Competence No.

11: Inspect and report defects and damage to cargo spaces, hatch covers and ballast tanks 11.1 Knowledge and ability to explain where to look for damage and defects most commonly encountered due to: loading and unloading operations, corrosion, severe weather conditions. 11.2 Ability to state which parts of the ship shall be inspected each time in order to cover all parts within a given period of time. 11.3 Identity those elements of the ship structure which are critical to the safety of the ship. 11.4 State the causes of corrosion in cargo spaces and ballast tanks and the how corrosion can be identified and prevented. 11.5 Knowledge of procedures on how the inspections shall be carried out. 11.6 Ability to explain how to ensure reliable detection of defects and damages. 11.7 Understanding of the purpose of the enhanced survey programme.

270 ISSC Committee V.6: Condition Assessment Of Aged Shipsplanning, survey reporting, flag state involvement and the strict timeline needs to befollowed.Certain flag states have regional requirements beyond the international requirements of IMO. These can be motivated by concern for national waters and may be considered to fallunder the flag states function as a port state. Thus, the United States has implemented theOPA90 (Oil Pollution Act of 1990) to enforce special quality requirements to tankers andtheir operation to allow entrance to U.S. waters.Port states are coastal states with ships passing their territorial waters and entering theirports. These states have special concern for the safety of ships and people either on theships or land as well as the protection of the environment. Often the flag and port stateresponsibilities are exercised by the same national maritime administration. Most port stateshave agreed on common procedures for port state controls and sharing of information onquality issues. Port state controls are spot checks to gain a general impression of a shipscondition. 2.2 Enhanced Survey Programme Flag states generally delegate the authority to inspect ships to classification societies. This isregulated in SOLAS Ch.1 Reg. 10. The class certificate, including the already defined ESPfor tankers and bulk carriers, therefore, becomes the cornerstone of the quality system foraging ships (IACS 2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2005).The ESP programme was developed on the basis of a critical evaluation of ship structurestogether with an appreciation of current experience with corrosion and cracking as well asthe need to make quite transparent and specific procedures to avoid loopholes that couldlead to insufficient follow up and, consequently, substandard ships. During the subsequentyears a number of improvements have been made to the programme to pursue theseprinciples, in particular after the Erika and Prestige accidents.While class surveys were previously often the only thorough evaluation of the hull structure,a basic element of the safety network today is that owners have implemented a propermaintenance system where all damages and defects should be reported to class to identifycritical areas. Furthermore, the owner is responsible for proper planning of class surveysincluding, for example, proper cleaning and de-scaling and safe access facilities for thesurveys.The ESP programme survey schedules and extent of surveys are based on the understandingthat, with the sheer

size of the vessels, the real condition can only be revealed with detailedclose-up inspections and extensive thickness measurements, and that the deteriorationprocess happens slowly over time. It is therefore considered more effective to have fewerthorough surveys rather than more frequent superficial ones.The cornerstone of the inspection process has therefore become the Special PeriodicalSurvey (SPS), conducted every 5 years, and requiring close-up access to critical structure ISSC Committee V.6: Condition Assessment Of Aged Ships 271and components. This survey can sometimes take weeks to complete. For older ships, it wasconsidered that 5 years would be too long time between such detailed surveys. As a result,the Intermediate Survey (IS) was also tightened up with a similar, though less extensive,survey as the SPS. After the Erika and Prestige accidents, these IS surveys were tightenedfurther and made identical to the SPS from 17.5 years age and onwards.Furthermore, ballast tanks will be subject to an Annual Survey (AS) when, during an SPS orIS, it is found with, for example, no protective coating from the time of construction, aprotective coating in less than good condition or substantial corrosion. The rating of thecoating (good, fair, poor) must be done according to the guidance given in IACSRecommendation 87 (IACS 2004b) for tankers and in the guidelines by the TankerStructure Cooperative Forum (TSCF 1997). Substantial Corrosion is an extent of corrosion such that assessment of the corrosion pattern indicates wastage in excess of 75%of allowable margins. A record of substantial corrosion will be made even if the ownerselects to coat the area and arrest further corrosion. This practice by the classificationsocieties has a large influence on the actual repair and maintenance performed by theowners, because most oil majors do not charter ships with a record of substantial corrosion.TABLE 1EXAMPLE OF Condition Assessment Programme During the late 80s and 90s, a number of financial institutions started to question the valueof aged tankers and some charterers started to restrict the use of aged vessels (beyond 15 to20 years age) without special inspections beyond the minimum requirements of IACS. Theclassification societies met these demands by offering a special, voluntary ConditionAssessment Programme (CAP) with extended inspection and thickness measurements. Theprogramme results in a rating of the ships from excellent to poor.This programme is today requested by a number of oil companies as a basis for charteringolder tankers, e.g., beyond 15 to 20 years of age. As an extra safety precaution theytypically require these ships to be rated above the minimum requirement stipulated by theclassification societies to maintain the class certificates. 2.4 Guidelines for Surveys, Assessment and Repair The Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum (TSCF 1992, 1995, 1997, 2000) was establishedto implement industry guidelines for maintenance and inspection of tankers. The TSCFmembers, classification societies, ship owners and charterers have issued a guidance manualfor tanker structures. These guidelines and the procedures for ESP have largely beenharmonised and TSCF gives valuable guidance for maintenance and repair of shipstructures. Such guidelines have been issued by IACS (1999, 2002, 2004a) for generalcargo ships and bulk carriers. The guidelines follow the same format as the guidelines fortankers issued by TSCF (1997).

2.5 Emergency Response Services Driven by the Exxon Valdez accident and OPA90, several classification societies andconsultants have developed special schemes to assist ship owners handle emergencies likecollision, grounding, fire, explosion, heavy weather damage, etc. to safeguard the ship, crewand the environment. An important part of this assistance is to apply sophisticatednumerical models of the ships with respect to hull strength and stability in damagedcondition as a basis for simulating the consequences for emergency ballasting requirements,temporary repairs and the rescue operation. In such cases, ultimate strength and fitness forpurpose criteria may have to be evaluated rather than the allowable working stress basedrule requirements for an intact vessel. 2.6 Ship Inspection Report Programme Charterers of tanker tonnage implemented special vetting survey schemes with inspection of ships and requirements on ship owners. An overview of these is described by Intertanko(2003) in its Guide to Vetting process. The system was introduced by the Oil CompaniesInternational Marine Forum (OCIMF) which was established in 1970 as a response to theTorrey Canyon accident in 1970 to increase public awareness of marine pollution. Acornerstone of the vetting system is the Ship Inspection Report Programme (SIRE)launched in 1993 as a ship condition-vetting programme with a transparent database for the ISSC Committee V.6: Condition Assessment Of Aged Ships 273ship stakeholders. The aim of the system is to reveal the general condition related to allquality and safety systems onboard. For hull condition, it addresses general condition, therepair history and refers to the class (ESP) certificates and its status. 2.7 Insurance Inspection Insurance companies normally base their assessment on a number of issues like pastexperience with the particular ship or ship owners and status of the class certificate. Duringthe late 80s and early 90s, however, they also extended their involvement. They decided tofollow up a certain number of the insured fleet, say 5%, annually with their own inspections,typically a one-day inspection, looking for special critical areas and the general appearanceof the ships to identify ships suspected to be substandard. 3. MECHANISMS OF AGE RELATED DETERIORATION In ship structures, age related deterioration is primarily meant to be corrosion wastage,fatigue cracking and local dent damage. Repair or renewal of heavily damaged structure isin general complex and costly. Thus, it is important to better understand the mechanism of such deterioration. 3.1

Corrosion Wastage Marine corrosion is the degradation of metals in the marine environment. Initiation andprogression of marine corrosion may be related to corrosive effects such as electrochemical,galvanic, inter-granular, crevice and erosion actions.There are several different types of corrosion wastage in mild and low alloy steels in marineenvironments such as uniform (general) corrosion and pitting, groove and weld metalcorrosion. For corrosion management and control, both localized and general corrosionmust be considered. The former can cause oil or gas leaks, while the latter is more likely tolead to structural strength problems. Factors affecting marine immersion corrosion in aclosed or open space include the type of structural material, the corrosion protection scheme(e.g., coating, cathodic protection), the type of cargo or stored material (e.g., oil, seawater),the cycle of loading / unloading of cargo or stored material, and humidity, temperature,oxygen and water velocity. Sections 1. INTRODUCTION 2. CURRENT PRACTICES FOR CONDITION ASSESSMENT 2.1 Condition Assessment Scheme 2.2 Enhanced Survey Programme 2.3 Condition Assessment Programme 2.4 Guidelines for Surveys, Assessment and Repair 2.5 Emergency Response Services 2.6 Ship Inspection Report Programme 2.7 Insurance Inspection 3. MECHANISMS OF AGE RELATED DETERIORATION 3.1 Corrosion Wastage 3.2 Fatigue Cracking 3.3 Local Denting 4. DAMAGE DETECTION AND MEASUREMENT METHODS 4.1 Corrosion Detection and Measurements 4.1.1 Current Practice 4.1.2 Other Advanced Methods 4.2 Fatigue Crack Detection and Measurement 4.3 Mechanical Damage Detection and Measurement 5. MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF AGE RELATED DETERIORATION 5.1 Corrosion Wastage Models 5.2 Fatigue Cracking Damage Models 5.3 Corrosion Fatigue Models 5.4 Local Denting Damage Models 6.1 Corrosion Correction / Protection Measures 6.2 Fatigue Crack Correction / Protection Measures 6.3 Mechanical Damage Correction / Protection Measures 7. RELIABILITY ANALYSIS OF AGED SHIPS 7.1 Status Assessment 7.2 Load Models 7.3 Strength Models

7.4 Limit State Criteria 7.5 Hull Girder Strength Reliability Analysis 7.6 Target Reliability Index 8.1 Acceptance Criteria for Remedial Actions 8.2.1 Risk-Based Inspections 8.3 Repair Methods

Enhanced Survey Programme: Flag states generally delegate the authority to inspect ships to classification societies. This is regulated in SOLAS Ch.1 Reg. 10. The class certificate, including the already defined ESP for tankers and bulk carriers, therefore, becomes the cornerstone of the quality system for aging ships (IACS 2002, 2004a, 2004b, 2005).The ESP programme was developed on the basis of a critical evaluation of ship structures together with an appreciation of current experience with corrosion and cracking as well as the need to make quite transparent and specific procedures to avoid loopholes that could lead to insufficient follow up and, consequently, substandard ships. While class surveys were previously often the only thorough evaluation of the hull structure ,a basic element of the safety network today is that owners have implemented a proper maintenance system where all damages and defects should be reported to class to identify critical areas.