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
D6950D6950M-04 (2012) E1 Standard Practice For Application of Heat Weldable Atactic Polypropylene (APP) Modified Bituminous Waterproofing Membranes Systems For New Building Decks