Cargo Tank (Moss, Membrane, Type C)
Moss spherical tanks, GTT membrane containment and Type C pressure vessels are three different answers to holding liquefied gas independent of the hull, and the choice between them shapes everything from boil-off rate to how the ship itself can be built.
Read more — Cargo Tank (Moss, Membrane, Type C) explained ▾
What sets each containment type apart
A Moss tank is a free-standing sphere resting on a cylindrical skirt, structurally independent of the hull and built to IGC Code Type B rules, which allow it to survive a partial loss of insulation without immediate risk. GTT membrane containment uses a thin corrugated stainless steel or Invar membrane bonded to insulation panels that are in turn supported by the hull structure itself, so the tank shape follows the hull rather than the hull being shaped around a sphere. This is why membrane LNG carriers have a more conventional, boxy hull form and generally more usable cargo volume for the same overall dimensions. Type C tanks are pressure vessels, cylindrical or bi-lobe, built to conventional pressure vessel codes and used mainly on LPG and smaller LNG or ethylene carriers where cargo can be carried at higher pressure with less deep refrigeration, trading insulation complexity for a simpler, more robust tank.
Main components
Moss tank
Aluminium or 9% nickel steel sphere, supported on an equatorial skirt, with polyurethane foam insulation applied externally and a domed deck house structure, the characteristic visible spheres, protecting the tank top.
Membrane tank
Primary barrier, the thin corrugated membrane in direct contact with cargo, an insulation space, a secondary barrier designed to contain cargo for a defined period if the primary fails, and a second insulation space bonded to the inner hull.
Type C tank
Thick-walled pressure vessel, typically 9% nickel steel or stainless steel, with saddle or skirt supports, insulated where deeper refrigeration than fully pressurised carriage requires.
Boil-off and reliquefaction system
Common to all three types: cargo that absorbs heat boils off and must be reliquefied, used as fuel, or burned off, sized differently depending on the containment type's insulation performance.
Selection
The decision sits mostly with the shipyard and owner at newbuild stage rather than something chosen later, since it defines the hull. Type C is chosen for LPG, ethylene and smaller-scale LNG where pressurised or semi-refrigerated carriage suits the trade. Membrane is now dominant for large LNG carriers because of its cargo volume efficiency. Moss spheres remain in service on older LNG tonnage and some specialist trades, valued for tank independence and inspection access, but few new Moss ships have been ordered in recent years as membrane technology has closed the boil-off gap.
Regulations and class
All three fall under the IGC Code, which classifies containment systems as Type A, B or C based on the level of secondary barrier protection required and the consequences assumed from a leak. Type B systems, Moss spheres and some membrane designs, require a partial secondary barrier or drip tray; Type C tanks, being fully independent pressure vessels of proven design, generally need no secondary barrier because a leak is not expected to threaten the hull. Class societies survey tank structure, insulation condition and boil-off performance on a periodic basis, with membrane systems subject to specific in-service inspection regimes agreed with the system licensor.
Typical faults
| Type | Typical fault | Consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Moss sphere | Insulation degradation or damage to the foam jacket | Rising boil-off rate, increased reliquefaction plant load |
| Membrane | Primary barrier fatigue cracking at corrugations after repeated thermal cycling | Cargo migrating into insulation space, detected by gas sensors before reaching the secondary barrier |
| Membrane | Insulation panel bonding failure | Localised cold spot on hull, hull steel temperature monitoring alarm |
| Type C | External corrosion under insulation cladding | Wall thinning found at survey, requiring cladding removal to assess |
| All types | Boil-off rate creeping above design | Higher fuel gas consumption or more reliquefaction plant running hours than the voyage plan assumed |
What to look for in a supplier
- For Moss and membrane repair work, licensor-approved contractors only, since GTT and Moss Maritime both maintain approved repair yard lists and unapproved work can void class approval of the containment system.
- For Type C tank work, pressure vessel code compliance matching the code the tank was originally built to, and welder qualification for the specific tank material.
- Boil-off gas analysis and hull steel temperature monitoring system compatibility with the vessel's existing cargo control system.
- Documented track record on the specific containment type, since Moss, membrane and Type C repair skills are not interchangeable.
Track boil-off rate trend over voyages, not just the single-voyage figure - a slow upward creep is usually insulation degradation long before it shows up as a visible defect at survey.
Typical Manufacturers
4 manufacturers · 8 models
MacGregor
4
- LNG tank pressure rise due to BOG management error
- Evaporator tube leakage due to thermal cycling stress
- Gas valve unit (GVU) solenoid valve failure
- Gasdetektionssystem Fehlalarm
- Engineered for the high loads of LNG/LPG membrane tanks
- Corrosion‑resistant coating suitable for cryogenic environments
- Integrated with MacGregor deck and lashing bridge systems for easy installation
- Meets IGF Code requirements and DNV approval for gas carrier applications
- Facilitates rapid inspection and replacement during scheduled dry‑dock
- Optimised only for MacGregor‑designed deck layouts – limited retrofit flexibility
- Higher procurement cost compared with generic lashing eyes
- Requires specialised welding/bolting procedures during installation
- Spare parts and support are tied to MacGregor supply chain
- LNG tank pressure rise due to BOG management error
- Evaporator tube leakage due to thermal cycling stress
- Gas valve unit (GVU) solenoid valve failure
- Gasdetektionssystem Fehlalarm
- High tensile strength stainless steel construction meeting IGF Code requirements
- DNV‑approved design specifically engineered for Moss Type C tanks
- Corrosion‑resistant finish suitable for cryogenic LNG/LPG environments
- Standardised dimensions simplify installation and replacement
- Proven track record on existing LNG carrier fleets
- Applicable only to Moss membrane Type C tank designs – not interchangeable with other containment systems
- Requires specialised welding procedures during installation
- Higher unit cost compared with generic lashing eyes due to certification and material grade
- Potential fatigue issues if not inspected according to quarterly calibration schedule
- LNG tank pressure rise due to BOG management error
- Evaporator tube leakage due to thermal cycling stress
- Gas valve unit (GVU) solenoid valve failure
- Gasdetektionssystem Fehlalarm
- DNV‑approved component specifically engineered for Type C Moss membrane tanks
- Integrated mounting points simplify connection to gas vent/valve units (GVU) and detection sensors
- Quarterly calibration access built into the design reduces downtime for gas‑detection maintenance
- Meets IMO IGF Code requirements, facilitating annual class inspections
- Modular construction allows installation during newbuild or retrofit with minimal hull alteration
- Documented failures linked to BOG management errors causing pressure build‑up in the tank
- Thermal cycling can induce evaporator‑tube leaks if not properly managed
- Magnet valve of the GVU has a known propensity for failure, requiring frequent functional tests
- Gas detection system may generate false alarms, increasing operational vigilance
- Applicable only to Moss Type C membrane tanks; not compatible with other tank concepts
- LNG tank pressure rise due to BOG management error
- Evaporator tube leakage due to thermal cycling stress
- Gas valve unit (GVU) solenoid valve failure
- Gasdetektionssystem Fehlalarm
- Proven design for Type C Moss membrane tanks, widely installed on LNG carriers
- Integrated with MacGregor’s BOG management system, facilitating compliance with IGF Code requirements
- DNV‑approved and IMO IGF‑Code compliant, simplifying classification approval
- Modular construction allows relatively quick installation during new builds or conversions
- Sensitive to BOG‑management errors; pressure buildup incidents have been reported
- Thermal cycling can cause pipe‑to‑pipe leakage if not adequately monitored
- Magnet valve (GVU) failures have been documented, requiring rigorous pre‑operation testing
- Requires quarterly gas‑detector calibration and regular functional tests, increasing maintenance workload
Kongsberg Maritime
2- LNG tank pressure rise due to BOG management error
- Evaporator tube leakage due to thermal cycling stress
- Gas valve unit (GVU) solenoid valve failure
- Gasdetektionssystem Fehlalarm
- Fully DNV‑approved for Moss membrane (Type C) cargo tanks, ensuring class compliance
- Modular architecture with redundant processors for high reliability
- Real‑time BOG management and automated venting reduces manual intervention
- Seamless integration with Kongsberg gas detection sensors and valve actuators
- Standardized user interface across all CCP projects simplifies crew training
- Complex installation and commissioning; requires experienced integrator
- Mandatory quarterly gas‑detector calibration adds maintenance workload
- Higher capital cost compared with basic single‑function controllers
- Software updates must be managed carefully to avoid configuration drift
- Known failure modes include BOG mis‑management and magnet valve failures if not maintained
- LNG tank pressure rise due to BOG management error
- Evaporator tube leakage due to thermal cycling stress
- Gas valve unit (GVU) solenoid valve failure
- Gasdetektionssystem Fehlalarm
- Wide range of rated forces (40–135 kN) covering most membrane‑tank applications
- DNV‑approved design with proven compliance to the IMO IGF Code
- Modular construction allows easy replacement and field servicing
- Integrated diagnostics compatible with Kongsberg’s gas detection and control system
- Requires quarterly gas‑detector calibration and pre‑operation GVU function tests, increasing maintenance workload
- Higher initial capital cost compared with basic pneumatic valves
- Limited to Moss membrane Type C tanks; not directly compatible with self‑supporting or spherical tank designs
- Complex control logic can demand specialized training for crew
Framo Fusa
1- LNG tank pressure rise due to BOG management error
- Evaporator tube leakage due to thermal cycling stress
- Gas valve unit (GVU) solenoid valve failure
- Gasdetektionssystem Fehlalarm
- High heating power range (225 kW to 1 000 kW) covering most LNG/LPG carrier needs
- Dual steam inlet (left/right) offers operational redundancy
- Designed specifically for Moss membrane tanks (Type C), ensuring optimal heat transfer
- Integrated gas‑detection calibration schedule and GVU function test support safe BOG management
- DNV approved, proven in long‑term service on gas carriers
- Requires reliable steam supply; not suitable for vessels without dedicated boiler capacity
- Thermal cycling can lead to evaporator pipe fatigue if not monitored
- Dependence on GVU solenoid valve – documented failures when valve maintenance is lax
- Gas‑detection system prone to false alarms if calibration is missed
- Installation space may be limited on smaller tankers due to heater size
Jiangyin Marine Equipment Manufacturing
1- LNG tank pressure rise due to BOG management error
- Evaporator tube leakage due to thermal cycling stress
- Gas valve unit (GVU) solenoid valve failure
- Gasdetektionssystem Fehlalarm
- DNV‑approved fire rating meeting IMO IGC Code requirements
- Corrosion‑resistant steel construction suited to cryogenic environments
- Integrated sealing system compatible with BOG management and gas detection equipment
- Standardized dimensions for easy installation on Moss membrane tanks (Type C)
- Designed for quarterly gas‑detector calibration access
- Relatively high weight compared with non‑fire‑rated hatch covers
- Limited opening size may restrict large equipment entry
- Requires regular functional testing of adjacent GVU and detection systems to avoid false alarms
- Installation tolerances are tight; retrofit on older vessels can be labor‑intensive