NI465 Rev 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev 2.0
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION Introduction to Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Services (CAP)
MODULES PART A PART B PART C PART D PART E PART F Hull Structure Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems. Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems. Bridge, Navigational and Radio Equipment and Systems. Accommodation Areas (Health Onboard). Third Party Inspections Port state/ Flag State/P&I Club inspections Annual vessel Inspections.
APPENDICES Appendix 1 CAP Request for Survey Form (CapRFC) CAP Planning Document (CapPD) CAP GAP/Defects List (CapGAP) CAP Certificate (CapCERT) CAP Ship History Report (CapSHR) CAP Critical Structure Area Report (CapCSAR) CAP Hull Structure Report (CapHSR) CAP Structure Monitoring Plan (CapSMP) CAP Thickness Measurement Analysis (CapTMA) CAP Executive Summary (CapEXEC) CAP Cargo Containment System Report (CapCCR) CAP Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report (CapHMR) CAP Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report (CapPMR)
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Appendix 7
Appendix 8
Appendix 9
Appendix 10 VESSEL SPECIFIC ANNEXES NI 465 NI 465 NI 465 NI 465 NI 465 NI 465 LNG Carriers Annex LPG Carriers Annex Appendix 12 Oil Tanker Annex Chemical Tanker Annex Bulk Carrier Annex Inland Waterways Annex Appendix 13 Appendix 11
Introduction
Index
Page No. 1. 1.1 Introduction BV Condition Assessment Programme for Marine Vessels Tailor Made Condition Assessment Services Industry Requirements for Vessel Condition Assessment Transparency and Class obligation Condition Assessment Programme Ratings (CAP ratings) How to request a CAP survey (CapRFC) Condition Assessment Programme Planning (CapPD) CAP Kick Off Meeting CAP Gap/Defects List CAP Closing Meeting CAP Certification CAP Reporting Safety during surveys 6
1.2
1.3
7 8
1.4 1.5
1.6
1.7
9 9 9 9 10 10 11
1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13
1. INTRODUCTION
Bureau Veritas began Condition Assessments of marine vessels in 1828 with the objective of seeking out the truth and telling it without fear and favour. The aim was to provide clients with all the information needed to assess the degree of trustworthiness of ships and their equipment. The world has changed and moved on since 1828, as industrial, technological and cultural revolutions have followed one another. Bureau Veritas as a market leader in CAP services continues to be a promoter of quality, health, safety and the environment worldwide. By making use of modern techniques in survey and verification to extensively analyse, identify and report on the actual condition of ships and their systems, Bureau Veritas continues to serve its clients as a leader in the field of vessel condition assessment. Bureau Veritas is recognised as a Provider of Quality CAP products by Charterers, terminal operators and Oil Majors. is an important tool for risk assessment, that is recognized by shipping operators, charterers and terminal receivers for its standard of quality. makes use of top experts on the type of vessel, or vessel sub system, being assessed. is a value added product for vessel Owners who wish an independent assessment of their vessels condition (benchmarking), or who wish a quality document which can be used to advertise their vessel(s) to prospective buyers, charterers, terminal receivers, underwriters or other parties. may be used as proof of management best practice in ship maintenance as well as a record of vessel condition in case of maritime incidents or litigation. may be used by vessel operators for benchmarking purposes as part of their selfassessment strategy. e.g. to form part of their Tanker Management and Self Assessment (TMSA), Ship management, or similar self assessment regime. .. is not limited to BV classed vessels. BVs CAP services can easily be applied to any classed or un-classed unit. From the smallest vessel to the largest Bureau Veritas can and does have the capacity and the experts to provide condition assessment services tailormade for the clients needs.
1.1 BVs Condition Assessment Programme for Marine Vessels

Our clients needs for vessel condition assessment are as varied as the vessels that they own and operate. Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme has been designed so that it can adjust to the clients requirements and is flexible to avoid interruption of vessel schedules. The Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme.. is a service provided as a supplement to class and is designed to be complementary. It is a consultancy service that documents the condition of a vessel at a specific time period in the vessels life and identifies the actual quality standard of the vessel in comparison to Class rules and IACS requirements. provides a comprehensive survey report in an easily accessible and understandable format, which includes observations, ratings and photographic records. sets a quality rating, between 1- 4, that easily identifies the condition, reliability and maintenance standard associated with the vessel, or vessel sub system, being assessed.
The types of Vessel that are Assessed under BVs Condition Assessment Schemes
Oil Tankers Chemical Tankers LPG Vessels LNG Vessels Bulk Carriers Container Vessels FPSOs & FSOs Inland Waterway Vessels Non BV Class Vessels
1.2 Tailor Made Condition Assessment Services (Modular CAP)

Clients can choose from a menu of stand alone condition assessment modules and services which allow the compilation of their own tailor made programme of surveys. Whether the clients programme consists of a vessel subsystem survey, or a suite of surveys covering an entire vessel and sub systems, or covers a fleet of vessels, BV modular CAP can be tailored to suit. A few examples of these tailor-made services are provided below for reference: Vessel Condition Assessment, (CAP) complete with comprehensive condition report with photographic records of the inspection, provided for each, some, or all, of the following vessel sub systems/areas: Hull structure and cargo containment, Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems, Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems, Bridge, Navigational and Radio Equipment and Systems, Accommodation Areas (Health Onboard), HULL Structure Fatigue Analysis consisting of computer analysis of the vessel structure using 2D or 2D/3D Finite Element modelling and calculation of hull girder strength. A full colour Condition Assessment Fatigue Analysis (CAPSFA) report is provided. Hot spot maps, monitoring areas and recommended repair procedures may also be included in the report. Vessel Condition Assessment and Structural Monitoring Programme consisting of an agreed plan of time based condition assessment by Bureau Veritas surveyors combined with vessel staff inspections and monitoring of the vessels structure and coatings. This type of plan assists the client to ensure that the structural integrity of their vessel(s) is maintained through an appropriate monitoring programme whilst ensuring that inspection and maintenance records and reports for vessel structure are readily available. (Special note for tanker operators: this type of programme is consistent with Element 4 of TMSA guidelines.) Condition Assessment report prior to docking or other repair period. This can be an in depth survey tailored to the clients requirements, for use with vessel docking repairs or, for use in life extending projects. General Vessel Inspection on an Annual Basis, tailored for vessel managers who require independent assessments of vessels condition for inclusion in their annual report to the vessel owners or shareholders. Inland Waterway Vessel Condition Assessment, which can be carried out for a classed or un-classed vessel that requires Condition Assessment certification to be provided prior to being found acceptable for charter. Bureau Veritas CAP experts have the flexibility to design a vessel specific condition assessment programme that suits the clients actual needs.
1.3 Industry Requirements for Vessel Condition Assessment

Many vessels today are required to have a condition assessment report and a CAP certificate, issued by an Industry recognised CAP provider, prior to being eligible for charter. The scope of such vessel condition assessments vary significantly because oil majors, bulk ore charterers and even load/discharge terminals have differing requirements depending on the vessel age, size and their specified minimum allowable vessel CAP rating. Because of such variance in requirements Bureau Veritas do not set a minimum vessel size for CAP.
Here are some observations on differing charterer requirements: Some charterers only require a CAP for hull structure for oil tankers, chemical tankers, LNG and LPG vessels, of 20,000 dwt and above. Other charterers may also require a CAP for hull structure plus cargo containment and machinery for vessels including those that are 4,000 dwt or less. Vessels of less than 3,000 dwt may only be acceptable for some charterers if a simplified condition assessment programme has been carried out. The vessel age, which determines that a condition assessment must be carried out, can vary from between 15 years to 20 years of age to 23 years depending on the charterer. For some charterers of oil, chemical, LNG and LPG vessels, the acceptable CAP rating may be CAP 2 or higher. A comprehensive Fatigue analysis may be required to identify potential stress hot spots. For some vessels a critical structure area survey plan may be acceptable in lieu of a Fatigue analysis. Limited areas of substantial corrosion within parts of the hull structure may not be acceptable. Some charterers require that local structural areas are to have a CAP rating of 2 or better for measured structure, visual condition or coatings condition. i.e. Rating 3 is unacceptable. For LNG/LPG vessels a close up survey of independent cargo tanks may or may not be required. CAP validity may be between 2.5 years and 4 years depending on the charterer and the CAP rating. Note: that BV do not stipulate a validity period for CAP certificates, the validity is up to the client and their charterer to decide. A higher Green Award score may be awarded to oil tankers and bulk carriers of 15+ years of age who have a Condition Assessment regime for Hull and Machinery. Bureau Veritas can be contacted to provide up to date guidance on charterers requirements for condition assessment and for an explanation of our BV condition assessment services.
1.4 Transparency and Class obligation

The Bureau Veritas Vessel Condition Assessment programme is designed to be highly transparent with the onus on clear and detailed CAP reports, photographic records and certification. Oil Majors, charterers and receivers have trust in the condition assessment surveys and reporting carried out by BV CAP surveyors, who are all experts in the type of vessel, or vessel sub system, being assessed. Depending on the clients requirements the Condition assessment surveys may be carried out independently from, or concurrently with, class surveys. (i.e. where an ESP vessel is undergoing CAP survey at the same time as intermediate or class renewal surveys then a Class and CAP team may be simultaneously on board to undertake respectively Class surveys and CAP inspections.)
Should any findings below class minimum requirements be discovered and not repaired then the CAP surveyor shall formally advise the client using the CAP GAP/Defects List. It should be pointed out that the vessel operator is required to inform the vessels Class Society of such findings. (See example of the CapGAP form, attached in Appendix 3.)
1.5 Condition Assessment Programme Ratings (CAP ratings)

The Bureau Veritas rating system for Condition Assessment is broadly defined as follows: CAP 1 Superior Condition Examination and/or measurements carried out with the results showing either minimal or no deterioration from the as new condition. Superior maintenance condition exists. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. CAP 2 Good Condition Examination and/or measurements carried out with the results showing a level of deterioration from the as new condition. No requirement for preventive or corrective maintenance. On acceptance of quotation the BV Local office representative shall meet with the clients representative(s) to draft out the CAP planning document (CapPD) which sets out the scope and extent of CAP surveys that are to be carried out. The CAP planning document is finalised onboard the vessel during meetings between the Lead CAP surveyor and the clients representative. (See an example of a CapPD, attached in Appendix 2.)
1.8 CAP kick off Meeting

CAP survey(s) begin with a kick off meeting held onboard the vessel. This meeting is held to familiarise all the concerned parties with Bureau Veritas condition assessment programme for the subject vessel. The following points are to be discussed during this meeting: Contents of the CAP planning document, The scope of CAP survey(s), Inspection arrangements,
Cap Ratings
1 2 3 4 Superior Condition Good Condition Acceptable Condition Poor Condition
CAP 3 Acceptable Condition Examination and/or measurements carried out with the results showing that condition is acceptable according to class rules and IACS requirements. No imminent corrective maintenance is required. Preventive maintenance may be required to halt deterioration. CAP 4 Poor Condition Examination and/or measurements carried out with the results showing defects, deficiencies or condition, below, that acceptable according to class rules and IACS requirements. Imminent corrective maintenance is required.
Safety requirements, CAP GAP/defects list. Other relevant issues.
1.9 CAP Gap/defects List (CapGAP)

During the condition assessment inspections the BV surveyor may find areas of hull structure, cargo containment system, hull fittings, machinery, etc,. that are either defective or have been assessed at a rating below that which the client expects. (e.g. a critical structural area may be assessed by the surveyor as being CAP 3 but the clients aim is CAP 1 for structure, i.e. a ratings gap exists.) All such Gap areas/defects are advised to the clients representative in writing and photographic records are kept. If these items are upgraded/rectified then a follow up inspection is made and photographic records taken. These records form part of the final CAP report. (See an example of a CapGAP list, attached in Appendix 3.)
1.6 How to request a CAP Survey. (CapRFC)

A request for a vessel condition assessment survey or for a Structure and Fatigue assessment may be made directly through the clients local BV district office, or can be requested on-line at www.veristarinfo.com (See an example of a CapRFC form, attached in Appendix 1.)
1.7 Condition Assessment Programme Planning Document (CapPD)

On receipt of a request for survey the local BV office (connecting district) shall contact the client to discuss their requirements and expectations for CAP Rating in order to compile a cost efficient quotation. . (Note: some charterers only accept a CAP rating of CAP2 or higher.)
1.10 CAP Closing Meeting

On completion of CAP surveys minuted CAP closing meeting are held and the results of the surveys and inspections are advised to the clients representative.
If the CAP survey is carried out over several visits then each time the surveyor completes his inspections a closing meeting is held with the clients representative. The findings of the surveys that have been carried out are discussed and a gap/defects list presented where applicable at this meeting. Preliminary ratings for surveyed parts may be presented during the closing meeting(s) however the final CAP rating shall only be determined after final review in the designated responsible BV office. Note: It is recommended that CAP inspections be completed during a single visit however this may not be possible due to the vessels schedule, or due to the type of vessel being surveyed. Should several visits be necessary then the timeframe between first inspection and last inspection is not to exceed 6 months. Where a vessel is in lay up, the subject of elongated repair timeframe or is being specially modified then the CAP timeframe between first and last visit may be extended on application to and agreement by BV Head Office, DNS_CAP.
Depending on the charterer, a condition assessment certificate may be recognised by them to have a validity period of either 2.5, 3 or 4 years. (See an example of a CapCERT, attached in Appendix 4.)
1.12 Condition Assessment Reporting

On completion of the condition assessment surveys the lead CAP surveyor provides a report that details the extent of surveys carried out, the condition of the vessel and vessel sub systems at the time of survey, details of repairs and upgrades together with photographic records.
1.11 Condition Assessment Certification (CapCERT)

Each CAP certificate details the scope of surveys carried out on each vessel or vessel sub system. Where a structural condition assessment survey has been carried out and a critical area review undertaken, then a structural monitoring plan (CapSMP) shall be proposed if any anomalies are found that would warrant monitoring. This plan shall include a list of items to be monitored, a proposed timeframe for monitoring and sketches/photographs if applicable. The BV CAP report shall normally be issued within the range of one month to three months from the end of survey depending on the scope of the clients requirements for CAP survey and certification. The CAP report is provided in both paper copy and electronic copy according to the clients needs and requirements for reporting. All BV condition assessment reports include an executive summary which gives an overview of the surveys carried out, the survey findings and the CAP rating(s) applied. The format of the condition assessment report varies depending on the scope of surveys and this format is normally agreed with the client prior to the commencement of surveys. For an extensive CAP the following report layout is typical:
CAP certificates issued by Bureau Veritas do not have a validity. They are issued to certify that the vessel, or vessel sub system, has a specific CAP rating on a specific date.
10
CAP REPORT INDEX 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Cover page (Identifying the type of report with a ship photo.) Bureau Veritas general terms and conditions CAP Report index of documents Ships Particulars CAP Certificate (CapCERT) CAP Report Executive summary (CapEXEC) Request for CAP survey (CapRFS) CAP Planning document (CapPD) Surveyors CAP survey report summary (CapREP) 09.1 Gap/defects report (CapGAP)** Ship history report (CapSHR) ** 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11 Class Hull Condition Evaluation Report ** Class Ballast Tanks Protection Report ** ESP Survey Planning Document ** Previous Structural and Condition Assessments carried out ** During CAP surveys the safety of the surveyor(s), the crew and the vessel is of paramount importance. In order to put in place a safety regime for the surveys the following safety procedures and requirements are advised. 1.13.1 The client is responsible for providing the necessary facilities for the safe execution of the CAP surveys. 1.13.2 The client will assume, with respect to the BV CAP surveyor(s), all the responsibility of an employer for his workforce such as to meet the provisions of applicable legislation. As a rule the surveyor(s) are to be constantly accompanied during surveys by personnel of the client. 1.13.3 Tanks and void spaces are to be made safe for access i.e. gas freed, ventilated and illuminated. Adequate ventilation and lighting is also to be provided for Machinery spaces and accommodation areas if under survey. 1.13.4 In preparation for survey and to allow for a thorough examination, all spaces, machinery, fittings and piping are to be cleaned, including removal from surfaces of all loose accumulated corrosion scale. Spaces are to be sufficiently clean and free from water, scale, dirt, oil residues, etc. to reveal corrosion, deformation, fractures, damages or other structural deterioration. However, those areas of structure whose renewal has already been decided by the owner need only be cleaned and de-scaled to the extent necessary to determine the limits of the areas to be renewed 1.13.5 Sufficient illumination is to be provided to reveal corrosion, deformation, fractures, damages or other deterioration. 1.13.6 Where Soft Coatings have been applied, safe access is to be provided for the surveyor to verify the effectiveness of the coating and to carry out an assessment of the conditions of internal structures which may include spot removal of the coating. When safe access cannot be provided, the soft coating is to be removed. Special note on reporting: where the client requires a specific reporting regime for a specific client of theirs then Bureau Veritas are able to amend our reporting regime to suit the clients requirements.
1.13 Safety during surveys
10
Structure and Fatigue Assessment (CapSFA) ** 11.1 11.2 Areas to be monitored ** Repair proposal **
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Critical Structure Area Review (CapCSAR) ** Hull structure report - with photos (CapHSR) ** Ultrasonic thickness measurements review (CapTMA) ** Structural monitoring plan (CapSMP) ** Cargo containment system report - with photos (CapCCR) ** Hull machinery, fittings and systems report - with photos (CapHMR) ** Propulsion & auxiliary machinery, fittings & systems report - with photos (CapPMR) ** Bridge, navigational and radio equipment & systems report (with photos) ** Accommodation area (Health onboard) report (with photos) ** Third party Inspections module Port state/Flag state/P&I Club inspections report (with photos) **
** If not applicable this section is left empty.
11
1.13.7
For overall survey, means are to be provided to enable the surveyor to examine the hull structure in a safe and practical way. For close-up survey, one or more of the following means for access, acceptable to the Surveyor, is to be provided: a) permanent staging and passages through structures b) temporary staging and passages through structures c) lifts and movable platforms d) boats or rafts e) other equivalent means.
a)
when the coating of the under deck structure is in GOOD condition and there is no evidence of wastage, or if a permanent means of access is provided in each bay to allow safe entry and exit. This means: i) access direct from the deck via a vertical ladder and a small platform fitted approximately 2 m below the deck in each bay; or ii) access to deck from a longitudinal permanent platform having ladders to deck in each end of the tank. The platform shall, for the full length of the tank, be arranged in level with, or above, the maximum water level needed for rafting of under deck structure. For this purpose, the ullage corresponding to the maximum water level is to be assumed not more than 3m from the deck plate measured at the midspan of deck transverses and in the middle length of the tank (See drawing below).
1.13.8
b)
1.13.9
Survey at sea or at anchorage may be accepted provided the Surveyor is given the necessary assistance from the personnel onboard.
1.13.10 A communication system is to be arranged between the survey party in the tank and the responsible officer on deck. This system is also to include the personnel in charge of Ballast pump handling if boats or rafts are used. 1.13.11 Explosimeter, oxygen-meter, breathing apparatus, life line and whistles are to be at hand during the survey. When boats or rafts are used, appropriate life jackets are to be available for all participants. Boats or rafts are to have satisfactory residual buoyancy and stability even if one chamber is ruptured. A safety check-list is to be provided. 1.13.12 Surveys of tanks by means of boats or rafts may only be undertaken at the sole discretion of the CAP surveyor(s), who is to take into account the safety arrangements provided, including weather forecasting and ship response under foreseeable conditions and provided the expected rise of water within the tank does not exceed 0.25m. 1.13.13 Rafts or boats alone may be allowed for inspection of the under deck areas for tanks or spaces, if the depth of the webs is 1,5 m or less. 1.13.14 At no time shall the upside of the boat or raft be allowed to be within 1 m of the deepest under deck web face flat. 1.13.15 If the depth of the webs is more than 1,5 meters then rafts or boats alone may be allowed only:
If neither of the above conditions a) or b) are met, then staging or an other equivalent means is to be provided for the survey of the under deck areas. 1.13.15 The use of rafts or boats as mentioned above does not preclude the use of boats or rafts to move about within a tank during a survey. Reference is made to IACS Recommendation 39 Guidelines for the use of Boats or Rafts for Close-up surveys. 1.13.16 In cases where the tanks coatings condition is less than good then closeup surveys of structure by means of rafting will not be carried out. In such cases alternative means for access may be employed at the discretion of the CAP surveyor i.e. staging or other equivalent means.
12
PART A Hull Structure
13
Index
Part A Hull Structure 2. 2.1 Hull Structure Condition Assessment of Hull Structure, Concept
Page No. 15 2.8 Wastage of Structure - Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements (UTM) Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements (UTM) Scope Wastage of Structure assessment
Page No.
21
15
2.8.1
21 22 22
2.2
Scope of CAP structural surveys, analysis and reporting CAP Structure and Fatigue Analysis (CapSFA) Structural Strength Calculations Fatigue Assessment
15
2.8.2
2.3
2.8.2.1 AUC Approach of UTM Assessment 16 16 17 2.8.3 Areas of substantial corrosion Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements (UTM) Reporting Ship Structure Protective Coatings Anodes (Cathodic Protection) Condition Assessment of Hull Structure, CAP Ratings Individual Structural Ratings for AUCs Overall Structural Condition Rating CAP Rating Guidelines for Rating of Structure CAP Rating for Vessel Structure Hull Structure Report with Photographs Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP) Special Structural Note regarding Cargo Containment Systems
2.3.1 2.3.2
2.8.2.2 Group Approach of UTM Assessment (Thickness measurement analysis report and Global Rating for UTM) 22 22
2.3.2.1 Notch stress approach using the Nominal Stress Procedure (Bi-dimensional modeling) 2.3.2.2 Notch stress approach using the Hotspot Stress Procedure (Tri-dimensional modeling) 2.3.3 The CAP Structure and Fatigue Analysis (CapSFA) Report Alternative Structure and Fatigue Analysis Ship History Report (SHR) Critical Structural Area Review (CapCSAR) Vessel Sections and Area(s) Under Consideration (AUC) Visual Structure Condition Overall Surveys Close up surveys Visual Structure Condition Ratings
2.8.4 17 2.9 17 2.10 17 2.11
23 23 24
24
2.3.4
18 18
2.11.1
24 26
2.4 2.5
2.11.2 18 2.11.3
27 28
2.6
19 19 19
2.11.4 2.12
2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3
28 28
2.13 20 2.14 21
28
14
PART A HULL STRUCTURE 2. Hull Structure

The Bureau Veritas condition assessment programme for hull structure makes use of modern techniques in survey and verification to extensively analyse, identify and report on the actual condition of the vessels structure. The CAP structural surveys may be carried out either in dry-dock or with the vessel afloat. 2.1 Condition Assessment of Hull Structure, Concept BVs condition assessment programme for hull structure combines the results of expert examination of design data with an extensive vessel structural survey to produce a thorough assessment of the vessels condition and the assignment of a CAP rating. The BV rating system is broadly defined in Section 1, 1.5, Condition Assessment Programme Ratings. The range of structural CAP surveys offered by Bureau Veritas varies depending on the clients requirements (e.g. the client may wish a survey scope that complies with the specific survey requirements of a charterer or of a cargo receiving terminal, or the client may require a survey and photographic record of the structure for their internal management purposes.) The extent of surveys required to be carried out and the subsequent reporting requirements are discussed and agreed with the client prior to inputting the survey scope into the CAP Planning document. (See Section 1, 1.7, Condition Assessment Programme Planning) 2.2 Scope of CAP structural surveys, analysis and reporting Bureau Veritas generally advocates the following scope of condition assessment surveys and computer modelling. (These proposals generally satisfy the CAP structural survey and assessment requirements of the main players within the marine industry.) For vessels that are less than 15 years of age the scope of surveys shall be equivalent to the scope of overall surveys, close up surveys and ultrasonic thickness gauging as required for the vessels third class renewal survey, plus an additional 30% increase in structural close-up surveys plus an additional 30% increase in ultrasonic thickness gauging above that specified by the BV Rules applicable at the time of the CAP surveys, A ship history report (SHR) is collated based on the previous 10 years of the vessels service life to enable review of the structural history of the vessel. (See Section 2.4, Ship History Report), A critical structural area review (CapCSAR) is carried out which assesses the results of structural computations and/or review the vessels ship history report, so that critical areas can be identified and included for inspection within the survey scope. A review report is provided. (See Section 2.5, Critical Structure Area Review), On completion of all CAP surveys a Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP) is compiled, in cooperation with the client, as an aid for future monitoring of the vessels structure. (See Section 2.13, Structural Monitoring Plan), For vessels that are 15 years of age, or over, the scope of surveys shall be equivalent to the scope of overall surveys, close up surveys and ultrasonic thickness gauging as required for the vessels fourth class renewal survey, plus an additional 30% increase in structural close-up surveys plus an additional 30% increase in ultrasonic thickness gauging above that specified by the BV Rules applicable at the time of the CAP surveys, A comprehensive structural and fatigue analysis (CapSFA) is recommended to be carried out, This identifies potential stress hot spots and assess the fatigue life of critical structures. (Note: this is a requirement by some charterers for CAP) (See Section 2.3, CAP Structure and Fatigue Analysis),
15
2.3 CAP Structure and Fatigue Analysis The Bureau Veritas recommended CAP Structure and Fatigue Analysis (CapSFA) is carried out using BVs MARS and VeriSTAR Hull programs. These programs use direct engineering calculations and 2D/3D modeling to provide information regarding the strength of the vessel structure (hull girder, secondary stiffeners, plating, primary supporting members) and to estimate the design fatigue life of structural details. As a first step a midship section analysis using the Bureau Veritas MARS program is performed, in order to check the overall longitudinal strength of the vessel and the local strength of plates and stiffeners. The analysis of the stress and buckling behaviour of the primary supporting members within the cargo hold area is then carried out on coarse 3D models using the finite element method. 3D fine mesh modelling is then carried out on areas where there is an important gradient of stress. On completion of the structural strength calculations the results are assessed against BVs rules to identify whether the following elements fulfill the rules requirements: Longitudinal strength (Hull section modulus at deck and at bottom of the midship section are assessed against the strength criteria,) Local Strength of Plates, Local strength of Longitudinals and secondary stiffeners, Ultimate strength (The ultimate hull girder bending moment is calculated for the midship section and checked against the sum of Still and Wave bending moments, in hogging and sagging condition, to identify whether the hull girder bending moment fulfills the strength criteria,)
The 2D analysis, on transverse sections of the vessel, is a verification of the hull girder strength and a quick scan of the fatigue performance of longitudinal stiffener connections with transverse webs. However 2D analysis only gives fatigue results for hot spots affected by bending type of failure. For the connections with transverse bulkheads and adjacent frames an additional 3D finite element coarse mesh analysis is necessary in order to evaluate the fatigue load component specific to those locations (the relative displacement between transverse bulkheads and adjacent frames). Once this load component is evaluated the results are added to those of the 2D analysis. To build on the 2D analysis direct 3D analysis is used to enable more complete evaluation for yielding, buckling, fatigue strength and for other type of fatigue failures, as well as for evaluation of other more complex structural details. The CapSFA calculations should be performed prior to the commencement of the physical onboard condition assessment survey in order to provide information on structural items that may require specific inspection during the close-up surveys part of the CAP surveys. (Note: The ship history report is reviewed to identify repairs and/or modifications that may have been carried out so that these can be taken into consideration during calculations.) 2.3.1 Structural Strength Calculations. Structural strength calculations are carried out using the net scantling approach, as per BV rules i.e. utilising the as-built scantlings specified on the vessels structural drawings minus a rule corrosion allowance.
Buckling and Stress (The ratio of the actual value of stress over the permissible one is assessed for the yielding and buckling criteria; longitudinal stress; transversal stress; shear stress; Von-Mises combined stress; Uniaxial buckling; Shear buckling; Bending and shear buckling; and bi-axial buckling.)
16
2.3.2 Fatigue Assessment The fatigue assessment is carried out in accordance with Bureau Veritas Rules, Part B, using the Notch Stress approach and is in compliance with IACS recommendation No. 56. This recommendation indicates that the fatigue assessment using the Weibull law should be -5 performed for a probability level ranging from 10 -3 to 10 . [Note: The 10 probability level is used in the new VeriSTAR program applied for vessels where the new IACS common structural rules (CSR) for bulk carriers and double hull oil tankers are applicable. The 10 probability level is used in the VeriSTAR program applied for vessels where the new common structural rules are not applicable] The following assumptions are taken into account within the calculations: Sailing factor (i.e. estimate of vessel in service steaming hours) taken by default equal to 0.85, Effect of compressive stress, Vessel Load/Ballast periodicity of 50% ballast, 50% full load, SN curve from UK HSE (previously DEn) at 2 (minus two standard deviations), Haibach effect, North Atlantic sea conditions. The final design fatigue life calculated by this method, may be corrected, if relevant, taking into account significant deviation to the default sailing conditions or operational life (e.g. if vessel has been laid-up, or solely operated in one sea area for a significant period of years, etc.,.) 2.3.2.1 Notch stress approach using the Nominal Stress Procedure (Bidimensional modeling): This calculation is carried out using a 2D model and the hot spot stress is obtained by application of a stress concentration factor to the nominal stress. (i.e. the BV standard library of details is used. However if the detail is not listed in the library of details, 3D finite element calculation is carried out to define the stress concentration factors). The following structural details are investigated during the analysis using this methodology: Connection of longitudinals with transverse web frames, Connection of longitudinals with transverse bulkhead.
-5 -4
2.3.2.2 Notch stress approach using the Hotspot Stress Procedure (Tridimensional modeling): The hot spot stress is obtained by means of a 3D FEM analysis, where the element size, in way of the hot spot, is typically equal to the plate thickness. This calculation is carried out using fine mesh models refined from the coarse mesh model made for the primary structural members assessment. Structural details that are investigated during the analysis using this methodology may include, but are not limited to, such items as: Longitudinal knuckles in double hull in midship section, Ends of stringers and vertical beams supporting transversal bulkheads, The foot of corrugated longitudinal and transversal bulkheads, Knuckles in longitudinal members (decks, longitudinal bulkheads ), Structure design liable to fatigue cracks according to Society experience, Structural detail(s) identified during the analysis of the ships records and for which fatigue may have been a factor in causing cracks. 2.3.3 The CAP Structure and Fatigue Analysis (CapSFA) Report On completion of the structure and fatigue analysis a comprehensive report is issued which includes the following deliverables (which are sufficient to cover the CAP structural and fatigue assessment requirements of the most stringent of the main players within the marine industry.) A report on the structural strength calculations and identification of hot spots, A report on the outcome of the Fatigue Analysis and identification of a list of structures found critical for fatigue (This is a list of the elements for which the calculated design fatigue life is less than the ships actual age plus a period of 5 years. e.g. if the actual age of the vessel is 15 years then the list covers all areas where the design fatigue life is less than 15+5 = 20 years.) Recommendations on structural areas to be modified, if any, and/or a repair methodology to be proposed. Recommendations on structural areas to be monitored, if any, including the provision of sketches to identify the hot spot areas.
17
Should this comprehensive analysis identify areas which require regular inspection or monitoring then the results are added to the scope of close up surveys, are also be included in the structure monitoring plan (CapSMP) and are reported within the Critical Structural Area Review. (CapCSAR)
For non-BV classed vessels the client is requested to provide the CAP surveyor with access to Class reports and vessel records covering this time period. The following documents should be provided/ assembled for the SHR. Class Hull Condition Evaluation Reports, where applicable, or copies of the vessels structural history based on previous class reports as well as Memorandum, Visas, recommendations, Conditions of Class for the timeframe being evaluated, Class Ballast Tanks protection report and/or clients records, ESP vessel survey Planning Documents, where applicable, Previous vessel Structural and Condition Assessments carried out from non-BV sources. (See an example of a CapSHR, attached in Appendix 5.)
2.3.4 Alternative Structure and Fatigue Analysis In some cases the client may require an alternative Structure and Fatigue Analysis for a particular vessel either due to the size of the vessel, the type of the vessel, due to recurring damage in a specific location, or for a specific charterers requirements. In such cases Bureau Veritas experts are able to give advice on specific requirements and can assemble a tailor made package of S.F.A. which covers the clients specific requirements in this regard. 2.4 Ship History Report (CapSHR)
2.5 Critical Structural Area Review (CapCSAR) Critical Structural Areas are locations which have been found to be sensitive to cracking, buckling or corrosion which could impair the structural integrity of the ship. The Critical Structural Area Review examines the results from structural assessment calculations (CapSFA), results from the ships history report (CapSHR) and uses Bureau Veritas experience of similar or sister ships in order to identify areas of the vessels structure which require specific and regular inspection/ monitoring. The deliverables from this review are to identify the following: Specific structural areas which require to be added to the CAP survey planning document (CapPD) to ensure that these areas are included for inspection during the close-up part of the physical onboard condition assessment survey. Specific structural areas which require monitoring on a regular basis and which require to be added to the Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP). (An example of a CapCSAR report can be found attached in Appendix 6.)
Investigation into the vessels history is an important part of any Condition Assessment Program and should be performed prior to the commencement of the physical onboard condition assessment. The aim is to provide information on structural items that may require specific inspection during the close-up surveys part of the surveys. The ship history may also identify instances of repairs and/or modifications that may have been carried out and which affects the outcome of Structural and fatigue assessment calculations. The vessels previous trading patterns and layup history can also affect such calculations. In general the vessels previous ten years history is reviewed for the SHR.
18
2.6
Vessel Sections and Area(s) Under Consideration (AUC.) These elements are termed Area(s) under Consideration (AUC.) The number of AUCs incorporated into a vessel section will usually be a minimum of six, however there can be eight or more AUCs depending on the layout of the section or depending on the surveyors review. The following table shows a hypothetical assessment to illustrate an example of a vessel section (in this case the centre tank of a VLCC) and individual AUCs:
To facilitate the assessment, review and reporting of the vessels structural condition, the ship structure is broken-down into sections such as external hull, main deck, cargo tanks, cargo holds, ballast spaces etc,. Each section is then further subdivided into several subsections or elements which are small enough to be readily examined and evaluated by the Surveyor, but not so small as to be structurally insignificant or too numerous to practically report on.
During close-up and overall surveys each AUC is individually assessed and given a rating for visual structure condition, for wastage of structure and for coatings condition. All individual AUC ratings are then combined to give a structural condition rating for the specific vessel section being surveyed and reported upon. An overall rating for the hull structure surveys is then computed by averaging the ratings attributed to the different surveyed sections of the hull structure as explained in section 2.11, Condition assessment of hull structure, ratings. 2.7 Visual Structure Condition Visual structure condition of the AUCs are assessed during overall and close-up surveys and a rating from 1 to 4 is applied to each AUC in each vessel section. 2.7.1 Overall Surveys An overall survey of the hull structure is a survey intending to assess and report on the overall condition of the vessels hull. Visual inspections of the condition of the structure are carried out, whereby the surveyor inspects for evidence of damage, deformation, indents, buckling, cracks,
leakages, pitting, grooving, erosion, coatings breakdown, anodes wastage etc,. Depending on ship type this type of inspection includes: External examination of deck, deck openings, hatches etc,. sea chests, ships sides and bottom, including corrosion protection system, Examination of under deck longitudinals through openings in deck and from access hatches and ladders, Inspection of forecastle, chain lockers, cofferdams, fuel tanks, sludge tanks and tanks in machinery spaces adjacent to the vessel hull, Examination of cargo spaces and containment systems, ballast spaces, cofferdams and void spaces, Visual inspection of deck girders or transverse rings iwo deck from access platforms, Examination of cargo hold hatch covers and coamings (plating and stiffeners), Inspection of condition of access ladders, stringers and platforms,
19
Examination of structure adjacent to each stringer/platform e.g. ship sides, longitudinal and transverse bulkheads, bulkhead stiffeners, centre line bulkheads, swash bulkheads, transverse rings, sloping plates, brackets etc., Examination of tank/hold/containment bottom structure, plating, longitudinals, transverse rings, bilge area and under pipe suction bellmouths, Inspection of Hot Spot areas (buckling etc,;) identified during computer modelling of the vessel. (If applicable), Tank testing (stagger tests etc,.). Tank tests are usually undertaken during the vessels renewal survey or when tank boundaries have been repaired. Where tank testing has been carried out this is to be reported in the CAP report. The Surveyor examines the bulkheads under test in the adjacent tanks or holds, voids or cofferdams. Generally, the test pressure should correspond to a water level to the highest point that liquid will rise under service conditions for cargo tanks. For double bottom tanks, peak tanks, wing tanks, upper and hopper tanks intended to contain sea water or fresh water, these are filled to the top of air pipes. For tanks other than Cargo or Ballast tanks, where deemed acceptable by the surveyor, then alternatives to water pressure testing may be carried out. During the overall surveys a determination is made by the CAP surveyor which may extend the scope of the close up surveys. During survey the CAP surveyor is to take representative photographs of the structural condition to enable the client to gain an overview and insight into the hulls general condition. These photographs are attached to the Hull Structure report (CapHSR) Defects found during the overall surveys are advised to the owners representative using the CapGAP document. 2.7.2 Close up surveys A close up survey is a survey where the details of structural components are within the close visual inspection range of the Surveyor, i.e. normally within reach of hand. Depending on the vessels age, the scope of close up surveys should be at least equivalent to that required for either the vessels third, or the vessels fourth, class renewal survey, as per BV Class Rules Part A. Chapter 3 & 4 plus an additional 30% increase in scope of surveys within the cargo length of the vessel.
The particular requirements for close up surveys differ depending on ship type however the scope of the close up survey may be extended as deemed necessary by the Surveyor, after consideration of the findings of the overall surveys and the critical structural area review (CapCSAR). Ships with reduced scantlings are subject to special consideration. The areas with reduced scantlings must be specially examined and closeup surveyed. In cases where the scope of surveys is either extended or reduced by the Surveyor, based on his findings, the CAP survey report reflects these changes together with proper justifications. By definition, close-up surveys require access to parts of a tank/hold/void space not normally within reach and this means that safe access is to be provided as discussed in section 1.13 Safety during surveys. The following areas deserve special attention during the survey : Ends of main girders, stringers and struts with associated brackets. Particular attention should be paid to the toes of brackets, bracket ends of shell, deck and bulkhead stiffeners. Connection of shell, deck and bulkhead longitudinals to transverse web frames. Particular attention should be paid to the side shell connections between full load and ballast waterlines and the tie beams at connection to transverse web frames (these areas being subject to cyclic loading of passing waves). Discontinuities in the form of misalignment or abrupt change of section. Plating in way of cut outs or openings. Areas of substantial corrosion or other suspect areas. Areas which show signs of damage or buckling. Areas identified by comprehensive fatigue analysis as having a fatigue life below that of the vessels actual age plus 5 years. Areas identified by the Critical Structural Area Review (CapCSAR) as having a previous history of recurring structural failures such as cracks, buckling etc., Areas identified for regular inspection/monitoring as per the vessels critical structure area monitoring plan (CSAM).
20
During the close-up surveys the CAP surveyor is to take representative photographs of areas identified by UTM, CapSFA, CapCSAR or CSAM as requiring special inspection. Should defects be found during close-up surveys then these defects are advised to the clients representative in writing using the GAP areas/ defects report (CapGAP) and photographic records are made. If these items are upgraded/ rectified then a follow up inspection is made and photographs are taken showing the rectification. These defects/rectifications form part of the final CAP report and be taken into consideration within the structural CAP ratings issued at completion of the surveys.
Surveys are undertaken to assess the condition of structure as regards damages, indents, buckling, cracks, tightness, grooving, pittings, crevice corrosion, erosion corrosion, bacterial corrosion, stress corrosion and other types of defects. 2.8 Wastage of Structure - Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements (UTM)
Ultrasonic thickness measurements form a major part of the condition assessment surveys of hull structure and the analysis of these measurements is a prominent factor in the determination of the amount of wastage of structure and subsequent assessment of CAP ratings. Where possible the client should arrange for thickness measurements to be carried out in the presence of the CAP surveyor however if the ultrasonic gauging has been conducted within the last 6 months prior to the CAP survey then this may be taken into account when determining the overall gauging requirement for the CAP survey, provided that a BV class surveyor was present at the time of the gauging. Where a client wishes to submit a UTM report that has been accepted by another IACS society, or submits a UTM report previously accepted by BV which was carried out more than 6 months prior to the CAP survey then these are to be reviewed on a case by case basis. In such case the date and scope of UTM gauging reports is to be highlighted in the executive summary of the CAP report. (Note: the UTM Supplier must be certified as a service supplier as per IACS UR S17 & Z10s. ) 2.8.1 Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements (UTM) Scope Depending on the age of the vessel the scope of thickness measurements should be at least equivalent to that required for either the vessels third, or vessels fourth, class renewal survey, plus an additional 30% increase in scope above the class minimum requirements. (BV minimum requirements for thickness measurements are given in BV Class Rules Part A. Chapter 2, 3 & 4. and differ depending on the ship type.) The additional measurement areas consistent with the 30% increase in scope for the CAP UTM gauging are agreed with the client prior to survey commencement. The full scope of the agreed UTM measurement requirements are then be included in the CAP planning document (CapPD) The scope may be extended further, including to other areas e.g. fuel tanks, pipelines, pipe supports, accommodation decks etc,. if deemed necessary by the Surveyor, after consideration of findings during overall and close up surveys.
Should structural modifications be carried out to the hull structure during the timeframe of the CAP surveys then these modifications are also subject to close up inspections and photographic records taken. These modifications form part of the final CAP report and be taken into consideration within the structural CAP ratings issued at completion of the surveys. 2.7.3 Visual Structure Condition Ratings In accordance with the rating criteria given in section 1.5, Condition Assessment Programme Ratings, the ratings for visual structure condition are defined as follows:
Visual Structure Condition Ratings Rating 1 2 3 4 Rating Description Superior Condition Good Condition Acceptable Condition Poor Condition
21
2.8.2 Wastage of Structure assessment Wastage of structure ratings are assigned using a two stage UTM based approach, firstly at the AUC level by using a combination of survey techniques to allow assessment of the vessel and secondly by rating the vessel as a whole based solely on the UT measurements. Both approaches use the same UTM readings which are reviewed against permissible diminution of structure, as given in the tables of acceptance criteria provided in BV Class Rules Part A. In accordance with the general rating criteria given in section 1.5. ratings are applied for wastage of structure as defined in the table below: UTM Condition Assessment Ratings for Wastage of Structure Rating 1 2 3 4 Rating Description Superior Condition Good Condition Acceptable Condition Poor Condition %-age of permissible diminution 0 to 25% 25 to 75% 75 to 100% More than 100%
2.8.2.2 Group Approach of UTM Assessment (Thickness measurement analysis report and global rating for UTM) The group approach is where the full set of structural UTM readings are assessed on the basis of groups of structures (e.g. Transverse bulkheads are one group) and ratings are assigned for each group as per the criteria given in the table in 2.8.2 and the results assembled into a summarised report entitled Thickness measurement analysis report. (CapTMA) The cover page of this report contains a compilation of the groups of structure (e.g. main deck plating group, bottom plating group, wind/water strakes group, transverse belts group, transverse bulkheads group etc,.) with the structural ratings applied to each of these groups. A Global rating for hull thickness measurement analysis is then computed from the average of the combined results from the groups, rounded to the nearest integer. The Global rating for UTM is used as a guideline for the final CAP structural rating for the vessel. i.e. The final CAP Structural Rating cannot be better than the rating computed solely from the hull thickness measurement analysis. (See an example of a CapTMA, attached in Appendix 9.)
2.8.2.1 AUC Approach of UTM Assessment In this approach the UT measurements taken iwo each Area under Consideration (AUC) are assessed according to the criteria given in the table in 2.8.2 and a rating for structural wastage is applied for each AUC. 2.8.3 Areas of substantial corrosion Substantial corrosion is an extent of corrosion such that assessment of the corrosion pattern indicates a wastage in excess of 75% of allowable margins, but within acceptable limits. i.e. a CAP Rating 3. (Note: For ships built under the IACS Common Structural Rules, substantial corrosion is an extent of corrosion such that the assessment of the corrosion pattern indicates a gauged (or measured) thickness between tnet + 0.5mm and tnet.) The ratings for structural wastage applied for each AUC are then combined with ratings for visual structure and for coatings condition to enable a combined structural rating to be given to each AUC, as explained in Section 2.11. (Note: due to various circumstances such as inaccurate measurement, stray pits, etc,. then there will be some deviations in UTM readings which means that some flexibility in assessment is required. Therefore an allowance of 10% of errant readings may be allowed as long as these are randomly scattered and no repairs are deemed necessary by the surveyor.) If any individual AUC of the vessel shows a rating of 3 then the overall CAP rating awarded for the vessels structure can be no higher than CAP 2. Areas of substantial corrosion shall be included in the surveyors proposals to the client for regular inspection as part of the Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP). (Note that some charterers make the stipulation that any areas of substantial corrosion must be repaired prior to their chartering a vessel i.e. they only accept a vessel with all assessed AUC of rating 2 or better.)
22
2.8.4 Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements (UTM) Reporting The final CAP report contains a thickness measurement analysis report which is a summary and analysis of the UTM measurements which were used for assessment of wastage of hull structure. The groups of items considered in the calculations are also listed in this analysis report. (See an example of a CapTMA, attached in Appendix 9.)
2.9 Ship Structure Protective Coatings During overall and close up surveys the vessels structural protective coatings are surveyed and reported upon. During these surveys the condition of the coatings for the various AUCs are defined and ratings are then applied. The present definitions of coating conditions GOOD, FAIR and POOR are given in IMO Resolution A.744(18)/ Annex B-1.2.9 and IACS UR Z10s.
Coating Conditions, Ratings. BV CAP Rating IACS/IMO Condition IACS Rec. 87 Definition Condition with spot rusting on less than 3% of the area under consideration without visible failure of the coating. Rusting at edges or welds, must be on less than 20 % of edges or weld lines in the area under consideration. Condition with breakdown of coating or rust penetration on less than 20 % of the area under consideration. Hard rust scale rust penetration must be less than 10 % of the area under consideration. Rusting at edges or welds must be on less than 50 % of edges or weld lines in the area under consideration. Condition with breakdown of coating or rust penetration on more than 20% or hard rust scale on more than 10% of the area under consideration or local breakdown concentrated at edges or welds on more than 50 % of edges or weld lines in the area under consideration. No protective coatings fitted. Not applicable.
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
N/C N/A Notes:
n/a n/a
Soft Coatings or Semi Hard Coatings are not rated in the scope of this document, however where these are found to have been fitted then these are to be identified within the CapHSR report. Spot rusting is rusting in spots without visible failure of coating. Blistering of coatings is identified as coating failure according to IACS Rec. 87. Appendix A.
In similar fashion to the methodology explained in Section 2.7 for Visual structure, individual ratings are awarded for coatings condition for each Area under Consideration (AUC) within the survey. These ratings are then combined with individual ratings for visual structure and wastage to give an overall average rating, which is then rounded to the nearest whole number to give a final individual rating for the specific tank, cargo hold, or other space being surveyed.
Bureau Veritas has published a guide to Evaluating the Condition of Ship Structure Protective Coatings. This guide has been developed as an assistance to the surveyor when performing condition assessment (CAP) surveys. The guide is an addendum to this Document. Note: that some charterers require that AUCs with a coatings rating of 3, should be repaired, prior to chartering the vessel.
23
2.10 Anodes (Cathodic Protection) Although it is not a class requirement that anodes are fitted in ballast tanks, cargo tanks and other areas of the vessel hull, some clients and charterers require that the condition of anodes be reported upon. Therefore during overall and close up surveys corrosion protective anodes (if fitted) are to be assessed, according to each AUC where these are fitted, and a given a rating depending on the amount of wastage of anode found. Note: this rating is given for information purposes. The existence of, or lack of, anodes does not affect the overall CAP rating of the vessel. Anodes Condition Assessment Rating Grades 1 2 3 4 N/F N/A Rating Description Superior Condition Good Condition Acceptable Condition Poor Condition %-age of wastage. 0 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 75% above 75 % or 0% conductivity.
2.11
Condition Assessment of Hull Structure, CAP Ratings
The Bureau Veritas rating system for condition assessment is broadly defined within Section 1, 1.5 of this document (and is repeated below for easy reference. Cap Ratings 1 2 3 4 Superior Condition Good Condition Acceptable Condition Poor Condition
To arrive at an overall rating for the vessel structure the following elements pertaining to structure, structural strength and maintenance of structure are rated individually and collectively: Visual inspection of structure for damage, deformation, indents, buckling, cracks, leakages, pitting, grooving, erosion, etc,. Visual inspection of protective coatings for coating breakdown, cracking, flaking, blistering, detachment etc,. Wastage of structure: assessment based on ultrasonic thickness measurements (UTM) and the percentage of diminution of structure. Individual ratings are awarded for each of the above elements. These individual ratings are combined into an overall rating for hull structure and then finally a CAP rating for the vessel structure condition is awarded.
No anodes fitted. Not applicable.
Anode material is generally of zinc. Other types of materials, for example aluminium, are limited because of the danger of sparks when dropped or struck, although these materials generally offer better current output for the same weight. Aluminium anodes have an installation height restriction in cargo tanks equivalent to a potential energy of 275 Joules which effectively limits their use to bottom structure and requires that falling objects do not strike them.
2.11.1 Individual Structural Ratings for AUCs. During CAP surveys individual ratings are awarded for visual structure condition, coatings condition and wastage of structure, for each Area under Consideration (AUC) surveyed. These ratings are then combined to give an average rating, rounded to the nearest first decimal point, for each AUC. Each AUC average rating is then tabulated and combined to give an overall average rating, which is then rounded to the nearest whole number to give a final individual rating for the specific vessel section being surveyed.
Magnesium alloy anodes are normally not accepted. These anodes result in high production of hydrogen when immersed in sea water, thereby introducing an explosion/fire risk.
The following example shows how the Rating for a vessel section, such as a tank, hold or space, is computed.
24
The example below shows the type of table that is normally used to show the individual ratings for AUCs together with the overall Rating for that vessel section.
In this example the hypothetical vessel section being rated is the No. 1 Centre Cargo Oil tank and there are six areas under consideration AUCs.
In the example above the average rating for the tank is given as 1.2 and the final structural condition rating awarded for the No. 1 Centre Tank (vessel section) is 1.
This next example (below) makes use of the same type of table to assess the CAP rating for a Top Side Ballast tank on a Bulk Carrier.
In the example above the average reading is calculated as 1.2 which is then rounded to a structural condition rating of 1. However because the connecting space has been awarded a coatings rating of 3 then a structural rating of 1 cannot be awarded.
This is because the final rating cannot be better than one rating grade better than the lowest rating. Therefore the rating is revised upwards. In this example the best rating that can be applied to the No.3 TST is a rating of 2.
25
This next example makes use of the same type of table for assessing the structural rating of a VLCCs deck.
The vessel section in this case is the Main Deck and this is made up of six areas under consideration (AUC).
2.11.2 Overall Structural Condition Rating To arrive at an overall rating for the vessels structure the ratings awarded for each vessel section are combined and an average rating is computed. The following example shows the type of table which is normally used to show the ratings awarded to individual vessel sections together with the overall rating for the vessel structure. In this example the vessel is a bulk carrier
26
In the example (on the previous page) the average rating is calculated as 1.4 which is then rounded down to an overall structural condition rating of 1. However because cargo hold No. 3 has been awarded a rating of 3 then an overall rating of 1 cannot be awarded. This is because the final rating cannot be better than one rating grade better than the lowest rating. In this case the best Overall Structural Condition rating that can be applied to the Bulk Carrier is a rating of 2. It should be noted that some charterers would not charter this hypothetical vessel because there exists a vessel section with a rating 3. If this section (No. 3 Cargo Hold) is subsequently repaired/upgraded to a rating 2 or better during survey then the Overall Structural Condition Rating, for this hypothetical Bulk Carrier, would be updated by the surveyor to a Rating 1. 2.11.3 CAP Rating Guidelines for Rating of Structure
Any AUCs within Ballast tanks which are awarded a coating rating of 3 shall be included in surveyors proposals to the client for regular inspection as part of the clients Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP.), Damage to plating and stiffening, such as cracking and buckling, caused by in line stress or fatigue shall automatically lead to the AUC being rated as a 4. Depending on the detail, the cause of the defect and complementary aspects such as age of the vessel, repair of such defects may not be sufficient for some charterers unless design modification is carried out. Suitable repairs/modifications are discussed with the client on a case by case basis in conjunction with the structural and fatigue assessment and/or critical structure area review, The average rating for Anodes is given for information purposes and is not taken into consideration in determining the final CAP rating, Irrespective of the average structural rating calculated for a vessel section, the rating awarded for that vessel section cannot be better than one rating grade better than the lowest rating applied to an AUC for coating, wastage or visual structure condition within that vessel section. (e.g. if one AUC is awarded a rating 3 for coating condition then the maximum rating that can be applied to that vessel section is a rating of 2,) Irrespective of the average structural rating calculated for the vessel as a whole, the overall vessel structural rating awarded cannot be better than one rating grade better than the lowest rating applied to any vessel section, Irrespective of the average structural rating calculated for a vessel section, or for the overall vessel structure, the best structural condition rating that can be awarded cannot be better than the lowest rating awarded to any AUC for visual structure or measured wastage in way of the main deck or of the vessel bottom plating. Irrespective of the average rating calculated for a vessel section, a final overall structural rating of 4 is applied to the vessel if any AUC is awarded a rating of 4 for visual structure or measured wastage and is left un-repaired. The Global rating for UTM cannot be better than the rating found for the groups of items main deck or bottom plating. (e.g. if the calculated average rating for all groups is 1.2 whereas the rating of the group main deck is assessed as 2, then the final Global rating for thickness measurement analysis cannot be better than rating 2.)
The following guidelines apply to the rating of hull structure. The rating applied to an AUC for visual structure, visual coatings and wastage will be an integer, either 1, 2, 3, or 4. (Note: There is no rating 4 for coatings) If no rating can be given then a comment is required to be made e.g. N/F (not fitted), N/S (not surveyed) or N/A (not applicable) etc., Each average structural rating calculated for an AUC is rounded to the nearest first decimal place e.g. average of 1.24 is rounded down to 1.2, 1.26 is rounded up to 1.3 and special note 1.25 is rounded up to 1.3,
Each average structural rating awarded to a vessel section or the vessel as a whole is rounded to the nearest integer e.g. 1.2 is rounded to 1, 1.6 is rounded to 2 and special note 1.5 is rounded to 2, Where indents are prominent enough that they are mentioned in class notes/ memorandum then the rating awarded for visual structure within the AUC cannot be better than rating 2,
27
2.11.4 CAP Rating for Vessel Structure The finalised CAP rating awarded for the vessels structure is based on a comparison between the rating awarded for the Overall Vessel Structure and that awarded as the Global rating for Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement (UTM). The finalised CAP rating for Hull Structure shall be the worst of the rating values as per the example tabulated below.
Finalisation of CAP Rating for Hull Structure Overall Vessel Structural Rating Global rating for UTM CAP RATING AWARDED FOR HULL STRUCTURE 2 1 2
2.12
Hull Structure Report - with Photographs (CapHSR) ESP vessels with ballast tank coatings rated in less than GOOD condition. Any additional monitoring areas which may be proposed following the CAP close-up surveys. (An example of a CapSMP can be found attached in Appendix 8.)
On completion of the CAP survey the surveyor compiles a report for each vessel section and AUC surveyed. The report includes the table for CAP Rating awarded for Hull structure, the table for compilation of the rating awarded for the overall structural condition and a set of individual vessel section reports, complete with photographic records of the surveys. The reports include details of areas to be monitored and areas of substantial corrosion. (An example of a CapHSR can be found attached in Appendix 7.)
2.14
Special Structural Note regarding Cargo Containment Systems.
2.13 Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP) Following completion of the surveys the Lead CAP surveyor is to work closely with the clients representative to jointly formulate a Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP) for the vessel. The following items are suggested as being relevant for inclusion in such a plan and a monitoring timeframe should be drawn up for regular inspections of these: Critical Structural Areas. (i.e. locations which have been found to be sensitive to cracking, buckling or corrosion which could impair the structural integrity of the vessel.) Specific structural areas identified as part of CapSFA as being hot spots that require regular monitoring.. Ballast tank AUCs that have coatings rated as POOR condition.
Where the containment system in question is part of the overall vessel structure (e.g. as can be found on generic oil tankers, bulk carriers, cargo vessels etc,.) then the containment system is surveyed and reported within the framework of the vessels hull structure.
Where the containment system is not part of a generic vessel structure then this is covered within the vessel specific annexes such as: NI465 LNG Vessels Annex NI465 LPG Vessels Annex
28
PART B Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems.
29
Index
Part B Hull Machinery, Fittings And Systems. 3. Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems, Concept. Condition Assessment of Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems. Operational Condition Surveys, Scope and Rating criteria. Visual Inspection Function Tests Vibration Analysis Lubricating Oil/ Hydraulic Oil Analysis UTM Measurements Insulation testing Infra-red Thermography Hull Groups and Items under Consideration (IUCs) Operational condition, Ratings Assessment. Operational Condition, Rating Of Hull Groups Overall Operational Condition, Rating. CAP rating Guidelines for Rating Of Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Global rating for Maintenance International Safety Management Code. (ISM Code)
Page No. 3.6.2 31 3.6.3 3.6.4 31 3.7 32 32 33 3.8 3.8.1 CAP rating for Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems., Concept. Reporting. IACS Recommendation 74 A Guide to Managing Maintenance. Scope of Audit Global Rating for Maintenance
Page No.
41 42 42
3.1
31
3.2
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.3
43 43
Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report With Photographs (CapHMR) 43 GAP Report 43
34 34 35 35
3.8.2
36
3.4
37
3.4.1
37
3.4.2
38
3.5
40 40
3.6 3.6.1
40
30
PART B HULL MACHINERY, FITTINGS AND SYSTEMS

3. Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems, Concept
Cap Ratings
Bureau Veritas Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems CAP is a risk-management tool designed to assess the overall maintenance condition as well as the actual operational condition of the hull equipment. This dual method approach provides the vessel owner/manager with a more robust assessment of their onboard assets than could be deduced by onboard testing alone and adds-value by providing an extremely thorough record of condition. Importantly the BV CAP surveyors assess and make use of the records of condition monitoring and planned maintenance systems, analyses and reports which are already part of the day to day and periodical equipment maintenance management. The vessels records of vibration analysis, lubrication oil analysis, ultrasound sound, ultrasonic, infra-red thermography and other periodical systems analysis are reviewed during this process. 3.1 Condition Assessment of Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems, Ratings
The CAP rating that is awarded for the vessels Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems is based on a comparison between the rating awarded for the Overall Operational Condition of the equipment and the Global Rating for Maintenance which is awarded based on an audit of the vessels planned maintenance system(PMS). The CAP rating shall be the worst of these rating values. 3.2 Operational Condition Surveys, Scope and Rating Criteria
The rating system is broadly defined in Section 1, 1.5 of this document and is repeated below for easy reference. CAP 1 Superior Condition Examination and/or measurements carried out with the results showing either minimal or no deterioration from the as new condition. Superior maintenance condition exists. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. CAP 2 Good Condition Examination and/or measurements carried out with the results showing a level of deterioration from the as new condition. No requirement for preventive or corrective maintenance. CAP 3 Acceptable Condition Examination and/or measurements carried out with the results showing that condition is acceptable according to class rules and IACS requirements. No imminent corrective maintenance is required. Preventive maintenance may be required to halt deterioration. CAP 4 Poor Condition Examination and/or measurements carried out with the results showing defects, deficiencies or condition below that acceptable according to class rules and IACS requirements. Imminent corrective maintenance is required.
Bureau Veritas does not make use of any weighting factors in order to calculate final ratings but instead uses a group approach whereby similar Items under Consideration (IUC) i.e. equipment and systems are amalgamated into Hull Groups. This allows for ease of reporting as well as providing a logical method for assessment of ratings whereby each Group has equal weight in the calculation of the overall Operational Condition rating. Operational condition surveys consist of a visual condition inspection, a function test and depending on the equipment type a review of vibration analysis and/or a hydraulic or lubricating oil analysis. These surveys may also be supplemented by ultrasonic thickness measurements, insulation testing and infra-red thermography that the vessels managers may have introduced.
31
In general the surveyor will not request the opening up of equipment for inspection of component parts however where equipment is found disassembled for maintenance during CAP surveys then this should be documented within the Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report (CapHMR) and a photographic record taken. (See an example of a CapHMR report, attached in Appendix 12.) During operational surveys a determination may be made by the CAP surveyor which may extend the scope of the surveys e.g. the surveyor may request that a unit be dis-assembled for inspection should the inspected item show signs of deterioration in external condition or during function testing. Defects found are advised to the owners representative using the CapGAP document.
3.2.1
Visual Inspection
Visual inspections are carried out to assess the overall condition of each unit together with its appurtenances, bedplates and supports. The surveyor inspects (depending on the type of unit) for evidence of damage, deformation, cracks, leakages, coatings breakdown, corrosion, pitting, erosion etc,. During these inspections the CAP surveyor takes representative photographs which are attached to the Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report (CapHMR) to provide a photographic record of the general condition of the machinery, fixtures and fittings.
Visual Inspection Rating Criteria Rating 1 Items and systems visually examined and/or measurements carried out with the results showing either minimal or no deterioration from the as new condition. No deficiencies affecting safe operation exist. Measurements are within 0-25% of allowable tolerances and/or recommendations. Structure and supports show superficial reductions from as new scantlings. Good cosmetic maintenance condition exists. No system leakages exist. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. Rating 2 Items and systems visually examined and/or measurements carried out with the results showing a level of deterioration from the as new condition. No deficiencies affecting safe operation exist. Measurements are within 25-75% of allowable tolerances and/or recommendations. Structure and supports show a level of deterioration from as new scantlings. Fair cosmetic maintenance condition exists. No system leakages exist. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. Rating 3 Items and systems visually examined and/or measurements carried out with the results showing deterioration from the as new condition but within that acceptable according to class rules and IACS requirements. No deficiencies affecting safe operation exist. Measurements are within 75-100% of allowable tolerances and/or recommendations. Structure and supports show reduction from as new scantlings. Poor cosmetic maintenance condition exists. No system leakages exist. No imminent corrective maintenance is required. Preventive maintenance may be required to halt deterioration. Rating 4 Items and systems visually examined and/or measurements carried out with the results showing significant deterioration from the as new condition below that acceptable according to class rules and IACS requirements. Deficiencies affecting safe operation exist. Measurements exceed tolerances and/or recommendations. Structure and supports show significant reduction from as new scantlings. System leakages exist. Corrective maintenance is required.
3.2.2 Function tests Function tests are carried out on equipment under working conditions with the results assessed against the manufacturers operational criteria. e.g. Pumps and compressors are to be test run and their performance assessed, closing appliances are to be tested for full range of movement, machinery safety devices are to be tested and proved, alarms and instrumentation are to be actuated and inspected, pipelines are to be pressure tested etc,. All Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems equipment is required to be function tested. It is recognised that some vessels systems such as CO2 flooding, bulk foam systems, etc,. will not be able to have their performance fully tested however these can be assessed by supplemental means such as simulation, level testing and chemical analysis.
32
Function Test Rating Criteria Rating 1 Items and systems and where applicable, their attached valves, operating devices and equipment, locking devices, fittings, instrumentation etc,. are function tested with the results reaching rated values and/or full operation with either minimal or no deterioration from the as new condition. Power output or power generation is able to maintain 96-100% of the designed value for sustainable/continuous rating. Operating temperatures well within tolerances. Attached safety devices, alarms, trips etc,. function tested and proved 100% operational. Piping systems reach required test pressure without leakages or pressure drop-off. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. Rating 2 Items and systems and where applicable, their attached valves, operating devices and equipment, locking devices, fittings, instrumentation etc,. are function tested with the results showing a level of deterioration in rated values and/or full operation from the as new condition without affecting safe operation. Power output or power generation is able to maintain 90- 95% of the designed value for sustainable/continuous rating. Operating temperatures are within tolerances. Attached safety devices, alarms, trips etc,. function tested and proved 100% operational. Piping systems reach required test pressure without leakages or pressure drop-off. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. Rating 3 Items and systems and where applicable, their attached valves, operating devices and equipment, locking devices, fittings, instrumentation etc,. are function tested with the results showing deterioration in rated values and/or full operation from the as new condition but within that acceptable according to makers, class rules and IACS requirements without affecting safe operation. Power output or power generation is able to maintain 85-89% of the designed value for sustainable/continuous rating. Operating temperatures are within tolerance but approaching limits of tolerances or nearing alarm condition. Attached safety devices, alarms, trips etc,. function tested and proved 100% operational. Piping systems reach required test pressure without leakages or pressure drop-off. Preventive maintenance may be required to halt deterioration. Rating 4 Items and systems and where applicable, their attached valves, operating devices and equipment, locking devices, fittings, instrumentation etc,. are function tested with the results showing significant deterioration from the as new condition below that acceptable according to makers, class rules and IACS requirements. Found with deficiencies affecting safe operation. Power output or power generation is not able to maintain at least 85% of the designed value for sustainable/continuous rating. Operating temperatures exceed tolerances or are in alarm condition. Attached safety devices, alarms, trips etc,. function tested and showing defects or deficiencies. Piping systems do not reach required test pressure and/or leakages or pressure drop-off exists. Corrective maintenance is required.
3.2.3 Vibration Analysis
Vibration measurements are taken on rotating machinery and the results compared to previous readings. The measurements are normally performed under the same operating and loading conditions as the original readings and a comparison made of changes in the vibration patterns.
If there are important changes in vibration levels that infer significant deterioration of equipment then the unit should be opened up for examination of the rotating components.
Vibration Analysis Rating Criteria Rating 1 Analysis results close to the as new condition according to vibration records. Rating 2 Analysis results within 25% to 74% of the allowable tolerance Rating 3 Analysis results within 75% to 100% of the allowable tolerance Rating 4 Analysis results outside the tolerance.
33
Where no vibration history is available for review then the following may be applied: Vibration Analysis Rating Criteria (Where No vibration History is Available) Rating 1 Speed > 100Hz Speed <100 Hz Bearings mm/s mm/s g Up to 7 Up to 4 Up to 2 Rating 2 7 to 11 4 to 06 2 to 03 Rating 3 11 to 14 6 to 08 3 to 04 Rating 4 > 14 >8 >4
Where no vibration analysis is carried out for an item of rotating machinery then the best average rating that may be applied to that Item is a rating 2. i.e. irrespective of the results of any visual test, function test or lube analysis, a rating of 1 cannot be awarded for an item of rotating machinery if vibration analysis is not carried out. 3.2.4 Lubrication Oil/Hydraulic Oil Analysis Where appropriate, lubricating and hydraulic oil samples are collected from respective systems and are to be tested for evidence of deterioration of the oil or of equipment parts and for suitability of the oil for continued use.
In general vibration analysis reports may be accepted if carried out within three months prior to the start date of CAP surveys. The surveyor may request re-measurement for any unit should vibration levels appear higher than expected during function tests.
Systems and equipment that would be normally be expected to have oil analysis carried out are usually fitted with sumps or top up or header tanks.
Lubrication Analysis Rating Criteria Rating 1 Analysis results show either minimal or no deterioration from the as new condition as per the manufacturers new oil specification. No presence of wear particles . No contamination by water or foreign particles. No corrective action or preventive measures are required. Rating 2 Analysis results show some deterioration from the as new oil condition. Analysis shows minimal presence of wear particles . Analysis shows minimal contamination by water or foreign particles. No corrective action or preventive measures are required. Rating 3 Analysis results show that the lubricant or hydraulic oil is reaching the end of its useful life but is still suitable for continued operation. Analysis shows the presence of wear particles or contamination by water or foreign particles without affecting the safe operation of the system or equipment. Preventive measures may be required to halt oil deterioration. Rating 4 Analysis results confirm that the system oil requires renewal. Significant presence of wear particles . Significant contamination by water or foreign particles. Corrective action is required.
Should oil analysis not be carried out, for a system which would normally be expected to have such analysis undertaken, then a rating of 1 cannot be awarded i.e. the best average rating that may be applied to that system or equipment is a rating 2. 3.2.5 Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements Ultrasonic thickness measurements (UTM) are taken on cargo, vapour, cargo stripping, ballast piping that passes through oil tanks, inert gas, COW and on high pressure hydraulic lines.
In general lube oil sample reports may be accepted if carried out within three months prior to the start date of CAP surveys.
Where possible the client should arrange for thickness measurements to be carried out in the presence of the CAP surveyor however if the ultrasonic gauging has been conducted within the last 6 months prior to the CAP survey then this may be taken into account provided that a BV class surveyor was present at the time of the gauging.
34
Where a client wishes to submit a UTM report that has been accepted by another IACS society, or submits a UTM report previously accepted by BV which was carried out more than 6 months prior to the CAP survey then these are to be reviewed on a case by case basis. In such case the date and scope of UTM gauging reports is to be highlighted in the executive summary of the CAP report. (Note: the UTM Supplier must be certified as a service supplier as per IACS UR S17 & Z10s. )
The number of UTM measurements should be of a sufficient quantity to allow the CAP surveyor to make a reasonable determination of the condition of the pipelines that are being measured. Where measurements are not carried out, or are not of sufficient quantity to allow the surveyor to adequately assess the pipeline condition, then the best rating that can be awarded for that pipeline is a Rating 2, irrespective of the ratings applied for visual inspection or pressure testing.
Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement Rating Criteria Rating 1 Measurements show either minimal or no deterioration from the as new condition. i.e. reduction in thickness of between 0-25% of permissible diminution. No corrective action or preventive measures are required. Rating 2 Measurements show deterioration from the as new condition of between 25-75% of permissible diminution. No corrective action or preventive measures are required. Rating 3 Measurements show deterioration from the as new condition of between 75-100% of permissible diminution. Preventive measures may be required to halt deterioration. Rating 4 Measurements show deterioration or wastage above the permissible diminution. Corrective action is required.
The CAP Surveyor may extend the scope of the UTM measurements to other pipelines or hull machinery items that show evidence of deterioration during visual examination or are subject to leaks during pressure testing. 3.2.6 Insulation Testing Insulation Megger testing is to be carried out in accordance with Class requirements and the Rating Criteria below should be applied.
The surveyor may also request that pipeline sections or machinery items be dis-assembled for internal visual inspection depending on measurement results.
Note: The overall rating assigned for an item cannot be higher than the Megger test rating if a rating 4 is assigned for the megger results
Insulation Megger Testing Rating Criteria Rating 1 Over 100 Meg ohms. Rating 2 20-100 Meg ohms. Rating 3 Below 20 Meg ohms but above Class minimum requirements. Rating 4 Below Class minimum requirements. Corrective action is required.
3.2.7 Infra-red Thermography.
Infrared Thermography assessment of the operational condition of electrical equipment and cabling may be included as part of the condition assessment as a supplement to function testing should the client request this to be included in the CAP report. Where this is carried out a summary IRT report is to be attached to the CapHMR report for additional information on the equipment being assessed, however the results of the IRT assessment will not be rated.
35
3.3
Hull Groups and Items under Consideration (IUCs)
Group 03
Hull and Cargo Machinery:
To facilitate the assessment and reporting on the vessels Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems, similar Items under Consideration (IUC) (i.e. equipment and systems) are amalgamated into Hull Groups. This allows for ease of reporting as well as providing a logical method for assessment of ratings whereby each Group has equal weight in the calculation of the overall Operational Condition rating. Hull Groups and IUCs are very dependent on the type of vessel being surveyed so the examples of Groups and IUCs given below is not be taken as comprehensive or exhaustive but is provided for illustration purposes: Group 01 Anchoring and Mooring Installation and Equipment:
Consists of items such as Cranes; Derricks; Cargo pumps; Stripping pumps; Ballast pumps; Bow thrusters; Tank cleaning machines and attachments; Machinery room ventilation systems; Hydraulic pumps and tanks; Bunker transfer pumps; Inert Gas Generators and Fans; Deck Air compressors; Cargo compressors; Bow door operating equipment and alarm systems; Car ramps; Re-liquefaction equipment; Refrigeration equipment and pumps etc,. Group 04 Hull Electrical Equipment and Cabling:
Consists of items (IUC) such as Windlasses, gypsies and anchor chain stoppers; Anchors and shackles; Anchor chains, shackles and bitter end securing arrangement; Mooring and SBM Winches; Mooring wires and ropes, rope tails and shackles; Fire wires; Emergency towing equipment and bow stoppers; Panama and roller fairleads and chocks; Pedestal rollers, bollards and capstans; Winch brake test equipment; etc,.
Consists of items such as Lighting systems; electrical cabling; Cable sealing; Cable runs and junction boxes; Intrinsically safe electronics; Electrical and electronic equipment start/stop and control systems; Solenoids and valve/damper/door position indicators; Motors; Deck generators; Air Horns/Typhons; Alarm indicators; Transformers; Switchboards; Starter panels; Electrical bonding for pipes and couplings; etc,. Group 05 Hull and Cargo Fittings:
Consists of items such as Deck tanks; PV breakers; Deck Seals; Tank level systems; Hold or void space water detection equipment; Tank cleaning heaters; Cargo heaters, Cargo hoses; Butterworth hoses; Gas devourers; Gas freeing equipment; Container mountings and sockets; Deck and cargo hold fittings and Lashing equipment; Yokohama fenders, chains and lashing equipment; etc,. Group 06 Closing Appliances:
Special Note: Results of winch and windlass brake testing is to be highlighted in the CapHMR report and copy of test report attached. Group 02 Steering Gear and Rudder(s):
Consists of items such as hatch covers including hatch coamings; tank/hold/void space access and covers; cargo ventilation ducts and trunks; watertight doors and access hatches to accommodation, machinery rooms and store rooms; Air pipes and vent heads; Fire dampers and hatches for accommodation, machinery rooms and store rooms; Bow, side & rear doors; PV Valves; PV Breakers; vapour locks; etc,. Group 07 Hull Piping and Valves:
Consists of items such as Steering Gear, foundations and holding bolts; Hydraulic Pumps and telemotors; Angle indicators; Communications with bridge; Auxiliary steering arrangement; Steering gear room and drip trays; Steering gear lubrication devices; Oil drop tanks and other replenishing arrangements; Auto start/stop function of steering power and control units; Rudder locking device/hydraulic pump; Rudder(s) Structure; Rudder bearings condition and clearances; leakage test; etc,.
Consists of items such as pipelines for Cargo, Ballast, COW and tank cleaning, Stripping, Hydraulic, Steam, Fuel transfer, Bilge, Inert Gas, Vapour return, Cargo heating coils, Water spray systems and deck showers, including pipe supports and clamps, on deck, tanks, holds and machinery rooms; Valves and Relief valves; Strainers and mud boxes; Bilge and ballast eductors; Cargo eductors; etc,.
36
Group 08
Sea Connections and Valves:
Group 10
Consists of items such as sea valves; overboard discharge valves and cocks; Testing arrangements of sea valves where fitted; Sea pipe attachments to the hull; including within engine and machinery spaces, etc,. Group 09 Hull Miscellaneous:
Fire/Smoke/Gas Detection and Fire Fighting Systems:
Consists of items such as Accommodation ladders; Gangways; Ladders and walkways on deck, hatches and on forecastle; Foremast; Light posts; Kingposts; Bulwarks and railings; Deck and Machinery houses and store rooms; Bulkhead Seals (e.g. between Pump or compressor room and motor or engine room); Spare propeller and mounting; Spare yokohama fender and mountings; General Tools, Chain Blocks and associated lifting equipment etc,.
Consists of items such as pipelines, hoses, monitors, nozzles, applicators, valves and spanners for Fire, Foam, CO2 and Dry Powder fire fighting systems on deck, tank, hold, machinery and store rooms; Semi Portable and Portable fire fighting extinguishers; Fire and smoke detection systems and alarms; Portable gas detection equipment and Oxygen meters, Fixed Gas detection systems for pump rooms, ballast tanks etc,.; Fire fighting suits; Breathing apparatus and compressors; Smoke Hoods etc,. Group 11 Life Saving Equipment and Fittings:
Consists of items such as Lifeboats and rescue boats; Lifeboat engines; Lifeboat davits; On-Load release gear; Evacuation systems; Life rafts and launching devices; Life buoys; life jackets; immersion suits and TPAs; ELSA sets; Gas masks; resuscitation equipment; Flares; Emergency radios, EPIRB, SART and VHF radios; Rocket Lines; etc,. Group 12 Environmental Management:
Consists of items such as, Garbage containment and storage, Garbage compactors; Oil/Chemical spill containment and pumping equipment; Oil/Chemical spill clean up equipment; etc,. The above examples of Hull Groups may be added to, as necessary, by the attending CAP surveyor depending on the type of vessel under survey.
3.4
Operational Condition Ratings Assessment
3.4.1 Operational Condition Rating of Hull Groups. During the Hull equipment CAP surveys individual IUC ratings are awarded for visual condition, function test and depending on the equipment a vibration analysis and/or lubricating oil analysis. These ratings are then combined to give an average rating, rounded to the nearest first decimal point, for each IUC. Each IUC average rating is then combined to give an overall average rating, which is then rounded to the nearest whole number to give an operational condition rating for the hull group being surveyed. The following example demonstrates how the operational condition rating for a hull group is tabulated and computed from the individual IUC ratings. In this example the hypothetical hull group that is being rated is the Anchoring and Mooring Installation and Equipment group and there are fifteen individual items under consideration(IUCs) shown.
37
In the example above the average operational rating for this hypothetical group is given as 1.1 and the Operational condition rating awarded to the Anchoring and Mooring Installation and Equipment group is therefore a rating of 1. Note: Where analyses are not required to be carried out these are left unrated and N/A is entered instead of a rating.
N/A = Not Applicable. Where N/A is entered then this rating is omitted from the calculation for the average rating as can be seen in the example below: This next example (below) makes use of the same type of table to assess the CAP rating for a hypothetical Hull and Cargo Machinery group of IUCs.
38
In the previous example various items of rotating machinery have not undergone vibration analysis therefore these have been left unrated and N/T has been entered instead of a rating. N/T = Not Tested. Where no vibration analysis is carried out for an item of rotating machinery then the best average rating that may be applied to that Item is a rating 2, irrespective of the results of any visual test, function test or lube analysis. Therefore an average rating of 2 has been inserted in the table for those particular IUCs. Also in this example the Average Operational Rating is calculated as 1.4 which is then rounded to an Operational Condition Rating of 1. 3.4.2 Overall Operational Condition Rating To arrive at an Overall Operational Condition Rating for the Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems the individual operational condition ratings awarded for each Hull Group are combined, an average Operational Condition Rating is computed and a final rating formulated.
However because the Inert gas fans have been awarded a rating of 3, an operational condition rating of 1 cannot be awarded because the final rating cannot be more than one rating grade better than the lowest rating awarded for an IUC. Therefore the rating is revised upwards. In this example the best rating that can be applied to the Hull and Cargo Machinery group is a 2. However should the inert gas fans be overhauled during the CAP surveys and if on completion the rating awarded to the Inert gas fans was revised to a 2, or better, then the Operational Condition Rating would be amended to a rating of 1.
The following example shows the type of table which is normally used to show the ratings awarded to individual Hull Groups together with the Overall Operational Condition Rating awarded.
In the example above the average rating is calculated as 1.4 which is then rounded down to an Overall Operational Condition Rating of 1.
39
3.5 CAP Rating Guidelines for Rating of Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems The following guidelines apply to the rating of Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems The rating applied to an IUC visual condition, function test, vibration analysis, oil analysis and wastage (UTM) shall be an integer, either 1, 2, 3, or 4. If no rating can be given then a comment is required to be made e.g. N/F (not fitted), N/T (not tested) or N/A (not applicable) etc.. Each Average Rating calculated for an IUC, or a Hull Group or for the Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems as a whole, is to be rounded to the nearest first decimal place e.g. an average of 1.24 is to be rounded down to 1.2, 1.26 is rounded up to 1.3 and special note 1.25 is rounded up to 1.3, The Operational Condition Rating for each Hull Group, or for the Overall Operational Condition Rating Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems as a whole, is assigned by rounding to the nearest integer e.g. 1.2 is rounded to 1, 1.6 is rounded to 2 and special note 1.5 is rounded up to 2. Where no function test or expected analysis are carried out for an IUC then the best average rating that can be applied to that specific IUC is a rating of 2. i.e. irrespective of the results of other tests/analyses a rating of 1 cannot be awarded for an any Item if a function test or an expected analysis is not carried out. Where no function test or expected analysis are carried out then this is to highlighted in the CapHMR report. Where no function test and expected analysis is carried out for any IUC then the best average rating that can be applied to that specific IUC is a rating of 3. This is also to be highlighted in that Hull Group part of the CapHMR report. Irrespective of the average rating calculated for a Hull Group, the rating awarded for that Hull Group as a whole cannot be better than one rating grade better than the worst rating applied to an IUC for a function test or a required analysis (e.g. if one IUC is awarded a rating 3 for function test then the maximum rating that can be applied to that Hull Group is a rating of 2.) This is also to be highlighted in that Hull Group part of the CapHMR report. For Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems IUCs, that are critical to the safe operation of the vessel or for the safety of the crew (see ISM Code), have been awarded a rating of 4 then the rating awarded for that Hull Group will also be a 4, except were the item is covered by redundancy and the secondary unit has a rating of 3 or better. (Critical items are IUCs such as anchors, anchor chains, windlasses, steering gear, rudder, PV valves, IGS systems, Lifeboats, fire-fighting equipment, etc,.) Where the Operational Condition for an individual Hull Group is assigned a rating of 4 then the Overall Operational Condition for the Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems as a whole is also assigned a Rating of 4.
3.6 Global Rating for Maintenance The Global Rating for Maintenance for the Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems is awarded based on the results of an audit of the vessels planned maintenance system(PMS). In this section the requirements for a PMS are reviewed and the scope of the audit of the PMS is discussed.
3.6.1 International Safety Management Code (ISM Code) On November 4, 1993 The International Maritime Organisation adopted Resolution A.741(18) International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management ISM Code) Section 10 of the ISM Code covers requirements for Maintenance of the ship and equipment. This section is reproduced below for ease of reference:
40
ISM Code, Section 10 MAINTENANCE OF THE SHIP AND EQUIPMENT 10.1 The Company should establish procedures to ensure that the ship is maintained in conformity with the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations and with any additional requirements which may be established by the Company. In meeting these requirements the Company should ensure that: .1 inspections are held at appropriate intervals; .2 any non-conformity is reported with its possible cause, if known; .3 appropriate corrective action is taken; and .4 records of these activities are maintained. 10.3 The Company should establish procedures in SMS to identify equipment and technical systems the sudden operational failure of which may result in hazardous situations. The SMS should provide for specific measures aimed at promoting the reliability of such equipment or systems. These measures should include the regular testing of stand-by arrangements and equipment or technical-systems that are not in continuous use. The inspections mentioned in 10.2 as well as the measures referred to 10.3 should be integrated in the ship's operational maintenance routine.
10.2
10.4
Section 10 of the ISM Code requires ship managers to have an integrated operational maintenance routine i.e. a Planned Maintenance Scheme, or System, that should cover equipment and technical systems the sudden failure of which may result in hazardous situations i.e. critical equipment. The shipboard planned maintenance system does not need to cover all machinery onboard however as a minimum it should cover such critical equipment.
The PMS system need not be a class approved system under the ISM code, the Issuance of a Safety Management Certificate (SMC) by a Responsible Organisation (RO) is sufficient confirmation that the system in use covers such critical equipment. Under the ISM code the system need not be a fully computerised planned maintenance system but can be an alternative electronically based system which also provides for specific measures aimed at promoting the reliability of such (critical) equipment or systems.
3.6.2 IACS Recommendation 74, A guide to managing maintenance. In Rec. 74 IACS advise in section 1 .. Paragraph
10.1 of the ISM Code states, The Company should establish procedures to ensure that the ship is maintained in conformity with the provisions of the relevant rules and regulations and with any additional requirements which may be established by the Company. The procedures should be documented, and should ensure that applicable statutory, class, international (e.g. SOLAS, MARPOL) and port state requirements are met, and that compliance is maintained in the intervals between third-party surveys and audits. The maintenance procedures should also include any additional requirements established by the Company. These may arise, for example, from an analysis of the maintenance histories of machinery and equipment, from the particular demands of a ships operations, or from a manufacturers recommendations. It is important to remember that these requirements apply as much to the maintenance of the hull, the deck machinery and the life saving and firefighting equipment as they do to engine room items..
41
And in section 4 .. The list of critical equipment and systems will vary according to the type of ship and the operations in which it is engaged. When the equipment has been identified, appropriate tests and other procedures should be developed to ensure its reliability. On board any ship there may be equipment and systems the sudden operational failure of which may result in hazardous situations, and for which there may be no mandatory requirements. Measures aimed at promoting the reliability of such equipment or systems should be provided. The testing and maintenance of stand-by and infrequently used equipment should be part of the companys maintenance plan. The following are examples of items to be subjected to inspection and test: i) alarms and emergency shutdowns, ii) fuel oil system integrity, iii) cargo system integrity,
iv) emergency equipment (EPIRB, portable VHF, etc.), v) safety equipment (portable gas and CO2 detectors, etc.), vi) (pre-arrival and pre-departure tests of) emergency steering gear, generators, emergency fire pumps, telegraphs, etc, vii) Fire-fighting and life-saving equipment.
IACS recommendation 74 gives guidance that there may be equipment and systems the sudden
operational failure of which may result in hazardous situations, and for which there may be no mandatory requirements. therefore it is important for auditing
of a vessels planned maintenance system that the CAP auditor reviews all parts of the PMS and does not concentrate solely on those items that are covered by applicable statutory, class, international (e.g. SOLAS, MARPOL) and port state requirements.
3.6.3 Scope of Audit: The CAP surveyor will audit that part of the PMS system that specifically applies to the Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems. The audit will cover the equipment identified in the PMS system and the CAP Surveyor will not make any assessment whether the PMS system covers every item of critical equipment (unless specifically requested by the client to do so.) 3.6.4 Global Rating for Maintenance The Global Rating for Maintenance for the vessels Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems is awarded as per the criteria in the following table. The audit is to cover the timely implementation, frequency, scope and results of the maintenance. Postponements and overdue items are to be included in the audit and reporting and follow up actions are to be identified and reviewed.
The CAP rating system is broadly defined in Section 3, 3.1 of this document.
Global Rating for Maintenance Criteria for Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Rating 1 Maintenance performed in a timely manner. Overdue or postponed items, few in number or of minor importance, not affecting class and documented. No items postponed to Drydock unless the docking is imminent and these are planned in the repair specification.. No items subject to class recommendations. No ISM Non Conformities against Maintenance. Rating 2 Maintenance performed in a timely manner. Overdue or postponed items, few in number, or of minor importance, not affecting class and documented. Items postponed for docking due within 3 months and clearly planned in the repair specification. No items subject to class recommendations. No ISM Non Conformities against Maintenance. Rating 3 Maintenance performed generally in a timely manner with some overdue and postponed items not affecting class. Items postponed for docking due within 3 months and clearly planned in the repair specification. Items subject to class recommendations but within the limit date. Pending ISM Non Conformities against Maintenance Rating 4 Maintenance generally performed with overdue items and postponed items some of which affect class. Overdue Class recommendations and ISM Non Conformities against Maintenance.
42
3.7 CAP Rating for Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems. As stated in section 3.1 the CAP rating awarded for the vessels Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems is based on a comparison between the rating awarded for the Overall Operational Condition and that awarded for Global Rating for Maintenance. The finalised CAP rating for Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems, shall be the worst of these rating values as per the example tabulated below.
Finalisation of CAP Rating for Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Overall Operational Condition Rating Global Rating for Maintenance CAP RATING AWARDED FOR HULL MACHINERY, FITTINGS AND SYSTEMS 2 1
3.8 Reporting 3.8.1 Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report - with Photographs (CapHMR)
On completion of the CAP survey the surveyor compiles a report for each hull Group and IUC surveyed. The report includes the table for compilation and computation of the Overall Operational Condition Rating to be awarded for Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems and a set of individual Hull Group rating tables and reports, complete with photographic records of the surveys. (An example of a CapHMR can be found in Appendix 12.)
3.8.2 GAP report
Should any IUC or component of an IUC be awarded a rating lower than the minimum rating expected by the client then this is reported to the client using the CapGAP document. (An example of a CapGAP report can be found in Appendix 3.)
43
PART C Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems.
44
Index
Part C Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings And Systems. 4. Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings & Systems, Concept.
Page No. 4.6.2 46 4.6.3 4.6.4
Page No. IACS Recommendation 74 A Guide to Managing Maintenance. Scope of Audit Global Rating for Maintenance CAP rating for Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems., Concept. Reporting. Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report With Photographs (CapPMR) GAP Report.
57 57 57
4.1
Assessment of Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings & Systems. 46 Operational Condition Surveys, Scope and Rating criteria. Visual Inspection Function Tests Vibration Analysis Lubricating Oil/ Hydraulic Oil Analysis UTM Measurements Insulation testing Infra-red Thermography Engine Groups and Items under Consideration (IUCs) Operational condition, Ratings Assessment. Operational Condition, Rating Of Engine Groups Overall Operational Condition, Rating. CAP rating Guidelines for Rating Of Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Global rating for Maintenance International Safety Management Code. (ISM Code)
4.2
46 4.7 47 47 48 4.8 4.8.1 57 58
4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.3
58 58
49 4.8.2 49 50 50
50
4.4
53
4.4.1
53
4.4.2
54
4.5
55 56
4.6 4.6.1
56
45
PART C PROPULSION & AUXILIARY MACHINERY, FITTINGS AND SYSTEMS

4. Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems, Concept Bureau Veritas Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems CAP is a riskmanagement tool designed to assess the overall maintenance condition as well as the actual operational condition of the propulsion and auxiliary equipment. The BV CAP surveyors assess and make use of the records of condition monitoring and planned maintenance systems, analyses and reports which are already part of the day to day maintenance management. The vessels records of vibration analysis, lub oil analysis, ultrasound sound, ultrasonic, infra-red and other systems analyses are reviewed during this process. 4.1 Condition Assessment of Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings & Systems, Ratings
The CAP rating system is broadly defined in Section 1, 1.5 of this document
Cap Ratings
The CAP rating that is awarded for the vessels Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems based on a comparison between the rating awarded for the Overall Operational Condition of the equipment and the Global Rating for Maintenance which is awarded based on an audit of the vessels planned maintenance system(PMS). The CAP rating shall be the worst of these rating values.
4.2
Operational Condition Surveys, Scope and Rating Criteria In general the surveyor will not request the opening up of equipment for inspection of component parts however where equipment is found disassembled for maintenance during CAP surveys then this should be documented within the Propulsion and Auxiliary, Fittings and Systems Report (CapPMR) and a photographic record taken. (See an example of a CapPMR report, attached in Appendix 13.) During the operational surveys a determination may be made by the surveyor which may extend the scope of the surveys e.g. the surveyor may request that a unit be dis-assembled for inspection should the item show signs of deterioration in external condition or during function testing. Defects found during operational surveys are advised to the owners representative using the CapGAP document. (See an example of a CapGAP report, attached in Appendix 3.)
Bureau Veritas does not make use of any weighting factors in order to calculate final ratings but instead uses a group approach whereby similar Items under Consideration (IUC) i.e. equipment and systems are amalgamated into 'Engine Groups. This allows for ease of reporting as well as providing a logical method for assessment of ratings whereby each Group has equal weight in the calculation of the overall Operational Condition rating. Operational condition surveys consist of a visual condition inspection, a function test and depending on the equipment type a review of vibration analysis and/or a hydraulic or lubricating oil analysis. These surveys may also be supplemented by ultrasonic thickness measurements, insulation testing and infra-red thermography that the vessels managers may have introduced.
46
4.2.1
Visual Inspection
Visual inspections are carried out to assess the overall condition of each unit together with its appurtenances, bedplates and supports. The surveyor inspects (depending on the type of unit) for evidence of damage, deformation, cracks, leakages, coatings breakdown, corrosion, pitting, erosion etc,.
During these inspections the CAP surveyor takes representative photographs which are attached to the Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report (CapPMR) to provide a photographic record of the general condition of the machinery, fixtures and fittings.
Visual Inspection Rating Criteria Rating 1 Items and systems visually examined and/or measurements carried out with the results showing either minimal or no deterioration from the as new condition. No deficiencies affecting safe operation exist. Measurements are within 0-25% of allowable tolerances and/or recommendations. Structure and supports show superficial reductions from as new scantlings. Good cosmetic maintenance condition exists. No system leakages exist. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. Rating 2 Items and systems visually examined and/or measurements carried out with the results showing a level of deterioration from the as new condition. No deficiencies affecting safe operation exist. Measurements are within 25-75% of allowable tolerances and/or recommendations. Structure and supports show a level of deterioration from as new scantlings. Fair cosmetic maintenance condition exists. No system leakages exist. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. Rating 3 Items and systems visually examined and/or measurements carried out with the results showing deterioration from the as new condition but within that acceptable according to class rules and IACS requirements. No deficiencies affecting safe operation exist. Measurements are within 75-100% of allowable tolerances and/or recommendations. Structure and supports show reduction from as new scantlings. Poor cosmetic maintenance condition exists. No system leakages exist. No imminent corrective maintenance is required. Preventive maintenance may be required to halt deterioration. Rating 4 Items and systems visually examined and/or measurements carried out with the results showing significant deterioration from the as new condition below that acceptable according to class rules and IACS requirements. Deficiencies affecting safe operation exist. Measurements exceed tolerances and/or recommendations. Structure and supports show significant reduction from as new scantlings. System leakages exist. Corrective maintenance is required.
4.2.2 Function tests
Function tests are carried out on equipment under working conditions with the results assessed against the manufacturers operational criteria. e.g. Pumps and compressors are to be test run and their performance assessed, closing appliances are to be tested for full range of movement, machinery safety devices are to be tested and proved, alarms and instrumentation are to be actuated and inspected, pipelines are to be pressure tested etc,.
All Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems equipment is required to be function tested. It is recognised that some vessels systems such as CO2 flooding, bulk foam systems, etc,. will not be able to have their performance fully tested however these can be assessed by supplemental means such as simulation, level testing and chemical analysis.
47
Function Test Rating Criteria Rating 1 Items and systems and where applicable, their attached valves, operating devices and equipment, locking devices, fittings, instrumentation etc,. are function tested with the results reaching rated values and/or full operation with either minimal or no deterioration from the as new condition. Power output or power generation is able to maintain 96-100% of the designed value for sustainable/continuous rating. Operating temperatures well within tolerances. Attached safety devices, alarms, trips etc,. function tested and proved 100% operational. Piping systems reach required test pressure without leakages or pressure drop-off. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. Rating 2 Items and systems and where applicable, their attached valves, operating devices and equipment, locking devices, fittings, instrumentation etc,. are function tested with the results showing a level of deterioration in rated values and/or full operation from the as new condition without affecting safe operation. Power output or power generation is able to maintain 90- 95% of the designed value for sustainable/continuous rating. Operating temperatures are within tolerances. Attached safety devices, alarms, trips etc,. function tested and proved 100% operational. Piping systems reach required test pressure without leakages or pressure drop-off. No preventive or corrective maintenance is required. Rating 3 Items and systems and where applicable, their attached valves, operating devices and equipment, locking devices, fittings, instrumentation etc,. are function tested with the results showing deterioration in rated values and/or full operation from the as new condition but within that acceptable according to makers, class rules and IACS requirements without affecting safe operation. Power output or power generation is able to maintain 85-89% of the designed value for sustainable/continuous rating. Operating temperatures are within tolerance but approaching limits of tolerances or nearing alarm condition. Attached safety devices, alarms, trips etc,. function tested and proved 100% operational. Piping systems reach required test pressure without leakages or pressure drop-off. Preventive maintenance may be required to halt deterioration. Rating 4 Items and systems and where applicable, their attached valves, operating devices and equipment, locking devices, fittings, instrumentation etc,. are function tested with the results showing significant deterioration from the as new condition below that acceptable according to makers, class rules and IACS requirements. Found with deficiencies affecting safe operation. Power output or power generation is not able to maintain at least 85% of the designed value for sustainable/continuous rating. Operating temperatures exceed tolerances or are in alarm condition. Attached safety devices, alarms, trips etc,. function tested and showing defects or deficiencies. Piping systems do not reach required test pressure and/or leakages or pressure drop-off exists. Corrective maintenance is required.
4.2.3 Vibration Analysis Vibration measurements are taken on rotating machinery and the results compared to previous readings. The measurements are normally performed under the same operating and loading conditions as the original readings and a comparison made for change in the vibration patterns. If there are important changes in vibration levels that infer significant deterioration of the equipment then the unit should be opened up for examination of the rotating components.
Vibration Analysis Rating Criteria Rating 1 Analysis results close to the as new condition according to vibration records. Rating 2 Analysis results within 25% to 74% of the allowable tolerance Rating 3 Analysis results within 75% to 100% of the allowable tolerance Rating 4 Analysis results outside the tolerance.
Where no vibration history is available for review then the following may be applied:
48
Vibration Analysis Rating Criteria (Where No vibration History is Available) Rating 1 Speed > 100Hz Speed <100 Hz Bearings mm/s mm/s g Up to 7 Up to 4 Up to 2 Rating 2 7 to 11 4 to 06 2 to 03 Rating 3 11 to 14 6 to 08 3 to 04 Rating 4 > 14 >8 >4
Where no vibration analysis is carried out for an item of rotating machinery then the best average rating that may be applied to that Item is a rating 2. i.e. irrespective of the results of any visual test, function test or lube analysis, a rating of 1 cannot be awarded for an item of rotating machinery if vibration analysis is not carried out. 4.2.4 Lubricating Oil/Hydraulic Oil Analysis Where appropriate, lubricating and hydraulic oil samples are collected from respective systems and are to be tested for evidence of deterioration of the oil or of equipment parts and for suitability of the oil for continued use.
In general vibration analysis reports may be accepted if carried out within three months prior to the start date of CAP surveys. The surveyor may request re-measurement for any unit should vibration levels appear higher than expected during function tests.
Systems and equipment that would be normally be expected to have oil analysis carried out are usually fitted with sumps or top up or header tanks.
Lubrication Analysis Rating Criteria Rating 1 Analysis results show either minimal or no deterioration from the as new condition as per the manufacturers new oil specification. No presence of wear particles . No contamination by water or foreign particles. No corrective action or preventive measures are required. Rating 2 Analysis results show some deterioration from the as new oil condition. Analysis shows minimal presence of wear particles . Analysis shows minimal contamination by water or foreign particles. No corrective action or preventive measures are required. Rating 3 Analysis results show that the lubricant or hydraulic oil is reaching the end of its useful life but is still suitable for continued operation. Analysis shows the presence of wear particles or contamination by water or foreign particles without affecting the safe operation of the system or equipment. Preventive measures may be required to halt oil deterioration. Rating 4 Analysis results confirm that the system oil requires renewal. Significant presence of wear particles . Significant contamination by water or foreign particles. Corrective action is required.
Should hydraulic oil or lubricating oil analysis not be carried out, for a system or for equipment which would normally be expected to have such analysis undertaken, then the best average rating that may be applied to that system or equipment is a rating 2.
i.e. irrespective of the results of a visual test, function test or vibration analysis, a rating of 1 cannot be awarded if an oil analysis is not carried out. In general lube oil sample reports may be accepted if carried out within three months prior to the start date of CAP surveys.
4.2.5 Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements Although there is no requirement for UTM measurements for Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and systems the CAP Surveyor may request UTM measurements for machinery items that show evidence of deterioration during visual examination or are subject to leaks during pressure testing. The surveyor may also request that pipeline sections or machinery items be dis-assembled for internal visual inspection depending on such measurement results.
49
4.2.6 Insulation Testing Insulation Megger testing is to be carried out in accordance with Class requirements and the Rating Criteria below should be applied. Note: The overall rating assigned for an item cannot be higher than the Megger test rating if a rating 4 is assigned for the megger results.
Insulation Megger Testing Rating Criteria Rating 1 Over 100 Meg ohms. Rating 2 20-100 Meg ohms. Rating 3 Below 20 Meg ohms but above Class minimum requirements. Rating 4 Below Class minimum requirements. Corrective action is required.
4.2.7 Infra-red Thermography. Infrared Thermography assessment of the operational condition of electrical equipment and cabling may be included as part of the condition assessment as a supplement to function testing should the client request this to be included in the CAP report. Where this is carried out a summary IRT report is to be attached to the CapPMR report for additional information on the equipment being assessed, however the results of the IRT assessment will not be rated.
4.3
Engine Groups and Items under Consideration (IUCs)
To facilitate the assessment and reporting on the vessels Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems, similar Items under Consideration (IUC) (i.e. equipment and systems) are amalgamated into Engine Groups. This allows for ease of reporting as well as providing a logical method for assessment of ratings whereby each Group has equal weight in the calculation of the overall Operational Condition rating. Engine Groups and IUCs are very dependent on the type of vessel being surveyed so the examples of Groups and IUCs given hereafter is not be taken as comprehensive or exhaustive but is provided for illustration purposes:
50
Group 01
Engine Room, Auxiliary Machinery Spaces and Engine Store Rooms:
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Cleanliness of engine & machinery spaces and store rooms, condition of coatings, condition of floor plates, platforms and stairways, condition of bilges, condition of railings and hand rails condition of devices to protect crew against falls and dangers due to moving parts, hot surfaces and other hazards; condition of spare parts in storage etc,.
Group 02
Main Propulsion Installations:
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Diesel Engines, Steam turbines, Gas turbines, Main Motors and their associated casings, crankcases, casing doors, safety devices and valves, safety systems including alarms and trips, flexible couplings, attached pumps, attached fixed & flexible piping and bellows pieces, bedplates, holding down and tie bolts, HP fuel pumps, turbo blowers and associated coolers, insulation, Manoeuvring gears, clutches, turning gears, reduction gear(s), coupling bolts, main, thrust and steady bearings, intermediate shafts and bearings, torsion meter assemblies, instruments and gauges, safety valves, cooling and lubrication systems etc,. Group 04 Auxiliary Engines
Group 03
Tailshaft, Stern tube and Propeller Systems:
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Fixed and variable pitch propeller(s); Tailshaft(s); Stern tube bearings; Sealing devices; and their associated lube oil systems, hydraulic systems instruments and gauges, safety valves and cooling systems.
Group 05
Oil Pumps and Purifiers
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Turbo generators turbines and reduction gear; Diesel engines; Gas turbines; Cargo and ballast pump turbines and diesel engines; and their associated casings, crankcases, safety devices and valves, safety systems including alarms and trips, vibration dampers, attached pumps, attached fixed & flexible piping and bellows pieces, bedplates, holding down bolts, fuel pumps, turbo blowers and associated coolers, insulation, reduction gear(s), coupling bolts, thrust and steady bearings, instruments and gauges, safety valves cooling systems etc,.
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Fuel Oil service pumps; Bunker transfer pumps; Diesel oil service pumps; Lube oil service and transfer pumps; Fuel oil Separator and clarifiers; Diesel oil purifiers and their attached, valves, instruments and gauges, safety valves, filters, strainers and bedplates etc,.
Group 6
Fresh and Sea Water Pumps
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Jacket cooling water pumps; Feed water pumps; Condensate pumps; Centralised fresh water cooling systems circulating pumps; main and auxiliary circulating pumps; cargo condenser cooling pumps; scrubber pumps; deck seal pumps; sea water service pumps; Fire pumps; General service pumps; Hydrophore pumps; Hot water circulating pumps; Air conditioning circulating FW pumps; and their attached, valves, instruments and gauges, safety valves, filters and strainers and bedplates, etc,
Group 07
Compressors
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Start air and Emergency start air compressors; General service air compressors; Control and instrument air compressors, Air conditioning compressors; and their attached, valves, safety valves, instruments and gauges, safety valves and bedplates etc,. 51 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0
Group 08
Ventilation Fans
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Forced draft fans; Engine room exhaust air fans; Engine room supply air fans; engine control room and workshop supply, exhaust and air conditioning units and fans; and their attached dampers, casings etc,.. Group 09 Piping and valves
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Fuel oil piping and valves, Lube oil; Hydraulic; Compressed air; Steam; Sea Water; Fresh water; Bilge; Ballast; Feed water, Gas burning supply; Re-circulating; Oxygen and Acetylene; Sea chest vents; sewage and dirty water systems and mud boxes piping and valve systems; fixing clamps, vents, etc,; Group 10 Boilers, Economisers and Thermal Oil Heaters Group 11 Heat Exchangers (others):
Consists of items (IUC) such as: High pressure boilers; Low pressure boilers; Economisers; Exhaust gas economisers; Low pressure steam generators; Thermal oil heaters; and their attached furnaces; casings, exhaust gas uptakes; manholes and doors; hand-holes and doors; mountings; cocks; piping and valves and cocks; level gauges; instruments and gauges, safety valves and bedplates etc,; Special Note: for Thermal oil heater that analysis of oil has to be carried out.
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Evaporators; Jacket water coolers; Lube oil coolers; Lube oil heaters (for purifiers); Fuel oil heaters; Main Condensers; Cargo condensers; Gas or steam air pre heaters; Deaereators; Hot wells; Hot water calorifiers; and their attached, valves, instruments and gauges, safety valves and bedplates etc,.
Group 12
Miscellaneous Equipment
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Air Receivers and reservoirs; Hyrophore bottles; Air ejectors; Vacuum pumps; Chemical injection pumps; Emulsifiers; Deionization plants; and their attached valves, instruments and gauges, safety valves and bedplates etc,. Group 13 Communication, Order Transmission and Remote Control/Emergency Stop Systems:
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Communication and order transmission system between the navigation bridge and the machinery control positions; between the bridge and the alternative steering position; Remote control system of the main engine(s); Control system of adjustable pitch propeller(s); Emergency Stops for pumps, ventilators and sea valves; Quick release valves and their attached, piping and valves, instrumentation and gauges, and supports etc,. Group 14 Generators and Switchboards
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Alternators; Main motor generators; Auxiliary generators; Shaft generators; Lighting generators; Main Switchboards; Emergency Switchboards; Distribution Switchboards and their attached Instrumentation, controls systems, couplings; supports, bedplates, cabling etc,.
52
Group 15
Motors and Associated Starters
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Drive motors and starters for Oil Pumps; Purifiers; Sea and Fresh water pumps; Compressors; Rotary air pre-heaters; Ventilation fans; Fuel pumps, Air conditioning; Ballast pumps; cargo pumps: etc,. and their attached Instrumentation, controls systems, couplings; supports, bedplates, cabling etc,. Group 16 Electrical installations (others):
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Lighting, Emergency Lighting, Light switches, Transformers, Electrical cables, Cable runs, Cable seals, Junction boxes, etc,.
Group 17
Automated installation:
Group 18
Fire/Smoke/Gas Detection and Fire Fighting Systems:
Consists of items (IUC) such as: Main engine control systems; Auxiliary control systems; Monitoring, alarm and automatic shut-off systems; Automatic start up and change over of generators, Automatic start up of standby units; Bilge alarms. Boiler safety systems, Automatic combustion control systems; Engineers and UMS alarms systems; etc,.
Consists of items (IUC) such as: fire pipelines, hoses, monitors, nozzles, applicators, valves and spanners for Water, Foam, CO2 and Dry Powder fire fighting systems in the machinery spaces and store rooms; Semi Portable and Portable fire fighting extinguishers; Fire and smoke detection systems and alarms; Gas detection equipment and Oxygen meters; Fire fighting suits; Breathing apparatus; Smoke Hoods, Fire doors; watertight doors; Emergency escapes; Emergency escape signs; etc,.
Group 19
Environmental Management:
Consists of items such as Incinerators; Sludge pumps; Bilge pumps; Oily water separators; Sewage units; Sewage tanks; and their attached valves, instruments and gauges, safety valves and bedplates etc,. The above examples of Engine Groups may be added to, as necessary by the attending surveyor depending on the type of vessel under survey.
4.4
Operational Condition Ratings Assessment
4.4.1 Operational Condition Rating of Engine Groups. During the propulsion and auxiliary equipment CAP surveys, individual IUC ratings are awarded for visual condition, function test and also for UTM, vibration analysis and/or lubricating oil analysis. These ratings are then combined to give an average rating, rounded to the nearest first decimal point, for each IUC. Each IUC average rating is then combined to give an overall average rating, which is then rounded to the nearest whole number to give an operational condition rating for the engine group being surveyed.
53
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships The following example demonstrates how the operational condition rating for an engine group is tabulated and computed from the individual IUC ratings. In this example the hypothetical engine group that is being rated is the Group 03 - Tailshaft, Stern tube and Propeller Systems and there are eleven individual items under consideration(IUCs) shown. . Note: Where analyses are not required to be carried out, then these are left unrated and N/A has been entered instead of a rating. N/A = Not Applicable. Where N/A is entered then this rating is omitted from the calculation for the average rating as can be seen in the example below
In the example the average operational rating for this hypothetical group is given as 1.1 and the therefore the Operational condition rating awarded to the Tailshaft, Stern tube and Propeller Systems group is 1.
4.4.2 Overall Operational Condition Rating To arrive at an Overall Operational Condition Rating for the Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems the individual operational condition ratings awarded for each Engine Group are combined, an average Operational Condition Rating is computed and a final rating formulated. The following example shows the type of table which is normally used to show the ratings awarded to individual Engine Groups together with the Overall Operational Condition Rating awarded.
54
In the example above the average rating is calculated as 1.6 which is then rounded upwards to an Overall Operational Condition Rating of 1. 4.5 CAP Rating Guidelines for Rating of Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Each Average Rating calculated for an IUC, or an engine Group or for the Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems as a whole, is to be rounded to the nearest first decimal place e.g. an average of 1.24 is to be rounded down to 1.2, 1.26 is rounded up to 1.3 and special note 1.25 is rounded up to 1.3, The Operational Condition Rating for each Engine Group, or for the Overall Operational Condition Rating for Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems as a whole, is also assigned by rounding to the nearest integer, as above.
The following guidelines apply to the rating of Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems The rating applied to an IUC visual condition, function test, vibration analysis, oil analysis and wastage (UTM) shall be an integer, either 1, 2, 3, or 4. If no rating can be given then a comment is required to be made e.g. N/F (not fitted), N/T (not tested) or N/A (not applicable) etc.
55
Where no function test or expected analysis are carried out for an IUC then the best average rating that can be applied to that specific IUC is a rating of 2. i.e. irrespective of the results of other tests/analyses a rating of 1 cannot be awarded for an any Item if a function test or an expected analysis is not carried out. Where no function test or expected analysis are carried out then this is to highlighted in the CapPMR report. Where no function test and expected analysis is carried out for any IUC then the best average rating that can be applied to that specific IUC is a rating of 3. This is also to be highlighted in that Engine Group part of the CapPMR report.
Irrespective of the average rating calculated for an Engine Group, the rating awarded for that Engine Group as a whole, cannot be better than one rating grade better than the worst rating applied to an IUC for a function test or a required analysis (e.g. if one IUC is awarded a rating 3 for function test then the maximum rating that can be applied to that Engine Group is a rating of 2.) This is also to be highlighted in that Engine Group part of the CapPMR report. For Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems IUCs, that are critical to the safe operation of the vessel or for the safety of the crew (see ISM Code), have been awarded a rating of 4 then the rating awarded for that Engine Group will also be a 4, except were the item is covered by redundancy and the secondary unit has a rating of 3 or better. (Critical items are IUCs such as Main engine, generators, fuel pumps, boilers, main cooling water pumps, lube oil pumps, fire alarm systems, fire fighting systems, etc,.) Where the Operational Condition for an individual Engine Group is assigned a rating of 4 then the Overall Operational Condition for the Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems as a whole is also assigned a Rating of 4.
4.6
Global Rating for Maintenance
The Global Rating for Maintenance for the Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems is awarded based on the results of an audit of the vessels planned maintenance system (PMS). In this section the requirements for a PMS are reviewed and the scope of the audit of the PMS is discussed.
4.6.1
International Safety Management Code (ISM Code) The PMS system need not be a class approved system under the ISM code, the Issuance of a Safety Management Certificate (SMC) by a Responsible Organisation (RO) is sufficient confirmation that the system in use covers such critical equipment. Under the ISM code the system need not be a fully computerised planned maintenance system but can be an alternative electronically based system which also provides for specific measures aimed at promoting the reliability of such (critical) equipment or systems.
As explained in Section 3, 3.6.1, Section 10 of the ISM Code requires ship managers to have an integrated operational maintenance routine i.e. a Planned Maintenance Scheme, or System, that should cover equipment and technical systems the sudden failure of which may result in hazardous situations i.e. critical equipment. The shipboard planned maintenance system does not need to cover all machinery onboard however as a minimum it should cover such critical equipment.
56
4.6.2 IACS Recommendation 74, A guide to managing maintenance. As explained in Section 3, 3.6.2, IACS recommendation 74 gives guidance that there
4.6.3 Scope of Audit: The surveyor will audit that part of the PMS system that covers the Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems. The audit is to cover the timely implementation, frequency, scope and results of the maintenance. Postponements and overdue items are to be included in the audit and reporting and follow up actions are to be identified and reviewed.
may be equipment and systems the sudden operational failure of which may result in hazardous situations, and for which there may be no mandatory requirements. therefore it is important for auditing
of a vessels planned maintenance system that the surveyor reviews all parts of the PMS.
4.6.4
Global Rating for Maintenance
The Global Rating for Maintenance for the vessels Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems is awarded as per the criteria in the following table. Global Rating for Maintenance Criteria for Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Rating 1 Maintenance performed in a timely manner. Overdue or postponed items, few in number or of minor importance, not affecting class and documented. No items postponed to Drydock unless the docking is imminent and these are planned in the repair specification.. No items subject to class recommendations. No ISM Non Conformities against Maintenance. Rating 2 Maintenance performed in a timely manner. Overdue or postponed items, few in number, or of minor importance, not affecting class and documented. Items postponed for docking due within 3 months and clearly planned in the repair specification. No items subject to class recommendations. No ISM Non Conformities against Maintenance. Rating 3 Maintenance performed generally in a timely manner with some overdue and postponed items not affecting class. Items postponed for docking due within 3 months and clearly planned in the repair specification. Items subject to class recommendations but within the limit date. Pending ISM Non Conformities against Maintenance Rating 4 Maintenance generally performed with overdue items and postponed items some of which affect class. Overdue Class recommendations and ISM Non Conformities against Maintenance.
4.7
CAP Rating for Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems. The finalised CAP rating for Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems, shall be the worst of these rating values as per the example tabulated below.
As stated in section 4.1 the CAP rating awarded for the vessels Propulsion Machinery, Fittings and Systems is based on a comparison between the rating awarded for the Overall Operational Condition and that awarded for the Global Rating for Maintenance.
Finalisation of CAP Rating for the Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Overall Operational Condition Rating Global Rating for Maintenance CAP RATING AWARDED FOR PROPULSION AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY, FITTINGS AND SYSTEMS 2 1
57
4.8
Reporting
4.8.1 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report - with Photographs (CapPMR) On completion of the CAP survey the surveyor compiles a report for each engine Group and IUC surveyed. The report includes the table for compilation and computation of the Overall Operational Condition Rating to be awarded for Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems and a set of individual Engine Group rating tables and reports, complete with photographic records of the surveys. (An example of a CapPMR can be found in Appendix 13.)
4.8.2 GAP report Should any IUC or component of an IUC be awarded a rating lower than the minimum rating expected by the client then this is reported to the client using the CapGAP document. (An example of a CapGAP report can be found in Appendix 3.)
58
Appendix 1
CAP Request for Survey Form (CapRFC)
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name Class Society Class No.
Condition Assessment Programme

Request for CAP (CapRFC)
Vessel Type Date of Build Survey date (Estimated) Survey Place (Proposed)
Gross Tonnage IMO No.
Name and Address of Vessel Owners or Managers
The undersigned, acting in the capacity of the Owner's representative, requests Bureau Veritas, in accordance with the scope of guidance note NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 and Annexes, to:
Please contact us to discuss the scope of condition assessment surveys Provide a quotation for the following condition assessment surveys Carry out the following condition assessment surveys Hull Structure Structural Fatigue Analysis Cargo containment system Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Bridge, Navigational & Radio Equipment and Systems Accommodation Areas (Health Onboard) Annual Vessel Maintenance Inspection Third Party Inspections Others (Please give brief details in the box below)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
No No No No No No No No No No
Name of Owner's Representative Sign:
Date
Company Stamp
Bureau Veritas Representative Sign:
Date
BV Stamp
The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable. Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this document is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or omissions which may be contained in the said document, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the establishment or issuance of this document, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
Appendix 2
CAP Planning Document (CapPD)
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name Class Society / Reg. No.

Planning Document (CapPD)
Date of Build IMO No.
Vessel Type Gross Tonnage
Place(s) and date(s) of Surveys
Name and Address of Vessel Owners or Managers as stated on the Request for CAP Document
This condition assessment planning document sets out the scope and extent of the condition assessment surveys to be carried out. The CAP planning document is finalised onboard the vessel during meetings between the Lead CAP surveyor and the clients representative and is to be signed and stamped by both parties.
1) Condition Assessment Surveys to be Carried out:

Hull Structure Structural Fatigue Analysis Cargo containment system Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Others (Please give details in the box below) Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Bridge, Navigational & Radio Equipment and Systems Accommodation Areas (Health Onboard) Annual Vessel Maintenance Inspection
Comments or special advice:
Date
Company Stamp
BV Lead CAP Surveyor Sign:
Date
BV Stamp
The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable. Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this planning document is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or omissions which may be contained in the said document, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the establishment or issuance of this document, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
Bureau Veritas

Planning Document (CapPD)
Ship Name
Page No.
of
General Notes on Hull Structure Surveys 1) During surveys the safety of the surveyor(s), the crew and the vessel is of paramount importance. In order to put in place a safety regime for the surveys the safety procedures and requirements as outlined in section 1.13 Safety during surveys of the NI465 service note are to be followed. Depending on the vessels age, the scope of surveys shall be equivalent to the scope of overall surveys, close up surveys and ultrasonic thickness gauging as required for either the vessel's third, or vessels fourth class renewal survey, plus an additional 30% increase in structural close-up surveys, plus an additional 30% increase in ultrasonic thickness gauging above that specified by the latest BV Rules. (Vessel < 15 years of age => 3rd SSH Vessel age = 15 or 15+ => 4th SSH) For thickness measurements extent, determination of location and acceptance criteria refer to BV Rules Part A, Chapter 2, Appendix 3. To facilitate the assessment, review and reporting of the vessels structural condition, the ship structure is broken-down into sections such as external hull, main deck, tanks, holds, spaces etc,. Each section is then further subdivided into several subsections or elements which are small enough to be readily examined and evaluated by the Surveyor, but not so small as to be structurally insignificant or too numerous to practically report on. These elements are termed Area(s) under Consideration (AUC.) examples are Ships side, Longitudinal Bulkhead, Transverse bulkhead etc., Structural surveys of cargo tanks and holds, where these are integral to the hull structure, are included in this section. However where cargo tanks are not integral then these are surveyed under Cargo Containment System. Transverse section includes all longitudinal members contributing to longitudinal hull girder strength such as plating, longitudinals and girders at deck, sides, bottom, inner bottom, longitudinal bulkheads and as applicable longitudinals, hopper side plating, bottom plating in top wing tanks. "Hot Spot Areas" which are identified as areas requiring monitoring are to be included within the scope of 'close up' surveys. Critical Structural Areas, i.e. locations which have been found to be sensitive to cracking, buckling or corrosion which could impair the structural integrity of the ship, are subject to 'close up' survey. Close up survey: A complete tank or hold includes all boundaries and internal structure and external structure on deck in way of the tank/hold, where applicable. Close up survey: Tank or hold bulkheads include plates and stiffeners. Close up survey: Internal structure includes such items as floors and longitudinals, transverse frames, web frames, deck beams, tween decks, girders etc., Salt water ballast tanks include peak tanks. Double hull tank includes double bottom and side tank even if these tanks are separate. If CAP survey is carried out during RENEWAL survey, then the boundaries of all ballast tanks are to be tested by filling and where applicable the boundaries of all cargo tanks/holds are to be tested by filling in a stagger test pattern or alternate pattern. If CAP survey is carried out during INTERMEDIATE survey, then tank testing is not required, subject to no repairs having been carried out on tank boundaries. Additional vessel specific notes:
2)
3) 4)
5)
6)
7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14)
15)
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Planning Document (CapPD) (Hull Structure)
Page No.
of
2) Hull Structure (If applicable) 2.1 Systematic thickness measurements Items Full Length of Vessel Locations (Fr. Nos.) Means of Access
Within Cargo Length Area
Outside Cargo Length Area
Additional Comments
2.2 Close up surveys (including related thickness measurements) Items Locations (Fr. Nos.) Means of Access
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Planning Document (CapPD) (Hull Structure)
Page No.
of
2) Hull Structure (If applicable) 2.2 Close up surveys (Including related thickness measurements): Continued.. Items Locations (Fr. Nos.) Means of Access
Additional Comments
2.3 Areas identified in the Critical Structure Area Review or Structure & Fatigue Analysis as requiring Close up survey (and related thickness measurements as necessary): Items Locations (Fr. Nos.) Means of Access
Additional Comments
2.4 Tank Testing Items Means
Additional Comments
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name
Planning Document (CapPD) (Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems)

Page No.
of
3) Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems (If applicable) Scope of Surveys:

Anchoring and Mooring Installation and Equipment Cranes and Derricks Steering Gear and Equipment Rudder and Rudder stock Hatch/Tank covers, Fire & W/T doors, Vents and Closing Appliances Equipment, Piping and Machinery in Pump Rooms and Deck Houses Equipment, Piping and Machinery in Focsle Spaces Piping and Valves in Holds and Tanks Piping and Valves on Deck Cargo Systems and Machinery Remote Control & Monitoring Systems Electrical Equipment, Lighting, Cabling on Deck and Superstructure Life Saving Appliances (Lifeboats, Liferafts etc,.) Fire, Smoke Detection and Firefighting systems Pollution Prevention Equipment Cargo Equipment (Cargo Gear, Chain Blocks, Loose Gear etc,.) Deck Houses and Deck Stores, Equipment storage and Cleanliness Structure of Masts, Light Posts, Radar Masts, Flag Posts etc,. Others (Details to be provided below) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
Note: The operation and the maintenance programme declared by the clients should be in conformity with the guidance provided by the manufacturers of the equipment. Previous records for systems and deck machinery under assessment are consulted in order to identify recurrent problems. A request that piping be spot gauged may be deemed necessary depending on the system and pipe size. The condition assessment of machinery and systems will not request the opening up of components, however it should be noted that where any deck machinery has not been dismantled for inspection then the best rating that can be applied will be a 2 for that item.
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name
Planning Document (CapPD) (Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings & Systems)
Page No.
of
4) Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems (If applicable) Scope of Surveys: Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in Module Part C "Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems" of the Guidance note NI465 .
Main Propulsion, Shafting and Propellers Auxiliary Engines and Generators Power Distribution (Motors, Transformers, Lighting, Cables etc,.) Boilers and Heat Exchangers Auxiliaries (Pumps, Compressors, Purifiers, Air Conditioning etc,.) Piping Systems and Valves Controls and Instrumentation Fire Detection, Fire Fighting Systems and Safety Gear Planned Maintenance System Spares and Stores (Supply, Condition and Storage) Machinery Spaces and Cleanliness Others (Details to be provided below) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No
Note: The operation and the maintenance programme declared by the clients should be in conformity with the guidance provided by the manufacturers of the equipment. Previous records for machinery and systems under assessment are consulted in order to identify recurrent problems. A request that piping be spot gauged may be deemed necessary depending on the system and pipe size. The condition assessment of machinery and systems will not request the opening up of components, however it should be noted that where any machinery has not been dismantled for inspection then the best rating that can be applied will be a 2 for that item. Ratings of individual items cannot be better than the result of function testing. The final CAP rating for "Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems" cannot be better than the rating applied to the "Main Propulsion".
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Planning Document (CapPD) (Others)
Page No.
of
5) Bridge, Navigational and Radio Equipment and Systems (If applicable) Scope of Surveys: Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in Module Part D "Bridge, Navigational and Radio Equipment and Systems" of the Guidance note NI465 .
Yes No
6) Accomodation Areas (Health Onboard) (If applicable) Scope of Surveys: Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in Module Part E "Accommodation Areas (Health Onboard)" of the Guidance note NI465 .
Yes No
7) Third Party Inspections Port State/Flag State/P&I Club inspections. (If applicable) Scope of Surveys: Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in Module Part F "Third Party Inspections Port State/Flag State/P&I Club inspections." of the Guidance note NI465 .
Yes No
8) NI465 Annexes (If applicable) Scope of Surveys: Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in the following vessel specific annexes to the Condition Assessment Programme guidance note NI465 .
NI465 LNG Annex NI465 LPG Annex NI465 OIL TANKER Annex (Single and Double Hull) NI465 CHEMICAL TANKER Annex NI465 BULK CARRIER Annex (Single and Double Hull) NI465 INLAND WATERWAY VESSELS Annex Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
9) Others (If applicable) Scope of Surveys: Details to be provided below
Appendix 3
CAP Gap/Defects List (CapGAP)
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name Class Society

GAP/Defects List (CapGAP)
Class No. Survey Date IMO No. Survey Place
The following items are the subject of a CAP Rating 'Gap' due to Defect or Deficiency. Item No. Item Description and Location Client Expected Rating Rating Awarded
Brief Details of the Rating 'Gap', Deficiency or Defect Found
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Has CAP Rating been updated Item No.
Yes Yes
No No
Item Description and Location Client Expected Rating Rating Awarded
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Has CAP Rating been updated Item No.
Yes Yes
No No
Item Description and Location Client Expected Rating Rating Awarded
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Has CAP Rating been updated Name of Owner's Representative Sign: Date
Yes Yes
No No
Company Stamp
Date
BV Stamp
The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable. Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this check-list is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or omissions which may be contained in the said check-list, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the establishment or issuance of this check-list, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
ay
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

GAP/Defects List (CapGAP)
Class Reg No. IMO No.
The following items are subject of a CAP Rating 'Gap' due to Defect or Deficiency. Item No. Item Description and Location Client Expected Rating
Page
of
Rating Awarded
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Has CAP Rating been updated Item No. Item Description and Location Client Expected Rating
Yes Yes
No No
Rating Awarded
Yes Yes
No No
Rating Awarded
Yes Yes
No No
Rating Awarded
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Has CAP Rating been updated Other Comments None.
Yes Yes
No No
Appendix 4
CAP Certificate (CapCERT)
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name Class /Reg No.

Vessel Type IMO No. Date of Build CAP Certificate No.
Certificate of Condition Assessment (CapCERT)
Name and Address of Vessel Owners or Managers
Bureau Veritas carried out Condition Assessment Programme surveys in accordance with the BV Guidance Note NI 465 and vessel applicable annexes at the following place(s) and during the dates: From From From to to to
Condition Assessment Surveys were carried out in order to assess the condition of the: Hull Structure 2D/3D Structural Fatigue Analysis Cargo containment system Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems (other please enter details here) (other please enter details here) Based upon the analysis of the results of the various surveys carried out it has been considered the following CAP rating(s) is/are assigned: that on the to the to the to the to the to the to the Hull Structure Cargo Containment System Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems (other please enter details here) (other please enter details here)
This certificate is issued within the scope of Bureau Veritas Marine Divison General Conditions, attached overleaf, which form an integral part of this certificate which is issued in good faith and without prejudice, subject to the vessel systems which could not be assessed during the condition assessment surveys.
At (place)
BV Stamp
The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable. Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this certificate is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or omissions which may be contained in the said certiificate, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the establishment or issuance of this certificate, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
Appendix 5
CAP Ship History Report (CapSHR)
Bureau Veritas

Ship History Report (CapSHR)
This report documents the review of the vessels structural repair history which is an important part of the Condition Assessment Program and is performed, where possible, prior to the commencement of the physical onboard condition assessment. The aim is to provide information on structural items that may require specific inspection during the close-up surveys part of the surveys. In general the vessels previous ten years history (if applicable) shall be reviewed.
1) The following vessel records have been reviewed:

Vessel's Class Records (Class reports, memorandum, recomendations, class conditons etc.,) Hull Condition Evaluation Reports Hull Survey Planning Documents Vessel's Hull Condition Inspection records Ballast Tank Protection Reports Previous CAP reports PSC/Flag State Inspection Reports
If records span less than 10 years then actual time period reviewed and reasons should be given below.
2) The following areas have been identified for inclusion in the Critical Area Review
Areas showing evidence of recurring defects, substantial corrosion, poor coatings condition etc., should be recorded below (and on attached pages as necessary) for inclusion in the Critical Area Review.
Date
BV Stamp
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Ship History Report (CapSHR)
IMO No.
Page
Class/ Reg No.
2) Continued (areas identified for inclusion in the Critical Area Review)
of
Appendix 6
CAP Critical Structure Area Review (CapCSAR)
Bureau Veritas

Critical Structure Area Review (CapCSAR)
Vessel Type Date of Build IMO No.
Gross Tonnage
Critical Structural Areas are locations which have been found to be sensitive to cracking, buckling or corrosion which could impair the structural integrity of the ship. The Critical Structural Area Review examines the results from the ships history report (CapSHR), results of structural assessment calculations (CapSFA), Bureau Veritas experience of similar or sister ships, etc., in order to identify areas of the vessels structure which require close-up inspection during the CAP surveys and which require specific and regular inspection/monitoring as an ongoing procedure after completion of surveys. 1) The following analyses/assessments have been reviewed during compilation of this document: Ship History Report (CapSHR), dated Structural & Fatigue Analysis (CapSFA) Ref No. Other Evaluations (give brief description below) (attach additional sheets as required)
2) Review of the vessel's Ship History Report has identified the following areas which require to be included in the CAP planning document (CapPD) as areas requiring 'close-up' survey.
Date
BV Stamp
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

IMO No.
Page
Class/ Reg No.
2) ContinuedReview of the vessel's CapSHR has identified the following areas which require to be included in the CapPD for 'close-up' survey.
of
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

IMO No. of
Class/ Reg No.
3) Review of the vessel's Structure & Fatigue Analysis has identified the Page following areas which require to be included in the CapPD for 'close-up' survey.
Appendix 7
CAP Hull Structure Report (CapHSR)
Bureau Veritas

Hull Structure Report (CapHSR) - Cover Page
Gross Tonnage
This Report indicates the structural condition of the subject vessel's hull at survey completion.
Vessel Sections
Structure Rating
Vessel Sections
Structure Rating
1 - Superior Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition N/S - Not Surveyed
2 - Good Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A Not Applicable
Average Structural Rating Overall Structural Condition Rating Revised Overall Structural Condition Rating
If the Structural Condition Rating was revised then give brief reason(s) for this in the space below:
Date
BV Stamp
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name Vessel Section Areas Under Consideration (AUC)
Visual Structure

Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
Page
Visual Coatings Measured Wastage Average Ratings
Hull Structure Report (CapHSR) - Vessel Section Specific
of
Anodes Ratings
Anodes ratings given for information only
Average Structural Rating Structural Condition Rating Revised Structural Rating

Coating Ratings 1 - Good Condition 2 - Fair Condition 3 - Poor Condition N/C - Not Coated General Ratings 1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition Other Ratings N/F - Not Fitted N/S - Not Surveyed N/A - Not Applicable
If any of the following were found during survey then tick appropriate box and give a brief description in the spaces below, giving any details that may be pertinent: (add additional sheets as necessary) Areas of Substantial Corrosion Areas to be Monitored Defects and/or Deficiencies Others
This Report indicates the structural condition of the subject vessel section at survey completion.
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Hull Structure Report (CapHSR) - Photographic Records
Vessel Section Item Item
Page
of
Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size 7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height
If general photo - mark x
If other describe below
Item
Item
Item
Item
Appendix 8
CAP Structure Monitoring Plan (CapSMP)
Bureau Veritas

Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP)
This Structural Monitoring Plan should be compiled jointly with the client's representative, on completion of CAP surveys. The plan timeframe should cover the remaining time period until the vessel's next class renewal survey.
1) The plan has been compiled using the results of the following reviews/surveys/analysis.
Areas identified in the Critical Structural Area Review from the Ship History Report. Areas identified in the Critical Structural Area Review from the Structural & Fatigue Analysis Areas in ballast tank(s) where coatings condition is designated as POOR (rating 3) Areas in ESP Vessel (Oil or Chemical Tanker) where ballast tank(s) coating is designated as 'less than GOOD' Additional monitoring areas which are proposed by CAP surveyor following the CAP close-up surveys. Others (Please give details in the box below)
2) Recommendations for Monitoring (attach additional pages and sketches as required)
Area or Item to be monitored
Monitoring Interval
Date
Company Stamp
Date
BV Stamp
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP)
IMO No.
Class Reg No.
2) Recommendations for Monitoring (attach additional pages and sketches as required)
Area or Item to be Monitored
Monitoring Interval
Appendix 9
CAP Thickness Measurement Analysis (CapTMA)
Bureau Veritas

Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Summary Page
Gross Tonnage
Thickness Report Details [Include Report No., Company Name, Place(s)/Date(s) of measurements]
This Report is an analysis of the Hull Structure Thickness Measurements on Completion of CAP Survey
Group of Items
%-age of Grades
1 2 3 4 N/A
Group Rating
Average Rating for UTM Global Rating for UTM
The Final CAP Structural Rating awarded cannot be better than the Global Rating awarded for UTM
Date
BV Stamp
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

IMO No.
Page of 4 N/A
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis

Class / Reg. No.
Group of Items Item
Port Stbd
Detail Summary
Grade of Items
1 2 3
Comments:
1 - Superior Condition
2 - Good Condition
3 - Acceptable Condition
4 - Poor Condition
N/A - Not Applicable
Appendix 10
CAP Executive Summary (CapEXEC)
Bureau Veritas

Executive Summary
Gross Tonnage
Name and Address of Vessel Owners or Managers as stated on the Request for CAP Document
This Executive Summary contains a synopsis of the Condition Assessment Survey(s) carried out onboard the subject vessel during Reference is made to Bureau Veritas Document NI 465 DNS R00 E. January 2007, Rev 2.0 and to BV Class Rules that were in force at the time of the Condition Assessment Surveys.
Condition Assessment Surveys were carried out in order to assess the condition of the following:
Hull Structure Structural Fatigue Analysis Cargo containment system Others/Special notes: (Please see details below) Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings & Systems
Based on the analysis of the results of the various surveys it has been considered that the following CAP Rating(s) is/are assigned:
For the Hull Structure For the Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Others { Enter details Here} Others { Enter details Here} Others { Enter details Here}
Date
BV Stamp
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Executive Summary
Vessel Type Date of Build Page of
Comments on Hull Structure
Finalisation of CAP rating for Hull Structure Overall Vessel Structural Rating Global Rating for UTM CAP RATING AWARDED FOR HULL STRUCTURE
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name MV EXAMPLE

Executive Summary
Vessel Type DH Oil Tanker Date of Build March 1987 Page of
Comments on Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems
Finalisation of CAP Rating for Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Overall Operational Condition Rating Global Rating for Maintenance CAP RATING AWARDED FOR HULL STRUCTURE
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name MV EXAMPLE

Executive Summary
Vessel Type DH Oil Tanker Date of Build March 1987 Page of
Comments on Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings & Systems
Finalisation of CAP Rating for the Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems
Overall Operational Condition Rating Global Rating for Maintenance CAP RATING AWARDED FOR PROPULSION AND AUXILIARY MACHINERY, FITTINGS AND SYSTEMS
Appendix 11
CAP Cargo Containment System Report (CapCCR)
Bureau Veritas

Cargo Containment System Report (CapCCR) - Cover Page
Gross Tonnage
This Report indicates the structural condition of the subject vessel's hull at survey completion.
Vessel Sections
Structure Rating
Vessel Sections
Structure Rating
Average Structural Rating Overall Structural Condition Rating Revised Overall Structural Condition Rating
Date
BV Stamp
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name Vessel Section Areas Under Consideration (AUC)
Visual Structure

Page
Visual Coatings Measured Wastage Average Ratings Anodes Ratings
Anodes ratings given for information only
Cargo Containment System Report (CapCCR) - Section Specific
Average Structural Rating Structural Condition Rating Revised Structural Rating

Coating Ratings 1 - Good Condition 2 - Fair Condition 3 - Poor Condition N/C - Not Coated General Ratings 1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition Other Ratings N/F - Not Fitted N/S - Not Surveyed N/A - Not Applicable
If any of the following were found during survey then tick appropriate box and give a brief description in the spaces below, giving any details that may be pertinent: (add additional sheets as necessary) Areas of Substantial Corrosion Areas to be Monitored Defects and/or Deficiencies Others
This Report indicates the structural condition of the subject vessel section at survey completion.
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Cargo Containment System Report (CapCCR) - Photographic Records
Vessel Section Item Item
Page
of
Item
Item
Item
Item
Appendix 12
CAP Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report (CapHMR)
Bureau Veritas

Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems Report (CapHMR) - Cover Page
Gross Tonnage
This report indicates the condition of the hull machinery, fittings & systems at survey completion.
Hull 'Groups'
01 Anchoring and Mooring Installations and Equipment. 02 Steering Gear and Rudder(s) 03 Hull and Cargo Machinery 04 Hull Electrical Equipment and Cabling 05 Hull and Cargo Fittings 06 Closing Appliances 07 Hull and Cargo Piping and Valves 08 Sea Connections and Valves 09 Hull Miscellaneous 10 Fire / Smoke / Gas Detection and Fire Fighting Systems / Equipment 11 Life Saving Equipment and Fittings 12 Environmental Management
1 - Superior Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition N/S - Not Surveyed 2 - Good Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A Not Applicable
Operation Rating
Hull 'Groups'
Other Groups (Please Insert Below)
Operation Rating
Average Operational Rating Overall Operational Condition Rating Revised Overall Operational Condition Rating
If the Operational Condition Rating was revised then give brief reason(s) for this in the space below:
Date
BV Stamp
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems Report (CapHMR) - Group Specific
Hull 'Group' Sets Items Under Consideration (IUC)

Visual Condition Function Test
Page
Analyses Vibn. Oil UTM
of
Average Ratings
Ratings:
1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable N/T - Not Tested
Average Operational Rating Operational Condition Rating Revised Operational Condition Rating
If Rating is revised then reason to be advised below.
If any of the following were found during survey then tick appropriate box and give a brief description below
Defects and/or Deficiencies
Items to be Monitored
Others
Add Pages As Necessary
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems (CapHMR) - Photographic Record
Hull 'Group' Item Item
Page
of
Item
Item
Item
Item
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems Report (CapHMR) - Group Specific
Hull 'Group'
Page
of
Appendix 13
CAP Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems Report (CapPMR)
Bureau Veritas

Propulsion & Auxiliary machinery, fittings & systems report (CapPMR) - Cover Page
Gross Tonnage
Report indicates condition of Propulsion & Aux. Machinery, Fittings & Systems at Survey completion.
'Groups'
01 Engine Room, Auxiliary Machinery Spaces and Engine Store Rooms: 02 Main Propulsion Installations 03 Tailshaft, Stern Tube and Propeller Systems 04 Auxiliary Engines
Operation Rating
Groups'
12 Miscellaneous Equipment 13 Communication, Order Transmission & Remote Control/Emergency Stops 14 Generators and Switchboards 15 Motors and Associated Starters 16 Electrical installations (others):
Operation Rating
05 Oil Pumps and Purifiers 17 Automated installation: 06 Fresh and Sea Water Pumps 07 Compressors 08 Ventilation Fans 09 Piping and valves 10 Boilers, Economisers and Thermal Oil Heaters 11 Heat Exchangers (others):
1 - Superior Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition N/S - Not Surveyed 2 - Good Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A Not Applicable
18 Fire/Smoke/Gas Detection and Fire Fighting Systems: 19 Environmental Management Other Groups (Please Insert Below)
Average Operational Rating Overall Operational Condition Rating Revised Overall Operational Condition Rating
If the Operational Condition Rating was revised then give brief reason(s) for this in the space below:
Date
BV Stamp
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Propulsion & Aux. Machinery, Fittings & Systems Report (CapPMR) - Group Specific
Engine 'Group' Sets Items Under Consideration (IUC)

Visual Condition Function Test
Page
Analyses Vibn. Oil
of
Average Ratings
Ratings:
1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable N/T - Not Tested
Average Operational Rating Operational Condition Rating Revised Operational Condition Rating
If Rating is revised then reason to be advised below.
If any of the following were found during survey then tick appropriate box and give a brief description below
Defects and/or Deficiencies
Items to be Monitored
Others
This report indicates the condition of the Propulsion/Aux.Machinery, fittings/systems at survey completion.
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Propulsion & Aux. Machinery, Fittings & Systems (CapPMR) - Photographic Record
Engine 'Group'
Page
of
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Bureau Veritas
Ship Name

Propulsion & Aux. Machinery, Fittings & Systems Report (CapPMR) - Group Specific
Engine 'Group'
Page
of
This report indicates the condition of the Propulsion/Aux.Machinery, fittings/systems at survey completion.
<end>

NI465 Rev 2.0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NI465 Rev 2.0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

1.1 BVs Condition Assessment Programme for Marine Vessels

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

1.2 Tailor Made Condition Assessment Services (Modular CAP)

1.3 Industry Requirements for Vessel Condition Assessment

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

1.4 Transparency and Class obligation

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

1.5 Condition Assessment Programme Ratings (CAP ratings)

1.8 CAP kick off Meeting

Safety requirements, CAP GAP/defects list. Other relevant issues.

1.9 CAP Gap/defects List (CapGAP)

1.6 How to request a CAP Survey. (CapRFC)

1.7 Condition Assessment Programme Planning Document (CapPD)

1.10 CAP Closing Meeting

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

1.12 Condition Assessment Reporting

1.11 Condition Assessment Certification (CapCERT)

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

1.13 Safety during surveys

** If not applicable this section is left empty.

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

PART A Hull Structure

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

2.8.4 17 2.9 17 2.10 17 2.11

2.7 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

PART A HULL STRUCTURE 2. Hull Structure

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0

Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 2.0