LR - Construction Documentation - B.C.

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association
The Survey of Existing Bulk Carriers
ABCD
Paper No 6
Session 2004-2005
Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 1

Lloyd's Register, its affiliates and subsidiaries and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually
and collectively, referred to in this clause as the ‘Lloyd's Register Group’. The Lloyd's Register Group assumes
no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss, damage or expense caused by reliance on the
information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a contract with the
relevant Lloyd's Register Group entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any
responsibility or liability is exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.
The authors of this paper retain the right of subsequent publication, subject to the sanction of the Committee of
Lloyd’s Register. Any opinions expressed and statements made in this paper and in the subsequent discussions
are those of the individuals and not those of Lloyd’s Register.
© Lloyd’s Register 2005. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work
may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted,
recorded or reproduced in any form or means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Enquiries should be addressed to Lloyd’s Register, 71 Fenchurch Street, London EC3M 4BS, United Kingdom
Web site: www.lr.org
Secretary, LR Technical Association

Ben Wise
lrta@lr.org

Title
The Survey of Existing Bulk Carriers
Synopsis
Since the 1990s bulk carrier safety has been subject to enhancements not only for new building standards, but
also through the introduction of new requirements for the existing fleet; from the introduction of Enhanced
Survey Programme (ESP) to the adoption of the revised SOLAS chapter XII at MSC 79 bulk carrier regulation
has rarely paused for breath.
Lloyd’s Register has been working closely with its clients guiding them through these requirements over the
years and has consolidated its experience in this paper. Written by a range of experienced surveyors from across
the organisation the aim of the paper is to provide practical guidance on the survey of existing bulk carriers in
light of the most recent developments. The paper gives a brief introduction to the ship type followed by an
overview of the recent regulations applicable to bulk carriers. The main body of the paper contains practical
guidelines on the survey of bulk carriers including the practical implementation of recent regulation. The final
section on Port State Control (PSC) reviews Lloyd’s Register recent work on the analysis of PSC data and
provides guidance on such inspections and the most common defects found on bulk carriers.
Author(s)
Editing Author: Ian Harrison, BEng, MA, CEng, MRINA
Authors: Brian Purtle CEng MRINA
Arun Sharma BE (Mech). IEng
Aleksandar Dmitrasinovic BSc, MSc, CEng, MRINA
Peter Huntley-Hawkins, BEng (Tech), MBA, CEng, MIEE.
Stewart Garvin, BSc, CEng, MIMarEST.
Jim Barclay NI

Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The Bulk Carrier and its Salient Features
2.1 Typical Structural Configuration

2.2 Structural Development
2.3 Freeboard Considerations
2.4 Cargo Loading Aspects
2.5 Ballast Arrangements
2.6 Class Notations
3 Recent Unified Requirements and Regulations for Existing Ships
3.1 Enhanced Surveys (ESP)

3.2 Foremost Hold Bulkhead and Double Bottom
3.3 Fore Deck Hatches, Air Pipes and Fittings
3.4 Side Shell Reinforcement
3.5 Hatch Cover Securing Arrangements
3.6 Water Ingress Alarms and Pumping Arrangements
4 Practical Guidelines on Survey and Repair
4.1 Enhanced Surveys (ESP) – survey planning and documentation

4.2 Safety and Access for Survey
4.3 Key Areas to Focus on During Survey, Some Common Defects and Recommended Repairs
4.3.1 Area 1 – Tank top plating and surrounding structure
4.3.2 Area 2 – Transverse watertight plating (lower part) and its connection to lower stool
4.3.3 Area 3 – Transverse watertight bulkhead plating and top and bottom stool spaces
4.3.4 Area 4 – Side shell plating and framing
4.3.5 Area 5 – Hatchway openings and hatch coamings
4.3.6 Area 6 – Cross deck area between hatchways
4.3.7 Area 7 – Topside tanks
4.3.8 Area 8 – Lower hopper tanks and double bottoms
4.3.9 Fore deck hatches, air pipes and fittings
4.3.10 General comments
4.4 Water Ingress Detection Systems
4.5 Availability of Pumping Systems
5 Port State Control (PSC)
Bibliography
Acknowledgements
Appendix 1 - Implementation Schedules

Appendix 2 - Summary of Recent Regulations and Memo Items

1 Introduction
Since the 1990s bulk carrier safety has been subject to enhancements not only for new building standards, but
also through the introduction of new requirements for the in-service fleet; from the introduction of the Enhanced
Survey Programme (ESP) to the adoption of the revised SOLAS chapter XII at MSC 79, bulk carrier regulation
has rarely paused for breath. The aim of this paper is to bring together all these requirements into one document
to provide practical guidance on the survey of existing bulk carriers today.
A brief introduction to the ship type is given in section two followed by an overview of the recent regulations
applicable to bulk carriers in section three. Section four is the main body of the paper containing practical
guidelines on the survey of bulk carriers including the practical implementation of recent regulation. The final
section on Port State Control (PSC) reviews recent work by Lloyd’s Register on the analysis of PSC data and
provides guidance on such inspections and the most common defects found on bulk carriers.
2 The Bulk Carrier and its Salient Features
2.1 Typical Structural Configuration

The most widely recognised structural arrangement identified with a bulk carrier is a single deck ship with a
double bottom, hopper tanks, single transversely framed side shell, topside tanks and deck hatchways1. This
configuration dates back to the early 1960s when deadweights of up to about 20,000 tonnes were introduced.
During the period until the early 1970s this design configuration was extended to ships of about 170,000 tonnes
deadweight. In the mid sixties the utility of the ship type was further developed when the O.B.O. (ore, bulk, oil)
ship was conceived. This development in operational capabilities came after considerable investigation which
concluded that this ship type could carry liquid oil cargoes without destroying the basic simple structural concept.
Other variants such as Ore or Oil carriers, double side skin bulk carriers and self-unloading bulk carriers, though
comparatively rare, do also exist. An outline structural arrangement for the cargo area of a typical bulk carrier, as
considered in this paper, and nomenclature used is shown in Fig. 1.
The basic design of bulk carrier design does not alter significantly with size; fundamentally the bulk carrier of
30,000 tonnes deadweight has the same structural configuration as ship with deadweights of 100,000 tonnes and
greater. Typical deadweight ranges for the sub-segment sizes and the current typical sizes are shown in Table 1.
Dwt Range (t) Typical Dwt (t) Length (m) Breadth (m) Draught (m)
Handy 10-50k 33k 175 27.8 9.5
Handymax 50-60k 53k 189.9 32.2 11.5
Panamax 60-80k 76k 225 32.2 14
Capesize 80k + 175k 289 45.0 17.5
Table 1
1
The latest IACS definition can be found at www.iacs.org.uk under Unified Requirement Z11.

Figure 1
2.2 Structural Development

The bulk carrier had its genesis in the bulk freighters of the Great Lakes of North America and has evolved over
the decades into the structural configuration described above. Some of the more recent structural development
has included:
• Use of higher tensile steel for deck structure;

• Increase in size of hatch openings and reductions in width of cross-deck strips between hatches;
• Replacement of web frames in holds with normal frames of increased scantlings;
• Move away from the conventional alignment of topside tank and hopper webs arrangements, i.e.
structural arrangements more oriented towards steelwork optimisation;
• Growing use of higher tensile steel for other parts of the ship e.g. side framing, transverse bulkheads and
double bottoms.
2.3 Freeboard Considerations

Most bulk carriers are designed to take advantage of the reduced freeboards permitted by Regulation 27 of the
International Load Line Convention provided certain subdivision and floatability criteria are fulfilled2. The result
2
IMO Resolution MSC 143(77) came into force on January 1, 2005 enacting major changes to the 1966 International Load Lines Convention,
however these change are out with the scope of this paper.

is an increased draught corresponding to a B-60 reduced freeboard. One of the important implications of the B-
60 type ship is that the stability is assessed on the basis of the flooding of any single damaged hold. The holds
most likely to be limited in length by flooding calculations are the end holds and particularly those at the fore
end.
The advantage of a reduced freeboard can be considerable, providing an increase of deadweight in excess of
3,000 tonnes for a Panamax size bulk carrier with a relatively small increase in steel weight.
2.4 Cargo Loading Aspects

Flexibility in terms of operational capabilities is an important requirement for modern bulk carriers and in this
respect the ships are normally designed to carry a variety of cargoes. For cargoes such as coal and heavier types
of grain, the stowage rate is in the order of 1.15 to 1.3 m3/tonne, corresponding to the ship loaded down to
maximum draught and with all holds completely filled (known as a homogeneous loading condition). For heavy
ore, the stowage rate is about 0.4 m3/tonne. If the ore cargo is carried in a homogeneous manner, each hold will
only be about one third full, resulting in a stiff ship, i.e. a low centre of gravity and a large metacentric height
which is, as a matter of general experience, considered to be sea-unkindly. To counteract this, modern bulk
carriers are designed so that ore cargoes can be carried in alternate holds with remaining holds empty. This
arrangement also has a further advantage to the ship operators in that only the ore holds need to be worked
during loading and unloading operations. This of course reduces the time spent in port and the extent of hold
cleaning required between cargos.
It is common for larger bulk carriers when carrying ore to load only the odd numbered cargo holds and hence
make it easier to achieve a satisfactory trim. However the alternate hold loading pattern greatly increases the
stress in the double bottom structure due to the downward loading in the ore holds in association with the full
buoyancy upthrust in the empty holds. Further the shear forces in the side shell are also likely to be increased
considerably because of this loading arrangement.
Studies in the early 1990s raised concerns over the loading and unloading of bulk carriers, particularly with
heavy cargoes such as iron ore. Loading rates have increased dramatically over the last few decades and rates of
16000 t/hr are not uncommon from a single loading unit, and rates are sometimes boosted by using two units
simultaneously. The studies showed that improper handling of cargo could cause excessive stress and physical
damage to ship structures. As a result IACS introduced guidance and a new requirement for ships over 150m to
have approved typical loading and unloading sequences onboard as a supplement to the loading manual3. More
recently the IMO has approved guidelines on this issue and terminal interface improvements4.
2.5 Ballast Arrangements

In addition to the seawater ballast capability provided by the fore and aft peaks, a major part of the double
bottom and the hopper and topside tanks of a bulk carrier are also arranged for the carriage of water ballast. The
use of topside tanks for water ballast increases the rolling period, and makes for a more comfortable ship. This
arrangement also has the structural advantage in that the location of structural concentration is in the corners of
the midship section, and thus effective in resisting hydrodynamic torque. In larger bulk carriers the double
bottom and hopper tanks are often interconnected with the topside tanks by vertical trunks or pipes arranged at
the ship’s sides, at each end of the tanks. In such cases the boundaries of the double bottom and hopper tanks
must be suitably strengthened for the increased pressure head.
It is also common practice to adapt one or two cargo holds amidships for the carriage of water ballast by making
the boundaries equivalent to deep tank standard. This ballast arrangement is in addition to all the other
3
“Bulk Carriers: Handle With Care” and IACS UR S1A.
4
Circulars approved by MSC 78 (May 2004): MSC/Circ 1108 Guidelines for assessing the longitudinal strength of bulk carriers during
loading, unloading and ballast water exchange; MCS/Circ 1119 Ship/terminal interface improvements for bulk carriers.

aforementioned water ballast capacity and is provided to achieve a satisfactory deep draught forward to minimise
slamming damage and reduce propeller emergence in adverse weather conditions.
This arrangement may also have the additional merit of reducing the still water longitudinal bending stresses on
the ship. It is usually expected that ballast holds will be 100% filled in seagoing conditions, where this is not so,
the effects of sloshing have to be considered.
During loading and unloading operations, it is often necessary to partially flood one or two other holds in
harbour or estuaries to counteract the air draught problem created by bridges or where the limited height of the
loading chutes means that the ship must not be too high above the water level.
2.6 Class Notations

The structure of a bulk carrier must be appropriate to the most onerous trade in which it is likely to be engaged in
and this is reflected in the ships class notation. There has recently been a change in the class notations for these
ships following the adoption of harmonised notations for bulk carriers between the IACS members as laid down
in UR S255. This requirement is applicable for ships contracted on of after 1st July 2003.
The majority of bulk carriers will have the old system of Lloyd’s Register notation which will fall into one of
three main classes of conventional bulk carrier viz:
+100A1 Bulk Carrier, ESP

+100A1 Bulk Carrier Strengthened For Heavy Cargoes, ESP
+100A1 Bulk Carrier Strengthened For Heavy Cargoes, Hold Nos. (Specified) May Be Empty, ESP
These notations refer to the structural scantlings and arrangement adopted in conjunction with the intended cargo.
The difference between the first two are that for obvious reasons the double bottom of the ship having the
notation “Strengthened for Heavy Cargoes” has scantlings and arrangements suitable for the heavier cargoes, as
required by the Rules. The last class notation is assigned to bulk carriers additionally designed for the carriage of
heavy ore cargoes in alternate holds when the ship is loaded to its maximum draught. In this case the double
bottom structure is strengthened to comply with the Rules based on the calculated nominal stowage rate for each
particular hold.
The new UR S25 notations follow a similar pattern and are:
100A1 bulk carrier, BC-C, ESP. This class will be assigned for bulk carriers designed to carry dry bulk cargoes
of cargo density less than 1,0 tonne/m3 with all cargo holds loaded.
100A1 bulk carrier, BC-B, strengthened for heavy cargoes, ESP. This class will be assigned for bulk carriers
designed to carry dry bulk cargoes of cargo density 1,0 tonne/m3 and above with all cargo holds loaded.
100A1 bulk carrier, BC-A strengthened for heavy cargoes, holds (specific hold numbers) may be empty,
ESP. This class will be assigned for bulk carriers designed to carry dry bulk cargoes of cargo density 1.0
tonne/m3 and above with specified holds empty at maximum draught.
5
UR S25 Harmonised Notations and Loading Conditions for Bulk Carriers.

3 Recent Unified Requirements and Regulations for
Existing Ships
Throughout the 1990s there was an industry drive to improve bulk carrier safety which led to an increase in the
regulatory regime aimed specifically at bulk carriers and extensive enhancements of IACS unified requirements
(UR) for hull structure for both new and existing ships.
For ships in service this initially resulted in the scope of survey increasing with the introduction of ESP surveys
in the early 1990s. As further studies into the safety of bulk carriers were carried out measures to further enhance
safety in the event of hold flooding were introduced, resulting in the retrospective re-evaluation and
strengthening of the foremost hold aft bulkhead and double bottom (UR S19&22) and the associated stability
assessment (UR S23); and loading and unloading sequences (UR S1A) in the late 1990s.
The new millennium saw continued pressures to further enhance bulk carrier safety. In response, IACS launched
an initiative with ‘8 measures’ addressing various aspects of concern with regard to existing ships in March 2002.
Following the announcement further development work was carried out with the following measures being
adopted for implementation: the assessment and reinforcement of side shell structure (UR S31), hatch cover
securing arrangements (UR S30), small hatches forward (UR S26), deck fitting and equipment forward (UR S27),
the fitting of water detection and draining arrangements in the cargo hold and forward spaces (SOLAS XII Reg.
12 & 13) and the further enhancement of the scope of periodical surveys (UR Z10.2).
This section provides an overview of the most recent requirements for existing bulk carriers. It should be noted
that when Lloyd’s Register adopts a new UR S for existing ships it incorporates the standard in the Provision
Rules for Existing Ships although the standard remains unchanged.
3.1 Enhanced Surveys (ESP)

The term enhanced surveys in this context refers to the more detailed hull survey requirements which are
applicable to most tankers and bulk carriers. These more detailed survey requirements were incorporated into the
Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships in 1993. Around the same time (November 1993) they
were adopted by IMO and became part of the IMO requirements by the adoption of IMO Resolution A744(18),
becoming effective two years later, as part of SAFCON survey requirements6.
Background
Before the introduction of ESP survey requirements, the periodical survey requirements were very general and
applied across a wide range of ship types. The uniform application of these survey requirements was difficult
because of substantial differences in the structural details of the various ship types. For example, the periodical
survey requirements for a small tug or a cargo ship cannot be equally suitable for large single deck tankers and
bulk carriers with their completely different structural configuration. From service experience it was also known
that different locations of hull structure for the various ship types could be more prone to certain structural
problems and so require greater attention on the different ship types.
In addition the general nature of the periodical survey requirements made the task of maintaining consistency of
application of these requirements difficult, as much of the scope of survey would be left to the discretion of the
attending surveyor. In order to improve consistency the survey requirements were made more explicit with
regard to the locations and extent of survey required for various parts of the hull structure, depending on the ship
type and age.
6
Detailed requirements for survey of ESP ships are given in IMO Res. A744(18) which is referenced from SOLAS Ch. XI. Similar
requirements for application of ESP requirements are also given in the LR Rules and Regulations (which in turn are kept aligned with IACS
Unified requirements and so form part of the survey requirements for all IACS members).

In addition to the prescribed scope of survey a major change at this time was the procedure for survey
preparation and the survey reporting requirements, along with the issue of mandatory documentation to be
maintained onboard the ship.
Evolution of ESP survey requirements since 1993

As with all other periodical survey regulations, based on service experience and reported defects, the survey
regulations for different ship types are amended in order that these possible problem areas/locations for the
various ship types are given greater attention by the surveyors during their survey of the hull structure. Since
1993, the periodical survey regulations for bulk carriers have been updated many times to include more detailed
requirements for close-up survey and thickness measurements of hull structure. Notable amendments to the ESP
survey requirements for bulk carriers have been the gradual increase in the scope of close-up survey and
thickness measurements for the cargo hatchways, side shell frames, deck plating inside line of openings,
transverse bulkheads (in cargo holds & water ballast tanks) and the internal transverse web frames of water
ballast tanks.
3.2 Foremost Hold Bulkhead and Double Bottom

In May 1997 IACS Council adopted, and subsequently IMO incorporated into SOLAS Chapter XII, Regulation 6,
the following Unified Requirements for the evaluation of the foremost hold structure under conditions of hold
flooding for existing single side skin bulk carriers (of 150 metres in length, or over):
UR S19 Evaluation of Scantling of the Transverse Watertight Corrugated Bulkhead between Cargo
Holds Nos. 1 and 2, with Cargo Hold No.1 flooded, for existing Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers.
UR S22 Evaluation of Allowable Hold Loading of Cargo Holds Nos. 1, with Cargo Hold No.1 Flooded,
for Existing Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers.
In addition to structural evaluation, IACS UR S23 (and SOLAS Chapter XII, Regulation 4) required that the
above bulk carriers be able to survive the flooding of the foremost cargo hold in all conditions loaded to the
summer load line in terms of stability. UR S23 also included the phased application and implementation
timetable for these requirements.
Recent revision to URS 23 (Rev 3.1, 2002) has accelerated implementation of these requirements; the timetable
has been reproduced in Appendix 1. For Lloyd’s Register classed ships the date by which compliance with these
regulations is to be achieved and verified is given in memorandum item EBC(A). When compliance with these
requirements is verified and reported, the additional notation ESN – Hold 1 is added to the class notation.
It should be noted that single side skin bulk carriers built to the requirements of SOLAS Chapter XII i.e. being
able to withstand the flooding on any hold with regard to stability and structural aspects will be assigned the
notation ESN.
3.3 Fore Deck Hatches, Air Pipes and Fittings

The following IACS unified requirements regarding the weathertight integrity at the fore end of the ship became
applicable from 1 January 2004 for all bulk carriers of length greater than 100m7.
UR S26 requires the reassessment (and reinforcement if required) of the strength and securing
arrangements of the small hatches on the exposed foredeck giving access to spaces forward of the
collision bulkhead.
7
These requirements are not only limited to existing bulk carriers and are also applicable to existing general cargo ships and combination
carriers of over 100m in length (excluding containerships, vehicle carriers, Ro-Ro ships and woodchip carriers) and to new bulk carriers,
general cargo ships and combination carriers of length greater than 80m.

UR S27 requires the reassessment (and reinforcement if required) of the foredeck fittings including air
pipes, ventilators and their closing appliances. Although requirements for windlasses are also included
in this unified requirement, this is only for new ships and is not applicable to existing ships.
New ships (i.e. contracted for construction on or after 1 January 2004) are required to comply with these
requirements from the date of build. For existing ships (i.e. contracted for construction prior to January 2004),
the implementation schedule is reproduced in Appendix 1.
For Lloyd’s Register classed ships the date by which compliance with these requirements is required can be
found in memoranda items SHF and SFF.
3.4 Side Shell Reinforcement

This unified requirement (URS318) regarding the reassessment (and reinforcement if required) of cargo hold side
shell structure, became applicable from 1 January 2004 for all bulk carriers that were not built in compliance
with URS12, Rev.1, or later (i.e. bulk carriers contracted for construction before 1 July 1998).9
This unified requirement is applicable to all existing single side skin bulk carriers as above (i.e. irrespective of
length) and requires re-assessment of side shell frames and adjacent side shell plating. The existing structure is
assessed using the minimum acceptance criteria given in UR S31 and based on the results of this assessment this
structure is then recommended for being coated, reinforced or renewed as necessary.
The implementation schedule is reproduced in Appendix 1. For Lloyd’s Register classed ships the date by which
compliance with these requirements is required, can be found in memorandum item SSR.
3.5 Hatch Cover Securing Arrangements

This unified requirement (UR S3010) regarding the securing arrangements for hatch covers forward of 0.25L is
applicable to all bulk carriers that were not built in compliance with UR S21, Rev.3, or later (i.e. bulk carriers
contracted for construction before 1 January 2004).
This unified requirement is applicable to all existing bulk carriers (i.e. irrespective of length) and requires the
assessment (and reinforcement if required) of hatch cover securing arrangements to the minimum acceptance
criteria of URS30.
The implementation schedule is reproduced in Appendix 1. For Lloyd’s Register classed ships the due date can
be found under memorandum item HCS.
3.6 Water Ingress Alarms and Pumping Arrangements

SOLAS Chapter XII, Regulation 12 requires bulk carriers to have water ingress detectors in each cargo space,
in all ballast spaces forward of the collision bulkhead and in any dry or void space, any part of which extends
forward of the foremost cargo hold.
Compliance with this requirement is required to be verified at the first annual, intermediate or renewal survey
(SAFCON) after 1 July 2004. The pertinent memorandum item for this requirement for Lloyd’s Register classed
ships is memo BCD.
8
UR S31 Renewal Criteria for Side Shell Frames and Brackets in Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers and Single Side Skin OBO Carriers not
Built in accordance with UR S12 Rev.1 or subsequent versions.
9
UR S12 requirements regarding the strength of side shell structure of bulk carriers are applicable for all bulk carriers contracted for
construction after 1 July 1998.
10
UR S30 Cargo Hatch Cover Securing Arrangements for Bulk Carriers not Built in Accordance with UR S21 (Rev.3).

SOLAS Chapter XII, Regulation 13 requires that all of the spaces covered by Reg. 12 above be provided with
the means to pump out or drain water from them from a remote location and that this remains available at all
times (including adverse weather conditions).
Compliance with this requirement is required to be verified at the first intermediate or renewal survey (SAFCON)
after 1 July 2004. The pertinent memorandum item for this requirement for Lloyd’s Register classed ships is
memo BCP.

4 Practical Guidelines on Survey and Repair
The following is intended to provide guidance on the survey of existing bulk carriers. 11 Initially the ESP
planning and documentation is discussed, followed by guidance on some of the key locations within the cargo
holds and surrounding spaces that require enhanced examination during survey and also to highlight some
common defects which may be found in these areas.
There are also examples of recommended repairs that can be undertaken when defects are identified. In addition,
where applicable, guidance on the implementation of recent requirements as reviewed above is also included.
4.1 Enhanced Surveys (ESP) – survey planning and documentation

Practical implications for survey of ships with ESP notation
For ships with ESP notation, technical managers need to be aware of the need to prepare and submit the ESP
survey programme at least six months before the survey due date. Likewise, they also need to be aware of the
need to maintain the ESP documentation onboard. As this is also a mandatory requirement this documentation
may be subject to scrutiny by various agencies (flag administration surveyors, port state inspectors, vetting
inspectors, load/discharge terminal inspectors, etc.) and not having these documents onboard could lead to
possible delay/detention and other commercial consequences.
Greater stress on preparation of survey (ESP Survey programme)

The concept of early preparation for survey was introduced with the intention that both the owners and the
classification surveyors are better prepared for the survey with the proposed details of the close-up survey,
thickness measurements, tank testing and also the means of access to carry out the survey agreed before the
commencement of survey. Based on the scope of survey proposed on the survey programme, and the proposed
method of access for carrying out these surveys, operators can better plan and budget for the survey.
How to complete the ESP survey programme

Guidelines regarding the information to be provided, and the documentation to be used, for planning the survey
programme are laid out in the IACS unified requirements12 and reflected in the Rules and Regulations for the
Classification of Ships.
Essentially, when preparing the survey programme the owner’s technical manager will need to collect and
consult the following documentation to assist them with the selection of tanks, holds, areas and structural
elements that will need to be examined and thickness measured during the survey:
• Survey status and basic ship information;

• ESP documentation onboard;
• Main structural plans including information regarding the use of high tensile steels;
• Relevant previous survey and inspection reports from both the technical managers and classification
society;
• Information regarding the use of ship’s holds and tanks, typical cargoes and other relevant data;
• Information regarding the corrosion protection systems provided for the tanks, holds and their present
condition;
• Information regarding the relevant level of maintenance in operation.
Much of the class related information can be found in the ship’s records in Class Direct Live13.
11
It is not intended to discuss the scope of survey for a particular ship as this will vary depending on the type of survey and age of the ship–
this can be found in the Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships and ESP guidance.
12
Guidance regarding the survey requirements for bulk carriers is given in IACS unified requirement Z10.2 and guidance regarding
applicability of ESP requirements for various ship types is given in the IACS unified requirement UR Z11. These documents can be found
under Unified Requirements at www.iacs.org.uk.

In order to assist the technical managers with the preparation of ESP survey programmes, Lloyds Register has
produced booklets for guiding owners in completing this task. Separate booklets have been produced for the
various ESP ship types and use of the correct booklet will automatically include some of the relevant information
that is required to be provided by the classification society as part of the survey programme preparation task (e.g.
permitted thickness diminution limits, scope of close-up survey and thickness measurement etc.). Completion of
the blank form Appendix 1 (which is included in these booklets), along with the remaining contents of these
booklets, meets the mandatory requirement of the ESP survey programme as long as all other supporting
documentation is made available onboard (e.g. plans, damage experience related to the ship, conditions for
survey, etc.). These booklets are now available on the home page of ClassDirect-Live and can be readily
downloaded14.
Issue of ESP documentation following completion of survey/ receipt of report/TMs
Mandatory requirement for ESP documentation to remain onboard.

All ships which are subject to ESP requirements are required to maintain ESP documentation onboard; these
documents should be retained onboard for the life of the ship (i.e. these documents should not be removed from
the ship at change of class, flag, ownership and/or ship management).
ESP documentation consists of the following:
• ESP Survey File (which is issued by class on completion of the special survey) consisting of the
following:
Executive Summary Hull (also called the Condition Evaluation Report) which is a summary of the
surveys carried out and refers to the relevant survey reports and thickness measurement reports;
All hull structure survey reports for the related surveys;
The thickness measurement report, suitably updated for any repairs/ renewals carried out during the
survey to reflect the final condition of the ship on completion of the survey.
• Supporting Documentation (provision/ maintenance of these documents onboard, is primarily the owner’s
responsibility), consisting of the following:
Main Structural Plans of cargo holds and ballast tanks;
Previous repair history;
Cargo and ballast history;
Record of inspection by ship’s personnel (in a standard format) which should include at least the
following information:
o Structural deterioration in general
o Leakages in bulkhead and piping
o Condition of coating or other corrosion protection, (where provided);
Any other information that will help identify suspect areas requiring survey;
An agreed survey programme (i.e. until such time as the special survey has been completed).
It is also an ESP requirement that any personnel who have been involved in carrying out the survey or survey
reporting are then not responsible for the preparation and issue of the ESP survey file for that particular ship. For
this reason the ESP survey file is issued by the London office - after the special survey has been completed and
all the relevant survey reports and associated thickness measurement reports have been received and reviewed.
Two copies of the survey file are issued so that one copy can be retained by the owners/managers in their office
and the other placed onboard.
Following the issue of the ESP survey file, all subsequent hull structural survey reports (and any associated
thickness measurement reports) are forwarded to the owner for inclusion of these reports into the ESP survey file
onboard. From early 2004 onwards paper copies of ESP survey files been replaced by CDs, with only the
Executive Hull Summary being issued in paper form along with the CDs.
13
www.classdirect.lr.org
14
At www.classdirect.lr.org - Clicking on the hyperlink ‘ESP/CAS Guidance’ on the ClassDirect-Live home page will open the ‘Table of
Contents’ window, and the ESP survey Programme booklets can be found under ‘ESP/CAS Guidance > ESP Guidance’.

Re-issue of documentation
Requests for re-issue of ESP survey file are received mainly for the following two reasons:
• Error found by the surveyors or the owner on the initial issue of the ESP survey file. In such cases,
revised copies of the survey file are issued free of cost to the owner.
• Where the survey file has been mislaid or has not been found onboard following change of ownership or
management. In such cases, a small charge is normally made to the owners to cover the administrative
cost for the re-issue of the survey file.
Delay in issue of ESP documentation

As result of increasing pressure from various agencies that are required to review the ESP documentation
onboard (i.e. port state inspectors, vetting inspectors, inspectors representing the charterers, etc.) it is critical for
operators to receive the ESP survey file and have it placed onboard in a timely manner.
However, as previously mentioned the ESP survey file can only be issued after the survey reports and all
associated thickness measurement reports have been received and reviewed by London office. When everything
is received on time, the issue of the ESP survey file should be completed within 4-6 weeks of the completion of
survey.
It is known from past experience that the most common reason for delay in the issue of ESP survey file is late
receipt of completed thickness measurement reports, or some other outstanding issue with the thickness
measurement report. Readers will appreciate that although the thickness measurement service suppliers are
approved by classification societies, as they are contracted for carrying out thickness measurement of the ship by
the technical managers, they are contractually responsible only to those who pay for their services. It is therefore,
in the technical managers’ interest to impress upon the thickness measurement firm they employ, the need for
accurate and timely completion of the thickness measurement report.
4.2 Safety and Access for Survey

Before any survey is undertaken it is essential that careful consideration is given to the provision of appropriate
access and safety. Shipowners, operators and repairers are responsible for providing safe access and means for
survey and surveyors need to be satisfied with these arrangements before entering any space / compartment and
commencing a survey. Some of the key points which need to be considered are detailed below.
(i) Vertical access ladders fitted to transverse watertight bulkheads

Prior to descending the ladder it should always be examined to ensure that it is in a safe condition with no rungs
missing, damaged or loose. Only one person at a time should descend because remains of the previous cargo
may have become trapped behind the ladder and can be disturbed and fall, causing injury to people below.
(ii) Sloping ladders and platforms in cargo holds

Sloping ladders (commonly called “Australian Style” ladders) are often fitted to the transverse bulkheads in the
cargo holds. These are prone to mechanical damage (typically impact damage from the cargo discharge grabs)
and it is not uncommon to find platforms and ladders in poor condition with rails and stanchions missing or
loose, especially if the hold is being entered after a recent discharge of cargo by grabs. These ladders and
platforms should be examined carefully before descending.
If the cargo holds are being entered with the hatch covers in the closed position then it is recommended that
lighting should be provided to adequately illuminate the ladder areas.
(iii) Short aluminium portable ladders

These can be used for access to the lower parts of the side shell frames and brackets, transverse bulkhead lower
stool and transverse bulkhead plating. The ladder should be in good condition and fitted with adjustable feet to
prevent it from slipping. Ideally two crew members should be in attendance with the Surveyor in order to fully

support the base of the ladder during its use. The remains of any cargo, particularly fine dust on the tank top,
should be brushed away as this can increase the likelihood of the ladder feet slipping.
(iv) Hydraulic arm vehicles (or “Cherry Pickers”)

These machines provide the most versatile means for carrying out a “close-up” survey of cargo hold bulkheads
and upper parts of the cargo hold structure. The machine should be correctly maintained and only driven by
qualified personnel, and Surveyors should confirm this prior to using the machine. The standing platform should
be fitted with a safety harness.
For machines equipped with a self levelling platform, care should be taken that the locking device is engaged
after completion of manoeuvring to ensure that the platform is fixed. This will eliminate the possibility of the
platform tipping when the occupants move.
(v) Staging
Staging is the most common means of access, especially where repairs or renewals are being carried out. It
should always be correctly supported and fitted with sufficient handrails. Planks should be free from splits and
lashed down. Staging erected hastily and by inexperienced personnel should be avoided.
In topside and lower hopper tanks it may be necessary to arrange staging to provide access for close-up survey of
the upper parts of the tank structure, particularly the transverse web frames and especially in tanks where
protective coatings have broken down or were not originally applied.
(vi) Entry into tanks and void spaces

Prior to entering tanks / void spaces the atmosphere should have been properly ventilated, the oxygen content
tested and confirmed as safe for entry. The testing should be carried out by a competent person and an entry
certificate should be readily available at the entrance to the tank / void space. A responsible member of the crew
should remain at the entrance of the tank /void space and communication should be established with both the
bridge and engine room. Sufficient background lighting, in addition to hand held lanterns, should be provided.
In tanks which have recently been deballasted, a thin slippery film can often remain on the surfaces and care
should be taken, particularly on the topside tank sloping plating.
Surveyors should always have their own personal oxygen alarm (POA) with them when they enter confined
spaces.
(vii) Ballast trunks

Some bulk carriers are fitted with vertical ballast trunks connecting the topside and lower hopper tanks. The
trunks and associated hull structure are normally surveyed in conjunction with the topside and lower hopper
tanks. Space within the trunk is very limited and access is by a fixed ladder or individual rungs and these can
become heavily corroded and in some cases detached or missing. Care needs to be taken when descending these
trunks.
(viii) Removal of scale

The removal of scale can be extremely difficult. When using a chipping or descaling hammer care should be
taken to protect the eyes, and wherever possible safety glasses should be worn. The removal of scale by
hammering may cause sheet scale, and in the case of cargo holds, residues of cargo to fall from above .This can
also happen where cargoes are being discharged in adjacent holds by grabs and bulldozers making contact with
the structure. If structure is so heavily scaled that a satisfactory visual examination cannot be carried out then it
will be necessary to request descaling.
(ix) Surveys during cargo unloading operation

On some occasions Surveyors may be requested to carry out surveys from the top of the cargo. Surveys are not
to be undertaken in this manner.

4.3 Key Areas to Focus On During Survey, Some Common Defects
and Recommended Repairs
A typical Bulk Carrier cross section depicting the cargo hold and surrounding spaces is shown in below (Fig 2).
The key areas for focus during survey are numbered 1 to 8.
Figure 2
Each area is described in the following sections together with examples of the most commonly found defects and
details of typical repairs.
The objective is to try and eliminate or reduce the potential risk of defects re-occurring in the same locations and
in many cases this will require some degree of structural enhancement during the repair of defective areas of the
structure.
Many of the recommended repairs are those which have been published by IACS “Bulk Carriers – Guidelines for
Survey, Assessment and Repair of Hull Structure”, which provides many more examples of defects and repairs
and is a recommended reference document for surveyors.

4.3.1 Area 1 - Tank top plating and surrounding structure
Mechanical damage due to cargo grabs and bulldozers

This kind of damage will be observed as indentation to –
(i) tank top plating;

(ii) lower hopper tank sloping plating;
(iii) possible distortion of the supporting stiffeners and girders in way of the above locations.
If the plating is only indented between stiffeners then no repairs are necessary until the thickness is reduced
beyond the allowable corrosion limits. Repairs to plating will be by cropping and inserting. If supporting
structure is distorted and /or detached then it will be required to crop and part renew the affected structure as
necessary.
In some cases plating may be punctured and this will require to be repaired by cropping and inserting new
plating. The use of doublers as permanent repairs should be avoided.
Cracks in welds
Cracks in welds may be found in the connection of –
(i) transverse bulkhead lower stool plating to tank top plating (particularly where a pipe tunnel / duct
keel is situated in the double bottom space below) (Fig. 3);
(ii) as (i) above but specifically at the boundaries of the ballast holds or in the holds immediately
adjacent to ballast holds. Cracks are more likely here due to the large sheer stresses in these
locations;
(iii) lower hopper tank sloping plating to the tank top plating (Fig. 4).
Figure 3
Figure 4

Various methods can be adopted for the repair of these cracks and examples of some typical repairs are shown in
below (Fig. 5). In general it will be necessary to enhance the existing structural arrangements in order to reduce
or avoid the probability of defects re-occurring.
Figure 5
(iv) at the corners of the hold in the weld connection of the lower hopper sloping plating to the
transverse bulkhead lower stool plating (Fig. 6). In general these cracks can be repaired by veeing
out and adopting full penetration welding.
Figure 6

Cracks in way of recessed bilge wells and suctions
The tank top plating should also be examined for cracks that may have developed in way of the corners of the
hold bilge wells and suctions, particularly where the bilges are recessed into the bulkhead lower stools. Repairs
can be by cropping and inserting the cracked corners with plating of increased thickness and/or higher grade.
4.3.2 Area 2 - Transverse watertight bulkhead plating (lower part) and its
connection to lower stool
Cracks in welds
The bulkhead and its connection to the lower stool, particularly at the boundaries of the ballast hold, should be
examined for cracks in the weld connection of –
(i) bulkhead plating to the lower stool shelf plate;
(ii) lower stool shelf plate to the lower stool plating;
(iii) weld of the shedder plates to bulkhead plating. In the ballast hold water may become trapped
behind cracked shedder plates and evidence of rust stains will indicate this (Fig. 7).
Repairs to cracks should be made by full penetration

welding. If the plating thickness in way of the crack is
reduced through corrosion then it should be cropped
and inserted as necessary.
The alignment of the bulkhead plating with the lower

stool structure should also be confirmed and any
misalignment corrected.
If it is evident that cracks are re-occurring from

previous repairs then surveyors should recommend that
insert plates of increased thickness and/or grade should
be fitted as necessary to the affected areas of the lower
stool plating and the bulkhead plating and existing
fillet welds are upgraded to full penetration welds.
Consideration should also be given to fitting pads to
any open scallops in way of the internal webs in the
stool space.
Figure 7

4.3.3 Area 3 – Transverse watertight bulkhead plating and top and bottom stool
spaces
Corrosion of the bulkhead plating and reduction of bulkhead strength

Two points to note with regard to corrosion:
(i) Corrosion may be taking place simultaneously on both sides of the bulkhead and where protective
coatings have broken down the rate of diminution will be accelerated in the locations where the
coating has broken down.
(ii) Shear buckling (diagonal deformation of the plating (Fig. 8)) is an indication of plating which is
thinned due to corrosion and the bulkhead is no longer able to withstand the loads for which it was
designed.
Guidance on areas of the bulkhead which require to have

thickness measurements taken for initial evaluation is given
in the Lloyd’s Register Thickness Measurement and Close-
Up Survey Guidance15.
The extent of thickness gauging should be sufficient to

determine the general overall condition of the plating and
the gauging locations should allow an accurate evaluation
of any scantling diminution which may have occurred. It
should be noted that for corrugated bulkheads the readings
should be taken on both the face and the trough of the
bulkhead corrugation.
The Thickness Measurement and Close-Up Survey

Guidance includes the maximum acceptable levels of
diminution and these will vary depending upon the
bulkhead position and type.
For the foremost hold aft bulkhead reference should be

made to the requirements of UR S19, where applicable16.
This requires the foremost hold aft bulkhead to be to be
assessed against the standard contained therein. This is
carried out by a plan approval office and a bulkhead
upgrade plan is issued with repair recommendations, where
Figure 8
appropriate, with permissible diminution limits, see also
section 3.217.
For Bulk Carriers where the cargo holds are used for “partial filling” purposes (partially filling the cargo hold
with salt water whilst the ship is in port loading or discharging cargo) the bulkhead allowable thickness
diminutions are less than for bulkheads in holds which are not used for partial filling. It is therefore important to
identify any holds used for partial filling and ensure that the correct level of allowable diminution is applied.
Mechanical damage due to cargo grabs and bulldozers

The bulkheads should be examined for signs of mechanical damage, including piercing of the plating. Any
damage should have appropriate repairs by means of inserts in way of damaged areas of plating.
15
Available from ClassDirect Live – Information/Approvals/Thickness Measurement.
16
On Lloyd’s Register classed ships memorandum item EBC (A) refers.
17
For further information on the practical implementation see the LRTA Paper No.7 Session 1997-98 on Existing Bulk Carrier Safety: On
the Evaluation of the Foremost Hold Structure under the Conditions of Hold Flooding.

Over / under pressurisation of ballast /deep tank hold and partial filling hold bulkheads
For these holds there is always the potential for over/under pressurisation during the ballasting/deballasting
operations. It should be remembered that the bulkheads at the boundaries of the ballast hold/deep tank have
heavier scantlings than ordinary watertight bulkheads as they are intended to withstand a pressure head of water.
Over pressurisation can result in permanent structural deformation and also possible detachment of the
bulkheads and stools from the surrounding structure. Repairs should be made by cropping and renewing the
affected areas.
Surveyors should also ensure that any pressure relief valves fitted to the hatch cover or hatch coaming of the
ballast hold are in working order.
Alternatively, where pressure relief is achieved by means of manually operated vents in the hatch cover
(normally a jallousie type vent with a hinged toggled cover) a notice should be posted next to the vent, and
ballasting control station, stating that it is to be open during ballasting / deballasting operations. An entry to this
effect should also be made in the Load Line condition of assignment form C11 (IMO).
Vertical grooving and cracks at the shell connection of the bulkhead

The weld connection of the bulkhead to the shell plating should be examined for signs of any vertical grooving
and cracks, these are more likely to be in way of the No 1 and No 2 cargo holds where the panting forces acting
on the shell plating are greatest.
As a general guide, localised shallow grooving may be repaired by means of grinding the groove smooth and re-
welding to the original plate thickness using a suitable electrode.
Cracks in way of access trunks

In many bulk carriers the topside tanks and the lower hopper tanks are connected for access purposes by a
vertical trunk built into the side shell and the bulkhead (Fig. 9). These trunks form part of the hull structure and
contribute to structural strength as they substitute for a side shell frame.
The trunks should be examined externally for signs of any leaks

at their connections to the topside and lower sloping plating and
internally for any deterioration of the protective coatings plus any
grooving or cracking at the connection of the trunk and bulkhead
to the shell plating.
Where it is proposed to remove trunks, for whatever reason, then

advice should be sought from the local plan approval office
regarding the extent and type of the structural compensation
which will require to be fitted.
Figure 9

Cracks at the weld connection of the bulkhead to the topside tank plating and topside tank to bulkhead
top stool
Any cracks should be repaired by adopting full penetration

welding and the fitting of additional stiffeners to the
bulkhead troughs (Fig. 10).
The alignment of the bulkhead plating with the topside tank

internal supporting structure should also be confirmed and
any misalignment corrected. Cracks at the connection of the
bulkhead top stool to the topside tank may be repaired by
adopting full penetration welding and fitting an insert of
increased thickness and /or grade.
Any scallops in the topside tank web plating should be

closed by fitting a pad.
Figure 10
Corrosion in way of bulkhead top and bottom stools
These spaces are often difficult to access and can have high
levels of corrosion internally in way of the shelf plates and their
connection to the adjacent structure. Corrosion can be
accelerated, especially if the stools are connected to the topside
and lower hopper tanks and are used for ballast purposes and
the protective coatings have broken down.
The lower stool shelf plate may also be affected by corrosion

from water trapped behind cracks in shedder plate welds,
especially in ballast holds (Fig. 11). Structure corroded beyond
allowable limits should be cropped and part renewed. The use
of doubler plates fitted to shelf plates and stool internal webs
should be avoided.
Figure 11

4.3.4 Area 4 - Side shell plating and framing
Mechanical damage due to cargo grabs, bulldozers and contact damages –

The frames and the shell plating are prone to damage:
(i) during loading and unloading of cargo;

(ii) from contact with jetties and quay sides whilst berthing;
(iii) through heavy weather damages particularly in way of the No 1 and No 2 cargo holds.
Damages and particularly any detached structure should have prompt and thorough repairs carried out.
Weaknesses in the shell plating and supporting structure can rapidly lead to serious failure of the structure and
ingress of water into the cargo holds.
Grooving, cracks and corrosion –
Particularly:
(i) grooving where the lower part of the side shell frame connects to the side shell plating;
(ii) grooving in way of the shell plating welded butts and seams, particularly the horizontal welded
seam immediately above the lower hopper tank sloping plate (Fig. 12).
Localised grooving can be repaired by grinding out to a smooth profile and re-welding to the original plating
thickness with a suitable electrode.
More extensive grooving will require
the plating to be cropped and
renewed. It is worth emphasising that
grooving is potentially one of the
most significant problems as it can
lead to detached or tripped frames
and brackets, leaving the side shell
unsupported with a consequent risk
of side shell fractures.
The use of pads or doublers as

permanent repairs should be avoided,
as they are ineffective and conceal
the defective structure making future
survey impossible.
Figure 12

(iii) cracks at the top and bottom bracket connection to shell frame - this is more likely in frames
and brackets made from high tensile steel (Fig.13);
Consideration should be given to renewing the frame bracket

with an increased arm length or the fitting of an additional
stiffener to the lower portion of the side shell frame (Figs. 14 &
15). The crack in the shell frame may be veed out and welded.
When renewing or repairing side shell frames, consideration

should be given to the requirements of IACS URS 31, where
applicable, for the reassessment of side shell structure; if the ship
has already been assessed against UR S31 then new criteria may
be applicable to the frames. If the ship has not yet reached the
due date for compliance and extensive repairs are required it may
be prudent to carry out such repairs to the new standard (see
below for more information on UR S31).
Where cracking has occurred in association with corrosion

Figure 13 and/or grooving then the opportunity should be taken to renew as
much of the bracket as possible.
Figure 14 Figure 15
(iv) corrosion where the protective coatings have broken down.
The maximum allowable diminution of shell frames and brackets can be found in the ESP guidance for bulk
carriers. However, reference should be made to the requirements of UR S31, where applicable, which may
dictate new criteria for the assessment of the structure.

Cracks at transition arrangements
Any transition arrangements (scarphing brackets) fitted to
the shell plating at the forward bulkhead in No 1 cargo
hold should be examined for cracking in way of
supporting brackets at the fore peak/forward deep tank
bulkhead. Where cracks are found the brackets should be
modified and extended at least a further frame space (Fig.
16). Similarly the side shell plating in the aftermost hold
at the engine room bulkhead should be examined where
continuation or extension brackets are fitted (Fig 17).
Figure 16
Figure 17
Side shell reinforcement – application of IACS UR S31
IACS UR S31 “Renewal Criteria for Side Shell Frames and Brackets in Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers not Built
in accordance with UR S12 Rev.1 or subsequent revisions” is applicable to all single side skin bulk carriers
contracted for construction prior to 1 July 1998 (i.e. those not built in accordance with UR S12 requirements).
The due date for compliance depends on the age of the ship; the implementation schedule is reproduced in
Appendix 1. For Lloyd’s Register classed ships the date by which compliance is required can be found on
memorandum item SSR.
For applicable ships this redefines the criteria by which the frames are assessed, the thickness measurements
taken and in many cases requires upgrading of the original structure.
The assessment of the side shell is carried out in two stages:
1. A Preliminary Assessment based on “as built” scantlings and some characteristic assumed “corrosion
scenarios”. On completion a Preliminary Assessment Report is issued by the Plan Approval Office.
2. Based on the Preliminary Assessment Report and Ultrasonic Measurement Report valid for the forthcoming
Periodical Survey (Intermediate or Special) a final assessment is carried out by the attending Surveyor who
may need further assistance from the Plan Approval Office on a case by case basis.
The plan approval is carried out for several modes of failure: corrosion, buckling, shear and bending. Depending
on the as built design different modes of failure will be critical and govern the minimum thickness of the
structure and also the repairs and potential upgrades required.
The following summarises the manner in which the structure is to be assessed and provides examples of some of
the more common upgrades.

Assessment of Structure18
For the purpose of this assessment the frames are defined as four zones A, B, C and D as shown below (Fig. 18).
Integral brackets Separate brackets
Zone D – Bracket thickness

Zone D – Bracket thickness
Zone D – Web thickness Zone D – Web thickness
Zone C Zone C
0.75 h
h
Zone B – Web thickness Zone B

0.25 h
Zone B – Bracket thickness

Zone A – Web thickness
hB
Zone A Zone A – Bracket thickness
Figure 18
Measurement Pattern for Zones A, B & D
Web plating
The measurement pattern for Zones A, B & D is to be a
five point pattern (Fig 19). The 5 point pattern is to be
over the depth of the web and the same area vertically.
The measurement report is to reflect the average
reading.
Measurements for Zone C

Figure 19
Web plating
Depending upon the condition of the web in way of
Zone C, the web may be measured by taking 3 readings over the length of Zone C and averaging them. The
average reading is to be compared with the allowable thickness. If the web plating has general corrosion then this
pattern should be expanded to a 5 point pattern as noted above.
18
For further information refer to Thickness Measurement and Close-Up Survey Guidance – Addendum 2; available from ClassDirect Live –
Information/Approvals/Thickness Measurement.

Measurements for section flanges and side shell plating
Where the lower bracket length or depth does not meet the requirements
in UR S12, measurements are to be taken at sections a) and b) to ensure
the scantlings are within the permissible diminution limits used in the
bending check scenarios (Fig. 20).
At least two readings on the flange/faceplate are to be taken in way of

each section. At least one reading of the attached shell plating is to be
taken on each side of the frame (i.e. fore and aft) in way of section a) and
section b).
Pitting and grooving

Pits can grow in a variety of shapes, some of which would need to be
ground before assessment. Pitting corrosion may be found under coating
blisters, which must be removed before inspection. To measure the
remaining thickness of pits or grooving the normal ultrasonic transducer
(generally 10mm diameter) will not suffice. A miniature transducer (3 to
5 mm diameter) must be used. Alternatively the measurement firm must Figure 20
use a pit gauge to measure the depth of the pits and grooving and
calculate the remaining thickness.
Assessment based upon Area

This is the method specified in UR S31 and is based upon the intensity determined from Fig 21 below.
Figure 21
Where the pitting intensity is greater than 15% in an area, thickness measurements are to be taken to determine
the extent of the pitting corrosion. The 15% is based upon pitting or grooving on only one side of the web.
In cases where pitting is evident as defined above (exceeding 15 %) then an area of 300mm diameter or more, at
the most pitted part of the frame, is to be cleaned to bare metal and the thickness measured in way of the five
deepest pits within the cleaned area. The least thickness measured in way of any of these pits is to be taken as the
thickness to be recorded.
The minimum acceptable remaining thickness in any pit or groove is equal to:
• 75% of the as built thickness for pitting or grooving in the cargo hold side frame webs and flanges;
• 70% of the as built thickness for pitting or grooving in the side shell, hopper tank and topside tank plating
attached to the cargo hold side frame, over a width up to 30mm from each side of it.

Examples of upgrades
Replacement when tmeasured ≤ t renewal where trenewal = max ( t0.8 as build , tcorr , td/t , t shear ). The diagrams below (Fig.
22 & 23) show the extent of renewal required when the actual measured thickness is below the minimum
renewal thickness determined from the assessment. That is the thickness at which renewal is required
irrespective of failure mode.
Zone A: tmeasured ≤ t renewal Zone B: tmeasured ≤ t renewal

Integral brackets Separate brackets Integral brackets Separate brackets
When Zone A requires renewal under
this criteria and the bracket is integral
both zones A and B must be replaced.
Where the bracket is separate only zone

A needs to be replaced.
When Zone B requires renewal under

this criteria and the bracket is integral
both zones A and B must be replaced.
Top of Zone B Where the bracket is separate only zone

Zone B
B needs to be replaced.
Top of
Zone A
Pictures of the type of repair can be seen
in figures 24 and 25.
Figure 22
Zone C: tmeasured ≤ t renewal Zone D: tmeasured ≤ t renewal

When Zone C requires renewal under

this criteria both zones B and C must be
replaced for either integral or separate
bracket configurations.
Zone D
When Zone D requires renewal under

the criteria only zone D needs to be
replaced for either integral or separate
Zones B & C
bracket configurations.
Replacement areas:
Figure 23

Figure 24 – Replacement of zones A and B (integral bracket)
Figure 25 – Replacement of zones A and B (separate bracket)

Measures when t renewal = t d/t (buckling criterion governing)
When the buckling criterion governs the renewal thickness it can be possible to reinforce the structure with
stiffeners and tripping brackets as shown below.
Zone A Zone B or C
In Zone A brackets and the

lower part may be
reinforced using stiffeners.
In Zones B and C it may

be possible to reinforce
using tripping brackets.
Tripping
brackets
Anti – buckling
Stiffeners
Figure 26
Figure 27 – Reinforcement using tripping brackets

Bending Check for Zones A & B
In some cases the lower bracket dimension will meet the requirements stipulated in UR S12 in which case no
bending check is required. When the check is required it is carried out assuming the worst case corrosion
diminution; if the structure fails to meet the standard there can be several potential solutions.
It may be possible to restrict the permissible allowable diminution or, more commonly, reinforcement is required.
Doubling strip on face plate or flange.
It may be possible to reinforce the

lower are of the bracket and
stiffener with doubling strips as
shown (Fig.28).
Detail A
Doubling strip
Tapering 1/3
Detail A Detail A
20mm min
Figure 28
Evaluation may indicate that

reinforcement is not possible and
replacement to enhanced scantlings is
required as shown here (Fig. 29).
new d b
new hb
new hb
new d a new d a new da
Alignment with structure below
Figure 29

4.3.5 Area 5 - Hatchway openings and hatch coamings
Cracks in the upper deck plating in way of the corners of the hatchway openings
Repair of these cracks should be by cropping and inserting plating of
increased thickness and/or grade. The insert plate should be extended
as far as possible to remove the new deck butt and seam away from
the tangent points of the corner radius, especially where this corner is
of elliptical form (Fig. 30). Doubler plates fitted to hatchway corners
are not suitable as permanent repairs since they create stress
concentrations and cracks may re-occur.
Consideration can be given to veeing out and welding up small

cracks in this area. However, this is not normally a satisfactory
means for a permanent repair method and the cracks may re-occur.
Figure 30
Cracks where grab cables have grooved the deck plate edge and
also where chafing bars have been fitted to the deck
The use of chafing bars should be avoided as they can give rise
to stress concentrations at the ends of the bars (Fig 31).
Figure 31
Where the free edge of the deck radius is grooved or

damaged by grab wires (Fig 32) this plating should be
cropped and part renewed to avoid the possibility of any
Figure 32 cracks originating from possible stress concentrations in
way of the grooves.
Cracks where shedder plates are fitted into the corners of the hatch
coamings
If they are fitted, the shedder plates should either be attached by bolts
onto lugs fitted to the hatch coaming, or if the shedder plates are to be
welded to the hatch coaming, then the connection of the shedder plate to
the deck plating should be left un-welded (Fig.33). Where cracks have
developed in the deck plating the repairs should be by cropping and part
renewing the deck plate.
Figure 33

Corrosion and cracks in the hatch end transverse beams
These may be in the weld connection of the hatch

end beams to the topside tank plating and also in
way of any grain trimming holes. The cracks can be
repaired by adopting full penetration welding and
fitting pads to the grain trimming holes, an additional
stiffener may also be fitted to the beam end bracket
(Fig 34).
Where corrosion is found in association with the

cracks then the beam should be renewed using an
insert of increased thickness and/or grade with the
profile of the end bracket being modified and an
additional stiffener fitted.
Figure 34
Cracks in hatch coaming brackets, particularly fore and aft brackets fitted at hatch coaming corner
These may be found at the toes of the brackets with the crack propagating along the fillet weld connection and
into the bracket web. These cracks do not generally spread into the deck plating. The toes of the brackets can be
modified with a softened profile and full penetration welding being adopted for the connection of the bracket
extension to the deck. The toe of the bracket should be aligned with existing structure below, or an additional
stiffener should be fitted (Fig 35).
Cracks may also be found in hatch coaming

brackets in way of drainage scallops and cut
outs for pipes and hydraulic lines. These
cracks can generally be veed out and re-
welded with additional compensation
doublers fitted around the scallops and cut
outs. The hatch coaming plating should also
be examined for corrosion, grab damage and
cracks in way of any discontinuities,
especially cut outs around the top rail area.
Figure 35

Hatch Cover Securing Arrangements UR S30
IACS UR S30 “Cargo Hatch Cover Securing Arrangements for Bulk Carriers not Built in accordance with UR
S21 (Rev.3)” concerns the strength and securing arrangements for hatch covers forward of 0.25L and is
applicable to all bulk carriers that were not built in compliance with UR S21, Rev.3, or later (i.e. bulk carriers
contracted for construction before 1 January 2004). The due date for compliance depends on the age of the ship;
the implementation schedule is reproduced in Appendix 1. For Lloyd’s Register classed ships the date by which
compliance is required, can be found on memorandum item HCS.
In order to achieve the compliance in practice it is necessary to re-design the stopper arrangement of the existing
bulk carriers affected by the above measure. The implementation of this requirement requires the proposed
securing arrangements to be assessed by a plan approval office against the criteria in the unified requirement.
Once approved, the arrangements are to be fitted under survey.
Typical arrangements.
Folding Type Hatch Covers (mainly for handy-size bulk carriers and smaller sizes) (Fig. 36)
- Transverse Stoppers
a) Maximum two stoppers per panel are fitted on the port and starboard side in case of “Push Type” stoppers;
b) Maximum two stoppers per panel are fitted on port or starboard side in case of “Hook Type” stoppers;
c) The magnitude of design forces ranges approximately between 150 kN to 600 kN.
- Longitudinal Stoppers
a) Existing Hatch Covers main hinges can be accepted in lieu of specifically designed stoppers if appropriate for
the design;
b) The magnitude of design forces per panel ranges approximately between 700 kN to 2,500 kN.
Folding Type Hatch Cover

Cover Hinges
Transverse Stoppers
Longitudinal Stoppers
Cover Hinges
Detail A
Coaming Reinforcement
Detail A
Transverse Stoppers
Figure 36
Hatch Cover Internal Reinforcement

Multi Panel Type Hatch Covers (mainly for smaller bulk carriers) (Fig. 37)
- Transverse Stoppers – Notes for Folding Type Hatch Covers are also applicable to this type
a) “Push Type” or “Hook Type” stoppers solutions can be applied. The stoppers can be located both on hatch
side coamings or fore hatch end coaming as appropriate for the design. The design solution to be adopted is
governed by functional and operational requirements of the existing hatch covers;
b) The magnitude of design forces per panel ranges approximately between 700 kN to 2,500 kN.
Multi-Panel Type Hatch Cover

Detail B
Longitudinal Stoppers
Detail A
Push Type Transverse Stoppers See Detail A
Detail A
Detail B Coaming reinforcement
Stopper Cover
Cover
Coaming
Stopper Coaming
Hatch Cover Internal Reinforcement
Figure 37

Side Rolling Type Hatch Covers (mainly Panamax and Capesize bulk carriers) (Fig. 38)
- Transverse Stoppers
a) “Push Type” stoppers located at C.L. on the fore and aft hatch coaming;
b) The magnitude of design forces per panel ranges approximately between 1,000 kN to 2,500 kN.
a) “Push Type” stoppers two per panel are fitted at the aft hatch end coaming;
b) The magnitude of design forces per panel ranges approximately between 1,000 kN to 2,500 kN.
Detail A
D e t a il A
C o a m in g R e in f o r c e m e n t
Detail B
Detail B Stopper on Coaming
H a t c h C o v e r I n t e r n a l R e in f o r c e m e n t
Stopper on Cover
Figure 38

4.3.6 Area 6 - Cross deck area between hatchways
Buckling, corrosion and pitting

Deck plating inside the line of hatch openings should be examined for evidence of buckling, corrosion and
pitting. This is most likely to be more severe in way of the forward cross deck strips between numbers 1 and 2
cargo holds.
Cracks and grooving may also be found in the longitudinal weld connection between the thinner deck plating
inside the line of openings, and the thicker deck plating, outside the line of openings.
The under deck supporting structure of the cross deck strip should also be examined as it can become heavily
corroded and / or detached, causing buckling of the plating.
In larger Bulk Carriers where

the cross deck plating is
supported by large cantilever
brackets these should be
examined for any evidence of
fatigue cracks at the toe
connection to the bulkhead top
stool plating (Fig. 39). Repairs
to cracks should be by full
penetration welding. The
internal stiffeners in way of the
bulkhead topstool should also
be examined for any evidence
of cracks.
Figure 39
Where cross deck plating is being renewed consideration

should be given to the fitting of a transitional plate of
intermediate thickness (Fig. 40).
Figure 40

4.3.7 Area 7 - Topside tanks
Breakdown of protective coatings

The most common defects in topside tanks are caused by corrosion where the protective coatings and/or anodes
have broken down or have not been maintained or fitted. Corrosion will be accelerated where coatings have
broken down in way of erection butts (Fig.42), particularly where these have been manually welded.
Coatings will also break down in areas of high stress

concentration such as toes of brackets, intersections of
longitudinals and stiffeners with primary supporting
members, edges of openings and notches. These areas
should be examined for signs of corrosion, cracks and
buckling.
Varying degrees of corrosion can also be present in the

same tank. This is more likely at the aft bulkhead area
of the aftermost topside tank adjacent to the engine
room bulkhead, created by the hotter conditions in the
adjacent engine room or bunker tank.
Where protective coatings have broken down scale will

build up in the tank and will obscure defects. It will also
build up behind the longitudinals on the sloping plating
and block the drain holes. Scale should be cleaned away
for proper survey of the structure and the drain holes
freed.
Tanks where heavy scale has built up on the structure

Figure 41 should be descaled prior to survey and thickness
readings taken to determine the level of diminution.
Cracks at intersection of structure and grooving and “necking” at

deck, shell and sloping plating longitudinals
Particular attention should be given to the condition of the upper deck

longitudinals, sheerstrake longitudinals and the top webs of the
transverse ring frames. These areas should have a close-up survey as
higher than average levels of corrosion and diminution may be found
and the longitudinals can be reduced in thickness adjacent to their weld
connection due to “necking” (Fig. 42).
Other specific areas for attention –
(i) grooving may be found along the line of the sloping

plating longitudinals and in some cases cracks occur in
the sloping plating and rust staining will be seen on the
plating when viewed from below in the cargo hold;
(ii) cracks may occur at the transition of the deck, shell and
sloping plating longitudinals from high tensile to mild
steel, and at a change of section where scarphing
arrangements are introduced;
Figure 42

(iii) transverse web ring frame plating may be buckled at the positions shown below (Fig. 43). The
areas of buckled plating should be cropped and renewed using increased thickness plating and
additionally stiffened to reduce the plate panel sizes. Lugs should also be fitted to all the
longitudinals in way of the repairs and renewals;
Figure 43
(iv) tank end bulkheads should be examined for corrosion and cracks at the bracket connections to deck,
hopper plating and shell longitudinals and at the bottom of the sloping plating as its connection to
the shell is also prone to corrosion (Fig. 44).
Figure 44

Damage due to over/under pressurisation
If there has been any over/under pressurisation of the tank there will be evidence of structural deformation,
buckling and cracks. The extent of the damage will depend on the degree of over/under pressurisation.
In most cases the repair method is to crop and renew the affected structure. In cases of minor distortion it may be
possible to add some additional compensation stiffening to the affected areas. Where additional stiffening is
fitted a record of this should be made in the hull memoranda.
The cause of over/under-pressurisation should be investigated to avoid a repeat of the problem.
Cracks at transition arrangements (connections to engine room and fore peak bulkheads)
Cracks and buckling may be found in way of the scarphing arrangements where the topside tank structure meets
(i) the engine room bulkhead;

(ii) forepeak/forward deep tank bulkhead.
The structure in these areas can be misaligned and the toes of end brackets unsupported where sloping and
horizontal structure on one side of the bulkhead crosses vertical and horizontal structure on the reverse side (Fig.
45).
Figure 45
Any misalignment should be corrected and it may be necessary to remove existing brackets and stiffeners, fitting
new scarphing brackets in line with the topside tank sloping plating. Any unsupported structure should have
adequate additional stiffeners fitted.
Evidence of cracks in weld connections can sometimes be found when the topside tank sloping plating is
observed from the forward and after holds and rust staining will be seen on the forepeak/forward deep tank and
engine room bulkheads respectively.

4.3.8 Area 8 – Lower hopper tanks and double bottoms
Breakdown of protective coatings, corrosion and cracks

The most commonly found problems are:
(i) in the lower hopper tanks bilge strake area where cracks, breakdown of protective coatings and
corrosion at the manually welded erection butts can be found;
(ii) cracks at the connection of the sloping hopper plating to the side shell plating and at the connection
of the sloping hopper plating to the inner bottom tank top plating;
(iii) cracks where the transverse web ring frame stiffeners connect to the side shell longitudinals (this is
more common where angle bar type longitudinals are fitted) (Fig. 46).
Figure 46
Cracks may be veed out and

re-welded, and in some cases
it will be necessary to crop
and part renew the adjacent
longitudinal. Additional
brackets should be fitted and
toes of existing brackets
modified (Fig. 47). The side
shell longitudinals should
also be collared at the cut
outs in the web frames.
Figure 47

In the double bottom tank, cracks may be found in the inner bottom and bottom shell longitudinals beneath the
transverse bulkhead lower stools and also beneath bilge wells. The cracks are more likely in the structure below
the bulkhead stools in the ballast holds. The cracks may be veed out and re-welded or the longitudinals cropped
and renewed and additional brackets should be fitted (Fig. 48).
The toes of existing brackets can also

be modified and any scallops in way
closed by fitting pads. Cracks are also
found at the toe connections of
brackets at the ends of partial girders.
These may be repaired by modifying
the profile and softening the toes of
the affected brackets.
Figure 48
Transition arrangements in way of the aft tanks in way of the engine room/oil fuel bunker tank bulkhead
and in way of the forward end at the forepeak/forward deep tank bulkhead
In this location cracks and buckling can exist where any discontinuities exist. Repairs in these locations are
similar to those for the topside tank. It should also be noted that higher corrosion rates may be found in the
structure adjacent to the engine room and bunker tanks due to temperature differentials.
Pounding damage (normally in way of forward tanks)

This type of damage will be more evident when the ship is in dry dock. However internal examination of the
forward double bottom tanks and lower hopper tanks may reveal evidence of structural distortion due to
pounding. Repairs are by either cropping and renewing the affected areas and in some cases by the fitting of
additional compensation stiffeners. Where additional stiffeners are fitted then this is to be recorded in the ships
records by means of adding a hull memorandum.
Corrosion under sounding pipes and suctions

Higher levels of corrosion are often found at the shell plating in way of bilge suctions and sounding pipes
especially where the protective coatings have broken down. Technical managers should also be advised that
corrosion in these locations can rapidly accelerate leading to holes in the shell plating. If corrosion is found, the
shell plating needs to be gauged and if it is beyond the allowable limits it should cropped and part renewed.
Double bottom re-assessment UR S22

UR S22 requires the foremost hold double bottom to be to be assessed against the standard contained within the
unified requirement. Most double bottom structures comply with this regulation; however, in some larger ships
reinforcement may be required. Where necessary the plan approval office will produce a repair recommendation
for implementation by the attending surveyor19.
19
For further information on the practical implementation see the LRTA Paper No.7 Session 1997-98: ‘Existing Bulk Carrier Safety: On the
Evaluation of the Foremost Hold Structure under the Conditions of Hold Flooding’.

4.3.9 Fore deck hatches, air pipes and fittings
In accordance with IACS unified requirements S26 and S27 the strength and securing arrangements of the small
hatches on the exposed foredeck giving access to spaces forward of the collision bulkhead and foredeck fittings
including air pipes, ventilators and their closing appliances are to be reassessed (and reinforced if required).
For compliance with UR S26 and S27 no formal plan approval is required. Surveyors are to check the existing
arrangements of the fore deck fittings and the strength and securing arrangements on the exposed foredeck
against the standards, which have also been reproduced in the Provisional Rules for Existing Ships. The services
of an approved thickness measurement company may be required to determine the actual thickness of various
elements.
Typically little modification is required although additional brackets or securing arrangements may be required
to achieve compliance with these standards. Where unusual arrangements exist local plan approval offices may
be consulted for advice.
Where significant changes are made the record of Conditions of Assignment, form C11, should be updated.
4.3.10 General comments
In order to prepare for survey the ESP planning should be followed referencing the information outlined in
section 4.1. In addition the following documents and guidance may prove useful20:
Rules and Regulations, Part 1, Chapter 3;

List of firms approved for thickness measurement of hull structure;
Bulk Carriers – Guidelines for Survey, Assessment and Repair of Hull Structure (IACS);
Enhanced Survey Programme (ESP) Preparation for Special Survey;
Thickness Measurement and Close-Up Survey Guidance;
Provisional Rules for Existing Ships.
Before commencing the survey it is helpful to make notes of the critical locations that need to be focused on
during the survey of the spaces to be examined.
During the survey it may be noted that some areas of the structure have been previously renewed, and in many
cases this will have been due to previous corrosion and wastage. It is particularly important to examine the
original structure adjacent to any renewed structure, especially where protective coatings have not been applied
or re-instated at the time of the repairs.
Accelerated diminution of the original structure beyond the renewal limit may have taken place in the interim
period since the repairs and it could be necessary to carry out thickness readings to determine the full extent of
diminution and recommend further renewals.
When surveyors are making recommendations on the extent of renewals for corrosion and wastage it is worth
emphasising to technical managers that in areas where the corrosion levels exceed 75% of the allowable limits
(i.e. substantial corrosion) renewals should be considered or a suitable protective coating applied. In any event
all renewals and the original structure should have suitable protective coatings applied.
As a matter of good practice when any defect or failure is found on one side of the ship the same area should also
be examined on the other side.
20
Please see the Bibliography for a complete reference list.

Fatigue cracks can occur when drain holes in longitudinals are situated in high stress areas. These areas should
be examined during survey and if there is evidence of cracking or if there is potential for a fatigue crack to occur
the drain hole should be closed and re-sited.
Where sand/shot blasting of previously corroded and/or scaled structure is being carried out it is advisable,
whenever possible, for surveyors to examine the structure following completion of the blasting as defects which
were previously not evident are often revealed on removal of the scale and rust.
In all cases where damage and defects are noted it should be remembered that prompt and thorough repairs
should be carried out to reduce the risk of operating the ship with a damage which could result in a catastrophic
failure.
4.4 Water Ingress Detection Systems

Introduction
The system must provide detection of water ingress into cargo holds and into ballast tanks, dry and void spaces
located forward of the collision bulkhead as required by the amendments to the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) of Chapter XII, Regulation 12 as published by the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) by the Maritime Safety Committee Resolution 134(76) that was adopted on 12 December
2002. The amendments entered into force on 1 July 2004 and are applicable to new and existing bulk carriers.
In June 2003 IMO published the standards that stipulate functional, installation and testing requirements along
with guidance on the procedures for installation and testing of level detection and alarm systems to satisfy the
regulations as the Annex to the Maritime Safety Committee Resolution 145(77), entitled ‘Performance Standards
for Water Level Detectors on Bulk Carriers’.
These IMO documents have been interpreted by the International Association of Classification Societies (IACS)
by the Unified Interpretation of SC180. This unified interpretation and its referenced standards are to be applied
by IACS members for equipment approval requests from 1 October 2003.
Classification involvement is limited to conducting surveys on equipment and installations in accordance with
the aforementioned statutory documentation and to ensure personnel and ship safety of the installation. From
electrical aspects compliance with the environmental type test standards of IEC 60092-504 and IEC 60529
quoted within the IMO Performance Standards are acceptable means to ensure that the equipment is free from
electrical hazards to personnel and that the risk of fire from the equipment is minimised. Additionally the
onboard wiring installation is to comply with the relevant requirements of the classification society’s rules.
The structural modifications necessary to incorporate the system are generally penetrations for the passage of
small bore piping and electrical cables. Lloyd’s Register guidance is to ensure that where installed through
watertight or deep tank bulkheads, the penetrations are of an approved type. Pipes should be routed to avoid
penetrating secondary structural members and to maintain a minimum of 250mm of plate material between
existing openings in webs.
The intent of the requirements is to permit the acceptance of many types and varieties of sensors and systems
that may operate in many different ways subject to satisfactory type and installation testing.
The water ingress detection system forms part of the ship’s Safety Construction Survey and Certification.

SOLAS Chapter XII, Regulation 12
1. Bulk carriers shall be fitted with water level detectors:
1.1 - In each cargo hold, giving audible and visual alarms, one when the water level above the inner
bottom in any hold reaches a height of 0.5 m and another at a height not less than 15% of the depth of
the cargo hold but not more than 2 m. On bulk carriers to which regulation 9.2 applies, detectors with
only the latter alarm need be installed21. The water level detectors shall be fitted in the aft end of the
cargo holds. For cargo holds which are used for water ballast, an alarm overriding device may be
installed. The visual alarms shall clearly discriminate between the two different water levels detected in
each hold;
1.2 - In any ballast tank forward of the collision bulkhead required by regulation II-1/11, giving an
audible and visual alarm when the liquid in the tank reaches a level not exceeding 10% of the tank
capacity. An alarm overriding device may be installed to be activated when the tank is in use;
1.3 - In any dry or void space other than a chain cable locker, any part of which extends forward of the
foremost cargo hold, giving an audible and visual alarm at a water level of 0.1 m above the deck. Such
alarms need not be provided in enclosed spaces the volume of which does not exceed 0.1 per cent of the
ship's maximum displacement volume.
2. The audible and visual alarms specified in paragraph 1shall be located on the navigation bridge.
3. Bulk carriers constructed before 1 July 2004 shall comply with the requirements of this regulation not later
than the date of the annual, intermediate or renewal survey of the ship to be carried out after 1 July 2004,
whichever comes first.
System Requirements of the Annex to the Maritime Safety Committee Resolution 145(77)
The annex to the IMO MSC Resolution 145(77) provides technical functional requirements for water level
detection and alarm arrangements installed in bulk carriers for compliance with SOLAS Chapter XII, Regulation
12. The annex identifies five functional requirements:
Means of Detecting Water Level

The method of detecting water level may be a direct means whereby water is detected by direct physical contact
with a sensor installed in the hold, ballast tank or void space. Examples of such arrangements are level switches
and pressure switches. Alternatively the detection may be by indirect means where the water level is monitored
by a sensor located outside of the hold, ballast tank or void space without physical contact with the water. An
example of an indirect system is where the air pressure in a closed sounding pipe is monitored.
The sensors are to be located such that they are capable of detecting water ingress at the aft part of each cargo
hold and as close to the ships centre line as possible. Where this is not practicable the sensors should be located
at both the port and starboard sides of the cargo hold. Sensors for other spaces mentioned in the regulations are
to be located in the lowest parts of the space.
The systems of detecting water level are to be capable of continuous operation while the ship is at sea and their
installation is not to inhibit the use of any sounding pipe or other water level gauging device for the holds or
other required spaces.
Water ingress detectors and any associated equipment are to be installed where they are accessible for
maintenance, repair and for survey. Any filter elements fitted to prevent detectors becoming contaminated by
21
Reg. 9.2 refers to the extra requirements for ships that are unable to meet the stability requirements of regulation 4.3 – essentially IACS
UR S23.

cargo are to be capable of being cleaned before loading. Electrical cables installed in cargo holds are to be
protected from damage by contact with cargo or with cargo handling equipment by tubes of robust construction
or run in locations through the structure that provide similar protection.
Detector Systems
These are to provide a reliable indication of water reaching the preset level in the required spaces and are to be
type tested to demonstrate their robustness and suitability. The performance standard quotes the requirements
defined in IEC 60092-504; Electrical installations in ships, special features, control and instrumentation. This
international standard is a general statement of practice for the construction and testing of control equipment
intended for the marine environment to satisfy the International Maritime Organisation’s requirements.
As part of these general requirements, test procedures to define enclosure ratings for electrical and control
equipment are given. The general specification defining these requirements is international standard IEC 60529;
Degrees of protection provided by enclosures (IP Code). This defines the ability of an enclosure to provide
protection against, firstly, ingress of solid bodies and, secondly, the ingress of water. The code identifies the
degree of protection provided by two numerals placed after the code letters IP.
The IMO Performance Standards define the ingress protection requirements specific to water level detectors as
IP 68, in accordance with the IEC 60529 standard. The water pressure testing of the enclosure to satisfy the
numeral 8 criteria is based upon a pressure head held for a period dependent on the application. Where detectors
are installed in holds intended for the carriage of water ballast or ballast tanks the application head is stated as
the hold or tank depth and the time period of the application head is 20 days. Where detectors are installed in
spaces that are intended to be dry, the application head is the depth of the space and the application time is 24
hours. The IACS unified interpretation considers these application times as minimums to be adopted and also
applies these criteria to other equipment installed in adjacent spaces that may be flooded under damage stability
conditions. Examples of such equipment would be junction boxes installed in lower stool spaces.
In addition to the IP68 criteria the detectors are also to be type tested to demonstrate satisfactory operation in a
mixture of cargo and seawater for a selected range of cargoes such as iron ore dust, coal dust, grains and oils.
The type test is specified as an agitated suspension of representative fine materials in seawater with a
concentration of 50% by weight. Any filters included as part of the detector assembly are to be fitted with
satisfactory function of the detector being verified during immersion in the mixture repeated ten times without
cleaning the filters. In order to provide a practical test the IACS interpretation provides additional guidance on
procedures, test equipment and cargo particle sizes.
To complete the enclosure specifications, the IMO Performance Standard specifies for electrical equipment
installed above ballast and cargo spaces a requirement of IP 56 that being the normal standard for electrical
equipment installed on open decks.
The detector system is to be capable of the activation of visual and audible alarms when the depth of water in the
cargo hold reaches the levels specified in the SOLAS regulations and the indication is to identify the space.
Audible distinction is to be provided between the two levels specified for cargo holds and for spaces other than
cargo holds the visual and audible characteristics of the indications are to be the same as those provided for the
higher alarms in the cargo holds.
The detection equipment is to be corrosion resistant for all intended cargos and the IACS interpretation defines
this to include the sensor and any filter or protection equipment that is installed.
The IMO Performance Standard specifies that the detector indicating the water level is to be capable of
activating to an accuracy of ±100mm.
To prevent the detection system from being a potential source of explosion, intrinsically safe circuitry is
specified for the cargo area. The IACS interpretation requires construction and type testing in accordance with

IEC Publication 60079: Electrical equipment for Explosive Gas Atmospheres to a minimum requirement of Ex ia.
However if the ship is not intended to carry cargoes that create an explosive atmosphere the need for certified
safe equipment does not exist provided that the cargo carriage limitation is clearly stated in the ship’s operating
manuals. To prevent ignition of cargo dusts within the holds the maximum surface temperature of equipment
installed therein is to be below the auto ignition temperature of the dusts encountered. Where this is not known
the maximum surface temperature is not to exceed 85˚C.
Alarm System requirements

The alarm system is to provide for the aforementioned visual and audible alarms to be indicated on the
navigation bridge. Reference is made to the IMO code on alarms and indicators, 1995 and the IACS
interpretation prioritises the first alarm level in the cargo hold as a primary alarm, a condition that requires
prompt attention to prevent an emergency condition arising; and all other alarms from the system as emergency
alarms, to indicate that immediate action is to be taken to prevent danger to human life or to the ship.
The visual indication is to be clearly visible in all expected light levels at a level that does not seriously interfere
with other activities necessary for the safe operation of the ship. The visual is to remain visible until the water
level activating it has returned to below the relevant alarm level and is not to be capable of being extinguished by
the operator. Facilities to permit the operator to mute the audible indications are to be provided.
The IMO Performance Standard permits the inclusion of time delays into the alarm system to prevent spurious
alarms arising from the sloshing effects associated with the ships motion.
As mentioned in the SOLAS regulations, the system may also be provided with overriding devices for
indications and alarms where detectors have been installed in tanks and holds that have been designed for the
carriage of water ballast. Where such devices are installed they are to be limited to these spaces only and
provided with visual indication of operation. Cancellation of the override condition and reactivation of the alarm
is to automatically occur after the hold or tank has been de-ballasted to a level below the lowest alarm indicator
level.
The system is also to be provided with a facility for continuously monitoring for faults and malfunctions and
when detected activate a visual and audible alarm. The audible alarm is to be capable of being muted but the
visual is to remain active until the failure has been cleared.
Electrical power supply for the system is to be provided from two independent sources, one being the main
source of power the second being an emergency source. Failure of the primary electrical power supply is to be
indicated by an alarm and where batteries are used as the second source, the IACS interpretation stipulates that
power supply failure alarms are to be provided for both supplies.
A switch for testing the audible and visual alarms is to be provided at the alarm panel and the switch is to return
to the off position when it is not operated.
Testing
In addition to the detector type testing mentioned previously the alarm system is to undergo environmental
testing to satisfy IEC 60092-504. Type tests for detectors and alarm systems are to be witnessed by the society’s
surveyors when the tests are not conducted at an accredited test house and such type tests are to be conducted on
a prototype or randomly selected sample that that is representative of the intended system. All type test results
are to be suitably documented.
Type test reports witnessed by other classification society surveyors or certification issued by Flag State
administrations may be accepted provided that they demonstrate compliance with the IMO Performance
Standards and the IACS Interpretation. Reports accepted on this basis are to be issued by an authority acceptable
to a flag state signatory to the SOLAS convention.

The visual and audible alarms are to be tested to demonstrate that the visual indication may not be extinguished
by the operator, that the alarm signal level is such that it alerts operators but does not interfere with the safe
operation of the ship and that they are distinguishable from other alarms.
After installation a functionality test is to be conducted that

should represent the presence of water at the detectors for
every level monitored. The IMO Performance Standard
requires the detectors serving cargo holds to be capable of
being functionally tested in situ when the hold is empty
using either direct or indirect means and permits the use of
simulation methods where the direct use of water is
impracticable. Test procedures are required to be included
in the onboard system manual. One such test method is
illustrated in Fig. 49.
Each detector alarm is to be tested to verify that both alarm

levels operate for every cargo hold and other space where
Figure 49 they are installed and that they indicate correctly. Also the
fault monitoring arrangements are to be tested as far as is
practicable along with the alarm test switch on the panel.
Records of all testing are to be retained onboard.
Manuals
The IMO Performance Standard specifies that the manuals provided onboard are to contain the following
information and operational instructions:
• A description of the equipment together with procedures for checking that each item of the system is
working satisfactorily.
• Evidence that equipment has been type tested.
• Line diagrams for detection and alarm system showing the positions of equipment.
• Installation instructions for orientation, setting, securing, protection and testing.
• List of cargoes for which the detectors are suitable for operation in a 50% seawater slurry.
• Procedures to address malfunctions.
• Maintenance requirements for equipment and system.
Approved Sensor Types

As mentioned above, the standards require the systems to be type tested, not type approved, but many are for
maker’s and owner’s convenience.
The list of current LR type approved sensors and systems is available on CD live through the approved products
link using the search engine product option "Water Ingress". Additionally, entries have been made in other
sections of the approved products database where existing certificates have been extended to include
satisfactorily type tested equipment to the required standards.

Examples of fixed point detector types that initiate alarms at the required levels are: vertical and horizontal float
switches (Fig. 50), vibrating fork level switches and conductivity sensors operating switches.
Figure 50
Examples of analogue types capable of sensing water over complete depth of hold are: pressure activated liquid
transmitters, resistance tape sensors and electro-pneumatic gauging systems.
Water Ingress System Surveys

Plan appraisal of the proposed installation is to be carried out by the attending surveyor utilising the onboard
manual required by the IMO Performance Standard. The IACS interpretation requires the ship’s owner to present
a copy of the manual at least 24 hours prior to the survey of the water level detection installation. The surveyor
should be satisfied that the content specified in the MSC Resolution is provided.
The modifications to the ship’s structure, electrical systems or piping systems that involves cutting and/or
welding, are to be approved by the attending surveyor for compliance with the performance standards and
guidelines along with any relevant classification rule requirements before the work is carried out. Guidance may
be sought from the local plan approval office as required. An attendance onboard to verify satisfactory
installation and any steelwork modifications is required and confirmation of acceptance of the modifications is to
be included in the survey report narrative.
Details of the intrinsically safe certification showing suitability of the detector equipment for use with dangerous
goods is to be reviewed by a suitably qualified electrical surveyor. This will be required to be conducted on a
case by case basis where the system has not been type approved.
Type test certification, issued by Lloyd’s Register or the National Administration is to be sighted in each case or
alternatively a suitable test report reviewed by the local plan approval office for compliance with the
performance standards and guidelines mentioned previously. The details of certification seen, or test reports
reviewed, are to be included in the survey report narrative.
Upon completion of the installation, functional testing as mentioned previously is to be witnessed to confirm
operation in accordance with the specified requirements and confirmation of satisfactory testing after installation
is to be included in the survey report narrative.

4.5 Availability of Pumping Systems
Bulk carriers constructed before 1 July 2004 are to comply with the requirements of Regulation 13 with regard to
the availability of pumping systems not later than the date of the intermediate or renewal Safety Construction
survey after 1 July 2004, but in no case later than 1 July 2007.
Regulation 13 requires all bulk carriers under the Convention to have the means for draining and pumping ballast
tanks forward of the collision bulkhead and the bilges of dry spaces, any part of which extends forward of the
foremost cargo hold. Regulation 13 does not apply to the chain locker nor to dry or void enclosed spaces having
a volume not exceeding 0.1% of the ship’s maximum displacement volume (MSC/Circ.1069 refers). This
maximum displacement volume is interpreted as equating to that volume of displacement of the ship at the
summer load waterline.
The regulation requires that the means for draining and pumping ballast tanks and bilges shall be capable of
being brought into operation from a readily accessible enclosed space, the location of which is accessible from
the navigation bridge or propulsion machinery control position without traversing exposed freeboard or
superstructure decks. Where pipes serving such tanks or bilges pierce the collision bulkhead, valve operation by
means of remotely operated actuators may be accepted, as an alternative to the valve control specified in
regulation II-1/11.4, provided that the location of such valve controls complies with this regulation.
The International Association of Classification Societies has provided additional interpretation with UI SC179,
which states that the required valve is to be capable of being operable in the event of failure of the control system
power or actuator power from an accessible position above the bulkhead deck. In addition the dewatering
systems are to be such that when they are in operation, other systems essential for the safety of the ship including
fire fighting and bilge systems remain available and ready for immediate use. It must also be possible to
immediately use the bilge and fire-main when the dewatering systems are in operation.
Existing Ships
Where modifications are made to ship’s piping systems in order to comply with the requirements, any changes or
additions are not to compromise the design or operation of the ship’s existing systems. The installation
arrangements are not to compromise the watertight integrity of the ship.
There are no requirements for capacity of existing bilge or ballast systems. It is enough to modify valve control
of existing water ballast system for fore peak tank and bilge eductors for forward spaces .
The valve specified under SOLAS regulation II-1/11.4 is to be capable of being controlled from the navigation
bridge, the propulsion machinery control position or enclosed space which is readily accessible from the
navigation bridge or the propulsion machinery control position without traversing exposed freeboard or
superstructure decks. In this context, a position which is accessible via an under deck passage, a pipe trunk or
other similar means of access is not to be taken as being the "readily accessible enclosed space".
The valve is not to move from the demanded position in the case of failure of the control system power or
actuator power and positive indication is to be provided at the remote control station to show that the valve is
fully open or closed.
Local hand powered valve operation from above the freeboard deck, as permitted under SOLAS regulation II-
1/11.4, is requested, but is not an acceptable alternative to SOLAS regulation XII/13.1 and UI SC179, unless all
of the provisions of SOLAS regulation XII/13.1 and UI SC179 are met. See Fig.(51)

Forepeak Valve Control
Deck Stand
Bos’n Store
Elect. Hydraulic power unit
Remotely controlled from
space readily accessible from
navigation bridge or propulsion
machinery control position
FPT
Figure 51
The dewatering arrangements are to be such that any accumulated water can be drained directly by a pump or
eductor. Bilge wells are to be provided with gratings or strainers that will prevent blockage of the dewatering
system with debris.
Examples of acceptable arrangements can be seen below (Figs 52 & 53).
Remote control system - Pump in Bos’n Store
Pump control
P
from space
readily accessible
from Navigation open
Bridge or
Propulsion
Control Position
FPT
Figure 52
Remote control system - Eductor in Bos’n Store

From wash deck line
Remote control from

space readily accessible
from Navigation Bridge or
Propulsion Control
Position
open
open closed
FPT Chain Locker
Figure 53

Proposals have been made to have the valve, which is to be controlled from the navigating bridge or machinery
control position, situated in the pipe tunnel one hold space aft of the collision bulkhead.
This arrangement is considered not to be in the spirit of Regulation 13 and does not provide for securing the
integrity of the collision bulkhead and has not been accepted (Fig. 54).
Forepeak Valve Control

(Not permitted)
Deck Stand
Bos’n Store
FPT
Elect. Hydraulic power unit

Remotely controlled from space readily
accessible from navigation bridge or
propulsion machinery control position
Figure 54

5. Port State Control (PSC)
Lloyd's Register has been publishing information on the port state detention performance of its classed fleet on
its web sites, www.lr.org and ClassDirect Live (www.cdlive.lr.org) since 2002. This has been with the aim of
helping industry to recognise recurring risks and improve safety by highlighting those items that are hazardous to
operations, yet continually produce detentions.
The detention performance information is updated on a continual basis. It not only details specific deficiencies
and data on the number of detentions per ship (by month, quarter, year), but importantly, includes statistical
analysis on the entire Lloyd's Register fleet. This helps to identify trends across our fleet, highlighting specific
aspects which can be measured against prior performance, including:
detentions against ship types (oil tankers, bulk carriers, container, passenger, LNG, general cargo, etc)
detentions related to ship flag state
detentions by age and by country
league tables of most prominent and recurring detention items.
Using this information, Lloyd’s Register has compiled a ‘Maintenance Guide Checklist for Owners/Masters of
Lloyd’s Register-Classed Cargo Ships’ that provides advice on which areas an owner or operator should include
in its maintenance regime to help eliminate typical defects found on port state inspections. 22
Bulk carriers and PSC

Analysis of Lloyd’s Register’s PSC data reveals that the most common PSC detention items for bulk carriers are
related to fire safety, life-saving equipment and safety in general. Specific areas which cause recurring problems
and ship detentions are shown in the table below in ranking order.
Category Item Rank

fire safety measures ventilation, fire dampers, valves, quick closing devices, 1
means of control
life-saving appliances lifeboats 2
load lines ventilators, air pipes, casings 3
life-saving appliances lifeboat inventory 4
safety of navigation nautical publications 5
fire safety measures fire fighting-equipment 6
fire safety measures fire pumps 7
life-saving appliances launching arrangements for survival craft 8
propulsion and auxiliary machinery cleanliness of engine room 9
propulsion and auxiliary machinery auxiliary engine 10
fire safety measures fixed fire extinguishing installation 11
life-saving appliances life buoys 12
safety in general electrical equipment in general 13
fire safety measures fire-fighting equipment and appliances 14
load lines cargo and other hatchways 15
safety of navigation lights, shapes, sound-signals 16
safety in general emergency lighting, batteries and switches 17
load lines covers (hatchway, portable, tarpaulins) 18
safety in general ballast, fuel and other tanks 19
MARPOL Annex 1 oil filtering equipment 20
22
Available from ClassDirect Live (www.cdlive.lr.org) under Information/Port State Control.

As a next step towards a better understanding of the risks associated with individual detentions, Lloyd's Register
will be further analysing PSC detention data for combinations of deficiencies that together present a far greater
hazard than the individual deficiencies themselves.
This will assist in the improvement of individual ships and overall fleet quality, reducing downtime and
minimising fleet costs. Owners and operators can target high risk areas and rectify them, thus preventing further
PSC detentions and the related downtime costs, allowing them to concentrate their efforts where they can make a
real difference to safety, the environment and ship performance.

Bibliography
Lloyd’s Register Publications and Guidance
Lloyd’s Register Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Ships, July 2004
Provisional Rules for Existing Ships, January 2004
Maintenance Guide Checklist for Owners/Masters of Lloyd’s Register Classed Cargo Vessels, available from
ClassDirect Live (www.classdirect.lr.org) under Information/Port State Control
Enhanced Survey Programme (ESP) for BULK CARRIERS Preparation for Special Survey (Planning
Document), Revision 9, January 2005, available from ClassDirect Live (www.classdirect.lr.org) under
Information/ESP-CAS Guidance/ESP Guidance
Thickness Measurement and Close-Up Survey Guidance – Addendum 2, available from ClassDirect Live
(www.classdirect.lr.org) under Information/Approvals/Thickness Measurement.
List of firms approved for thickness measurement of hull structure, available from ClassDirect Live
(www.classdirect.lr.org) under Information/Approvals/Thickness Measurement.
Existing Bulk Carrier Safety: On the Evaluation of the Foremost Hold Structure under the Conditions of
Hold Flooding, LRTA Paper No.7 Session 1997-98
IACS Publications
Bulk Carriers Handle with Care, IACS.
Bulk Carriers Guidelines for Surveys, Assessment and Repair of Hull Structure, IACS, Witherby & Co Ltd,
London, ISBN 1 85609 135 X
IACS Unified Requirements and Interpretations (all available from

www.iacs.org.uk)
UR S1A Additional Requirements for Loading Conditions, Loading Manuals and Loading Instruments for Bulk
Carriers, Ore Carriers and Combination Carriers
UR S19 Evaluation of Scantlings of the Transverse Watertight Corrugated Bulkhead between Cargo Holds Nos.
1 and 2, with Cargo Hold No. 1 Flooded, for Existing Bulk Carriers
UR S22 Evaluation of Allowable Hold Loading of Cargo Hold No. 1 with Cargo Hold No. 1 ,Flooded, for
Existing Bulk Carriers
UR S23 Implementation of IACS Unified Requirements S19 and S22 for Existing Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers
UR S26 Strength and Securing of Small Hatches on the Exposed Fore Deck
UR S27 Strength Requirements for Fore Deck Fittings and Equipment
UR S30 Cargo Hatch Cover Securing Arrangements for Bulk Carriers not Built in accordance with UR S21
(Rev.3)

UR S31 Renewal Criteria for Side Shell Frames and Brackets in Single Side Skin Bulk Carriers not Built in
accordance with UR S12 Rev.1 or subsequent revisions
UR Z10.2 Hull Survey of Bulk Carriers
UR Z11 Mandatory Ship Type and Enhanced Survey Programme (ESP) Notations
UI SC 179 Dewatering of forward spaces of bulk carriers
IMO Conventions, Resolutions and Circulars
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), London, 1 November 1974. In force 25 May
1980; and Protocols of 1978 and 1988 as amended.
International Convention on Load Lines, London, 5 April 1966. In force 21 July 1968.
Resolution MSC 143(77) Adoption of Amendments to the Protocol of 1988 Relating to the International
Convention on Load Lines, 1966 - (adopted on 5 June 2003)
Resolution MSC 145(77) - Performance Standards for Water Level Detectors on Bulk Carriers - (adopted on 5
June 2003)
MSC/Circ 1069 - Interpretation of SOLAS Regulation XII/13 - (adopted on 12 June 2003)
MSC/Circ 1108 Guidelines for assessing the longitudinal strength of bulk carriers during loading, unloading
and ballast water exchange (approved by MSC 78, May 2004)
MCS/Circ 1119 Ship/terminal interface improvements for bulk carriers (approved by MSC 78, May 2004)

Acknowledgements
Many thanks are extended all the colleagues in Lloyd’s Register who have contributed in many ways to the
writing of this paper, in particular the contributing authors: Brian Purtle, Arun Sharma, Aleksandar
Dmitrasinovic, Peter Huntley-Hawkins, Stewart Garvin and Jim Barclay; and the technical reviewers Alex
Johnston and Joe Watson.

Appendix 1 - Implementation Schedules
UR S23 Implementation of IACS Unified Requirements S19 and S22 for Existing Single
Side Skin Bulk Carriers
S23.1 Application and Implementation Timetable
a. Unified Requirements S19 and S22 are to be applied in conjunction with the damage stability
requirements set forth in S23.2. Compliance is required:
i. for ships which were 20 years of age or more on 1 July 1998, by the due date of the first intermediate,
or the due date of the first special survey to be held after 1 July 1998, whichever comes first;
ii. for ships which were 15 years of age or more but less than 20 years of age on 1 July 1998, by the due
date of the first special survey to be held after 1 July 1998, but not later than 1 July 2002;
iii. for ships which were 10 years of age or more but less than 15 years of age on 1 July 1998, by the
due date of the first intermediate, or the due date of the first special survey to be held after the date on
which the ship reaches 15 years of age but not later than the date on which the ship reaches 17 years of
age;
iv. for ships which were 5 years of age or more but less than 10 years of age on 1 July 1998, by the due
date, after 1 July 2003, of the first intermediate or the first special survey after the date on which the
ship reaches 10 years of age, whichever occurs first;
v. for ships which were less than 5 years of age on 1 July 1998, by the date on which the ship reaches
10 years of age.
b. Completion prior to 1 July 2003 of an intermediate or special survey with a due date after 1 July 2003
cannot be used to postpone compliance. However, completion prior to 1 July 2003 of an intermediate
survey the window for which straddles 1 July 2003 can be accepted.
UR S26 Strength and Securing of Small Hatches on the Exposed Fore Deck
2. Application
2.1 For ships that are contracted for construction on or after 1 January 2004 on the exposed deck over the
forward 0.25L, applicable to:
All ship types of sea going service of length 80 m or more, where the height of the exposed deck in way
of the hatch is less than 0.1L or 22 m above the summer load waterline, whichever is the lesser.
2.2 For ships that are contracted for construction prior to 1 January 2004 only for hatches on the exposed deck
giving access to spaces forward of the collision bulkhead, and to spaces which extend over this line aft-wards,
applicable to:
Bulk carriers, ore carriers, and combination carriers (as defined in UR Z11) and general dry cargo ships
(excluding container vessels, vehicle carriers, Ro-Ro ships and woodchip carriers), of length 100m or
more.
2.3 The ship length L is as defined in UR S2.

3. Implementation
3.1 Ships that are described in paragraph 2.1 that are contracted for construction on or after 1 January 2004 are to
comply by the time of delivery.
3.2 Ships described in paragraph 2.2 that are contracted for construction prior to 1 January 2004 are to comply:
i) for ships which will be 15 years of age or more on 1 January 2004 by the due date of the first
intermediate or special survey after that date;
ii) for ships which will be 10 years of age or more on 1 January 2004 by the due date of the first special
survey after that date;
iii) for ships which will be less than 10 years of age on 1 January 2004 by the date on which the ship
reaches 10 years of age.
Completion prior to 1 January 2004 of an intermediate or special survey with a due date after 1 January 2004
cannot be used to postpone compliance. However, completion prior to 1 January 2004 of an intermediate survey
the window for which straddles 1 January 2004 can be accepted.
UR S27 Strength Requirements for Fore Deck Fittings and Equipment
2. Application
2.1 For ships that are contracted for construction on or after 1January 2004 on the exposed deck over the forward
0.25L, applicable to:
All ship types of sea going service of length 80 m or more, where the height of the exposed deck in way
of the item is less than 0.1L or 22 m above the summer load waterline, whichever is the lesser.
2.2 For ships that are contracted for construction prior to 1January 2004 only for air pipes, ventilator pipes and
their closing devices on the exposed deck serving spaces forward of the collision bulkhead, and to spaces which
extend over this line aft-wards, applicable to:
Bulk carriers, ore carriers, and combination carriers (as defined in UR Z11) and general dry cargo ships
(excluding container vessels, vehicle carriers, Ro-Ro ships and woodchip carriers), of length100m or
more.
2.3 The ship length L is as defined in UR S2.
3. Implementation
3.1 Ships that are described in paragraph 2.1 that are contracted for construction on or after 1 January 2004 are to
comply by the time of delivery.
3.2 Ships described in paragraph 2.2 that are contracted for construction prior to 1 January 2004 are to comply:
i) for ships which will be 15 years of age or more on 1 January 2004 by the due date of the first
ii) for ships which will be 10 years of age or more on 1 January 2004 by the due date of the first special
iii) for ships which will be less than 10 years of age on 1 January 2004 by the date on which the ship

UR S30 Cargo Hatch Cover Securing Arrangements for Bulk Carriers not Built in
accordance with UR S21 (Rev.3)
1. Application and Implementation

1.1 These requirements apply to all bulk carriers, as defined in UR Z11.2.2, which were not built in accordance
with UR S21(Rev.3) and are for steel hatch cover securing devices and stoppers for cargo hold hatchways No.1
and No.2 which are wholly or partially within 0.25L of the fore perpendicular, except pontoon type hatch cover.
1.2 All bulk carriers not built in accordance with UR S21 (Rev.3) are to comply with the requirements of this UR
in accordance with the following schedule:
i. For ships which will be 15 years of age or more on 1 January 2004 by the due date of the first
ii. For ships which will be 10 years of age or more on 1January 2004 by the due date of the first special
iii. For ships which will be less than 10 years of age on 1 January 2004 by the date on which the ship
1.3 Completion prior to 1 January 2004 of an intermediate or special survey with a due date after 1 January 2004
UR S31 Renewal Criteria for Side Shell Frames and Brackets in Single Side Skin Bulk
Carriers not Built in accordance with UR S12 Rev.1 or subsequent revisions
S31.1 Application and definitions

These requirements apply to the side shell frames and brackets of cargo holds bounded by the single side shell of
bulk carriers constructed with single deck, topside tanks and hopper tanks in cargo spaces intended primarily to
carry dry cargo in bulk, which were not built in accordance with UR S12 Rev. 1 or subsequent revisions.
Ships subject to these requirements are to be assessed for compliance with the requirements of this UR and steel
renewal, reinforcement or coating, where required in accordance with this UR, is to be carried out in accordance
with the following schedule and at subsequent intermediate and special surveys.
i. For ships which will be 15 years of age or more on 1 January 2004 by the due date of the first
ii. For ships which will be 10 years of age or more on 1January 2004 by the due date of the first special
iii. For ships which will be less than 10 years of age on 1 January 2004 by the date on which the ship

Appendix 2 – Summary of Recent Regulations and Memo Items
Requirement Description Memo

UR S19 No. 1/2 Bulkhead re-assessment EBC (A)
UR S22 No. 1/2 Double bottom re-assessment EBC (A)
UR S23 No. 1 hold flooded stability criteria and implementation schedule EBC (A)
for UR S19/22/23
UR S26 Fore deck hatches SHF
UR S27 Fore deck fittings – air pipes, ventilators and closing appliances SFF
UR S30 Hatch cover securing arrangements HCS
UR S31 Side shell re-assessment SSR
SOLAS Ch, XII Reg. 12 Water ingress detectors BCP
SOLAS Ch, XII Reg. 13 Water pumping and drainage arrangements BCP

LR - Construction Documentation - B.C.

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

LR - Construction Documentation - B.C.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association

The Survey of Existing Bulk Carriers

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 1

Web site: www.lr.org

Secretary, LR Technical Association

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 2

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 3

2 The Bulk Carrier and its Salient Features

2.1 Typical Structural Configuration

3 Recent Unified Requirements and Regulations for Existing Ships

3.1 Enhanced Surveys (ESP)

4 Practical Guidelines on Survey and Repair

4.1 Enhanced Surveys (ESP) – survey planning and documentation

5 Port State Control (PSC)

Appendix 1 - Implementation Schedules

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 4

2 The Bulk Carrier and its Salient Features

2.1 Typical Structural Configuration

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 5

2.2 Structural Development

• Use of higher tensile steel for deck structure;

2.3 Freeboard Considerations

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 6

2.4 Cargo Loading Aspects

2.5 Ballast Arrangements

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 7

2.6 Class Notations

+100A1 Bulk Carrier, ESP

The new UR S25 notations follow a similar pattern and are:

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 8

3.1 Enhanced Surveys (ESP)

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 9

Evolution of ESP survey requirements since 1993

3.2 Foremost Hold Bulkhead and Double Bottom

3.3 Fore Deck Hatches, Air Pipes and Fittings

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 10

3.4 Side Shell Reinforcement

3.5 Hatch Cover Securing Arrangements

3.6 Water Ingress Alarms and Pumping Arrangements

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 11

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 12

4.1 Enhanced Surveys (ESP) – survey planning and documentation

Greater stress on preparation of survey (ESP Survey programme)

How to complete the ESP survey programme

• Survey status and basic ship information;

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 13

Issue of ESP documentation following completion of survey/ receipt of report/TMs

Mandatory requirement for ESP documentation to remain onboard.

ESP documentation consists of the following:

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 14

Delay in issue of ESP documentation

4.2 Safety and Access for Survey

(i) Vertical access ladders fitted to transverse watertight bulkheads

(ii) Sloping ladders and platforms in cargo holds

(iii) Short aluminium portable ladders

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 15

(iv) Hydraulic arm vehicles (or “Cherry Pickers”)

(vi) Entry into tanks and void spaces

(vii) Ballast trunks

(viii) Removal of scale

(ix) Surveys during cargo unloading operation

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 16

Lloyd’s Register Technical Association: Paper No. 6, Session 2004-2005 17