Hatchcoverntegrity

Differing resultsfrom differenttest methods

CaptainTM Grime
BSe, MNI
AMSShanghai Ltd
This article examines different accepted
methods of testing cargo-hold hatch
covers of merchant ships to determine
their condition and acceptability (or
otherwise) in terms of their weathertight
integrity, or their ability to prevent water
ingress, into the cargo compartments.
Tim Grime also shows that the results
obtained may conflict, depending on the
method used, so the same hatch covers
may produce a pass or a fail.
reventing water ingress into the
cargo holds is an obvious and
fundamental requirement in the
interests of preserving buoyancy
of the vessel and so the safety of life at sea,
as well as in the interests of preventing wet
damage to cargo.
Obviously the weathertight integrity of
such hatch covers is, or should be, a matter
of considerable concern to the shipowner;
the ship's staff; the classification society;
the shipper; the cargo l'eceiver; the
charterer and/or demise charterer; the ship
owner's P&I club (third party liability
insurers); the charterer ' s P&I interests;
hull and machinery insu['ers; and port and
flag state interests.
The vessel's classification society will
test the hatch covers of a vessel when new
and periodically thereafter. If their
surveyors are satisfied that the covers are
proven to be of satisfactory weathertight
integrity, they will issue a load line
certificate. Periodically the covers will
again be tested during the vessel's life to
confirm that the covers remain satisfactory
(or if found othenvise they are repaired)
and the load line certificate is re-confirmed
or re-issued.
It would be very difficult, if not
impossible, for any commercial vessel to
trade without a valid load line certificate
as all insurances for the hull, cargo and
Seaways September 2010
other third party liabilities would be
prejudiced or made void (or partially void)
in relation to cover for consequential
losses by the policy provider. Cargo
interests would probably not obtain cargo
insurance and the carrier would not be
able to look to their P&l club to recover in
respect of liability for related losses
caused by watel' ingress.
It would therefore be reasonable to
assume that all agencies, testing
authorities and insurance interests have
agreed standard criteria for weathel'tight
integrity tests and also have agreed the
thoroughness of the methods used and how
to interpret test results. However, there
are a number of different test methods
currently in use and the author's
experience indicates that the results
obtained frequently conflict between
differing test methods, to the extent that
some indicat.e a pass and some a failure
when different test methods are conducted
on the same hatch covers.
Hose test v ultrasonic test
(UST)
These test methods are the most commonly
used currently. They seek to examine the
integrity of rubber packing seals, their
contact with steel compression bars on
adjacent covel' panels and the hatch
coamings (hose test) and/or compression
status of the packing l'ubber (UST).
When problems are found with the
contact or compression of the packing
rubber, it is likely that in heavy weather,
water may pass into the cargo compartment
in locations where the seal has failed or
where compression is insufficient.
Hose test. This method, which requires
the hatch covers to be closed, involves the
plying of a fire hose discharging high-
pressure water from an external position,
directly at all cover joints where a rubber
packing/compression bar contact exists.
This is intended to simulate seas breaking
on deck in heavy weather. Observation
from beneath the covers \vill reveal any
del'icient contact between rubber packing
and comp['ession bar as water entering the
compartment will be readily apparent.
This will indicate where remedial action is
required which should be followed by a
further test to confirm weathertight
integrity. However, in many cases the
locations where water is seen dripping or
leaking into the hold may not necessarily
be adjacent to where the defect is located
and so further investigation into the cause
of ingress and location of the damaged
area is required.
... Figure 1: A hose test in progress
A properly conducted hose test will
inform the observer where no contact vvith
the packing rubber exists and dir'ect
attention to where remedial work is
needed. If, as is assumed, the hose test is
conducted in port when the ship is static, it
can only indicate the weathertight
integrity of the hatch coverlhatch coaming
seal when the ship is static. It ,viII not be
indicative of the integrity of the seal when
the vessel is moving in a seaway.
Therefore, if a properly conducted hose
test results in a pass when in port, this does
not necessarily indicate that water ing1'ess
will not occur in heavy weather when the
vessel is at sea. This is because the vessel
will flex in a seaway and it is unlikely that
the hatch covers will flex similarly to the
vessel to maintain the same degree of
compreSSion of the rubber packing as may
be obtained when the vessel is static. If,
however, a hose test conducted when a
vessel is static indicates .leakage, then it is
safe to assume that those covers will permit
ingress when the ship is at sea in heavy
weather and seas are shipped on deck.
The International Association of
Classification Societies (lACS)
recommendation 14-4, of 1986 (as revised
and corrected to Corr.l , 2005) gives
9
specific guidelines to all lACS members as
to the specifics of a hose test. These are:
'6. Tightness testing of weathertight
hatch covers
6.1 Upon comp/' eti on of installation
of hatch covers, a chalk test i s to be
carried out .
6.2 This is to be foll owed by a hose
t est with a pressure of water not less
than 200 kN/m' (Author's note; this is
equal to 2 bar gauge pressure).
The following may be assumed for
guidance:
Nozzle diameter: mini mum 12mm
Water pressure: sufficient for free
height of water wi th the stream directed
upwards of 10 metres maximum
Distance to structure: ma.rimum 1.5
metres
6.3 Alternative methods of tightness
testing will be considered.'
Ideally, when a surveyor is instructed to
supervise a hose test, two surveyors
should be in attendance: one to supervise
the correct application of the water jets on
deck and the other observing the covers
from within the hold to identify any
locations of leakage. This, however, is
seldom possible as instructing clients are
generally not willing to pay for the
attendance of two surveyors for what may
be seen as a simple routine exercise.
When a sole surveyor is supervising a
hose test it is generally accepted sound
practice to first supervise the application
of high-pressure water jet from on deck
and subsequently to open the hatch covers
and check for evidence of water ingl'ess.
IDtrasonic test (UST). This method of
testing gives an idea of the lack of
compression (ancVor contact) and requires
tha t an ultrasonic transmitter is placed
within a cargo hold and the hatch covers
are closed and secured in the seagoing
condition. An operator then dons ear
phones which are connected to a receiver
and places the 'microphone' of the
receiving unit close to the compression
bar/ rubber packing jOints to 'listen' for any
received ultrasonic sound waves.
The operator must first obtain a reading
of the 'open hatch value' (OHV) which is a
reading of the strength or volume of
ultrasonic waves received (at deck level)
from the transmitter (usually placed on the
tank top in the cargo hold) when the hatch
covers are open . Thus a numerical OHV
value is obtained. Any lack of
compression/contact then detected when
the hatch covers are closed and secured will
be indicated by a figure on the receiving
unit's display which can then readily be
expressed as a percentage of the OHV.
Of the UST equipment currently
approved by class and most P&I clubs, the
manufacturers claim that any leakage
detected at or more than 10 per cent of the
OHV indicates where maintenance is
required. as a signal of 10 per cent 0[' more
detected by the operator will result in lack
of tightness when the vessel is at sea.
From the above it will be apparent that:
A hose test ':ill, if properly conducted,
indicate when rubber packing contact is
inadequate (the test is most frequently
done when a vessel is static in port) , in
other words the hose test indicates when a
seal has failed and cannot give any
advance warning of that possibility.
And therefore a hose test will not give
an indication of any particular aJ'ea of seal
where its effectiveness is approaching
failure, nor of the exact posit i on of the
leaky area.
In contrast , an ultrasonic test will
indicate gradual reduction in seal
compression with pin-point accuracy, thus
... Figure 2: An ultrasonic test of hatch covers in
progress
assisting in pre-planning corrective
maintenance before failure occurs. This
assumes that for comparison purposes the
test is repeated periodically. (This is
generally not done by ship's staff or ship
superintendents but perhaps it should be.)
Covers which have passed a hose test
when the vessel is static may not prevent
water ingress when the vessel is flexing in
a seaway in heavy weather and when seas
are shipped on deck.
A hose test generally will not be done
when the hold contains cargo for fear of
jeopardising it in the event of ingress
whereas a US Test can be done when a
hold contains cargo without this risk.
Apart from the above, one should not lose
sight of the fact that ultrasonic testing can
be done by one person, without the risk of
pollution (with hose tests, hydraulic oil and
cargo remnants can be spilled overboard)
and without temperature restrictions. Based
upon the above, alone, one may conclude
that there appears to be advantages in
adopting ultrasonic test methods.
Experience of test methods
Through my company I have completed a
number of condition surveys for various
clients including P&I Clubs, owners and
charterers during the past two years or so.
In the majority of these surveys we have
been requested to conduct weathertight
integrity tests of hatch covers without
receiving instructions as to what type of
method or equipment to use. On a number
of occasions, but not all, we have been
specifically instructed to use ultrasonic
testing equipment for this test.
Additionally , we have on a number of
occasions conducted both ultrasonic and
hose tests of a vessel's hatch covers and
the results have been illuminating. A
summary of two case findings follows.
Case A: newbuilding bulk carrier -
instruction at the request of ovvller's P&I
interests. This vessel was nearing
completion and owners had not taken
delivery. For this reason the condition
survey was unavoidably incomplete as the
vessel was not operational and was ,vithout
crew. The vessel had previously undergone
a hose test supervised by class. The hatch
covers had, reportedly, passed that test
and on that basis, class accepted the covers
for load line certification purposes.
Our surveyor, who was appropriately
trained and certificated by the
man ufactul'ers of the class approved
ultrasonic testing equipment, completed the
test and concluded that all (new) covers
failed. Indeed in one location a reading of in
excess of 90 per cent of the open hatch value
was obtained. Put simply, the covers passed
a class-approved hose test and shortly after,
failed a class-approved ultrasonic test.
This, of course, placed buyers and their
site team at the yard in a difficult position.
On behalf of the buyers, the site team
naturally wanted to ensure as best they
could that the buyer got what they
contracted with the builders for, a vessel
with weathertight hatch covers. We
concluded that the UST results were such
that a properly conducted hose test would
evince ingress. We therefore advised
buyers' representatives to conduct another
hose test. The yard, unsurprisingly, was
not agTeeable as they did not want to find
problems that required more time and
expense to rectify. Class was supportive of
the yard in this respect. (Here it is worth
noting that the build contract permitted
the builder to select the choice of class to
supervise and approve construction of the
ship, and that the yard specified a local
society that is known to be perhaps the
cheapest of all alternatives and with whom
a good relationship pre-existed.)
Seaways September 2010
10
Our qualified US technician was placed
underpressure to prove his qualifications
and toproyjdedocumentsalsoinconnection
with the equipment used. This was done to
the satisfactionoflhebuyers'site team and
therequiredremedialactionwastaken.
Withoutthisinterventionitislikelythat
this new vessel would have commenced
trading with non-weathertight hatch
covers but,yjthavalidloadlinecertificate.
Case B: Oil tanker conversion to bulk
carrier- instruction at the request of time-
charterers. This vessel had newly been
converted to abulkcarrierand therefore all
new hatch covers and coamings had been
fabricated and fitted. Our instructions were
to conduct both ahose test and an ultra-
sonictest ofthecovers.Thiswe achievedon
the same day with the US preceding the
hose test (as the latteris usuallymoretime-
consumptivethan theformer).
Allcovers failed the US testwhereas all
butonepassed the subsequenthose test.
In the majority of the hatch cover
ultrasonic tesls that we have attended
where failure has resulted, the covers
subsequently passed a second US test
afterremedialactionwas taken.
Conclusions
Commercial parties concerned with
hatch cover weathertight integritywill
benefit from including a clause in
contl'acts to build,convert, charlervessels,
or insurance contracts relating to them
whichspecifieslhemethod of testinghatch
covers forweathertightintegrity.
Such aclause which specifies the use of
class-approved UST equipment, operated
by trainedusers,yjthappropriatequalifica-
tions, would appear to juslifya g1'eater
deg1'ee of reliance in the performance of
hatch cover weathertight seals than that
affordedbywaterjettests.
lACS regulations currentlyapprove the
testing of hatch covers by dissimilal'
methods which can result in conflicting
conclusions.
Ship operators may benefit from
periodical ultrasonic testing of hatch
covers to monitor degradation of packing
compreSSion, in order to plan their
mainlenance.
The use of ultrasonic testingmethods
for hatch covers with class approved
equipment and trained operators is
increasing.Thismethodof testingbegan in
thelate80s/early90s, so itcouldbe argued
that the technique may still remain in its
infancy. However, the traditionally
conservative attitude of industry players,
typical of the marine industry, may have
slowed down the awal'eness and
acceptanceprocessofUStestingmethods.
Itis the author's experience that P&I
clubs will prefer UST methods ifpossible.
To demand US testingmethods universally
now may not be practical as such a
demand would gl'eatly exceed global
supply. However,whenever possible,clubs
\yjll and do select survey companies who
areableto carryoutultrasonictests.
Hose testing will forever remain a
useful tool but its limitations need to be
fullyunderstood.
No criticismofany authority,insurance
interest or classification society is
intended by this papel', but rather the
stimulation of informed constructive
criticismanddebate.
The opinions inthis articleare those of
the author and of AlVIS Shanghai Ltd and
are based upon fil'st-hand experiences
gleanedduringthepl'ecedingtwoyears.
Loss Prevention/Risk Assessor UK
This is an excellentopportunityfor aMasterMarinerwhois looking to come ashore.
Thiswell respected organization is looking for an additional team memberto adviseand guideits clients. Thiswill involveworldwide
travel, training, presentationsand inspections, alongwith involvementin articles for bulletins and publications- averyvaried and
interesting role. You will operatein an independentand fiexible manner, so mustbe highlymotivated.You willworkas partofthe senior
managementteam, reporting directlyinto the board. The prospects for full careeradvancementare excellent.
The ideal candidatewill be aMasterMariner(FG) Class 1with extensiveexperienceofdeepsea vessels. You will be diplomaticand
confident, with excellentreport writing skills. Based in South EastEngland, you mustbe able to travel forup to 6consecutiveweeks,on a
regularand frequent basis.
EU workingentitlementisrequiredforthisrole.
PleasesendyourCVtotpeacock@shippingjobs.comorcallTeresa Peacockforaconfidentialdiscussionon +44(0) 1702481630
Risk Executive UK
Should you be aChiefEngineeroraMasterMariner,lookingfor the opportunityto come ashore,then this role could be an excellentnext
step in yourcareer. Yourrecentseagoingexperiencewould be mostvalued by thiswell respected organization.
The role involvesworkingwith surveyors and analyzing reportsand defectfiles.You will useyoursound judgment in reviewing material,
and advising all partiesconcerned with yourfindings.You will appointsurveyors,monitorportstate control detentionsand monitorclass
information.
You will possessstrongcommunication and interpersonalskills, be numerateandanalytical,be able to prioritise yourworkload and work
well underpressure. You will be selfmotivated havecommercial awarenessand integrity,able todemonstrate and
accountability.
EU workingentitlementisrequiredforthisrole.
PleasesendyourCVtotpeacock@shippingjobs.com
orcallTeresa Peacockforaconfidentialdiscussionon +44(0) 1702481630 )
Commercial ProfessionalServices Technical www.shippingjobs.com
Seaways September2010
11