ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2009

Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems

S. G. Kalghatgi (Sr. Engineer, ABS, Houston TX)
C. Serratella (Director, ABS, Houston TX)
J. B. Hagan (Director, ABS, Houston TX)

Abstract
Ship owners and managers strive to maintain a high level of structural integrity. The ship crews and shore staff perform
inspections of hull structure on a regular basis to assess the hull condition. The inspection regimes require easy
identification of problems. Besides owners, inspections and surveys are carried out by many agencies such as
classification societies, insurers, vetting agencies, cargo surveyors, port state, coastal state and flag state authorities.
All have an interest in the safe operation of the ship and ensuring that it is properly maintained. The effectiveness of
these inspections is being continually challenged by the ever decreasing time that these vessels remain in port. In this
paper a holistic, simple and quantifiable approach is proposed. This methodology employs the application of risk-based
decision-making techniques. Risk-based techniques have demonstrated great potential in identifying key structural
elements and focusing resources for maintenance and inspection. The proposed methodology for rationalizing the hull
inspection program is via the development of a vessel-specific inspection program which includes a scoring system for
identified inspection criteria and a list of target inspection areas (critical structural areas) for each compartment. The
condition for each inspection criteria, depending upon the score, is displayed within the context of a simple traffic light
system. This methodology can be applied by a trained and qualified owners’ representative. The scoring system can be
utilized and analyzed to view the condition status of compartments, vessels, and a fleet. The scoring system also utilizes
a system to trigger anomaly list generation, which can be used to manage the damages and repairs as well as create a
repair list for future repair / drydock events.

Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems 1

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2009

KEY WORDS the compartment condition is not completely

Hull inspection; risk-based approach; known.
inspection criteria; critical structural area; IACS PR33 encourages ship owners to have
compartment scoring system; anomaly. their own hull inspection and maintenance
programs and schemes. Most of the major
INTRODUCTION classification societies offer some form of hull
The shipping industry needs a rationalized inspection to be implemented by the owners’
approach to perform inspections of hull representative.
structure and a methodology on what to In the following sections of this paper the
inspect, when to inspect, where to inspect and various stakeholders on hull condition
how much to inspect. The benefits of hull assessment and the various inspection regimes
inspection are usually well answered and commonly found in marine industry are
known to all the inspection agencies. identified.
Traditionally ship owners and vessel managers
have their in-house hull inspection schemes STAKEHOLDERS - HULL CONDITION
and programs to track, assess and maintain the
Stakeholders for a vessels’ hull condition are
hull structure. Inspections to assess hull
identified as follows:
condition are also performed by many
agencies such as classification societies, • Owner / Operator / Manager
insurers, vetting agencies, cargo surveyors, • Ship Crew
port state, coastal state and flag state
authorities. All inspection data is collected in • Builder / Shipyard (repair yard)
various forms, checksheets and reports. The • Classification Society
ship owner is required in most cases to • Insurers / Underwriters (of cargo and
maintain a record of maintenance activities vessel)
carried out on the hull structure. All the • Charterers (including vetting agencies)
inspection data require the owner to have an
effective inspection management system. • Flag State
• Port States
Classification societies and most of the other
agencies perform inspection in a prescriptive • Public (including competitors,
manner or on an as-needed basis to assess the prospective clients, prospective buyer)
hull condition. The selected compartments are All have one common interest: the safe
inspected based on the experience and work operation of the ship and ensuring that it is
instructions provided to the inspector by their properly maintained. Among all the
respective agencies. The presence of critical stakeholders, the inspection and maintenance
areas and suspect areas in a compartment may management of the vessel rests with the
or may not be highlighted by the inspection owners and managers. Each stakeholder also
agencies. has their own inspection regime depending
Ideally the inspection results from the various upon their role in the vessels’ operation.
agencies are to be analyzed by the owners /
managers and compiled into a repair / drydock DRIVERS AND OPPORTUNITIES
specification list. Most of the inspection data Owners / managers need an inspection regime
may not be formatted to permit owners / to help systematically examine and grade the
managers to convert it easily into a repair hull structure and identify and record any
specification as it may lack sufficient detail. defects (anomalies). A program supporting a
This requires the owner to have a repair holistic, proactive, preventative maintenance
management system. At the time of repair scheme for the ship addressing the following
there may be some unknowns and surprises as issues:

2 Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2009

• Identification of potential problem areas, Classification societies perform surveys and

so that preventive measures can be taken record the coating condition in the
to remain in conformance with the compartment. Anomalies are recorded as
applicable Classification Rule conditions of class.
requirements; Except for Condition Assessment Program
• Focused inspection and condition (CAP) inspections, where the grades 1 to 5 are
reporting on structurally critical areas; applied for a compartment, the quantifiable
• Easier development of repair dry-dock attribute for all compartments on a vessel is
specifications; usually the coating condition and the presence
or absence of anomalies.
• Detection of anomalies or maintenance
trends across fleet; Most of the inspections rely on the experience
• Potential to lessen disruption of normal of the inspectors to identify the conditions in
ship operations; and, the compartment.
• Improved efficiency in the use of In all cases the owners’ inspector has to gather
inspection results to satisfy the inspection detailed information of the compartment and
requirements of other stakeholders. send it to the shore office along with detailed
specifications for any material replacement or
TRADITIONAL HULL INSPECTION activities that need to be carried out by a shore
crew or drydock crew.
Most of the inspections involve compartment
inspections carried out by the inspector with a PROPOSED HULL INSPECTION
checklist. These checklists are designed to
collect textual descriptions of the conditions A compartment is divided into zones similar to
found. This includes finding anomalies the ‘area of consideration’ as per IACS
relative to material degradation and Recommendation 87: Coating Guidance. All
deformation. These inspections apply the compartments are divided into zones that can
following examination techniques: be inspected and graded for the inspection
criteria. Six inspection criteria have been
• Overall inspection;
identified for each compartment. These are
• Close up visual inspections; inspected for each zone. Critical structural
• Suspect areas examination; areas (if any) are identified for a
• Critical area (fatigue hotspot) compartment/zone based on engineering
inspection; analysis and in-service experience. The
inspection criteria are graded with a score
• Coating condition assessment; and
(rating) from 0 to 6. A traffic light status (red
• Anode inspection. – 5 to 6, yellow – 3 to 4, green – 0 to 2) is
The inspectors usually look for defects or assigned to each zone for each criterion.
assess condition based on their work process These scores are added for each zone and
instructions, their judgment, and experience. rolled up to get a normalized score for the
The recording of their findings is usually compartment. A red signifies the presence of
textual and in some cases quantified as ‘good’, an anomaly which needs to be documented for
‘fair’ or ‘poor’. There may be further resolution/rectification. Each compartment
quantifiable parameters reported based on the will have two checksheets: general inspection
extent of the condition or damage found. criteria and critical area.
Usually the traditional inspections assess the These inspections are to be done by qualified
compartment condition based on the entire and trained inspectors which may include ship
compartment with a focus on the coating crew.
condition.

Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems 3

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2009

Six Inspection Criteria for Hull Structure upon the average diameter of pits and the
intensity of pitting/grooving the scores are
The six inspection criteria identified for
assigned from 0 to 6.
assessing the condition of hull structure are:
• Coating condition Deformation

• General Corrosion Deformation is caused by impact loads,

• Pitting/Grooving contact, or overloading. Deformation may be
local (deformation of panel or stiffener) or
• Deformation global (deformation of a beam, frame, girder
• Fractures or floor including associated plating).
• Cleanliness (housekeeping) Deformation is given a score from 0 to 6
depending upon its extent and severity.
Coating
Fractures
The Coating Condition as defined by
IMO/IACS reference documents and the ABS Fractures are categorized based on the location
Guide for Inspection, Maintenance and of the fracture and that local structure’s
Application of Marine Coatings for Good, Fair contribution to overall hull integrity.
and Poor condition is subdivided and given the Housekeeping/Cleanliness
following scores:
This criterion is used to evaluate the general
Condition Color Score Assigned condition of the compartment for cleanliness
and housekeeping. This will be judged based
GOOD Green 0 to 2 both inclusive on the following:
• Amount of sediments and
FAIR Yellow 3 or 4 dredge/sludge remaining in the tank;
• Wastage of the anodes and their
POOR Red 5 or 6 perceived effectiveness;
• General cleanliness of the space;
General Corrosion
• Condition of the piping and its
General or Overall Corrosion appears as non- supports;
protective rust which can uniformly occur on • Condition of access hatches, manholes,
tank internal surfaces that are uncoated, or entry spaces, ladders, and other means
where coating has totally deteriorated. This of access; and,
inspection criterion as defined in the
referenced IMO/IACS documents is also • Loose scale and plugged drainage
assigned a score from 0 to 6 depending upon openings in the structure (rat holes /
the amount of rust, light scale and hard scale. scallops).
Pitting and Grooving Compartment Zones
Localized corrosion occurs on bottom plating, The tank is divided into zones to permit the
and other horizontal surfaces producing deep inspector to judge the entire tank to particular
and relatively small diameter pits that can lead inspection criteria. IACS Recommendation
to penetration of the steel member in isolated 87: Coating Guidance has the cargo and
random places in the tank. Grooving is a ballast tanks divided into ‘areas of
localized, linear corrosion which occurs at consideration’. In our methodology, the
structural intersections in welds or heat ‘zones’ are similar to the ‘areas of
affected zones. This corrosion is sometimes consideration’ and every inspection criterion is
referred to as “in line pitting attack” and can rated for each zone. Each cargo tank is
also occur on vertical members and flush sides divided into 14 zones. Similarly the ‘J’
of bulkheads in way of flexing. Depending shaped ballast tanks are also divided into 14

4 Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2009

zones. The forepeak tank is divided into 3 Table 2: Typical ‘J’ Ballast Tank Zones
zones and aftpeak tank into 2 zones. The
1 T Bottom
zones for a cargo tank are listed in Table 1 and
Lower - Port (Inner Long Bhd + Inner Bottom
illustrated in Figure 1. 2 LP
/Sideshell)
Table 1: Typical Cargo Tank Zones 3 LF Lower - Fwd Trans Bhd
1 T Tanktop- Inner Bottom Lower - Stbd (Inner Long Bhd + Inner
4 LS
Bottom /Sideshell)
2 LP Lower - Port Long Bhd
5 LA Lower - Aft Trans Bhd
3 LF Lower - Fwd Trans Bhd
6 MP Middle - Port (Inner Long Bhd /Sideshell)
4 LS Lower - Stbd Long Bhd
7 MF Middle - Fwd Trans Bhd
5 LA Lower - Aft Trans Bhd
6 MP Middle - Port Long Bhd 8 MS Middle - Stbd (Inner Long Bhd /Sideshell)

7 MF Middle - Fwd Trans Bhd 9 MA Middle - Aft Trans Bhd

8 MS Middle - Stbd Long Bhd 10 UP Upper - Port (Inner Long Bhd/Sideshell)
9 MA Middle - Aft Trans Bhd
11 UF Upper - Fwd Trans Bhd
10 UP Upper - Port Long Bhd
12 US Upper - Stbd (Inner Long Bhd /Sideshell)
11 UF Upper - Fwd Trans Bhd
13 UA Upper - Aft Trans Bhd
12 US Upper - Stbd Long Bhd
13 UA Upper - Aft Trans Bhd 14 D Deck

14 D Deck The Forepeak tank is divided into three zones;

Upper, Middle and Lower (see Figure 3).

Figure 1 : Sample Cargo Tank Zones

Similarly the ‘J’ side ballast tank is divided
into 14 zones as shown in Figure 2 and Table
2.
Figure 3: Sample Forepeak Tank

COMPARTMENT SCORING SYSTEM

Each zone in a compartment is rated and
assigned points by the qualified inspectors for
each inspection criteria. Adding the scores for
all zones in the compartment for a particular
criterion will give the inspection criterion (IC)
total score. The compartment total score is the
sum of the six inspection criterion total scores.
Figure 2: Sample 'J' Ballast Tank Zones Table 3 demonstrates an example of the point
scoring for a compartment with three (3)

Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems 5

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2009

zones. Each inspection criteria is assigned a A sample general inspection criteria

score from zero (0) for excellent / good checksheet is illustrated in Figure 4. The
condition to a score of six (6) signifying worst check sheet has compartment graphics
/ poor condition. The scores 0 to 2 signify depicting zones, a table for scoring the
‘Good’ condition (green). The scores 3 to 4 inspection criteria for each zone, and
are for ‘Fair’ condition (yellow) and the scores description of anomalies.
5 to 6 are for ‘Poor’ condition (red).
The inspection criterion total score for each
criterion when divided by the number of zones
will provide the average condition of the
compartment in a 0 to 6 score for that
inspection criterion. This is the normalized
score for an inspection criterion.
IC Total Score
Normalized IC Score =
No. of zones

The compartment total score, aggregate of all

the inspection criteria scores for all the zones,
when divided by the number of zones is the
normalized compartment score.
Normalized Compartment Sum of all six IC Total
= Scores
Score
No. of zones
‘Red’ for any inspection criteria indicates a
structural deficiency and the inspector should
create an anomaly. ‘Yellow’ indicate a
progression towards an anomalous condition
and serves as an early warning and at the
discretion of the inspector / superintendent
may be addressed at the next repair / dry-dock
schedule.
Table 3: Sample Scoring Table Figure 4: Sample Inspection Criteria
Max. Avg Score of Checksheet
Compt with Sum zones
Lower Middle Upper Zone all Zones
3 zones (1+2+3)
Score (1+2+3)/3 CRITICAL AREAS INSPECTION
Normalized
Zone IDs 1 2 3 IC Totals
IC Score The critical areas were selected based on in-
Coating 2 4 3 9 4 3 service experience and engineering analysis
General
3 3 5 11 5 3.7 tools. The in-service experience is based on
Corrosion
Pitting /
the historical maintenance/inspection records
Grooving
1 2 1 4 2 1.3 on the vessel and similar ships. The
Deformation 3 1 0 4 3 1.3 engineering analysis tools used were ABS
Fracture 0 3 0 3 3 1 Safehull Phase A/B, DLA/SFA. The critical
Cleanliness 5 2 0 7 5 2.3 areas are also gathered from the
Total Zone documentation from IACS and TSCF noted in
14 15 9
Score the references.
Total Compt
38
Score The critical areas identified for compartments
Normalized
12.7 (38 / 3)
include “typical” critical areas and “specific”
Compt Score

6 Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2009

critical areas based on a criticality matrix (See

Table 4).
“Typical Critical Areas” are the target areas
generic to oil tankers of that class, elaborated
in various IACS publications as noted in the
references. Typical critical areas for
compartments are to be inspected randomly by
subjecting at least 10 to 25% of such critical
areas (not less than four locations or web
frames) for close-up visual inspection.

Table 4: Criticality Matrix

“Specific Critical Areas” are defined based on

evidence from the existing hull structural
analysis that certain areas within the hull have
a particularly high risk of failure (a
combination of likelihood and consequence of Figure 5: Sample Critical Area Checksheet
failure). Specific critical areas may also be
Compartments
identified where the structure is of unusual
design or based on a novel concept. These checksheets contain the inspection
criteria which are to be ranked by the qualified
All areas which have been identified as high
inspector as per the point rating system
criticality or high risk (red boxes) require a
described earlier. The final rating for the
100% close visual inspection of that particular
compartment will be based on the total points
location every time the tank or compartment is
assigned during inspection by the qualified
entered. The likelihood of failure is evaluated
inspector. The critical area locations noted in
on the basis of a calculated fatigue life or
the checksheet will be inspected as per the
strength or buckling unity check (UC). In
recommended sampling percentage. The
addition, the consequence of failure has been
inspector records any defect or anomalies in
ascertained based on the qualitative judgment
the checksheet with accompanying
for the detail in question. A sample critical
photographs or sketches attached to the
area inspection checksheet is illustrated in
checksheet. Inspectors may recommend
Figure 5.
corrective actions for anomalies.
INSPECTION DATA PROCESSING Recording Anomalies
Each compartment has a general inspection Anomalies are noted to be any condition that
criteria checksheet (Figure 4) and a critical deviates from the “normal”. Therefore, any
area checksheet (Figure 5), if any critical areas zone with a red score should have a complete
exist. description in writing of the anomaly found.

Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems 7

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2009

Typically anomalies are deficient conditions TRAINING

which require action(s) by the ship’s crew. It is crucial for the owners’ inspectors to
The anomalies noted by the qualified inspector become qualified in hull inspection and
are typically of damage or failures which undergo periodic training for successful
require rectification and repair to return the implementation of this concept. The training
structure or arrangement to its original program should include introduction to the
condition. Anomalies involving damage or ship structures, inspection criteria and on the
failures and any temporary repairs must be job training to have a consistent scoring
presented to an attending Class Surveyor at the methodology among inspectors. The details of
next port of call and before final repairs are the suggested training may be seen in the ABS
carried out. Hull Inspection and Maintenance Program
Anomalies should be recorded on a separate (HIMP) Guide, noted in the references. As
form known as an Anomaly Report, appended guidance to the inspectors a grading booklet
to the checksheets. The inspector may take may be developed describing the condition
photographs (or make a sketch) to be attached description for each inspection criteria score
to the anomaly sheet. Until the action is taken with pictures and images.
to resolve an open anomaly, the open anomaly
is to be treated as a ‘pending’ item by the CONCLUSIONS
ship’s crew. The concept and methodology of the ABS
BENEFITS HIMP Guide presents a method for hull
inspection to move towards more rationalized
Anomalies identified for the compartment will structural integrity management. This concept
assist the operator in managing and controlling can be applied by a small fleet operator with
the repair specifications and drydock planning. simple spreadsheets. For an operator with a
This will enable the Class surveyor to better large fleet, a sophisticated ‘dashboard’
focus the survey and allocate time for each application monitoring the condition of the
compartment. fleet with features and tools of trending and
querying the collected condition data that
Fleet Management and Trending could identify systemic problems.
This concept and methodology applied to an
oil tanker can be applied to all the vessels in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
an owner’s fleet. The scoring system will We thank Robert Conachey for proofreading.
allow the comparison of tanks and allow the
owner to recognize the condition of various REFERENCES
tanks in a particular vessel and overall
ABS Guide for Hull Inspection and
condition of vessels in a fleet.
Maintenance Program (2007), American
This concept leads to a traffic light status Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX, USA.
display at a higher level with the basic IACS Recommendation 76: Bulk Carriers:
building blocks being the score (0 to 6) Guidelines for Surveys, Assessment and
assigned to individual criterion in each zone. Repair of Hull Structures
Such a system will assist owners to monitor IACS Recommendation 84: Container Ships:
their fleet condition. Guidelines for Surveys, Assessment and
The inspection data collected for a large fleet Repair of Hull Structures
of similar vessels will permit the owner to IACS Recommendation 87: Guidelines for
make queries for vessel condition, identify Coating Maintenance & Repairs for Ballast
trends so as to better forecast repair Tanks and Combined Cargo / Ballast Tanks
requirements and manage resources. on Oil Tankers

8 Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems

 ABS TECHNICAL PAPERS 2009

IACS Recommendation 96: Double Hull Oil TSCF – Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum
Tankers Guidelines for Surveys, – Guidance Manual for the Inspection and
Assessment and Repair of Hull Structures Condition Assessment of Tanker Structures
Serratella C, Wang G, Tikka K (2009) Risk- Wang G, Serratella C., Kalghatgi S (2009)
based inspection and maintenance of aged Current practices in condition assessment
structures, Condition Assessment of Aged of aged ship and floating offshore
Structures, Ed. Paik & Melchers, structures, Condition Assessment of Aged
Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge, Structures, Ed. Paik & Melchers,
UK. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge, UK
TSCF – Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum
DISCLAIMER:
– Guidelines for the Inspection and
Maintenance of Double Hull Tanker The views expressed in this paper are those of
Structures the authors and not necessarily of the
American Bureau of Shipping.

Hull Inspection and Maintenance Systems 9