/hr 5.66 m/sec 1.63 m
Table 3: Friction loss derived from flow rate
5000 m3/hr 7.08 m/sec 2.55 m
6000 m3/hr 8.49 m/sec 3.68 m Flow Rate Speed friction losses
2000 m3/hr 2.83 m/sec 3.60 m
2.4 Friction Losses 3000 m3/hr 4.25 m/sec 8.11 m
4000 m3/hr 5.66 m/sec 14.38 m
We calculate below the friction losses between the 5000 m3/hr 7.08 m/sec 22.51 m
pump and the manifold.
6000 m3/hr 8.49 m/sec 32.36 m
The factor ! is given by the Darcy formula:

3
Using a typical API 30 for the crude oil or equivalent We see that for a flow rate of 4000 m3/hr, which is
density =875 kgr/m3 we convert in Table 4 the friction typical for a crude oil tanker, the pressure drop from the
losses from meters to other units which are commonly pump to the manifold is about 3.88 kgr/cm2, which
used in tankers. agrees well with actual observations. The minimum this
pressure drop will be is 30 m, the height difference
Table 4: Conversion of friction loss from meters to other between the pump and the manifold, which equals about
units 2.6 kgr/cm2 for the no flow condition.
(m) (kgrs/cm2) (psi) (bar) It is worth pointing out that the above discussion refers
to the difference in the pressure between the discharge
3.60 0.31 4.47 0.31 ! !
8.11 0.71 10.09 0.70 side of the pump and the manifold, ! ! . These two
!" !"
14.38 1.26 17.89 1.23 pressure readings are taken at hourly intervals during
22.51 1.97 27.99 1.93 the discharge operation and are then recorded in the
pumping log. The results of Table 5 can assist the
32.36 2.83 40.25 2.78 officers to interpret the readings on the pressure gauges
and to have an understanding of the anticipated pressure
We notice that for a discharge rate of 4,000 m3/hr the
drop between the discharge side of the pump and the
friction losses from the pump to the manifold are 1.23
manifold.
bars.
As mentioned above the head vs capacity curve of the
2.5 Calculation of the Pressure Drop From the Pump
pump is given by the manufacturers and is analytically
to the Manifold
described as:
!
!! !!! !! !!!!
Pressure gauges are installed at the suction side of the ! = + (6)
!" !!
pump, at the discharge side of the pump and at the
manifold. Officers can simply take the readings from We can verify the results of this equation utilizing the
these gauges. We can also calculate the pressure at the calculations performed up to now.
discharge side of the pump if we know the pressure at We assume that the observed pressure at the manifold is
the manifold, and vice versa. We assume throughout 7.5 kg/cm2 at the discharge rate of 5,000 m3/hr. From
this analysis that the height of liquid level from the this we can find the pressure ! at the discharge side of
cargo tank bottom is 20 m, the draught is 20 m and the the pump.
height of the manifold from the keel is 30 m. These In the previous paragraph we calculated that the
heights, with the exception of the height of the manifold pressure difference between the discharge side of the
to keel, change as the discharge operation progresses. pump and the manifold at discharge rate 5000 m3/hr is
The effect of the variation of various heights is 4.68 kgr/cm2 therefore the pressure ! will be 12.18
discussed in section 4. kgr/cm2 or 136.4 m. ! can also be measured by taking
Using the energy conservation we have: the reading on the pressure gauge installed at the
discharge side of the pump. The pressure ! / at the
!! !!! !! !!! !
+ + ! = + + ! + ! ! , or suction side of the pump is 20 m, the same as the height
!" !! !" !!
!! !! !!! !!!!
of the liquid level in the cargo tank. ! can also be
! !
= ! ! + + ! ! =! ! + ! ! (5) measured by taking the reading on the pressure gauge
!" !" !!
installed on the suction side of the pump. The factor
!
The pressure difference is the sum of two factors: one is !! !!!!
is 2.55 m according to Table 2 for a flow rate of
!!
the height difference from the pump to the manifold and
the other is the friction losses and the losses due to 5000 m3/hr.
valves and bends as discussed in the previous
subsection. For a rate of 4000 m3/hr and height of the Then, we have:
manifold from the pump 30 m, the pressure difference
!! ! ! =136.4 m 20 m + 2.55 m = 118.95 m,
! becomes 30+14.38=44.38 m.
!" !"
which agrees very well with the , curve as we
This pressure difference for various rates is given in have seen in Fig.2a.
Table 5.
3. System Curve
Table 5: Pressure drop from the pump to the manifold for
various flow rates and in various units
The total head as a function of the discharge rate was
Flow Rate P2-P3 P2-P3 P2-P3 P2-P3 discussed earlier. This curve is related to the
2000 m3/hr 33.6 m 3.00 kgr/cm2 42.7 psi 2.94 bar performance of the pump. Another very important curve
3000 m3/hr 38.1 m 3.40 kgr/cm2 48.4 psi 3.33 bar is the system curve and is related to the piping system.
The pump has to overcome the losses due to pressure
4000 m3/hr 44.4 m 3.96 kgr/cm2 56.4 psi 3.88 bar difference between the cargo tank and the receiving
5000 m3/hr 52.5 m 4.68 kgr/cm2 66.7 psi 4.59 bar tank, the kinematic difference due to change of velocity,
6000 m3/hr 62.4 m 5.57 kgr/cm2 79.3 psi 5.46 bar the height difference between the cargo tank and the

4
shore tank and the friction losses in the piping. The
intersection of these two curves gives us the operating
point , of the pumping system.
We have seen above that the total head energy required
by the system is expressed as:
!! !!! !!! !!!! ! Using Eq.9 we will have: =28.8 sec2/m5, =64.5 m.
! = + + ! ! + ! ! (7)
!" !!
Since the velocity of the moving surface of the cargo
tank and the receiving tank is assumed zero, we can
rewrite the above equation as:
!! !!!
!
! = + ! ! + ! ! (8)
!"
As the friction losses are proportional to the flow rate,
we have ! = + ! , known as the system curve,
! !!
where = ! ! + ! ! and ! = !! ! .
!"
The intersection of the pump characteristic curve Head
Available vs Capacity and the system curve Head
Required vs Capacity gives us the operating point of the
pumping system, as shown in Fig.3 (Pantzalis, 2008). It
is also evident that when 0 the RPM of the pump
must reach a certain point before a net flow is detected
into the piping system. The challenge is to draw the
system curve for a given pumping system.
Fig.3: Schematic diagram of a pump curve for a
centrifugal pump and a system curve
3.1 Calculation of factors and
As we seldom have information regarding the pressure
at the receiving tank or the tank height, and their
variation with time, the factor can not be calculated
from the parameters ! and ! alone since none of these
parameters are routinely available unless are provided
by the receivers.
The same applies for the friction losses !! ! . There is
an alternative method to find the factors and in
order to draw the system curve. From the equation
! = + ! we can calculate the factors and if
we know two operating points, (! , ! ) and (! , ! ).
We can then have:
!! !!! !! !!!
= , = ! !! (9)
!!! !!!! !!! !!!!
To do that, we can simply run our pump at two RPM
and then observe the discharge rates. If, for example we
run the pump at 92% of rated capacity and we observe
that the discharge rate is ! =5,000 m3/hr, we know from
the pump curve that the total head ! is 120 m. If we
then ran the pump at 80% of rated capacity and we
observe that the discharge rate is ! =4,000 m3/hr, we
know that the total head ! is 100 m. The runs need to
be done very close to each other in order to reveal the
true characteristics of the pumping system and to
eliminate any time variation of the parameters.
3.2 Use of System Curve in Tankers Energy
Considerations
Knowing the system curve is very important for the
pump operator. The intersection of the pump curve and
the system curve gives the operating point of the pump.
The manufacturers supply the head vs capacity curve at
various revolutions per minute. Similar curves can be
drawn for any intermediate RPM by using the Affinity
law ! .
We assume that the receivers require the ship to
discharge at a rate of 4,000 m3/hr. From the pump
curves one can see that this rate can be met by running
the pump at various RPM, however only one of them
will be achieved: it will be the one which lays on the
system curve. In order to find this we work as follows:
on the horizontal axis we find the rate of 4,000 m3/hr
and we go up to meet the system curve. When we meet
the system curve we see at which Head vs Capacity
curve this point belongs. We can then start increasing
the RPM of the pump to reach the required flow rate.
We assume now that the terminal asks the vessel to
increase the rate to 5,000 m3/hr. We follow again the
same steps.
As long as the Head vs Capacity curve is below the one
for the max RPM of the pump, there is no need to put
into operation a second pump in parallel but we can run
the discharge with one pump only. This will keep the
energy consumption to minimum and we will avoid
waste of fuel oil consumption. Same considerations can
take place to decide whether 2 pumps are needed
instead of 3 in case a demand for further increase of the
flow rate is placed by the receivers.
Having three cargo pumps available is tempting to put
them into operation in parallel however as shown above
this is not always necessary. Having the minimum
number of pumps running at a time will keep the
consumption to minimum levels. Parallel pumping
alters the efficiency of each pump. Detailed calculations
can show that putting a second pump into operation can
raise the energy consumption by a significant amount
for pumping the same volume per unit of time
(U.S.Dept of Energy, 2006).
In our example, the rate of 5000 m3/hr can be achieved
by one pump running at 92% of maximum capacity or
by two pumps running at 85-86% of maximum capacity.
The later will consume 25% more energy.
A detailed discussion of parallel pumping is beyond the
scope of this work however it is straightforward to
extent the present analysis to two or three pumps
running in parallel.
5
4. Pumping in practice and shore restrictions - Affinity law will be correct only when there is zero
Evaluation of Pumping Under-Performance static head. The new operating point in this case will be
related to the initial operating point via the extended
We suppose that the ship is discharging at rate 4,000 Affinity law since any operating point will be along the
m3/hr and the pump is running at 80% of rated capacity. system curve which obeys the ! law. For any system
The pressure at the manifold is 6.5 kgr/cm2. The with a non-zero static head, that is parameter other
terminal then asks the ship to increase the pressure at than zero, the extended Affinity law formula does not
the manifold to 7.0 kgr/cm2 (or to any other required give valid results (Fig 5). The ASDEM formula goes
pressure). The ship will normally increase the RPM of one step forward of the extended Affinity law. It
the pump and at the same time will monitor the pressure assumes that the ! law not only relates the total head
at the manifold until it reaches 7.0 kgr/cm2. But what of the pump to the flow rate, it also relates the pressure
would happen if the ship cannot increase the RPM of at the manifold to the flow rate. This is a flawed
the pump due to a mechanical problem? The terminal conclusion derived from a wrong assumption.
and the charterers will claim that a certain amount of
time was lost due to ships inability to increase the
pressure at the manifold. To quantify this time loss we
need to calculate what the flow rate would have been if
the ship had been able to increase the pressure at the
manifold to 7.0 kgr/cm2.
The question then is:
If we know the flow rate when the pressure at the
manifold is 6.5 kgr/cm2 can we calculate the new flow
rate if we require the pressure at the manifold to be 7.0
kgr/cm2?
It is important to discuss here what happens when the
RPM of the pump is increased. As the RPM is
increased, the pump curve (, ) is shifted upwards.
How exactly the pump curve shifts by varying the RPM Fig.5: Illustration of the flaws of the ASDEM formula
is given by the pump curves supplied by the
The way to calculate the flow rate from the pressure at
manufacturers and is governed by the Affinity law
the manifold is to write what relations will be held at
! (Lobanoff and Ross, 1992). The new pump
any instance.
curve (, ) will intersect the system curve at a new
At any operating point (, ), we will have:
point, which will be the new operating point of the
pumping system (Fig. 4). !! !!! !
!! !!!!
= + (10)
!" !!
!
= + (11)
!! ! !
! = ! ! + ! ! (12)
!" !"

Eq.10 is derived from the energy conservation between

the suction and the delivery side of the pump. Eq.11
holds since will by along the system curve. Eq.12 is
taken from the energy conservation between points 2
and 3, at which the velocity of the fluid is the same.
The sea level is taken as a reference point being the only
point with unaltered height.
!
As we have seen ! = ! !, and
!( )
!
Fig.4: Operating point of a pump at an increased RPM !
!"( ! )!
!"! ! !( )!
!
! ! = = !
= ! ,
It has been suggested that the flow rate at the new !!" !!"
!"
manifold pressure will be related to the previous flow where = ! .
!!"!! ( )!
rate via the ASDEM formula according to which !
! !
!! = !! ( !) ! or equivalently ! = ! ( !!)!/! Re-writing Eqs.10 and 11 we have:
!! !!!
! !
(ASDEM, 2007). This formula, although resembles the !! !!! !! !!!! !! !! !!!!
+ ! = + = (! ! ) + ,
Affinity law, should not be confused with it. The !" !! !" !!
!! !
Affinity law relates the total head of the pump to the = ! ! + ! + !.
!" !"
RPM. It could be argued that by allowing the flow rate
to vary proportionally to the RPM, the same square law
Considering that ! = 0, Eqs. 9~11 of the pumping
would relate the total head to the flow rate. Let us call
system are reduced to a single equation relating the
this proposed relation ! as the extended Affinity pressure at the manifold to the flow rate:
law. We can easily see graphically that the extended

6
 !! !! the liquid starts to flow. After that, the flow rate follows
+ ! = ! ! + ! + ! + ! + ! .
!" !!!! ( )! a line given by a square root law.
!
!
Solving for the flow rate we have: Eq. 13 has physical meaning only when ! > ! +
!"
! ! + . This is equivalent to having the pressure at the
!! !!! !!! !
=( !!!"/!
!" !/!
) (13) manifold being equal or higher than the height
!! difference between the manifold and the shore tank. The
! !
!!!!
! pressure of 4.7 kgr/cm2 corresponds indeed to the height
difference between the manifold and the receiving tank.
The graph of flow rate as a function of the pressure at We have seen earlier that the parameter appearing in
the manifold is given in Fig 6. ! !!
the system curve is = ! ! + ! ! , which, by
!"
assuming ! = ! , is basically the height difference
between the receiving tank and the cargo tank. Since we
have already calculated that =64.5 m, we have !
! =64.5 m therefore ! ! =54.5 m. This value
corresponds to 4.7 kgr/cm2 exactly. We conclude then
that in order to have a net flow across the manifold we
need to overcome the net static head difference between
the cargo tank and the receiving tank, meaning that the
Fig.6: Flow rate as a function of the pressure at the pressure at the manifold will be equal to the height
manifold difference between the manifold and the receiving tank.

Using Eq. 13 we can relate the operating point !! , !
to another operating point !! , ! through the
relation:
!
!! !!! !!! !!
!! !"
=( ! )!/!
!! !! !!! !!! !!
!"
We call Eq.14 the Integrated Pumping Performance
Evaluation formula, or IPPE formula. It is seen that Eq.
14 is reduced to the ASDEM formula only when
! ! = 0 or when ! = ! .
At manifold pressure 7.0 kgr/cm2 the flow rate will be
4570 m3/hr according to the IPPE forrmula. The
ASDEM formula would give a value of 4150 m3/hr.
The deviation of the flow rate given by the IPPE
formula at 7.0 kgr/cm2 from the flow rate given by the
ASDEM formula as a function of the static head is
given in Fig. 7. The solid line refers to the IPPE formula
and the dotted line to the ASDEM formula. The
difference becomes more pronounced for high static
heads, as expected from Fig.5.
The above analysis can be extended to predict the RPM
required to raise the manifold pressure from 6.5 kgr/cm2
to 7.0 kgr/cm2 or to calculate the RPM needed for any
required pressure at the manifold. The RPM is related to
total head of the pump through the Affinity law
(14) ! . We repeat here that the Affinity law should
not be confused with the conclusion reached above that
the ASDEM formula and the extended Affinity law
cannot be used to give the new flow rate given the
manifold pressure. That conclusion, as shown, holds for
any system curve with non-zero static head. The
Affinity law on the other hand which relates the RPM to
the total head of the pump is derived from fundamental
geometrical considerations and remains always valid.
The methodology is as follows: it is known that the total
head of the pump is related to the capacity of the pump
for various RPM as given by the manufacturers. The
graph for the maximum RPM, ! , for which the pump
is designed for, can be easily modeled to take the form
! = + + ! . For any flow rate ! , the total
head will be ! = + !! . This head will be related to
the corresponding head at the max RPM through the
Affinity law ! /! = (! /! )! , from which the
required RPM ! can be calculated. Fig. 8 is derived to
show the RPM needed for various manifold pressures.
For example, for manifold pressure 7.0 kgr/cm2 the
RPM must be increased to 944 revolutions per minute.

Fig. 7: Derivation of the flow rate at 7.0 kgr/cm2 for

various static heads

The pressure at the manifold must reach a specific

value, in our example approximately 4.7 kgr/cm2, before Fig. 8: RPM as a function of the pressure at the manifold

7
The lines drawn show how this graph is restricted: a.
Below 4.7 kgr/cm2 the graph does not apply as there is
no net flow across the manifold. b. Above 1090
revolutions the RPM is restricted too as this value
corresponds to the 100pct of the maximum capacity of
the pump. c. At pressure of about 12 kgr/cm2 at the
manifold, or about 16 kgr/cm2 at the discharge side of
the pump, the pump trips according to the
manufacturers limits. Therefore only the shaded area in
Fig. 8 is feasible in actual working conditions.
The IPPE formula can be used to evaluate the under-
performance of the ship. We assume that cargo quantity
on board the ship is 103,000 m3 or 647,000 barrels. The
ship performs all the discharge operation at a rate of
4,000 m3/hr maintaining the pressure at the manifold at
6.5 kgr/cm2. The discharge operation has taken 25.75
hours. We need to establish how faster the discharge
would have been completed had the ship been able to
maintain the pressure at the manifold at 7.0 kgr/cm2. At
manifold pressure 7.0 kgr/cm2 the flow rate will be 4570
m3/hr according to the IPPE formula. The ship would
have completed the discharge operation at 22.5 hrs
which is 3.25 hrs less than the actual time taken. The
charterers are then entitled to deduct 3.25 hrs from
demurrage claim, which is the claim submitted by
owners and refers to the time taken for loading and
discharging in excess of an agreed time allowance.
It could be argued that the IPPE formula needs to be
applied at each hourly interval to accommodate the
change of the parameters ! , ! and , as the liquid
level inside the cargo tank on board the ship or inside
the receiving tank change during the discharge
operation. The factor appearing in the IPPE formula
! ! is equal to ! ! . We denote this time
varying quantity by . As the cargo is emptied from the
cargo tank on board the ship, the ship is lightered. The
distance ! , being the distance of the cargo level in the
receiving tank from the reference point, changes
continuously. However as the level in the receiving tank
is raised and the ship is lightered, the ships keel is also
raised due to reduction of draught. Therefore it can be
concluded graphically that the quantity is not
expected to vary significantly during the discharge
operation. This is shown in Fig. 9.
Fig. 9: Sketch of change of various heights during
discharge
A quantitative approach to justify this argument will be
given below.
8
Using the sea level as the reference point the height !
is the distance from the center of the cargo manifold to
the sea level (known also as manifold freeboard) and
this takes specific values at every stage during the
discharge operation. It can also be written as the
distance from keel to manifold, !" , minus the time
varying ships draught, ! (), or ! = !" ! ().
The height ! is the distance of the level of the shore
tank from the sea level and can be analyzed as ! =
!,! +! (), with !,! being the initial height of the
shore tank level and ! () its variation with time. is
then equal to !" !,! (! + ! ). As long as
the level of the liquid inside the shore tank increases at
the same rate, or close to, as the rate at which the
vessels draught decreases, meaning that the quantity
! + ! is kept constant, is time invariant. If
this is not the case, by knowing the dimensions of the
shore tank will allow us to apply Eq.14 for each hourly
interval and then add the hourly underperformance to
have at the end the total underperformance of the whole
discharge operation. In any case, the error ! in
determining the discharge rate ! due to error ! in
knowing with accuracy the shore tank level ! () can
!!
be found through the relation ! = ! ! . By
!!!
!!!
calculating the derivative through Eq.14, this
!!!
quantity can be evaluated for various levels of shore
tank height. In our example, for a shore tank height
= ! ! of 64m, the error ! becomes about
24! m2/hr, therefore an error of 5m in ! will lead
to an error in determining the discharge rate ! of 120
m3/hr or a relative error of 2.6%.
5. Discussion
It has been shown that some fundamental calculations
for the pumping performance on board a tanker can be
performed with accuracy.
In order to draw the system curve of the piping system,
we need to have the readings of the flow rate at two
different RPM. Knowing the flow rate at one RPM is
not sufficient to draw the system curve or to find the
flow rate at a new pressure at the manifold if the flow
rate is known at a different pressure at the manifold.
This means that we need to run the pump for at least 1/2
hour at two RPMs and it is advisable to take the
readings of: 1. ! , the pressure at the discharge side of
the pump, 2. ! , the pressure at the suction side of the
pump, 3. ! , the pressure at the manifold, 4. , the flow
rate, 5. RPM, the revolutions of the pump.
The system curve can be found also by knowing one
operating point but in this case we will need to know at
what height the shore tanks are placed. Most receivers
will have no objection to provide such information,
therefore it is advisable to request this technical detail
during the pre-discharge meeting between the ships and
shores staff.
A relative inaccuracy must be expected as reality and
practice do not necessarily follow the theoretical
calculations, i.e. the pump may operate outside the
theoretical pump curve, the friction losses may be
underestimated due to error in assessing the friction
factor , which will also change with time, or the
equivalent length , the pressure gauges may not be
accurate therefore our readings are approximate, etc.
The calculations may be more complicated for two or
more pumps running in parallel which do not share the
same piping length, however for a homogeneous cargo
being discharged by one, two or three identical pumps at
the same RPM, the results of this analysis remain valid.
It has been shown that the ASDEM formula gives
incorrect results for the flow rate at a new manifold
pressure when there is a static head. A static head is
present in almost all discharge operations in which
crude oil tankers are involved, except conditions like a
Ship to Ship operation (in such cases the mother vessel
easily meets any discharge restriction). In a recent
arbitration award in New York (Niki Maritime
Entreprises SA, as Disponent Owner of the M/T "Niki"
v. Global Companies LLC, as Charterer) the
applicability of the ASDEM formula was rejected for
two reasons: First, there was nothing in the charterparty
itself to indicate that the excessive pumping time was to
be calculated in accordance with this formula. Second,
the formula presented problems in the practical
environment. "Is there," the panel asked,"a limited
range over which this formula would apply? For
example, to determine the time to discharge a fixed
quantity of cargo at 100psi, will it produce equally
accurate results if the actual average pressure was
99psi or 85 psi, or, as in this case, 73 psi? How often
should pressures be recorded to produce accurate
results? What influence do shutdowns have on the
formulas accuracy when discharge pressures might be
zero for some period of time? What effect, if any, does
variation in back pressure, which is rarely static, have
on the accuracy of the calculated results?".
Answers to these questions were not presented by the
Owner, who should have provided information
regarding the derivation of the formula and any
applicable limitations. The Panel acknowledged that the
formula might reflect a fair and equitable solution to
"the vexing problem" of defining excessive pumping
time but concluded that, "failing a fundamental revision
of this pumping clause, it will be the burdensome
responsibility of owners to convince future panels that
an adequate method exists and should be applied to
achieve the fairness and justice expected of the
arbitration process." (DMC, 2007).
Tailored charter party warranties agreed between
charterers and owners can ease the evaluation of
underperformance. Intertanko model clause offers such
a solution to a great extent (Intertanko, 2006). The
quantitative approach on the other hand of the present
work gives a unique analytical tool to solve the specific
problem of evaluating the time lost due to failure to
comply with a restriction imposed by the terminal with
respect to a specific pressure at the manifold, whatever
that is. It is up to the contractual parties to agree that
any underperformance will be evaluated basis a formula
derived from physical laws or any other method. In case
no such charter party provision exists, a quantitative
method for the under-performance can still be used
provided it is based on solid arguments and can
withstand the challenges and interrogations of a court
panel. The present work is such an approach.
6. Conclusion
The fundamental properties of a pumping system on
board a crude oil tanker have been presented. It has
been shown that calculations of pressure drop between
various points along the piping system can be performed
in a straightforward manner and with good accuracy.
The pressure at the manifold at the upper deck level not
only can be measured but can also be predicted for
various flow rates or RPM of the pump. The inverse
problem can also be solved: the flow rate at a required
manifold pressure can be calculated. This will answer
the question of finding the time which was lost due to
the ships inability to raise the pressure at the manifold
at the required level, using a methodology based on the
fundamental properties of fluid flow in a piping system.
7. Acknowledgements
The author would like the thank Capt. O. Lekatsas from
Maran Tankers Management and Dr. T. Gunner for
many valuable discussions on pump performance and
charter party issues, and Mr. R. Perez from PumpCalcs
for reviewing an initial draft copy of this work.
References
ASDEM (2007). Asdem News Update No.35,
http://www.asdem.co.uk.
Banaszek, A, and Petrovic, R (2010). Calculation of
the Unloading Operation in Liquid Cargo Service
with High Density on Modern Product and Chemical
Tankers Equipped with Hydraulic Submerged Cargo
Pumps, Strojniski vestnik Journal of Mechanical
Engineering, Vol 56(3).
Beebe, RS (2004). Predictive Maintenance of Pumps
Using Condition Monitoring, Elsevier.
Crane, (2009). Flow of Fluids Through Valves, Fittings
and Pipe, Crane Valves North America.
DMC, (2007). http://archive.onlinedmc.co.uk.
Girdhar, P and Moniz, O (2005), Practical Centrifugal
Pumps, Elsevier.
Gunner, TJ (2001). An Explanation and Guideline for
Pumping Calculations, Intertanko.
Intertanko (2006). http://www.intertanko.com.
Lobanoff, VS, and Ross, RR (1992). Centrifugal
Pumps Designs and Application, Butterworth-
Heinenmann.
Mulley, R (2004). Flow of Industrial Fluids-Theory
and Equations, CRC Press.
Pantzalis, N (2008). Fluid Mechanics, Eugenides
Foundation.
U.S.Department of Energy (2006). Pumping Systems
Tip Sheet, 8.