Condition Assessment

Programme for Ships

NI 465 DNS R00 E

January 2007
 MARINE DIVISION
GENERAL CONDITIONS

) # )! % "# ! " ! '' " ! " ' .3 " ' '3 ' "# ! " ! ' "" " '
! " "# $ $ % &# ' ( ) ' *"# + ! " ,- "# & '" % $ $ $ " '2 ' ' $ '" " ' " % "# ' "# . 2 % ' ' "2 4 $0 '"
!. % ! " ' *+/. % ! " ',- % ' # $ ) . " !" % ' " $ $ " % " " 0 0 !# ' 2 ! 0$ " %"& % ' " "# ! 0$ . ! '! $" "# " # ' !" " '
"# ' ! .. !" ) . # ' %" % " + ' ", &# "# . '1 " # 2 ) ) "# ! "
' "2 &# "# $ " . ! " " ' '. ' & "
0 ' 2 $ ". ' . ' 2 '!. '3 3
# ) ! %" 2 .. '3 3 2 %% # ' " .. " ' % ' " $ '
. " ' % ' $ $ 2 "#
3 # ! " !! $" ' $ ' . " % "# % '% 0 " ' . " " " )! &# !# &
'! .. 4 $0 '"2 ' "2 !# & .. # ' $$ .'
'3 $ '" 2 0 '3 . 3 ' 0
' "$ ) % "# $ $ "# ! " & "# " " '!
"# & ! "# ! "
# ! " 5 3 . $ - *
• $ $ ' $ . # . % !. % ! " '2 6 '! 7 " ' "# ! 0 '" *+ . ,-8 *$ * 0 $, * $
• / " % ! " 2 "" " " ' ' $ " % .. & '3 " '" ) '" ' *+/ " % ! " ,-8 -
• $ . # 3 " - , * *4 -
%5,666( , 2 - - %566,666(
# ! " . $ " ! $ " ' "# $$. ! " ' % 7 " ' . ' '" ' " ' . 3 . " ' *
" ' 2 ' $ "! . . 3 " ' % 0 %% '" 6 ) '0 '" # !" ) " # %"
$* * $ 0 - ,
! .. !" ) . % " +/ " % ! " ',
, ,
# ! " ! ' . $ ) )! . " " /. % ! " ' ' / " % ! " ' !# #$ ' -
! 0$ ' % " 0 ' 3 0 '" ! " % ! " '8 # $ ' $ " ! " ! " % ! " '2 " ' '3 !" ) " 8 ..
9 .. !. 0 " $ '" " "# ! " ' & " '3 & "# ' "# 0 '"# % "# " &# ' "#
!" ) " ' " '! '" . "# " !# ! 0 '" " ' ' ' $$ " '3 0 ' 2 %"& 2
)! & $$. * % . " - "# " &# ' "# ) '" &# !# . ' % & % " 1' &' "
' " 0 '" " '2 0 0 '" 2 " " ' " . '
"# /. '"2 ' ' !. 0 &# !# ' " $ '" # .. 0 & ) ' . " .
# '" ) '" ' 0 '" ' ' 2 ' 9 % " + )! , # $ " ' :
" $ '" " ) 4 " '3 "# )! # ' %" % " "# +/. '", 7
7 4 " % )! " ' & " '3
! " # $% & $'( 7 . $ - 0
) # ! " ' "# ' 0 ' " ! ' ' ' & " 2 1 ' # $; . - - $ $ $ 8 , , 4
!# " '32 <$ " ' ' "; ) . " '2 / ' ." '3 '3 ' 2 / '" .. 2 7 ) . !# " !"2 ' % !" 2 5
#$ . 2 $ 2 /# " # $ &' &# ' " . ) % ' % "# <$ 7 # !. 3 '" " "# ! '! ' ' " ' "# $ ) . ! "%! " 0 ' ) . '" .
0$. .3 " ' "# '" ) '" ' % "# ! " "# " % %% !" % "# ' " ! !! '3 " = # ) !" " ! 0$. '! & "# 9
# ) ' " !. > # '
/. % ! " ' "# $$ 0 '" 3 ) ' "# ! " % " /. '"2 " ! " ' " 2 % .. & '3 5
) " ) . '3 "# . ' $ !% ' " !. 9 ' # %" ' "# . ) . % 5 # )! % "# ! " 2 &# "# ! 0$. " ' "2 ') .) "# $ 0 '" % % $ ' ! $"
! 0$. '! % '" " " . $ " % "# 0 # $$ 0 '" $ '" !. '" % "# ') ! ' "# 0 0 '" % "# <$ ' '!
' "# / " % ! " ' $ ! .. " ' ! ' "# ! " ; 3 "
5 .# - *$ *
/ "%! " ' ! " "# ! " . '3 "# 0 .' " " ' " !. 9 ' -
# %" ' & "# % '! " "# $$. ! . 7 " ' . ' '" ' " ' . 3 . " ' " '
5 . + $* . $
* + $ , $
+ $ $ $
ARTICLE 9
$ - $
# /. '" " 3 ) " "# ! " .. !! ' '% 0 " ' ' ! % "# $ % 0 '! % 9 # ! 0 '" ' " $ ) " $ $ "# ! " % " ) ! 2 ' "#
"# 4 " )! '% 0 " ' ) . . " "# ! " 2 " " ! '% '" . ? & ) 5
• /. '" # ) !! " "# " "# # ) $ ) " "# ! " ' 2 '3 "# $ %
!. % ! " ' % "# ' " % "# 02 " "# ! ' " '3 % ) $ " '
. , $ / ! " % ! " &# !# # ) '$ $ " ' "0 "# ! " % "# !. % ! " ' % "# ' " 8
$ * / - • ! $ % "# ! 0 '" 0 ) . . % "# !. % ! " ' % "# ' " ' % ) . . )
$ $ - $ $ " ! ' # ' ) " ' "# /. % ! " ' ! " 0 % "# '" ' " ' .
* / ! " ' % /. % ! " ' ! " * / - ' ! % "# ' "; " ' % % !. 8
/ 00 "" ! ' " '3 % $ ' ." % 0 "# ' " ! '" " " "# ) . $0 '" % "# • "# " . " ) " "# ) . " ' % "# 3 " 2 " "# !. $ ' ' ' " "# ) " " %
! 0 '" "# ' " $ ' " / !! '3 " "# ! " ' & 1 '3 . 8
. $ $ 0 $ $ • "# ! " % ! " 2 ! 0 '" ' '% 0 " ' . " ) " "# ' " !. & "# "# ! " 0
$1 ) & '3 / " ' !. $ ' % "# ! '! ' 3 ) '0 '" . '"
. # )! % "# ! " ! " $ % ' . ) !! '3 " "# / % 3 ) '0 '" . "# " % / " # ) '3 !" '
"# ! % "# 0 % "# '" ' " ' . ! " ' % /. %! " ' ! " * / - # ! 0 '" ' " !" " % . 0 ' 3 0 '" $. '
. $ - 2 $ *$ $ 6
$ - 2
6 ' . # "! 0 '3 ' "# $ % 0 '! % " )! "# ! " '3 % 0 '
) '" ' " ' . % . ' "# ! '" . % "# ! " # .. 0 ' ""
!# % ! '" !"
# ! " 2 !" '3 % '! " " . 5
• ) & "# ! ' " !" ' '3 0 '" % "# ' " # &' ' "# ! 0 '" $ '" "#
'! % ) 3 '3 $ ' ' '3 ) "& ' "# /. '" ' "# ! " ; ) 2 "#
/. '"8
! " 0 3' " ' "# % " ) " "# 4 " % "# /. '"
• ! ' !" ) " "# $. ! % "# ! ' " !" '8
• !. '" ' '" "# !. ' " 3 " 8 ( 3 0 '" % " !#' ! . ' " "& ' "# /. '" ' "# ! " ! ' 0 ""
• ) $ ! .. "# ' " ' ) ! " ' " "# " "# 4 0 '" % "# 0 '" ' '! % !. "# ! " " "# )! % " ' ) / 00 ""
0 "
$ $ $ ( $ " ) "# )! ! " . 3 " ' % 6 ) '0 '" & "# ' "#
2 $ * - % 0 & 1 % "# $$. ! . 3 0 '" & "# "# " " 2 '" ' " ' . / ') '" ' ' ' " ' . .
) ( $ " '3 " % "# $ 0 '" % "# ! " ; ') ! "# /. '" 0 "" " "#
) . $ * * - / " % 7 '" 2 '!
* - $ * $ .# : $
) . *$ $ ) * 2 $ * * , *$ * , -
+ * 993 $ $ .
* $ * - *$ -
, $ - - $ / - - , * -,
/ , + , $ . : * - * - -
$ , * * * $ , 2 , , ,
2 $ $, , 2 # 0 ) ' & " '3 0 " . 3 0 '"
+ , -
# ') . " % ' 0 " $ . " ' % "# $ '" 6 ' . / ' " ' ' " %% !" "#
) . $ - + , ) . " % "# 0 ' '3 $ ) '
$ - , * - 2 * $
* , $ # % ' " ' # ' " 1 $ ! '! ) ' %'" ' ) '3 "# 0 $ $ &# !#
0 $$ ' "# ! 0 '" "# ! "
 Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION APPENDICES

Introduction to Bureau Veritas’ Condition Appendix 1 CAP Request for Survey Form
Assessment Services (CAP) (CapRFC)

Appendix 2 CAP Planning Document

(CapPD)
MODULES
Appendix 3 CAP GAP/Defects List
PART A Hull Structure (CapGAP)

PART B Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems. Appendix 4 CAP Certificate (CapCERT)

PART C Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Appendix 5 CAP Ship History Report
Fittings and Systems. (CapSHR)

PART D Bridge, Navigational and Radio Appendix 6 CAP Critical Structure Area
Equipment and Systems. Report (CapCSAR)

PART E Accommodation Areas (Health Appendix 7 CAP Hull Structure Report

Onboard). (CapHSR)

PART F Third Party Inspections – Port Appendix 8 CAP Structure Monitoring Plan
state/ Flag State/P&I Club (CapSMP)
inspections –Annual vessel
Inspections. Appendix 9 CAP Thickness Measurement
analysis (CapTMA)

Bureau Veritas’ Condition

Assessment Services, Vessel
Specific Annexes

NI465 – LNG Annex

NI465 – LPG Annex

NI465 – OIL TANKER Annex (Single and

Double Hull)

NI465 – CHEMICAL TANKER Annex

NI465 – BULK CARRIER Annex (Single

and Double Hull)

NI465 – INLAND WATERWAY VESSELS

Annex

3 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

 Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

Index

Page No. Page No.

1. Introduction 5 2.3.4 Alternative Structure and

Fatigue Analysis 15
1.1 BV Condition Assessment
Programme for Marine Vessels 5 2.4 Ship History Report (SHR) 15

1.2 Tailor Made Condition 2.5 Critical Structural Area Review

Assessment Services 6 (CapCSAR) 15

1.3 Industry Requirements for Vessel 2.6 Vessel Sections and “Area(s)
Condition Assessment 6 Under Consideration” (AUC) 16

1.4 Transparency and Class obligation 7 2.7 Visual Structure Condition 16

1.5 Condition Assessment Programme 2.7.1 Overall Surveys 16

Ratings (CAP ratings) 8
2.7.2 ‘Close up’ surveys 17
1.6 How to request a CAP survey
(CapRFC) 8 2.7.3 Visual Structure Condition Ratings 18

1.7 Condition Assessment Programme 2.8 Wastage of Structure - Ultrasonic

Planning (CapPD) 8 Thickness Measurements (UTM) 18

1.8 CAP ‘Kick Off’ Meeting 8 2.8.1 Ultrasonic Thickness

Measurements (UTM) Scope 18
1.9 CAP Gap/Defects List 8
2.8.2 Wastage of Structure assessment 19
1.10 CAP Closing Meeting 8
2.8.2.1 ‘AUC’ Approach of UTM
1.11 CAP Certification 9 Assessment 19

1.12 CAP Reporting 9 2.8.2.2 ‘Group’ Approach of UTM Assessment

(Thickness measurement analysis
1.13 Safety during surveys 10 report and Global Rating for UTM) 19

2.8.3 Areas of substantial corrosion 19

Part A – Hull Structure 2.8.4 Ultrasonic Thickness

Measurements (UTM) Reporting 20
2. Hull Structure 12
2.9 Ship Structure Protective Coatings 20
2.1 Condition Assessment of Hull
Structure, Concept 12 2.10 Anodes (Cathodic Protection) 21

2.2 Scope of CAP structural surveys, 2.11 Condition Assessment of Hull

analysis and reporting 12 Structure, CAP Ratings 21

2.3 CAP Structure and Fatigue 2.11.1 Individual Structural Ratings

Analysis (CapSFA) 13 for AUCs 21

2.3.1 Structural Strength Calculations 13 2.11.2 Overall Structural Condition Rating 23

2.3.2 Fatigue Assessment 14 2.11.3 CAP Rating Guidelines for Rating

of Structure 24
2.3.2.1 ‘Notch stress’ approach using the
‘Nominal Stress Procedure’ 2.11.4 CAP Rating for Vessel Structure 25
(Bi-dimensional modeling) 14
2.12 Hull Structure Report with
2.3.2.2 ‘Notch stress’ approach using the Photographs 25
‘Hotspot Stress Procedure’
2.13 Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP) 25
(Tri-dimensional modeling) 14
2.14 Special Structural Note regarding
2.3.3 The CAP Structure and Fatigue
Cargo Containment Systems 25
Analysis (CapSFA) Report 14

4 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1


1. INTRODUCTION
Bureau Veritas began Condition Assessments of
marine vessels in 1828 with the objective of
“seeking out the truth and telling it without fear
and favour”. The aim was to provide clients with
all the information needed to assess the degree
of trustworthiness of ships and their equipment.
The world has changed and moved on since
1828, as industrial, technological and cultural
revolutions have followed one another. Bureau
Veritas as a market leader in CAP services
continues to be a promoter of quality, health,
safety and the environment worldwide.
By making use of modern techniques in survey
and verification to extensively analyse, identify
and report on the actual condition of ships and
their systems, Bureau Veritas continues to serve
its clients as a leader in the field of vessel
condition assessment.
Bureau Veritas is recognised as a Provider of
Quality CAP products by Charterers, terminal
operators and Oil Majors.
1.1 BV’s Condition Assessment
Programme for Marine Vessels
Our clients’ needs for vessel condition
assessment are as varied as the vessels that
they own and operate. Bureau Veritas’ Condition
Assessment Programme has been designed so
that it can adjust to the clients’ requirements and
is flexible to avoid interruption of vessel
schedules.
The Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment
Programme…………..
………… is a service provided as a supplement
to class and is designed to be complementary. It
is a consultancy service that documents the
condition of a vessel at a specific time period in
the vessel’s life and identifies the actual quality
standard of the vessel in comparison to Class
rules and IACS requirements.
………… provides a comprehensive survey
report in an easily accessible and understandable
format, which includes observations, ratings and
photographic records.
………… sets a quality rating, between 1- 4, that
easily identifies the condition, reliability and
maintenance standard associated with the
vessel, or vessel sub system, being assessed.
5 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
………… is an important tool for risk
assessment, that is recognized by shipping
operators, charterers and terminal receivers for
its standard of quality.
………… makes use of top experts on the type
of vessel, or vessel sub system, being assessed.
………… is a ‘value added’ product for vessel
Owners who wish an independent assessment of
their vessel’s condition (benchmarking), or who
wish a quality document which can be used to
advertise their vessel(s) to prospective buyers,
charterers, terminal receivers, underwriters or
other parties.
………… may be used as proof of management
best practice in ship maintenance as well as a
record of vessel condition in case of maritime
incidents or litigation.
………… may be used by vessel operators for
benchmarking purposes as part of their self-
assessment strategy. e.g. to form part of their
Tanker Management and Self Assessment
(TMSA), Ship management, or similar self
assessment regime.
……….. is not limited to BV classed vessels.
BV’s CAP services can easily be applied to any
classed or un-classed unit. From the smallest
vessel to the largest Bureau Veritas can and
does have the capacity and the experts to
provide condition assessment services ‘tailor-
made’ for the clients needs.
The types of Vessel that are
Assessed under BV’s Condition
Assessment Schemes
9 Oil Tankers
9 Chemical Tankers
9 LPG Vessels
9 LNG Vessels
9 Bulk Carriers
9 Container Vessels
9 Coastal Vessels
9 Inland Waterway Vessels
9 Non BV Class Vessels
 Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

1.2 Tailor Made Condition Assessment

Services (Modular CAP)

Clients can choose from a menu of ‘stand alone’
condition assessment modules and services
which allow the compilation of their own ‘tailor
made’ programme of surveys. Whether the
client’s programme consists of a vessel sub-
system survey, or a suite of surveys covering an
entire vessel and sub systems, or covers a fleet
of vessels, BV’ modular CAP can be tailored to
suit.
A few examples of these ‘tailor-made’ services
are provided below for reference:
Vessel Condition Assessment, (CAP)
complete with comprehensive condition
report with photographic records of the
inspection, provided for each, some, or all,
of the following vessel sub systems/areas:
Condition Assessment report prior to
docking or other repair period. This can
be an ‘in depth’ survey tailored to the client’s
requirements, for use with vessel docking
repairs or, for use in ‘life extending’ projects.
General Vessel Inspection on an Annual
Basis, tailored for vessel managers who
require independent assessments of vessels’
condition for inclusion in their annual report
to the vessel owners or shareholders.
Inland Waterway Vessel Condition
Assessment, which can be carried out for a
classed or un-classed vessel that requires
Condition Assessment certification to be
provided prior to being found acceptable for
charter.

9 Hull structure and cargo containment,

9 Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems, Bureau Veritas CAP experts have the flexibility to
design a vessel specific condition assessment
9 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, programme that suits the client’s actual needs.
Fittings and Systems,
9 Bridge, Navigational and Radio
Equipment and Systems,
9 Accommodation Areas (Health
Onboard),

HULL Structure Fatigue Analysis

consisting of computer analysis of the vessel
structure using 2D or 2D/3D Finite Element
modelling and calculation of hull girder
strength. A full colour Condition Assessment
Fatigue Analysis (CAPSFA) report is
provided. ‘Hot spot’ maps, monitoring areas
and recommended repair procedures may
also be included in the report.

Vessel Condition Assessment and

Structural Monitoring Programme –
consisting of an agreed plan of time based
condition assessment by Bureau Veritas
surveyors combined with vessel staff
inspections and monitoring of the vessels
structure and coatings. This type of plan
assists the client to ensure that the structural
integrity of their vessel(s) is maintained
through an appropriate monitoring
programme whilst ensuring that inspection
and maintenance records and reports for
vessel structure are readily available.
(Special note for tanker operators: this type
of programme is consistent with Element 4 of
TMSA guidelines.)
1.3 Industry Requirements for Vessel
Condition Assessment
Many vessels today are required to have a
condition assessment report and a CAP
certificate, issued by an Industry recognised CAP
provider, prior to being eligible for charter. The
scope of such vessel condition assessments vary
significantly because oil majors, bulk ore
charterers and even load/discharge terminals
have differing requirements depending on the
vessel age, size and their specified minimum
allowable vessel CAP rating. Because of such
variance in requirements Bureau Veritas do not
set a minimum vessel size for CAP.

6 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

 Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

Here are some observations on differing
charterer requirements:
Some charterers only require a CAP for hull
structure for oil tankers, chemical tankers,
LNG and LPG vessels, of 20,000 dwt and
above. Other charterers may also require a
CAP for hull structure plus cargo
containment and machinery for vessels
including those that are 4,000 dwt or less.
Vessels of less than 3,000 dwt may only be
acceptable for some charterers if a
‘simplified’ condition assessment programme
has been carried out.
The vessel age, which determines that a
condition assessment must be carried out,
can vary from between 15 years to 20 years
of age to 23 years depending on the
charterer.
1.4 Transparency and Class obligation
The Bureau Veritas Vessel Condition
Assessment programme is designed to be highly
transparent with the onus on clear and detailed
CAP reports, photographic records and
certification. Oil Majors, charterers and receivers
have trust in the condition assessment surveys
and reporting carried out by BV CAP surveyors,
who are all experts in the type of vessel, or
vessel sub system, being assessed.
Depending on the client’s requirements the
Condition assessment surveys may be carried out
independently from, or concurrently with, class
surveys. (i.e. where an ESP vessel is undergoing
CAP survey at the same time as intermediate or
class renewal surveys then a Class and CAP team
may be simultaneously on board to undertake
respectively Class surveys and CAP inspections.)

For some charterers of oil, chemical, LNG

and LPG vessels, the acceptable CAP rating
may be CAP 2 or higher.

A comprehensive Fatigue analysis may be

required to identify potential stress ‘hot
spots’.

For some vessels a ‘critical structure area’

survey plan may be acceptable in lieu of a
Fatigue analysis.

Limited areas of substantial corrosion within

parts of the hull structure may not be
acceptable.

Some charterers require that local structural

areas are to have a CAP rating of 2 or better
for measured structure, visual condition or
coatings condition. i.e. Rating 3 is
unacceptable.

For LNG/LPG vessels a close up survey of

independent cargo tanks may or may not be
required.

CAP validity may be between 2.5 years and

4 years depending on the charterer and the
CAP rating. Note: that BV do not stipulate a
validity period for CAP certificates, the
validity is up to the client and their charterer
to decide.

A higher ‘Green Award’ score may be

awarded to oil tankers and bulk carriers of
15+ years of age who have a Condition
Assessment regime for Hull and Machinery.
Bureau Veritas can be contacted to provide ‘up to
date’ guidance on charterer’s requirements for
condition assessment and for an explanation of
our BV condition assessment services.
Should any findings below class minimum
requirements be discovered and not repaired
then the CAP surveyor shall formally advise the
client using the CAP GAP/Defects List. It should
be pointed out that the vessel operator is
required to inform the vessel’s Class Society of
such findings. (See example of the CapGAP
form, attached in Appendix 3.)

7 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1


1.5 Condition Assessment Programme
Ratings (CAP ratings)
The Bureau Veritas rating system for Condition
Assessment is broadly defined as follows:
CAP 1 – Superior Condition – Examination
and/or measurements carried out with the results
showing either minimal or no deterioration from
the ‘as new’ condition. Superior maintenance
condition exists. No preventive or corrective
maintenance is required.
CAP 2 – Good Condition – Examination and/or
measurements carried out with the results
showing a level of deterioration from the ‘as new’
condition. No requirement for preventive or
corrective maintenance.
Cap Ratings
1 Superior Condition
2 Good Condition
3 Acceptable Condition
4 Poor Condition
CAP 3 – Acceptable Condition – Examination
and/or measurements carried out with the results
showing that condition is acceptable according to
class rules and IACS requirements. No imminent
corrective maintenance is required. Preventive
maintenance may be required to halt
deterioration.
CAP 4 – Poor Condition – Examination and/or
measurements carried out with the results
showing defects, deficiencies or condition, below,
that acceptable according to class rules and
IACS requirements. Imminent corrective
maintenance is required.
1.6 How to request a CAP Survey.
(CapRFC)
A request for a vessel condition assessment
survey or for a Structure and Fatigue
assessment may be made directly through the
client’s local BV district office, or can be
requested on-line at www.veristarinfo.com
(See an example of a CapRFC form, attached
in Appendix 1.)
1.7 Condition Assessment Programme
Planning Document (CapPD)
On receipt of a ‘request for survey’ the local BV
office (connecting district) shall contact the client
to discuss their requirements and expectations
for CAP Rating in order to compile a cost efficient
quotation. . (Note: some charterers only accept a
CAP rating of CAP2 or higher.)
8 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
On acceptance of quotation the BV Local office
representative shall meet with the clients
representative(s) to draft out the CAP planning
document (CapPD) which sets out the scope and
extent of CAP surveys that are to be carried out.
The CAP planning document is finalised onboard
the vessel during meetings between the Lead
CAP surveyor and the client’s representative.
(See an example of a CapPD, attached in
Appendix 2.)
1.8 CAP ‘kick off’ Meeting
CAP survey(s) begin with a ‘kick off’ meeting held
onboard the vessel. This meeting is held to
familiarise all the concerned parties with Bureau
Veritas’ condition assessment programme for the
subject vessel. The following points are to be
discussed during this meeting:
Contents of the CAP planning document,
The scope of CAP survey(s),
Inspection arrangements,
Safety requirements,
CAP ‘GAP’/defects list.
Other relevant issues.
1.9 CAP Gap/defects List (CapGAP)
During the condition assessment inspections the
BV surveyor may find areas of hull structure,
cargo containment system, hull fittings,
machinery, etc,. that are either defective or have
been assessed at a rating below that which the
client expects. (e.g. a critical structural area may
be assessed by the surveyor as being CAP 3 but
the clients aim is CAP 1 for structure, i.e. a
ratings gap exists.)
All such ‘Gap’ areas/defects are advised to the
client’s representative in writing and photographic
records are kept. If these items are
upgraded/rectified then a follow up inspection is
made and photographic records taken. These
records form part of the final CAP report. (See
an example of a CapGAP list, attached in
Appendix 3.)
1.10 CAP Closing Meeting
On completion of CAP surveys ‘minuted’ CAP
closing meeting are held and the results of the
surveys and inspections are advised to the
clients representative.

If the CAP survey is carried out over several
visits then each time the surveyor completes his
inspections a closing meeting is held with the
client’s representative. The findings of the
surveys that have been carried out are discussed
and a ‘gap’/defects list presented where
applicable at this meeting.
Preliminary ratings for surveyed ‘parts’ may be
presented during the closing meeting(s) however
the final CAP rating shall only be determined
after final review in the designated responsible
BV office.
Special Note: Although it is recommended that
CAP inspections be completed during a single
visit this may not be possible due to the vessel’s
schedule, or due to the type of vessel being
surveyed. Should several visits be necessary
then the timeframe between first inspection and
last inspection is not to exceed 6 months.
1.11 Condition Assessment Certification
(CapCERT)
Each Condition Assessment certificate details the
scope of surveys carried out on each vessel or
vessel sub system.
CAP certificates issued by Bureau Veritas do not
have a validity. They are issued to certify that the
vessel, or vessel sub system, has a specific CAP
rating on a specific date. Depending on the
charterer, a condition assessment certificate may
be recognised by them to have a validity period
of either 2.5, 3 or 4 years. (See an example of a
CapCERT, attached in Appendix 4.)
9 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
1.12 Condition Assessment Reporting
On completion of the condition assessment
surveys the lead CAP surveyor provides a report
that details the extent of surveys carried out, the
condition of the vessel and vessel sub systems at
the time of survey, details of repairs and
upgrades together with photographic records.
Where a structural condition assessment survey
has been carried out and a critical area review
undertaken, then a ‘structural monitoring plan’
(CapSMP) shall be proposed if any anomalies
are found that would warrant ‘monitoring’. This
plan shall include a list of items to be monitored,
a proposed timeframe for monitoring and
sketches/photographs if applicable.
The BV CAP report shall normally be issued
within the range of one month to three months
from the end of survey depending on the scope
of the clients requirements for CAP survey and
certification.
The CAP report is provided in both paper copy
and electronic copy according to the clients
needs and requirements for reporting.
All BV condition assessment reports include an
executive summary which gives an overview of
the surveys carried out, the survey findings and
the CAP rating(s) applied.
The format of the condition assessment report
varies depending on the scope of surveys and
this format is normally agreed with the client prior
to the commencement of surveys. For an
extensive CAP the following report layout is
typical:
 Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

CAP REPORT INDEX

01 Cover page (Identifying the type of report Special note on reporting: where the client
with a ship photo.) requires a specific reporting regime for a specific
client of theirs then Bureau Veritas are able to
02 Bureau Veritas general terms and
amend our reporting regime to suit the clients
conditions
requirements.
03 CAP Report index of documents
04 Ship’s Particulars 1.13 Safety during surveys

05 CAP Certificate (CapCERT) During CAP surveys the safety of the surveyor(s),
the crew and the vessel is of paramount
06 CAP Report Executive summary
importance. In order to put in place a safety
07 Request for CAP survey (CapRFS) regime for the surveys the following safety
procedures and requirements are advised.
08 CAP Planning document (CapPD)
09 Surveyor’s CAP survey report summary 1.13.1 The client is responsible for providing the
(CapREP) necessary facilities for the safe execution
09.1 Gap/defects report (CapGAP)** of the CAP surveys.

10 Ship history report (CapSHR) ** 1.13.2 The client will assume, with respect to the
BV CAP surveyor(s), all the responsibility
10.1 Class Hull Condition Evaluation
of an employer for his workforce such as
Report **
to meet the provisions of applicable
10.2 Class Ballast Tanks Protection legislation. As a rule the surveyor(s) are to
Report ** be constantly accompanied during surveys
by personnel of the client.
10.3 ESP Survey Planning Document **
10.4 Previous Structural and Condition 1.13.3 Tanks and void spaces are to be made
Assessments carried out. safe for access i.e. gas freed, ventilated
and illuminated. Adequate ventilation and
11 Structure and Fatigue Assessment lighting is also to be provided for
(CapSFA) ** Machinery spaces and accommodation
11.1 Areas to be monitored ** areas if under survey.

11.2 Repair proposal ** 1.13.4 In preparation for survey and to allow for a
thorough examination, all spaces,
12 Critical Structure Area Review (CapCSAR) ** machinery, fittings and piping are to be
13 Hull structure report - with photos cleaned, including removal from surfaces
(CapHSR) ** of all loose accumulated corrosion scale.
Spaces are to be sufficiently clean and
14 Ultrasonic thickness measurements review free from water, scale, dirt, oil residues,
(CapTMA) ** etc. to reveal corrosion, deformation,
15 Structural monitoring plan (CapSMP) ** fractures, damages or other structural
deterioration. However, those areas of
16 Cargo containment system report (with structure whose renewal has already been
photos) ** decided by the owner need only be
cleaned and de-scaled to the extent
17 Hull machinery, fittings and systems report
necessary to determine the limits of the
(with photos) **
areas to be renewed
18 Propulsion & auxiliary machinery, fittings &
systems report (with photos) ** 1.13.5 Sufficient illumination is to be provided to
reveal corrosion, deformation, fractures,
19 Bridge, navigational and radio equipment damages or other deterioration.
& systems report (with photos) **
20 Accommodation area (Health onboard) 1.13.6 Where Soft Coatings have been applied,
report (with photos) ** safe access is to be provided for the
surveyor to verify the effectiveness of
21 Third party Inspections module – Port the coating and to carry out an
state/Flag state/P&I Club inspections assessment of the conditions of internal
report (with photos) ** structures which may include spot
removal of the coating. When safe
access cannot be provided, the soft
** If not applicable this section is left empty. coating is to be removed.

10 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1


1.13.7 For overall survey, means are to be provided
to enable the surveyor to examine the hull
structure in a safe and practical way.
1.13.8 For close-up survey, one or more of the
following means for access, acceptable
to the Surveyor, is to be provided:
a) permanent staging and passages
through structures
b) temporary staging and passages
through structures
c) lifts and movable platforms
d) boats or rafts
e) other equivalent means.
1.13.9 Survey at sea or at anchorage may be
accepted provided the Surveyor is given
the necessary assistance from the
personnel onboard.
1.13.10 A communication system is to be
arranged between the survey party in
the tank and the responsible officer on
deck. This system is also to include the
personnel in charge of Ballast pump
handling if boats or rafts are used.
1.13.11 Explosimeter, oxygen-meter, breathing
apparatus, life line and whistles are to
be at hand during the survey. When
boats or rafts are used, appropriate life
jackets are to be available for all
participants. Boats or rafts are to have
satisfactory residual buoyancy and
stability even if one chamber is ruptured.
A safety check-list is to be provided.
1.13.12 Surveys of tanks by means of boats or
rafts may only be undertaken at the sole
discretion of the CAP surveyor(s), who
is to take into account the safety
arrangements provided, including
weather forecasting and ship response
under foreseeable conditions and
provided the expected rise of water
within the tank does not exceed 0.25m.
1.13.13 Rafts or boats alone may be allowed for
inspection of the under deck areas for
tanks or spaces, if the depth of the webs
is 1,5 m or less.
1.13.14 At no time shall the upside of the boat or
raft be allowed to be within 1 m of the
deepest under deck web face flat.
1.13.15 If the depth of the webs is more than 1,5
meters then rafts or boats alone may be
allowed only:
11
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
a) when the coating of the under deck
structure is in GOOD condition and
there is no evidence of wastage, or
b) if a permanent means of access is
provided in each bay to allow safe
entry and exit. This means:
i) access direct from the deck via a
vertical ladder and a small
platform fitted approximately 2 m
below the deck in each bay; or
ii) access to deck from a
longitudinal permanent platform
having ladders to deck in each
end of the tank. The platform
shall, for the full length of the
tank, be arranged in level with, or
above, the maximum water level
needed for rafting of under deck
structure. For this purpose, the
ullage corresponding to the
maximum water level is to be
assumed not more than 3m from
the deck plate measured at the
midspan of deck transverses and
in the middle length of the tank
(See drawing below).
If neither of the above conditions a) or b)
are met, then staging or an “other
equivalent means” is to be provided for
the survey of the under deck areas.
1.13.15 The use of rafts or boats as mentioned
above does not preclude the use of
boats or rafts to move about within a
tank during a survey. Reference is made
to IACS Recommendation 39 -
Guidelines for the use of Boats or Rafts
for Close-up surveys.
1.13.16 In cases where the tanks’ coatings
condition is ‘less than good’ then close-up
surveys of structure by means of rafting will
not be carried out. In such cases
alternative means for access may be
employed at the discretion of the CAP
surveyor i.e. ‘staging’ or ‘other equivalent
means’.
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1
 Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

PART A – HULL STRUCTURE

2. Hull Structure

The Bureau Veritas condition assessment A comprehensive structural and fatigue

programme for hull structure makes use of
modern techniques in survey and verification to
extensively analyse, identify and report on the
actual condition of the vessel’s structure. The
CAP structural surveys may be carried out either
in dry-dock or with the vessel afloat.
analysis (CapSFA) is recommended to be
carried out,
This identifies potential stress ‘hot spots’ and
assess the fatigue life of critical structures.
(Note: this is a requirement by some
charterers for CAP) (See Section 2.3, CAP
Structure and Fatigue Analysis),

2.1 Condition Assessment of Hull Structure,

Concept

BV’s condition assessment programme for hull

structure combines the results of expert
examination of design data with an extensive
vessel structural survey to produce a thorough
assessment of the vessel’s condition and the
assignment of a CAP rating. The BV rating
system is broadly defined in Section 1, 1.5,
Condition Assessment Programme Ratings.

The range of structural CAP surveys offered by

Bureau Veritas varies depending on the client’s
requirements (e.g. the client may wish a survey
scope that complies with the specific survey
requirements of a charterer or of a cargo
receiving terminal, or the client may require a
survey and photographic record of the structure
for their internal management purposes.)
A ‘ship history report’ (SHR) is collated
based on the previous 10 years of the
vessels service life to enable review of the
‘structural history’ of the vessel. (See Section
2.4, Ship History Report),

The extent of surveys required to be carried out
and the subsequent reporting requirements are
discussed and agreed with the client prior to
inputting the survey scope into the CAP Planning
document. (See Section 1, 1.7, Condition
Assessment Programme Planning)
2.2 Scope of CAP structural surveys,
analysis and reporting
Bureau Veritas generally advocates the following
scope of condition assessment surveys and
computer modelling. (These proposals generally
satisfy the CAP structural survey and
assessment requirements of the main players
within the marine industry.)
A ‘critical structural area review’ (CapCSAR)
is carried out which assesses the results of
structural computations and/or review the
vessels ship history report, so that critical
areas can be identified and included for
inspection within the survey scope. A review
report is provided. (See Section 2.5, Critical
Structure Area Review),
On completion of all CAP surveys a
Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP) is
compiled, in cooperation with the client, as
an aid for future monitoring of the vessel’s
structure. (See Section 2.13, Structural
Monitoring Plan),

In general and irrespective of the vessel’s

age, the scope of surveys should be
equivalent to the scope of overall surveys,
close up surveys and ultrasonic thickness
gauging as required for the vessel’s third
class renewal survey, plus an additional
30% increase in structural close-up surveys
plus an additional 30% increase in ultrasonic
thickness gauging above that specified by
the BV Rules applicable at the time of the
CAP surveys,

12 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1


2.3 CAP Structure and Fatigue Analysis
The Bureau Veritas recommended CAP Structure
and Fatigue Analysis (CapSFA) is carried out
using BV’s ‘MARS’ and ‘VeriSTAR Hull’
programs. These programs use direct
engineering calculations and 2D/3D modeling to
provide information regarding the strength of the
vessel structure (hull girder, secondary stiffeners,
plating, primary supporting members) and to
estimate the design fatigue life of structural
details.
The 2D analysis, on transverse sections of the
vessel, is a verification of the hull girder strength
and a quick scan of the fatigue performance of
longitudinal stiffener connections with transverse
webs. However 2D analysis only gives fatigue
results for ‘hot spots’ affected by “bending” type of
failure. For the connections with transverse
bulkheads and adjacent frames an additional 3D
finite element coarse mesh analysis is necessary
in order to evaluate the fatigue load component
specific to those locations (the relative
displacement between transverse bulkheads and
adjacent frames). Once this load component is
evaluated the results are added to those of the 2D
analysis.
To build on the 2D analysis direct 3D analysis is
used to enable more complete evaluation for
yielding, buckling, fatigue strength and for other
type of fatigue failures, as well as for evaluation
of other more complex structural details.
The CapSFA calculations should be performed
prior to the commencement of the physical
onboard condition assessment survey in order to
provide information on structural items that may
require specific inspection during the ‘close-up’
surveys part of the CAP surveys. (Note: The ship
history report is reviewed to identify repairs
and/or modifications that may have been carried
out so that these can be taken into consideration
during calculations.)
2.3.1 Structural Strength Calculations.
Structural strength calculations are carried out
using the ‘net scantling approach’, as per BV
rules i.e. utilising the ‘as-built’ scantlings specified
on the vessel’s structural drawings minus a rule
corrosion allowance.
13
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
As a first step a midship section analysis using
the Bureau Veritas ‘MARS’ program is
performed, in order to check the overall
longitudinal strength of the vessel and the local
strength of plates and stiffeners.
The analysis of the stress and buckling behaviour
of the primary supporting members within the
cargo hold area is then carried out on coarse 3D
models using the finite element method. 3D fine
mesh modelling is then carried out on areas
where there is an important gradient of stress.
On completion of the structural strength
calculations the results are assessed against
BV’s rules to identify whether the following
elements fulfill the rules requirements:
Longitudinal strength (Hull section modulus
at deck and at bottom of the midship section
are assessed against the strength criteria,)
Local Strength of Plates,
Local strength of Longitudinals and
secondary stiffeners,
Ultimate strength (The ultimate hull girder
bending moment is calculated for the
midship section and checked against the
sum of ‘Still’ and ‘Wave’ bending moments,
in hogging and sagging condition, to identify
whether the hull girder bending moment
fulfills the strength criteria,)
Buckling and Stress (The ratio of the actual
value of stress over the permissible one is
assessed for the yielding and buckling
criteria; longitudinal stress; transversal
stress; shear stress; Von-Mises combined
stress; Uniaxial buckling; Shear buckling;
Bending and shear buckling; and bi-axial
buckling.)
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

2.3.2 Fatigue Assessment
The fatigue assessment is carried out in
accordance with Bureau Veritas Rules, Part B,
using the ‘Notch Stress’ approach and is in
compliance with IACS recommendation No. 56.
This recommendation indicates that the fatigue
assessment using the Weibull law should be
-5
performed for a probability level ranging from 10
to 10-3.
[Note: The 10-4 probability level is used in the
new VeriSTAR program applied for vessels
where the new IACS common structural rules
(CSR) for bulk carriers and double hull oil tankers
are applicable.
The 10-5 probability level is used in the VeriSTAR
program applied for vessels where the new
common structural rules are not applicable]
The following assumptions are taken into account
within the calculations:
Sailing factor (i.e. estimate of vessel in
service steaming hours) taken by default
equal to 0.85,
Effect of compressive stress,
Vessel Load/Ballast periodicity of 50%
ballast, 50% full load,
SN curve from UK HSE (previously DEn) at
–2σ (minus two standard deviations),
‘Haibach’ effect,
North Atlantic sea conditions.
The final design fatigue life calculated by this
method, may be corrected, if relevant, taking into
account significant deviation to the default sailing
conditions or operational life (e.g. if vessel has
been laid-up, or solely operated in one sea area
for a significant period of years, etc.,.)
2.3.2.1 ‘Notch stress’ approach using the
‘Nominal Stress Procedure’ (Bi-
dimensional modeling):
This calculation is carried out using a 2D model
and the ‘hot spot’ stress is obtained by
application of a stress concentration factor to the
nominal stress. (i.e. the BV standard library of
details is used. However if the detail is not listed
in the library of details, 3D finite element
calculation is carried out to define the stress
concentration factors).
The following structural details are investigated
during the analysis using this methodology:
Connection of longitudinals with transverse
web frames,
Connection of longitudinals with transverse
bulkhead.
14
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
2.3.2.2 ‘Notch stress’ approach using the
‘Hotspot Stress Procedure’ (Tri-
dimensional modeling):
The ‘hot spot stress’ is obtained by means of a
3D FEM analysis, where the element size, in way
of the hot spot, is typically equal to the plate
thickness. This calculation is carried out using
‘fine mesh’ models refined from the coarse mesh
model made for the primary structural members
assessment.
Structural details that are investigated during the
analysis using this methodology may include, but
are not limited to, such items as:
Longitudinal knuckles in double hull in
midship section,
Ends of stringers and vertical beams
supporting transversal bulkheads,
The foot of corrugated longitudinal and
transversal bulkheads,
Knuckles in longitudinal members (decks,
longitudinal bulkheads …),
Structure design liable to fatigue cracks
according to Society experience,
Structural detail(s) identified during the
analysis of the ship’s records and for which
fatigue may have been a factor in causing
cracks.
2.3.3 The CAP Structure and Fatigue Analysis
(CapSFA) Report
On completion of the structure and fatigue
analysis a comprehensive report is issued which
includes the following deliverables (which are
sufficient to cover the CAP structural and fatigue
assessment requirements of the most stringent of
the main players within the marine industry.)
A report on the structural strength
calculations and identification of ‘hot spots’,
A report on the outcome of the Fatigue
Analysis and identification of a ‘list of
structures found critical for fatigue’ (This is a
list of the elements for which the calculated
‘design fatigue life’ is less than the ship’s
actual age plus a period of 5 years. e.g. if the
actual age of the vessel is 15 years then the
list covers all areas where the ‘design fatigue
life’ is less than 15+5 = 20 years.)
Recommendations on structural areas to be
modified, if any, and/or a repair methodology
to be proposed.
Recommendations on structural areas to be
monitored, if any, including the provision of
sketches to identify the ‘hot spot areas’.
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

Should this comprehensive analysis identify
areas which require regular inspection or
monitoring then the results are added to the
scope of ‘close up’ surveys, are also be included
in the ‘structure monitoring plan’ (CapSMP) and
are reported within the Critical Structural Area
Review. (CapCSAR)
2.3.4 Alternative Structure and Fatigue
Analysis
In some cases the client may require an
alternative Structure and Fatigue Analysis for a
particular vessel either due to the size of the
vessel, the type of the vessel, due to recurring
damage in a specific location, or for a specific
charterer’s requirements.
In such cases Bureau Veritas’ experts are able to
give advice on specific requirements and can
assemble a ‘tailor made’ package of S.F.A. which
covers the clients specific requirements in this
regard.
2.4 Ship History Report (CapSHR)
Investigation into the vessel’s history is an
important part of any Condition Assessment
Program and should be performed prior to the
commencement of the physical onboard
condition assessment. The aim is to provide
information on structural items that may require
specific inspection during the ‘close-up surveys’
part of the surveys.
The ship history may also identify instances of
repairs and/or modifications that may have been
carried out and which affects the outcome of
Structural and fatigue assessment calculations.
The vessel’s previous trading patterns and ‘lay-
up’ history can also affect such calculations.
In general the vessels’ previous ten years history
is reviewed for the SHR.
15
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
For non-BV classed vessels the client is
requested to provide the CAP surveyor with
access to Class reports and vessel records
covering this time period.
The following documents should be provided/
assembled for the SHR.
Class Hull Condition Evaluation Reports,
where applicable, or copies of the vessels
structural history based on previous class
reports as well as Memorandum, Visas,
recommendations, Conditions of Class for
the timeframe being evaluated,
Class Ballast Tanks protection report and/or
clients records,
ESP vessel survey Planning Documents,
where applicable,
Previous vessel Structural and Condition
Assessments carried out from non-BV
sources.
(See an example of a CapSHR, attached in
Appendix 5.)
2.5 Critical Structural Area Review
(CapCSAR)
Critical Structural Areas are locations which have
been found to be sensitive to cracking, buckling
or corrosion which could impair the structural
integrity of the ship.
The Critical Structural Area Review examines the
results from structural assessment calculations
(CapSFA), results from the ship’s history report
(CapSHR) and uses Bureau Veritas’ experience
of similar or sister ships in order to identify areas
of the vessel’s structure which require specific
and regular inspection/ monitoring.
The deliverables from this review are to identify
the following:
Specific structural areas which require to be
added to the CAP survey planning document
(CapPD) to ensure that these areas are
included for inspection during the ‘close-up’
part of the physical onboard condition
assessment survey.
Specific structural areas which require
monitoring on a regular basis and which
require to be added to the Structural
Monitoring Plan (CapSMP).
(An example of a CapCSAR report can be found
attached in Appendix 6.)
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

2.6 Vessel Sections and “Area(s) Under
Consideration” (AUC.)
To facilitate the assessment, review and
reporting of the vessel’s structural condition, the
ship structure is broken-down into ‘sections’ such
as external hull, main deck, cargo tanks, cargo
holds, ballast spaces etc,.
Each ‘section’ is then further subdivided into
several ‘subsections’ or ‘elements’ which are
small enough to be readily examined and
evaluated by the Surveyor, but not so small as to
be structurally insignificant or too numerous to
practically report on.
During close-up and overall surveys each ‘AUC’ is
individually assessed and given a rating for ‘visual
structure condition’, for ‘wastage of structure’ and
for ‘coatings condition’. All individual ‘AUC’
ratings are then combined to give a structural
condition rating for the specific vessel ‘section’
being surveyed and reported upon. An overall
rating for the hull structure surveys is then
computed by averaging the ratings attributed to
the different surveyed ‘sections’ of the hull
structure as explained in section 2.11, Condition
assessment of hull structure, ratings.
2.7 Visual Structure Condition
Visual structure condition of the AUCs are
assessed during ‘overall’ and ‘close-up’ surveys
and a rating from 1 to 4 is applied to each AUC in
each vessel section.
2.7.1 Overall Surveys
An overall survey of the hull structure is a survey
intending to assess and report on the overall
condition of the vessel’s hull. Visual inspections of
the condition of the structure are carried out,
whereby the surveyor inspects for evidence of
damage, deformation, indents, buckling, cracks,
16
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
These ‘elements’ are termed “Area(s) under
Consideration” (AUC.) The number of ‘AUC’s
incorporated into a ‘vessel section’ will usually be
a minimum of six, however there can be eight or
more ‘AUC’s depending on the layout of the
‘section’ or depending on the surveyor’s review.
The following table shows a hypothetical
assessment to illustrate an example of a ‘vessel
section’ (in this case the centre tank of a VLCC)
and individual ‘AUC’s:
leakages, pitting, grooving, erosion, coatings
breakdown, anodes wastage etc,. Depending on
ship type this type of inspection includes:
External examination of deck, deck openings,
hatches etc,. sea chests, ships sides and
bottom, including corrosion protection system,
Examination of under deck longitudinals
through openings in deck and from access
hatches and ladders,
Inspection of forecastle, chain lockers,
cofferdams, fuel tanks, sludge tanks and
tanks in machinery spaces adjacent to the
vessel hull,
Examination of cargo spaces and
containment systems, ballast spaces,
cofferdams and void spaces,
Visual inspection of deck girders or transverse
rings iwo deck from access platforms,
Examination of cargo hold hatch covers and
coamings (plating and stiffeners),
Inspection of condition of access ladders,
stringers and platforms,
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

Examination of structure adjacent to each
stringer/platform e.g. ship sides, longitudinal
and transverse bulkheads, bulkhead
stiffeners, centre line bulkheads, swash
bulkheads, transverse rings, sloping plates,
brackets etc.,
Examination of tank/hold/containment bottom
structure, plating, longitudinals, transverse
rings, bilge area and under pipe suction bell-
mouths,
Inspection of Hot Spot areas (buckling etc,;)
identified during computer modelling of the
vessel. (If applicable),
Tank testing (stagger tests). All tank
boundaries are required to be tested. The
Surveyor examines the bulkheads under test
in the adjacent tanks or holds, voids or
cofferdams. Generally, the test pressure
should correspond to a water level ‘to the
highest point that liquid will rise under service
conditions’ for cargo tanks. For double bottom
tanks, peak tanks, wing tanks, upper and
hopper tanks intended to contain sea water or
fresh water, these are filled to ‘the top of air
pipes’. For tanks other than Cargo or Ballast
tanks, where deemed acceptable by the
surveyor, then alternatives to water pressure
testing may be carried out. When clear and
clean access to the vessel bottom plating is
sufficient for the needs of the surveyor then
tank testing may be carried out afloat,
During these overall surveys a determination is
made by the CAP surveyor which may extend the
scope of the ‘close up’ surveys.
During the overall survey the CAP surveyor is to
take representative photographs of the structural
condition to enable the client to gain an overview
and insight into the hull’s general condition. These
photographs are attached to the Hull Structure
report (CapHSR)
Defects found during the overall surveys are
advised to the owners’ representative using the
CapGAP document.
2.7.2 ‘Close up’ surveys
A ‘close up’ survey is a survey where the ‘details’
of structural components are within the close
visual inspection range of the Surveyor, i.e.
normally within reach of hand.
In general and irrespective of the vessel’s age, the
scope of close up surveys should be at least
equivalent to that required for the vessel’s third,
class renewal, survey, as per BV Class Rules Part
A. Chapter 3 & 4 plus an additional 30% increase
in scope of surveys within the cargo length of the
vessel.
17
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
The particular requirements for close up surveys
differ depending on ship type.
The scope of the ‘close up’ survey may be
extended as deemed necessary by the Surveyor,
after consideration of the findings of the overall
surveys and the critical structural area review
(CapCSAR).
Ships with reduced scantlings are subject to
special consideration. The areas with reduced
scantlings must be specially examined and close-
up surveyed.
In cases where the scope of surveys is either
extended or reduced by the Surveyor, based on
his findings, the CAP survey report reflects these
changes together with proper justifications.
By definition, close-up surveys require access to
parts of a tank/hold/void space not normally within
reach and this means that safe access is to be
provided as discussed in section 1.13 Safety
during surveys. (For bulk carriers reference is
made to BV Rules Part A, Chapter 4, Section 2,
for means of access for bulk carriers.)
The following areas deserve special attention
during the survey :
Ends of main girders, stringers and struts with
associated brackets. Particular attention
should be paid to the toes of brackets, bracket
ends of shell, deck and bulkhead stiffeners.
Connection of shell, deck and bulkhead
longitudinals to transverse web frames.
Particular attention should be paid to the side
shell connections between full load and
ballast waterlines and the tie beams at
connection to transverse web frames (these
areas being subject to cyclic loading of
passing waves).
Discontinuities in the form of misalignment or
abrupt change of section.
Plating in way of cut outs or openings.
Areas of substantial corrosion or other
suspect areas.
Areas which show signs of damage or
buckling.
Areas identified by comprehensive fatigue
analysis as having a fatigue life below that of
the vessels actual age plus 5 years.
Areas identified by the Critical Structural Area
Review (CapCSAR) as having a previous
history of recurring structural failures such as
cracks, buckling etc.,
Areas identified for regular
inspection/monitoring as per the vessel’s
‘critical structure area monitoring plan’
(CSAM).
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

During the close-up surveys the CAP surveyor is
to take representative photographs of areas
identified by UTM, CapSFA, CapCSAR or CSAM
as requiring special inspection.
Should defects be found during close-up surveys
then these defects are advised to the client’s
representative in writing using the GAP areas/
defects report (CapGAP) and photographic
records are made. If these items are upgraded/
rectified then a follow up inspection is made and
photographs are taken showing the rectification.
These defects/rectifications form part of the final
CAP report and be taken into consideration within
the structural CAP ratings issued at completion of
the surveys.
Should structural modifications be carried out to
the hull structure during the timeframe of the CAP
surveys then these modifications are also subject
to close up inspections and photographic records
taken. These modifications form part of the final
CAP report and be taken into consideration within
the structural CAP ratings issued at completion of
the surveys.
2.7.3 Visual Structure Condition Ratings
In accordance with the rating criteria given in
section 1.5, Condition Assessment Programme
Ratings, the ratings for visual structure condition
are defined as follows:
Visual Structure Condition Ratings
Rating
Rating Description
1 Superior Condition
2 Good Condition
3 Acceptable Condition
4 Poor Condition
18
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
Surveys are undertaken to assess the condition of
structure as regards damages, indents, buckling,
cracks, tightness, grooving, pittings, crevice
corrosion, erosion corrosion, bacterial corrosion,
stress corrosion and other types of defects.
2.8 Wastage of Structure - Ultrasonic
Thickness Measurements (UTM)
Ultrasonic thickness measurements form a major
part of the condition assessment surveys of hull
structure and the analysis of these measurements
is a prominent factor in the determination of the
amount of wastage of structure and subsequent
assessment of CAP ratings.
Where possible the client should arrange for
thickness measurements to be carried out in the
presence of the CAP surveyor however if the
ultrasonic gauging has been conducted within the
last 6 months prior to the CAP survey then this
may be taken into account when determining the
overall gauging requirement for the CAP survey,
provided that a BV class surveyor was present at
the time of the gauging.
Where a client wishes to submit a UTM report that
has been accepted by another IACS society, or
submits a UTM report previously accepted by BV
which was carried out more than 6 months prior to
the CAP survey then these are to be reviewed on
a case by case basis. In such case the date and
scope of UTM gauging reports is to be highlighted
in the executive summary of the CAP report.
(Note: the UTM Supplier must be certified as a
service supplier as per IACS UR S17 & Z10s. )
2.8.1 Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements
(UTM) Scope
In general and irrespective of the vessel’s age the
scope of thickness measurements should be at
least equivalent to that required for the vessel’s
third, class renewal, survey, plus an additional
30% increase in scope above the class minimum
requirements. (BV minimum requirements for
thickness measurements are given in BV Class
Rules Part A. Chapter 2, 3 & 4. and differ
depending on the ship type.)
The additional measurement areas consistent with
the 30% increase in scope for the CAP UTM
gauging are agreed with the client prior to survey
commencement. The full scope of the agreed
UTM measurement requirements are then be
included in the CAP planning document (CapPD)
The scope may be extended further, if deemed
necessary by the Surveyor, after consideration of
findings during ‘overall’ and ‘close up’ surveys.
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

2.8.2 Wastage of Structure assessment
Wastage of structure ratings are assigned using a
two stage UTM based approach, firstly at the
‘AUC’ level by using a combination of survey
techniques to allow assessment of the vessel and
secondly by rating the vessel as a whole based
solely on the UT measurements.
Both approaches use the same UTM readings
which are reviewed against permissible diminution
of structure, as given in the tables of acceptance
criteria provided in BV Class Rules Part A.
In accordance with the general rating criteria given
in section 1.5. ratings are applied for wastage of
structure as defined in the table below:
UTM Condition Assessment Ratings for
Wastage of Structure
Rating Rating %-age of permissible
Description diminution
Superior
1 Condition 0 to 25%
Good
2 Condition 25 to 75%
Acceptable
3 Condition 75 to 100%
Poor
4 Condition More than 100%
2.8.2.1 ‘AUC’ Approach of UTM Assessment
In this approach the UT measurements taken iwo
each ‘Area under Consideration’ (AUC) are
assessed according to the criteria given in the
table in 2.8.2 and a rating for structural wastage is
applied for each ‘AUC’.
The ratings for structural wastage applied for each
‘AUC’ are then combined with ratings for visual
structure and for coatings condition to enable a
combined structural rating to be given to each
‘AUC’, as explained in Section 2.11.
(Note: due to various circumstances such as
inaccurate measurement, stray pits, etc,. then
there will be some deviations in UTM readings
which means that some flexibility in assessment is
required. Therefore an allowance of 10% of
‘errant’ readings may be allowed as long as these
are randomly scattered and no repairs are
deemed necessary by the surveyor.)
19
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
2.8.2.2 ‘Group’ Approach of UTM Assessment
(Thickness measurement analysis
report and global rating for UTM)
The ‘group approach’ is where the full set of
structural UTM readings are assessed on the
basis of groups of structures (e.g. Transverse
bulkheads are one group) and ratings are
assigned for each group as per the criteria given in
the table in 2.8.2 and the results assembled into a
summarised report entitled “Thickness
measurement analysis report.” (CapTMA)
The cover page of this report contains a
compilation of the ‘groups’ of structure (e.g. main
deck plating group, bottom plating group,
wind/water strakes group, transverse belts group,
transverse bulkheads group etc,.) with the
structural ratings applied to each of these ‘groups’.
A ‘Global’ rating for hull thickness measurement
analysis is then computed from the average of the
combined results from the groups, rounded to the
nearest integer.
The ‘Global’ rating for UTM is used as a guideline
for the final CAP structural rating for the vessel.
i.e. The final CAP Structural Rating cannot be
better than the rating computed solely from the
hull thickness measurement analysis.
(See an example of a CapTMA, attached in
Appendix 9.)
2.8.3 Areas of substantial corrosion
Substantial corrosion is an extent of corrosion
such that assessment of the corrosion pattern
indicates a wastage in excess of 75% of allowable
margins, but within acceptable limits. i.e. a CAP
Rating 3.
(Note: For ships built under the IACS Common
Structural Rules, substantial corrosion is an extent
of corrosion such that the assessment of the
corrosion pattern indicates a gauged (or
measured) thickness between tnet + 0.5mm and
tnet.)
If any individual AUC of the vessel shows a rating
of 3 then the overall CAP rating awarded for the
vessel’s structure can be no higher than CAP 2.
Areas of substantial corrosion shall be included in
the surveyors proposals to the client for regular
inspection as part of the Structural Monitoring Plan
(CapSMP).
(Note that some charterers make the stipulation
that any areas of substantial corrosion must be
repaired prior to their chartering a vessel i.e. they
only accept a vessel with all assessed AUC of
rating 2 or better.)
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1
 Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

2.8.4 Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements 2.9 Ship Structure Protective Coatings

(UTM) Reporting
The final CAP report contains a “thickness
measurement analysis report” which is a summary
and analysis of the UTM measurements which
were used for assessment of wastage of hull
structure. The groups of items considered in the
calculations are also listed in this analysis report.
(See an example of a CapTMA, attached in
Appendix 9.)
During overall and close up surveys the vessel’s
structural protective coatings are surveyed and
reported upon.
During these surveys the condition of the coatings
for the various ‘AUCs’ are defined and ratings are
then applied. The present definitions of coating
conditions “GOOD”, “FAIR” and “POOR” are given
in IMO Resolution A.744(18)/ Annex B-1.2.9 and
IACS UR Z10s.

Coating Conditions, Ratings.

IACS
BV CAP IACS/IMO Rec. 87
Rating Condition Definition

Condition with spot rusting on less than 3% of the area

under consideration without visible failure of the coating.
1 GOOD Rusting at edges or welds, must be on less than 20 % of
edges or weld lines in the area under consideration.

Condition with breakdown of coating or rust penetration on

2 FAIR
less than 20 % of the area under consideration. Hard rust
scale rust penetration must be less than 10 % of the area
under consideration. Rusting at edges or welds must be on
less than 50 % of edges or weld lines in the area under
consideration.

Condition with breakdown of coating or rust penetration on

more than 20% or hard rust scale on more than 10% of the
3 POOR area under consideration or local breakdown concentrated
at edges or welds on more than 50 % of edges or weld
lines in the area under consideration.

N/C n/a No protective coatings fitted.

N/A n/a Not applicable.

Notes:
Soft Coatings or Semi Hard Coatings are not rated in the scope of this document, however where these are
found to have been fitted then these are to be identified within the CapHSR report.
Spot rusting is rusting in spots without visible failure of coating.
Blistering of coatings is identified as coating failure according to IACS Rec. 87. Appendix A.

In similar fashion to the methodology explained in
Section 2.7 for Visual structure, individual ratings
are awarded for coatings condition for each ‘Area
under Consideration’ (AUC) within the survey.
These ratings are then combined with individual
ratings for ‘visual structure’ and ‘wastage’ to give
an overall average rating, which is then rounded to
the nearest whole number to give a final individual
rating for the specific tank, cargo hold, or other
space being surveyed.
Bureau Veritas has published a guide to
“Evaluating the Condition of Ship Structure
Protective Coatings”. This guide has been
developed as an assistance to the surveyor when
performing condition assessment (CAP) surveys.
The guide is an addendum to this Document.
Note: that some charterers require that AUC’s with
a coatings rating of 3, should be repaired, prior to
chartering the vessel.

20 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

 Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

2.10 Anodes (Cathodic Protection) 2.11 Condition Assessment of Hull Structure,

Although it is not a class requirement that anodes
are fitted in ballast tanks, cargo tanks and other
areas of the vessel hull, some clients and
charterers require that the condition of anodes be
reported upon. Therefore during overall and close
up surveys corrosion protective anodes (if fitted)
are to be assessed, according to each ‘AUC’
where these are fitted, and a given a rating
depending on the amount of wastage of anode
found. Note: this rating is given for information
purposes. The existence of, or lack of, anodes
does not affect the overall CAP rating of the
vessel.
CAP Ratings
The Bureau Veritas rating system for condition
assessment is broadly defined within Section 1,
1.5 of this document (and is repeated below for
easy reference.
Cap Ratings
1 Superior Condition
2 Good Condition
3 Acceptable Condition

Anodes Condition Assessment 4 Poor Condition

Rating Rating %-age of

Description wastage. To arrive at an overall rating for the vessel
Grades structure the following elements pertaining to
Superior 0 to 25% structure, structural strength and maintenance of
1 Condition structure are rated individually and collectively:
Good 25 to 50%
2 Condition Visual inspection of structure for damage,
deformation, indents, buckling, cracks,
Acceptable 50 to 75% leakages, pitting, grooving, erosion, etc,.
3 Condition
Poor above 75 % or 0% Visual inspection of protective coatings for
4 Condition conductivity. coating breakdown, cracking, flaking,
N/F No anodes fitted. blistering, detachment etc,.
N/A Not applicable.
Wastage of structure: assessment based
on ultrasonic thickness measurements (UTM)
and the percentage of diminution of structure.
Anode material is generally of zinc. Other types of
materials, for example aluminium, are limited
Individual ratings are awarded for each of the
because of the danger of sparks when dropped or
above elements. These individual ratings are
struck, although these materials generally offer
combined into an overall rating for hull structure
better current output for the same weight.
and then finally a CAP rating for the vessel
structure condition is awarded.
Aluminium anodes have an installation height
restriction in cargo tanks equivalent to a potential
energy of 275 Joules which effectively limits their
use to bottom structure and requires that falling
objects do not strike them. 2.11.1 Individual Structural Ratings for ‘AUC’s.

During CAP surveys individual ratings are

awarded for ‘visual structure condition’, ‘coatings
condition’ and ‘wastage of structure’, for each
‘Area under Consideration’ (AUC) surveyed.
These ratings are then combined to give an
average rating, rounded to the nearest first
decimal point, for each ‘AUC’.

Each ‘AUC’ average rating is then tabulated and

Magnesium alloy anodes are normally not accepted
in cargo tanks. These anodes result in high
production of hydrogen when immersed in sea
water, thereby introducing an explosion/fire risk.
combined to give an overall average rating, which
is then rounded to the nearest whole number to
give a final individual rating for the specific vessel
‘section’ being surveyed.
The following example shows how the Rating for a
vessel ‘section’, such as a tank, hold or space, is
computed.

21 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1


The example below shows the type of table that is
normally used to show the individual ratings for
‘AUCs’ together with the overall Rating for that
vessel ‘section’.
In the example above the average rating for
the tank is given as 1.2 and the final structural
condition rating awarded for the No. 1 Centre
Tank (vessel ‘section’) is 1.
In the example above the average reading is
calculated as 1.2 which is then rounded to a
structural condition rating of 1. However
because the ‘connecting space’ has been
awarded a coatings rating of 3 then a
structural rating of 1 cannot be awarded.
22
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
In this example the hypothetical vessel ‘section’
being rated is the No. 1 Centre Cargo Oil tank
and there are six ‘areas under consideration’
AUC’s.
This next example (below) makes use of the
same type of table to assess the CAP rating for
a Top Side Ballast tank on a Bulk Carrier.
This is because the final rating cannot be
better than one rating grade better than the
lowest rating. Therefore the rating is revised
upwards.
In this example the best rating that can be
applied to the No.3 TST is a rating of 2.
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

This next example makes use of the same
type of table for assessing the structural rating
of a VLCC’s deck.
2.11.2 Overall Structural Condition Rating
To arrive at an overall rating for the vessel’s
structure the ratings awarded for each vessel
‘section’ are combined and an average rating is
computed.
23
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
The vessel ‘section’ in this case is the ‘Main Deck’
and this is made up of six ‘areas under
consideration’ (AUC).
The following example shows the type of table
which is normally used to show the ratings
awarded to individual vessel ‘sections’ together
with the overall rating for the vessel structure. In
this example the vessel is a bulk carrier
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

In the example (on the previous page) the
average rating is calculated as 1.4 which is then
rounded down to an overall structural condition
rating of 1. However because ‘cargo hold No. 3’
has been awarded a rating of 3 then an overall
rating of 1 cannot be awarded. This is because the
final rating cannot be better than one rating grade
better than the lowest rating. In this case the best
Overall Structural Condition rating that can be
applied to the Bulk Carrier is a rating of 2.
It should be noted that some charterers would not
charter this hypothetical vessel because there
exists a vessel section with a rating 3. If this
section (No. 3 Cargo Hold) is subsequently
repaired/upgraded to a rating 2 or better during
survey then the Overall Structural Condition
Rating, for this hypothetical Bulk Carrier, would be
updated by the surveyor to a Rating 1.
2.11.3 CAP Rating Guidelines for Rating of
Structure
The following guidelines apply to the rating of hull
structure.
The rating applied to an AUC for visual
structure, visual coatings and wastage will be
an integer, either 1, 2, 3, or 4. (Note: There is
no rating 4 for coatings) If no rating can be
given then a comment is required to be made
e.g. N/F (not fitted), N/S (not surveyed) or N/A
(not applicable) etc.,
Each average structural rating calculated for
an ‘AUC’ is rounded to the nearest first
decimal place e.g. average of 1.24 is rounded
down to 1.2, 1.26 is rounded up to 1.3 and
special note 1.25 is rounded up to 1.3,
Each average structural rating awarded to a
vessel ‘section’ or the vessel as a whole is
rounded to the nearest integer e.g. 1.2 is
rounded to 1, 1.6 is rounded to 2 and special
note 1.5 is rounded to 2,
Where ‘indents’ are prominent enough that
they are mentioned in class notes/
memorandum then the rating awarded for
‘visual structure’ within the AUC should not be
better than rating 3,
24
Condition Assessment Programme for Ships
Any ‘AUC’s’ within Ballast tanks which are
awarded a coating rating of 3 shall be
included in surveyors proposals to the client
for regular inspection as part of the clients
Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP.),
Damage to plating and stiffening, such as
cracking and buckling, caused by in line
stress or fatigue shall automatically lead to the
‘AUC’ being rated as a 4. Depending on the
‘detail’, the cause of the defect and
complementary aspects such as age of the
vessel, repair of such defects may not be
sufficient for some charterers unless design
modification is carried out. Suitable
repairs/modifications are discussed with the
client on a ‘case by case’ basis in conjunction
with the structural and fatigue assessment
and/or critical structure area review,
The average rating for Anodes is given for
information purposes and is not taken into
consideration in determining the final CAP
rating,
Irrespective of the average structural rating
calculated for a vessel ‘section’, the rating
awarded for that vessel ‘section’ cannot be
better than one rating grade better than the
lowest rating applied to an ‘AUC’ for coating,
wastage or visual structure condition within
that vessel ‘section’. (e.g. if one ‘AUC’ is
awarded a rating 3 for coating condition then
the maximum rating that can be applied to
that vessel section is a rating of 2,)
Irrespective of the average structural rating
calculated for the vessel as a whole, the
overall vessel structural rating awarded
cannot be better than one rating grade better
than the lowest rating applied to any vessel
‘section’,
Irrespective of the average structural rating
calculated for a ‘vessel section’, or for the
overall vessel structure, the best structural
condition rating that can be awarded cannot
be better than the lowest rating awarded to
any ‘AUC’ for ‘visual structure’ or ‘measured
wastage’ in way of the main deck or of the
vessel bottom plating.
Irrespective of the average rating calculated
for a ‘vessel section’, a final overall structural
rating of 4 is applied to the vessel if any ‘AUC’
is awarded a rating of 4 for ‘visual structure’ or
‘measured wastage’ and is left un-repaired.
The Global rating for UTM cannot be better
than the rating found for the groups of items
“main deck” or “bottom plating”. (e.g. if the
calculated average rating for all groups is 1.2
whereas the rating of the group “main deck” is
assessed as 2, then the final Global rating for
thickness measurement analysis cannot be
better than rating 2.)
NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1
 Condition Assessment Programme for Ships

2.11.4 CAP Rating for Vessel Structure

The finalised CAP rating awarded for the vessel’s
structure is based on a comparison between the
rating awarded for the Overall Vessel Structure
and that awarded as the ‘Global’ rating for
Ultrasonic Thickness Measurement (UTM).
The finalised CAP rating for Hull Structure
shall be the worst of the rating values as per
the example tabulated below.

Finalisation of CAP Rating for Hull Structure

Overall Vessel Structural Rating 2

Global rating for UTM 1

CAP RATING AWARDED FOR HULL STRUCTURE 2

2.12 Hull Structure Report - with

Photographs (CapHSR)

On completion of the CAP survey the surveyor

ESP vessels with ballast tank coatings rated
compiles a report for each vessel ‘section’ and
in less than GOOD condition.
‘AUC’ surveyed.
Any additional monitoring areas which may be
The report includes the table for CAP Rating
proposed following the CAP close-up surveys.
awarded for Hull structure, the table for
compilation of the rating awarded for the overall
(An example of a CapSMP can be found attached
structural condition and a set of individual vessel
in Appendix 8.)
‘section’ reports, complete with photographic
records of the surveys.

The reports include details of areas to be

monitored and areas of substantial corrosion.
(An example of a CapHSR can be found attached
in Appendix 7.)
2.13 Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP)
2.14 Special Structural Note regarding Cargo
Containment Systems.
Where the containment system in question is part
of the overall vessel structure (e.g. as can be
found on generic oil tankers, bulk carriers, cargo
vessels etc,.) then the containment system is
surveyed and reported within the framework of the
vessel’s hull structure.

Following completion of the surveys the Lead CAP

surveyor is to work closely with the client’s
representative to jointly formulate a Structural
Monitoring Plan (CapSMP) for the vessel.

The following items are suggested as being

relevant for inclusion in such a plan and a
monitoring timeframe should be drawn up for
regular inspections of these:

Critical Structural Areas. (i.e. locations which

have been found to be sensitive to cracking,
buckling or corrosion which could impair the
structural integrity of the vessel.)
Where the containment system is not part of a
generic vessel structure then this is covered within
Specific structural areas identified as part of
the vessel specific annexes such as:
CapSFA as being ‘hot spots’ that require
regular monitoring..
NI465 – LNG Vessels Annex
Ballast tank AUC’s that have coatings rated
as POOR condition. NI465 – LPG Vessels Annex

25 NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 Rev. 1.1

Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix
One
Request for CAP
(CapRFC)
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Request for CAP (CapRFC)
Ship Name Vessel Type Date of Build
MV EXAMPLE Bulk Carrier July 1997
Class Society Gross Tonnage Survey date (Estimated)
Bureau Veritas 82,123 July 21 2007
Class No. IMO No. Survey Place (Proposed)
126C111 19085436 Singapore
Name and Address of Vessel Owners or Managers
Messrs, Ship Managers Company
2, Rue des Example, Paris, 111000, France

The undersigned, acting in the capacity of the Owner's representative, requests Bureau Veritas, in
accordance with the scope of guidance note NI 465 DNS R00 E January 2007 and Annexes, to:

Please contact us to discuss the scope of condition assessment surveys

Provide a quotation for the following condition assessment surveys
x Carry out the following condition assessment surveys

Hull Structure x Yes No

2D/3D Structural Fatigue Analysis Yes x No
Cargo containment system x Yes No
Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems x Yes No
Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems x Yes No
Bridge, Navigational & Radio Equipment and Systems Yes x No
Accommodation Areas (Health Onboard) Yes x No
Annual Vessel Maintenance Inspection Yes x No
Third Party Inspections Yes x No
Others (Please give brief details in the box below) Yes x No

None

Name of Owner's Representative Date Company Stamp

I. M. Manager
01/01/2007
Sign:

Bureau Veritas Representative Date BV Stamp

B. V. Manager
01/01/2007
Sign:

The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable.
Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this document is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or
omissions which may be contained in the said document, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the
establishment or issuance of this document, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix
Two
CAP Planning Document
(CapPD)
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Planning Document (CapPD)
Ship Name Vessel Type Date of Build
MV EXAMPLE DH Oil Tanker March 1987
Class Society / Reg. No. Gross Tonnage IMO No.
Bureau Veritas / 234G321 38,726 18655681

Place(s) and date(s) of Surveys

At Sea between Singapore and Bahrain, March 2007
VLCC Shipyard Bahrain March 2007 - April 2007

e a e e
Name and Address of Vessel Owners or Managers as stated on the Request for CAP Document
Oil Tanker Manager
2, Refinery Place, Shanghai, China

This condition assessment planning document sets out the scope and extent of the condition assessment surveys to be carried
out. The CAP planning document is finalised onboard the vessel during meetings between the Lead CAP surveyor and the
clients representative and is to be signed and stamped by both parties.

1) Condition Assessment Surveys to be Carried out:

x Hull Structure x Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems
x Structural Fatigue Analysis Bridge, Navigational & Radio Equipment and Systems

Cargo containment system Accommodation Areas (Health Onboard)

x Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems Annual Vessel Maintenance Inspection

Others (Please give details in the box below)

Comments or special advice:

Cargo containment system is integral with vessel hull structure

Name of Owner's Representative Date Company Stamp

I. M. Manager
03 March 2007
Sign:

BV Lead CAP Surveyor Date BV Stamp

B.V. Surveyor
03 March 2007
Sign:

The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable.
Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this planning document is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of
errors or omissions which may be contained in the said document, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in
the establishment or issuance of this document, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Planning Document (CapPD)

Ship Name Page No.

MV EXAMPLE 2 of 7

General Notes on Hull Structure Surveys

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

Additional vessel specific notes:

Ballast tanks that have coatings that are in 'less than good condition' are to be added to items to
be monitored in the Structural and monitoring Plan (CapSMP) at yearly intervals.

Cargo tanks coatings consist of top 2 meters and bottom 2 meters of tank structure. Coatings in
these areas should be not worse than Rating 2 as per charterers requirements for coatings.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Planning Document (CapPD) (Hull Structure)

Ship Name Page No.

MV EXAMPLE 3 of 7

2) Hull Structure (If applicable)

2.1 Systematic thickness measurements
Items Locations (Fr. Nos.) Means of Access
Full Length of Vessel
All exposed deck plates Frames 5 though 84 Direct access
All bottom plates Frames 5 though 84 Direct access
All wind and water strakes Frames 5 though 84 Moving Platforms (dockside)

Within Cargo Length Area

4 Transverse Sections (1) Frames 52-53, 56-57, Rafting + Staging
Frames 63-64, 68-69, -ditto-

All inner bottom plates Frames 42 through 80 Direct access

Outside Cargo Length Area

All exposed forecastle deck plates Yes Direct Access
All exposed poop deck plates Yes Direct Access
All exposed superstructure deck plates Yes Direct Access
Internals in fore and aft peak tanks Yes Ladders & Direct Access
Selected Engine Room DB tanks Bilge Tk, Sludge Tk. & Direct Access
Diesel Oil Tks P. & S. Direct Access
Additional Comments
(1) Transverse section includes all longitudinal members contributing to longitudinal hull girder
strength such as plating, longitudinals and girders at deck, sides, bottom, inner bottom, longitudinal
bulkheads and as applicable longitudinals, hopper side plating, bottom plating in top wing tanks.
(2) Internal structure includes, floors, deck and bottom longitudinals.

2.2 Close up surveys (Including related thickness measurements):

Items Locations (Fr. Nos.) Means of Access
All web frames (1) in all ballast tanks FPT: Fr 81-84 Rafting + Staging
APT: Fr 5-10 Direct access + staging
Nos 1 to 7(P+S) inclusive Rafting + staging
i.e. All Frs. 43 through 79.
All web frames (1) including deck
transverse and cross ties, if fitted in a Port Slop: Frs. 43, 44 Staging
cargo tank.
Two web frame in each remaining cargo COT 1C Frs. 77, 78 Rafting + staging
tank. (Including deck transverse and COT 2C Frs. 73, 74 - ditto -
cross ties if fitted) COT 3C Frs. 68, 69 - ditto -
COT 4C Frs. 63, 64 - ditto -
COT 5C Frs. 56, 57 - ditto -
COT 6C Frs. 52, 53 - ditto -
COT 7C Frs. 47, 48 - ditto -
Stbd Slop Frs. 43, 44 - ditto -
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Planning Document (CapPD) (Hull Structure)

Ship Name Page No.

MV EXAMPLE 4 of 7

2) Hull Structure (If applicable)

2.2 Close up surveys and related thickness measurements: Continued………..
Items Locations (Fr. Nos.) Means of Access
All transverse bulkheads (2) in all Frames 10, 42, 45, 50, Rafting + staging + direct access
cargo and ballast tanks 55, 60 ,65 ,70 ,75 & 80

Remaining transverse bulkheads Frame 40 staging + direct access

All longitudinal bulkheads in all cargo Frames 42 through 80 Rafting + staging + direct access
and ballast tanks.

Additional Comments
(1) Web Frames include adjacent structural members.
(2) Transverse bulkheads include girder system and adjacent structural members.

2.3 Areas identified in the Critical Structure Area Review or Structure & Fatigue Analysis
as requiring Close up survey (and related thickness measurements as necessary):
Items Locations (Fr. Nos.) Means of Access
Cargo tank transverse bulkheads where See Critical Structure Staging
attached to stools. Corrugation corners Area review (CapCSAR)
welds + slope plate welds at attachment
to stool plates have repeating cracking.

Hot spot areas as identified in CapSFA See CapCSAR staging + direct access
report TST/03/01121 Rev.1.1, Aug 2006

Fatigue areas as identified in CapSFA See CapCSAR staging + direct access

report TST/03/01121 Rev.1.1, Aug 2006

Additional Comments
The critical structure area review has identified the above areas as requiring close - up survey and
has proposed monitoring of these areas at future surveys.
Stool plate welds to be NDT tested asnecessary as identified during close up survey.

2.4 Tank Testing

Items Means
Ballast tanks Tanks filled to top of air pipes.

Cargo tanks Stagger test with tanks filled to the highest point
that liquid will rise under service conditions.
Additional Comments
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Planning Document (CapPD) (Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems)

Ship Name Page No.

MV EXAMPLE 5 of 7

3) Hull Machinery, Fittings & Systems (If applicable)

Scope of Surveys:
Anchoring and Mooring Installation and Equipment x Yes No
Cranes and Derricks x Yes No
Steering Gear and Equipment x Yes No
Rudder and Rudder stock x Yes No
Hatch/Tank covers, Fire & W/T doors, Vents and Closing Appliances x Yes No
Equipment, Piping and Machinery in Pump Rooms and Deck Houses x Yes No
Equipment, Piping and Machinery in Focsle Spaces x Yes No
Piping and Valves in Holds and Tanks x Yes No
Piping and Valves on Deck x Yes No
Cargo Systems and Machinery Remote Control & Monitoring Systems x Yes No
Electrical Equipment, Lighting, Cabling on Deck and Superstructure x Yes No
Life Saving Appliances (Lifeboats, Liferafts etc,.) x Yes No
Fire, Smoke Detection and Firefighting systems x Yes No
Pollution Prevention Equipment x Yes No
Cargo Equipment (Cargo Gear, Chain Blocks, Loose Gear etc,.) x Yes No
Deck Houses and Deck Stores, Equipment storage and Cleanliness x Yes No
Structure of Masts, Light Posts, Radar Masts, Flag Posts etc,. x Yes No
Others (Details to be provided below) x Yes No

Additional equipment for Ship to Ship transfer including additional fittings and chains for
yokohama fenders.
Ship to ship transfer hoses and piping reducers.

Note: The operation and the maintenance programme declared by the clients should be in conformity
with the guidance provided by the manufacturers of the equipment. Previous records for systems and
deck machinery under assessment are consulted in order to identify recurrent problems. A request that
piping be spot gauged may be deemed necessary depending on the system and pipe size. The condition
assessment of machinery and systems will not request the opening up of components, however it should
be noted that where any deck machinery has not been dismantled for inspection then the best rating that
can be applied will be a 2 for that item.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Planning Document (CapPD) (Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings & Systems)

Ship Name Page No.

MV EXAMPLE 6 of 7

4) Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems (If applicable)

Scope of Surveys:
Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in Module Part C "Propulsion and Auxiliary
Machinery, Fittings and Systems" of the Guidance note NI465 .
Main Propulsion, Shafting and Propellers x Yes No
Auxiliary Engines and Generators x Yes No
Power Distribution (Motors, Transformers, Lighting, Cables etc,.) x Yes No
Boilers and Heat Exchangers x Yes No
Auxiliaries (Pumps, Compressors, Purifiers, Air Conditioning etc,.) x Yes No
Piping Systems and Valves x Yes No
Controls and Instrumentation x Yes No
Fire Detection, Fire Fighting Systems and Safety Gear x Yes No
Planned Maintenance System x Yes No
Spares and Stores (Supply, Condition and Storage) x Yes No
Machinery Spaces and Cleanliness x Yes No
Others (Details to be provided below) Yes No

Comment: Vessel does not have a full computerised Planned Maintenance system however has a
combined planned maintenance system and preventive/predictive maintenance system.

Note: The operation and the maintenance programme declared by the clients should be in conformity with
the guidance provided by the manufacturers of the equipment. Previous records for machinery and systems
under assessment are consulted in order to identify recurrent problems. A request that piping be spot
gauged may be deemed necessary depending on the system and pipe size. The condition assessment of
machinery and systems will not request the opening up of components, however it should be noted that
where any machinery has not been dismantled for inspection then the best rating that can be applied will be
a 2 for that item. Ratings of individual items cannot be better than the result of function testing. The final
CAP rating for "Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems" cannot be better than the rating
applied to the "Main Propulsion".
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Planning Document (CapPD) (Others)

Ship Name Page No.

MV EXAMPLE 7 of 7

5) Bridge, Navigational and Radio Equipment and Systems (If applicable)

Scope of Surveys:
Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in Module Part D "Bridge, Navigational and
Radio Equipment and Systems" of the Guidance note NI465 .
Yes x No

6) Accomodation Areas (Health Onboard) (If applicable)

Scope of Surveys:
Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in Module Part E "Accommodation Areas
(Health Onboard)" of the Guidance note NI465 .
Yes x No

7) Third Party Inspections – Port State/Flag State/P&I Club inspections. (If applicable)
Scope of Surveys:
Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in Module Part F "Third Party Inspections – Port
State/Flag State/P&I Club inspections." of the Guidance note NI465 .
Yes x No

8) NI465 Annexes (If applicable)

Scope of Surveys:

Includes survey and inspection of items as defined in the following vessel specific annexes to the
Condition Assessment Programme guidance note NI465 .

NI465 – LNG Annex Yes No

NI465 – LPG Annex Yes No
NI465 – OIL TANKER Annex (Single and Double Hull) x Yes No
NI465 – CHEMICAL TANKER Annex Yes No
NI465 – BULK CARRIER Annex (Single and Double Hull) Yes No
NI465 – INLAND WATERWAY VESSELS Annex Yes No

9) Others (If applicable)

Scope of Surveys: Details to be provided below

None
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix
Three
CAP Gap/Defects List
(CapGAP)
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
GAP/Defects List (CapGAP)
Ship Name Class No. IMO No.
MV EXAMPLE 135D222 19185336
Class Society Survey Date Survey Place
Bureau Veritas March 01 - 27 , 2007 At Sea Tenerife - Le Havre
The following items are the subject of a CAP Rating 'Gap' due to Defect or Deficiency.

Item No. Item Description and Location

001 Nos 1 to 6 P & S Ballast Wing Tanks Structure
Client Expected Rating 1 Rating Awarded 2
Brief Details of the Rating 'Gap', Deficiency or Defect Found
Coatings iwo top AUC 'Top Side Structure' in each tank has been rated 3 which
means that the structural rating awarded for these tanks cannot be better than 2.
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Yes x No
Has CAP Rating been updated Yes x No

Item No. Item Description and Location

002 No. 3 Port Ballast Wing Tank Structure
Client Expected Rating 1 Rating Awarded 3
Brief Details of the Rating 'Gap', Deficiency or Defect Found
AUC 'Topside structure' rated as 2 for ‘visual structure’ and for ‘measured wastage’
which means the overall vessel structural rating awarded cannot be better than 2.
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Yes x No
Has CAP Rating been updated Yes x No

Item No. Item Description and Location

003 Hull Machinery, fixtures and Fittings
Client Expected Rating 1 Rating Awarded 2
Brief Details of the Rating 'Gap', Deficiency or Defect Found
Insufficient amount of deck machinery put forward for survey in dismantled condition.
Although operational tests have been carried out the best rating awarded is a 2.
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Yes x No
Has CAP Rating been updated Yes x No

Name of Owner's Representative Date Company Stamp

I. M. Manager
17/03/07
Sign:

Bureau Veritas Representative Date BV Stamp

B. V. Surveyor
17/03/07
Sign:

The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable.
Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this check-list is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or
omissions which may be contained in the said check-list, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the
establishment or issuance of this check-list, and in connection with any activities that it may provide. ay
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
GAP/Defects List (CapGAP)
Ship Name Class Reg No. IMO No.
MV EXAMPLE 135D222 19185336

The following items are subject of a CAP Rating 'Gap' due to Defect or Deficiency. Page 2 of 2

Item No. Item Description and Location

004 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems.
Client Expected Rating 1 Rating Awarded 2
Brief Details of the Rating 'Gap', Deficiency or Defect Found
Main Engine unable to produce 90% MCR during sea trials.
Main Engine Rating awarded is 2 so overall machinery rating cannot be better than 2.
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Yes x No
Has CAP Rating been updated Yes x No

Item No. Item Description and Location

005 Propulsion and Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems.
Client Expected Rating 1 Rating Awarded 2
Brief Details of the Rating 'Gap', Deficiency or Defect Found
No. 2 Diesel Generator, Generator side AVR not operational and no spare.
Generator out of operation. Max overall rating cannot be better than 2.
Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Yes x No
Has CAP Rating been updated Yes x No

Item No. Item Description and Location

Client Expected Rating Rating Awarded

Brief Details of the Rating 'Gap', Deficiency or Defect Found

Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Yes No

Has CAP Rating been updated Yes No

Item No. Item Description and Location

Client Expected Rating Rating Awarded

Brief Details of the Rating 'Gap', Deficiency or Defect Found

Has the Gap/Deficiency been Rectified Yes No

Has CAP Rating been updated Yes No

Other Comments

None.
Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix
Four
CAP Certificate
(CapCert)
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Certificate of Condition Assessment (CapCERT)
Ship Name Vessel Type Date of Build
S.T. EXAMPLE LNG CARRIER 1992
Class /Reg No. Gross Tonnage IMO No.
Bureau Veritas / 621F333 79,300 19123456
Name and Address of Vessel Owners or Managers
LNG Traders, 4 Galveston Roads, Galveston, Texas USA.

Bureau Veritas carried out Condition Assessment Programme surveys in accordance with the BV
Guidance Note NI 465 and vessel applicable annexes at the following place(s) and during the dates:

At Sea Singapore to China From 10/03/2007 to 17/03/2007

At Shipyard Shanghai, China From 27/03/2007 to 21/04/2007

At Sea Singapore to Arabian Gulf From 02/05/2007 to 12/05/2007

Condition Assessment Surveys were carried out in order to assess the condition of the:
Hull Structure x
2D/3D Structural Fatigue Analysis
Cargo containment system x
Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems x
Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems x
(other please enter details here)
(other please enter details here)

Based upon the analysis of the results of the various surveys carried out it has been considered
that on the 12/05/2007 the following CAP rating(s) could be assigned:

2 to the Hull Structure

2 to the
1 to the
2 to the
to the
to the
Cargo Containment System
Hull Machinery, Fittings and Systems
Propulsion & Auxiliary Machinery, Fittings and Systems
(other please enter details here)
(other please enter details here)

This certificate is issued within the scope of Bureau Veritas Marine Divison General Conditions, attached
overleaf, which form an integral part of this certificate which is issued in good faith and without prejudice, subject
to the vessel systems which could not be assessed during the condition assessment surveys.
Bureau Veritas Representative At (place) BV Stamp
C. M. Manager Newcastle, United
Sign: Kingdom

The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable.
Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this certificate is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or
omissions which may be contained in the said certiificate, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the
establishment or issuance of this certificate, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix
Five
CAP Ship History Report
(CapSHP)
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Ship History Report (CapSHR)
Ship Name Vessel Type Date of Build
MV EXAMPLE Bulk Carrier July 1997
Class Society / Reg. No. Gross Tonnage IMO No.
Bureau Veritas / 126C111 82,123 19085436

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

1) The following vessel records have been reviewed:

x Vessel's Class Records (Class reports, memorandum, recomendations, class conditons etc.,)

x Hull Condition Evaluation Reports x Ballast Tank Protection Reports

x Hull Survey Planning Documents Previous CAP reports

x Vessel's Hull Condition Inspection records x PSC/Flag State Inspection Reports

If records span less than 10 years then actual time period reviewed and reasons should be given below.

Vessel changed Owners/Managers as well as Class and Flag during 2002 so the only records
presented were for the past 5 years.

2) The following areas have been identified for inclusion in the Critical Area Review
Areas showing evidence of recurring defects, substantial corrosion, poor coatings condition etc., should be
recorded below (and on attached pages as necessary) for inclusion in the Critical Area Review.

This type of vessel is prone to cracking in the bottom ship side longitudinal in the Top Side Tanks
at the web frame attachment to the SL faceplate so these areas should be close up inspected
during the CAP surveys. As per sketches below: (Note: Modification proposals exist.)

BV Lead CAP Surveyor Date BV Stamp

B. V. Surveyor
03/03/2007
Sign:

The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable.
Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this document is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or
omissions which may be contained in the said document, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the
establishment or issuance of this document, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Ship History Report (CapSHR)
Ship Name Class/ Reg No. IMO No.
MV EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 126C111 19085436
2) Continued (areas identified for inclusion in the Critical Area Review) Page 2 of 2

Recurring cracks found in the deck structure

iwo port side aft corner of No. 2 cargo catch.
As per the attached sketch.

This area should be close up surveyed during

CAP surveys and is advisable that the deck
structure be inspected iwo hatch corners.
(Note: modification proposal exists)

There have been several instances of fractures found in way of the horizontal diaphragms in the
connecting trunk between the topside tank and the hopper double bottom tank, on the after side
of the collision bulkhead. As per sketch below:
This type of damage is reported as being caused by stress concentration resulting from
from the discontinuity created by the trunk and diaphragm structure. This has been exacerbated
because of the greater flexibility of the hold structure in relation to the trunk and structure
forward of the collision bulkhead. See attached sketch below:

These areas should be close up inspected

during CAP surveys.

(Note: modification proposal exists)

 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix
Six
CAP Critical Structure
Area Review
(CapCSAR)
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Critical Structure Area Review (CapCSAR)
Ship Name Vessel Type Date of Build
MV EXAMPLE LPG Carrier February 1988
Class Society / Reg. No. Gross Tonnage IMO No.
Bureau Veritas / 135D222 22,666 19185336

Critical Structural Areas are locations which have been found to be sensitive to cracking, buckling or corrosion
which could impair the structural integrity of the ship. The Critical Structural Area Review examines the results
from the ship’s history report (CapSHR), results of structural assessment calculations (CapSFA), Bureau
Veritas’ experience of similar or sister ships, etc., in order to identify areas of the vessel’s structure which require
close-up inspection during the CAP surveys and which require specific and regular inspection/monitoring as an
ongoing procedure after completion of surveys.

1) The following analyses/assessments have been reviewed during compilation of this document:

x Ship History Report (CapSHR), dated January 2, 2007

x Structural & Fatigue Analysis (CapSFA) Ref No. DCM/03/01177/WMU 2003, Rev 1 Dec. 2006

Other Evaluations (give brief description below) (attach additional sheets as required)

2) Review of the vessel's Ship History Report has identified the following areas which require to be
included in the CAP planning document (CapPD) as areas requiring 'close-up' survey.

01 Vessel has Visa 11. Rec 11.1 cracked longitudinal on canopy in way of frame 68 to be
permanently repaired within due date 15/04/2007. (Drydock repairs).

02 Vessel has Visa 12. Rec 12.1 Fracture in cargo trunk deck in way of cargo manifold and poop
deck, repaired in Dec 2006 to be reinspected within due date 15/04/2007

03 Coatings in Nos 1 to 6 P & S Ballast Wing Tanks have been noted as poor condition IWO the
deckheads (i.e. Areas Under Consideration AUC - Topside structure)

04 Coatings in Nos 2, 3 & 4 double bottom tanks have been rated as poor and are subject to
annual survey on request of the client.

05 Nos 1 & 2 holds (void space) wooden blocks on tank anti-flotation chocks have been changed
at last renewal survey repair period. To be reinspected.

06 Nos 1 & 2 holds (void spaces) were noted as having evidence of minor corrosion during last
vessel staff inspection. Corrosion noted on the tank top plates iwo aft bulkhead. This to be
close up inspected. Relative Humidity and Moisture detection reports to be reviewed.

BV Lead CAP Surveyor Date BV Stamp

B.V.Surveyor
12 February 2007
Sign:

The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable.
Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this document is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or
omissions which may be contained in the said document, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the
establishment or issuance of this document, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Critical Structure Area Review (CapCSAR)
Ship Name Class/ Reg No. IMO No.
MV EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 135D222 19185336
2) Continued……Review of the vessel's CapSHR has identified the following Page 2 of 3
areas which require to be included in the CapPD for 'close-up' survey.

07 Vessel has Visa 13. Occasional survey hull further to side shell damage due reported tug damage.
Rec 13.1 Vessel port side plating 'set in' iwo frame 70-72 at just above ballast water line
to be permanently repaired by insert plates within due date 15/04/2007.
Rec 13.2 Vessel starboard side plating 'set in' iwo frame 70-72 at just above ballast water line
to be permanently repaired by insert plates within due date 15/04/2007.
Rec 13.3 Vessel port side plating 'set in' iwo frame 138-140 at just below loaded water line
to be permanently repaired by insert plates within due date 15/04/2007.
Rec 13.4 Vessel port side plating 'set in' iwo frame 122-124 at midway between ballast water line
and loaded water line to be permanently repaired within due date 15/04/2007.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Critical Structure Area Review (CapCSAR)
Ship Name Class/ Reg No. IMO No.
MV EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 135D222 19185336
3) Review of the vessel's Structure & Fatigue Analysis has identified the Page 3 of 3
following areas which require to be included in the CapPD for 'close-up' survey.

Reference CapSFA report DCM/03/01177/WMU January 2003, Revised 01 Dec. 2006

The fatigue lives of the side shell longitudinal stiffeners connections to transverse frames in the
middle of the hold and near the bulkhead are very close: Therefore these fatigue lives can be considered
valid on the whole tank length. (See page 30 of above referenced CapSFA report)

SL Fatigue Life at Frame 80 (middle of hold) Fatigue Life at Frame 95 at Bulkhead

5 20 Years 14 years
6 12 Years 14 years
7 12 Years 14 years
8 13 Years 15 years
9 17 Years 15 years
10 >40 Years 14 years
11 >40 Years 14 years
12 >40 Years 19 years
13 >40 Years 25 years
14 >40 Years 30 years
15 >40 Years 30 years

Vessel age is 19 years so every connection with a fatigue life of 19 years + 5 = 24 years or less
shall be close up surveyed.

See sketch for an example of typical critical

points or 'hot spots'.

The two following locations are also considered critical from fatigue point of view and have to be
close up surveyed:
- Face plate connection to double bottom
- Transverse frame connection to lowest plate of top wing tank.
Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix
Seven
CAP Hull Structure
Report
(CapCSAR)
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Hull Structure Report (CapHSR) - Cover Page
Ship Name Vessel Type Date of Build
MV EXAMPLE DH Crude Oil Tanker January 1995
Class Society / Reg. No. Gross Tonnage IMO No.
Bureau Veritas / 126F777 146,455 gt 19004321

Place(s) and date(s) of Surveys

At VLCC Shipyard Singapore, January - February 2007

This Report indicates the structural condition of the subject vessel's hull at survey completion.
Structure Structure
Vessel Sections Vessel Sections
Rating Rating
External Structure Ballast Tanks --XXX--
Main Deck 2 Fore Peak Water Ballast Tank 2
External Hull 1 Aft Peak Water Ballast Tank 1
Cargo Tanks --XXX-- No. 1 Port Water Ballast Tank 1
No. 1 Port Wing Cargo Tank 2 No. 1 Starboard Water Ballast Tank 2
No. 1 Centre Cargo Tank 1 No. 2 Port Water Ballast Tank 1
No. 1 Starboard Wing Cargo Tank 1 No. 2 Starboard Water Ballast Tank 2
No. 2 Port Wing Cargo Tank 1 No. 3 Port Water Ballast Tank 1
No. 2 Centre Cargo Tank 2 No. 3 Starboard Water Ballast Tank 2
No. 2 Starboard Wing Cargo Tank 1 No. 4 Port Water Ballast Tank 1
No. 3 Port Wing Cargo Tank 1 No. 4 Starboard Water Ballast Tank 2
No. 3 Centre Cargo Tank 1 No. 5 Port Water Ballast Tank 1
No. 3 Starboard Wing Cargo Tank 1 No. 5 Starboard Water Ballast Tank 2
No. 4 Port Wing Cargo Tank 1 Others --XXX--
No. 4 Centre Cargo Tank 1 Fuel Tanks (Combined) 1
No. 4 Starboard Wing Cargo Tank 1 Lube Tanks (Combined) 1
No. 5 Port Wing Cargo Tank 1 Fresh/Distilled Water Tanks (Combined) 1
No. 5 Centre Cargo Tank 2 Sludge/Bilge/Dirty Oil Tanks (Combined) 2
No. 5 Starboard Wing Cargo Tank 1 Stores/Spare Parts Rooms (Combined) 2
Port Cargo Slop Tank 1 Engine Room Structure (Incl Strg Gear Rm) 1
Starboard Cargo Slop Tank 1 External Accommodation Decks/Houses 2

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition Average Structural Rating 1.3

3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition Overall Structural Condition Rating 1
N/S - Not Surveyed N/A Not Applicable Revised Overall Structural Condition Rating 2
If the Structural Condition Rating was revised then give brief reason(s) for this in the space below:
The overall structural condition rating was revised upwards from 1 to 2 due to the main deck structure
rating of 2 for 'measured wastage' therefore the overall rating cannot be better than this rating of 2.

BV Lead CAP Surveyor Date BV Stamp

BV Surveyor
12/02/2007
Sign:

The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable.
Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this document is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or
omissions which may be contained in the said document, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the
establishment or issuance of this document, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Hull Structure Report (CapHSR) - Vessel Section Specific
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
MV EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 126F777 19004321

Vessel Section No. 2 Starboard Water Ballast Tank Page 2 of 4

Visual Visual Measured Average Anodes
Areas Under Consideration (AUC)

Anodes ratings given for information only

Structure Coatings Wastage Ratings Ratings
Deck Plating and Attachments 1 1 2 1.3 N/F
Sideshell and Attachments 1 1 1 1 1
Longitudinal Bulkhead and attachments 1 1 1 1 1
Forward Transverse Bulkhead (incl. D/B B/h) 1 1 1 1 1
Aft Transverse Bulkhead (Incl. D/B B/head) 1 1 1 1 1
Transverse Web Frames and attachments 1 1 1 1 1
Longitudinal Bulkhead in D/B Space 1 1 1 1 1
Top Plating and Attachments in D/B Space 1 1 1 1 1
Bottom Plating and Attachments 1 1 1 1 1

Average Structural Rating 1.0

Structural Condition Rating 1
Revised Structural Rating 2
Coating Ratings General Ratings Other Ratings
1 - Good Condition 1 - Superior Condition N/F - Not Fitted
2 - Fair Condition 2 - Good Condition N/S - Not Surveyed
3 - Poor Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition N/A - Not Applicable
N/C - Not Coated 4 - Poor Condition

If the Structural Condition Rating was revised then give brief reason(s) for this in the space below:
The measured wastage of Top Plating (deck) is rated at 2 therefore the structural rating was revised
upwards to a Rating of 2. See the special note below.

If any of the following were found during survey then tick appropriate box and give a brief description in
the spaces below, giving any details that may be pertinent: (add additional sheets as necessary)
Areas of Substantial Corrosion Defects and/or Deficiencies

x Areas to be Monitored Others

Special note: The measured wastage of Top Plating (deck) is rated at 2 therefore the final rating for the
Main deck cannot be better than a rating 2. Which means that the best overall structural rating that can
be awarded for the 'vessel section' and for the vessel's 'overall structural rating' is a Rating 2.
(see NI465 document January 2007, page 24, 3rd last bullet point.)

Poor coatings within this tank were removed by grit blasting and the structure was entirely recoated.
New anodes were fitted.

Lightening hole Repairs were carried out on various stringers. 16 repairs were carried out. Please see
an example photo on page 4 of this report.

Bracket renewals in way of side longitudinals and web frames were carried out in 8 places due to
corrosion of the brackets. Please see the example photo on page 4 of this report.

The fatigue lives of the side shell longitudinal stiffeners connections to both transverse bulkheads
SL 9 to 17 inclusive have Fatigue 'hot spots' which required close up survey and monitoring.
Reference CapSFA report DCM/03/01066/WMU January 2007.
Close up surveys of these areas were carried out with satisfactory outcome.
These areas are to be monitored as part of the vessel's structural monitoring plan (CapSMP).

This Report indicates the structural condition of the subject vessel section at survey completion.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Hull Structure Report (CapHSR) - Photographic Records
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
MV EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 126F777 19004321

Vessel Section No. 2 Starboard Water Ballast Tank Page 3 of 4

Area Deck Plating and Attachments Area Deck plating and Attachments

Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size
7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height 7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height

If general photo - mark x X If other describe below If general photo - mark x X If other describe below
Prior to Coatings repair. After Coatings repair

Area Side Shell and Forward Bulkhead Area Double Skin (view looking upwards)

Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size
7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height 7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height

If general photo - mark x X If other describe below If general photo - mark x x If other describe below
Prior to coatings repair After Coatings repair

Area Mid Level Stringer Area Upper Stringer

Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size
7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height 7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height

If general photo - mark x x If other describe below If general photo - mark x X If other describe below
Prior Coatings Repair After Coatings Repair
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Hull Structure Report (CapHSR) - Photographic Records
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
MV EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 126F777 19004321

Vessel Section No. 2 Starboard Water Ballast Tank Page 4 of 4

Area Mid Level Stringer Area Transverse Web Frames

Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size
7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height 7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height

If general photo - mark x If other describe below If general photo - mark x If other describe below
Lightening hole Repairs after completion, there Web Frame/Longitudinal bracket renewed.
was 16 repairs like this done. Before Coating. There were 8 of these repaired. Before Coating.

Area Double Bottom Spaces Area Bottom Sheell and Attachments

Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size
7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height 7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height

If general photo - mark x x If other describe below If general photo - mark x x If other describe below
Prior to Coatings Repair Prior to re-blasting and Coating

Area Top Plating + Attachments in D/B Area Double Bottom Spaces

Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size Please Insert a Picture of Approximate Size
7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height 7cm (2.75ins) width x 5.2 cm (2.0ins) height

If general photo - mark x x If other describe below If general photo - mark x x If other describe below
After first new coat plus stripe coat After Coatings Repairs
Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix
Eight
CAP Structural
Monitoring Plan
(CapSMP)
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP)
Ship Name Vessel Type Date of Build
MV EXAMPLE Bulk Carrier January 1982
Class Society / Reg. No. Gross Tonnage IMO No.
Bureau Veritas / 161F444 79,234 gt 19133436

This Structural Monitoring Plan should be compiled jointly with the client's representative, on completion of CAP surveys. The
plan timeframe should cover the remaining time period until the vessel's next class renewal survey.

1) The plan has been compiled using the results of the following reviews/surveys/analysis.
x Areas identified in the Critical Structural Area Review from the Ship History Report.
Areas identified in the Critical Structural Area Review from the Structural & Fatigue Analysis

x Areas in ballast tank(s) where coatings condition is designated as POOR (rating 3)

Areas in ESP Vessel (Oil or Chemical Tanker) where ballast tank(s) coating is designated as 'less than GOOD'

x Additional monitoring areas which are proposed by CAP surveyor following the CAP close-up surveys.

x Others (Please give details in the box below)

Additional monitoring areas proposed by the client's Superintendent.

See item 01) in section 2) below:

2) Recommendations for Monitoring (attach additional pages and sketches as required)

Area or Item to be monitored Monitoring Interval

01) There have been several instances of Annual in conjunction

fractures found in way of the horizontal diaphragms with Port and Stbd
in the connecting trunks between the topside tanks TST tanks annual
and the hopper double bottom tanks, on the after Surveys.
side of the collision bulkhead. (P & S).
Although these were repaired during the CAP Class + Vessel Staff
surveys the client's Superintendent has placed
these areas as subject to annual monitoring
during Class Annual Hull Surveys of P&S TSTs.

Name of Owner's Representative Date Company Stamp

I. M. Manager
13 Aug 2007
Sign:

BV Lead CAP Surveyor Date BV Stamp

BV Surveyor
13 Aug 2007
Sign:

The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable.
Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this document is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or
omissions which may be contained in the said document, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the
establishment or issuance of this document, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Structural Monitoring Plan (CapSMP)
Ship Name Class Reg No. IMO No.
MV EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 161F444 19133436

2) Recommendations for Monitoring Page 2 of 2

Area or Item to be Monitored Monitoring Interval

02) The top side ballast tanks Nos. 1P, 1S, 2P, 2S, 3P and 3S have coatings Annual Inspection
in 'Poor Condition'. by Class + S/Staff

03) Bottom Longitudinals in Nos 2P & 2S Double Bottom tanks have had Annual Inspection
recurring cracks. These have again been repaired and modified with by Ship Staff
brackets fitted. Please see Crack Photo and Modification sketch below:
All longitudinals iwo web frames to be monitored on a regular basis.
Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix
Nine
CAP Thickness
Measurement
Analysis Report
(CapTMA)
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Summary Page
Ship Name Vessel Type Date of Build
ST EXAMPLE LNG CARRIER 1992
Class Society / Reg. No. Gross Tonnage IMO No.
Bureau Veritas / 621F333 79,300 19123456

Thickness Report Details [Include Report No., Company Name, Place(s)/Date(s) of measurements]
Thickness measurement report No : 2007UTM/10001 Dated 16/02/2007 undertaken at sea and
dated 12/05/2007 at Le Havre France. UTM Company Messrs: UTMCO, Marseille, France.
This Report is an analysis of the Hull Structure Thickness Measurements on Completion of CAP Survey
%-age of Grades Group
Group of Items
1 2 3 4 N/A Rating

FORE PEAK 100% - - - - 1

AFTER PEAK 100% - - - - 1

PLATING AND BELTS

Trunk Deck Plating 100% - - - - 1
Upper Deck Forward Plating 100% - - - - 1
Upper Deck Plating 83.3% 16.7% - - - 1
Upper Deck Aft Plating 100% - - - - 1
B Deck Plating 100% - - - - 1
Bottom Plating 100% - - - - 1
Inner Bottom Plating 100% - - - - 1
Wind and Water Strakes 100% - - - - 1
Transverse Belts 100% - - - - 1

TRANSVERSE BULKHEADS
Ballast Tanks 100% - - - - 1
Cofferdams 100% - - - - 1

TRANSVERSE WEBS
Ballast Tanks 100% - - - - 1
Centre and Topside Trunks 100% - - - - 1

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition Average Rating for UTM 1

3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition
N/S - Not Surveyed N/A Not Applicable Global Rating for UTM 1
The Final CAP Structural Rating awarded cannot be better than the Global Rating awarded for UTM

BV Lead CAP Surveyor Date BV Stamp

BV Surveyor
23/03/2007
Sign:

The latest published rules of Bureau Veritas Marine Division and the General Conditions therein are applicable.
Any person not a party to the contract pursuant to which this document is delivered may not assert a claim against Bureau Veritas for any liability arising out of errors or
omissions which may be contained in the said document, or for errors of judgement, fault or negligence committed by personnel of the Society or of its Agents in the
establishment or issuance of this document, and in connection with any activities that it may provide.
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
ST EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 621F333 19123456
Page 2 of 10
Group of Items Port Detail Grade of Items
Item Stbd Summary 1 2 3 4 N/A
FORE PEAK
Tanktop Plate X - - - -
Stringer @ 16.09m. X - - - -
Stringer @ 11.23m. X - - - -
Stringer @ 7.18m. X - - - -
Stringer @ 3.26m. X - - - -
Web Fr. 257 X - - - -
Web Fr. 247 X - - - -
Web Fr. 239 X - - - -
Centreline Girder Plating X - - - -
Collision Bulkhead Plating Fr. 231 X - - - -
Collision Bulkhead Stiffeners X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

AFT PEAK
Tanktop Plating @ 16.09m. X - - - -
Transverse B/head Plating Fr.16 X - - - -
Transverse Bulkhead Stiffeners X - - - -
Platform @ 13.667m. X - - - -
Web Fr. 13 X - - - -
Web Fr. 6 X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

PLATING AND BELTS

Trunk Deck
Tank No. 1, Frs. 182 - 215 X - - - -
Tank No. 2, Frs. 155 - 179 X - - - -
Tank No. 3, Frs. 128 - 152 X - - - -
Tank No. 4, Frs. 101 - 125 X - - - -
Tank No. 5, Frs. 74 - 98 X - - - -
Tank No. 6, Frs. 62 - 71 X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Upper Deck Forward

Frs. 217 - 265 X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Comments:

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
ST EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 621F333 19123456
Page 3 of 11
Group of Items Port Detail Grade of Items
Item Stbd Summary 1 2 3 4 N/A
PLATING AND BELTS Continued….
Upper Deck
Tank No. 1, Frs. 182 - 215 X - - - -
Tank No. 2, Frs. 155 - 179 X - - - -
Tank No. 3, Frs. 128 - 152 X - - - -
Tank No. 4, Frs. 101 - 125 X - - - -
Tank No. 5, Frs. 74 - 98 X - - - -
Tank No. 6, Frs. 62 - 71 - X - - -

Summary 83.3% 17.7% 0% 0% 0%

Upper Deck Aft

Frs. 16 - 40 X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

B Deck
Frs. 13 - 16 X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Bottom Plating
Tank No. 1, Frs. 182 - 215 X - - - -
Tank No. 2, Frs. 155 - 179 X - - - -
Tank No. 3, Frs. 128 - 152 X - - - -
Tank No. 4, Frs. 101 - 125 X - - - -
Tank No. 5, Frs. 74 - 98 X - - - -
Tank No. 6, Frs. 62 - 71 X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Inner Bottom Plating

Tank No. 1, Frs. 182 - 215 X - - - -
Tank No. 2, Frs. 155 - 179 X - - - -
Tank No. 3, Frs. 128 - 152 X - - - -
Tank No. 4, Frs. 101 - 125 X - - - -
Tank No. 5, Frs. 74 - 98 X - - - -
Tank No. 6, Frs. 62 - 71 X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Comments:

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
ST EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 621F333 19123456
Page 4 of 10
Group of Items Port Detail Grade of Items
Item Stbd Summary 1 2 3 4 N/A
PLATING AND BELTS Continued….
Wind and Water Strakes
Tank No. 1, Frs. 182 - 215 X - - - -
Tank No. 2, Frs. 155 - 179 X - - - -
Tank No. 3, Frs. 128 - 152 X - - - -
Tank No. 4, Frs. 101 - 125 X - - - -
Tank No. 5, Frs. 74 - 98 X - - - -
Tank No. 6, Frs. 62 - 71 X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Transverse Belts
Frs. 155 - 157 Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Frs. 128 - 130 Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Frs. 101 - 103 Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Frs. 86 - 88 Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
TRANSVERSE BULKHEADS
Wing/Hopper/D.B. Ballast Tanks
Fr. 217 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 200 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 182 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 155 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -

Comments:

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
ST EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 621F333 19123456
Page 5 of 10
Group of Items Port Detail Grade of Items
Item Stbd Summary 1 2 3 4 N/A
TRANSVERSE BULKHEADS Cont…..
Wing/Hopper/D.B. Ballast Tanks
Fr. 140 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 128 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 101 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 86 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 74 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 60 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Cofferdams
No. 1
Fr. 217 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 215 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
No. 2
Fr. 182 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Comments:

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
ST EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 621F333 19123456
Page 6 of 10
Group of Items Port Detail Grade of Items
Item Stbd Summary 1 2 3 4 N/A

TRANSVERSE BULKHEADS Cont…..

Cofferdams
No. 2 Continued……..
Fr. 179 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
No. 3
Fr. 155 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 152 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
No. 4
Fr. 128 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 125 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
No. 5
Fr. 101 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 98 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
No. 6
Fr. 74 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Comments:

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
ST EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 621F333 19123456
Page 7 of 10
Group of Items Port Detail Grade of Items
Item Stbd Summary 1 2 3 4 N/A

TRANSVERSE BULKHEADS Cont…..

Cofferdams
No. 6 Continued……..
Fr. 71 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
No. 7
Fr. 62 Port Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

TRANSVERSE WEBS

Wing/Hopper/D.B. Ballast Tanks

Fr. 215 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 203 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 197 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 185 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -

Comments:

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
ST EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 621F333 19123456
Page 8 of 10
Group of Items Port Detail Grade of Items
Item Stbd Summary 1 2 3 4 N/A
TRANSVERSE WEBS Continued….
Wing/Hopper/D.B. Ballast Tanks
Fr. 179 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 175 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 157 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 152 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 142 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 138 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 130 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Comments:

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
ST EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 621F333 19123456
Page 9 of 10
Group of Items Port Detail Grade of Items
Item Stbd Summary 1 2 3 4 N/A
TRANSVERSE WEBS Continued….
Wing/Hopper/D.B. Ballast Tanks
Fr. 125 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 115 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 103 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 98 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 88 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 84 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Fr. 76 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Comments:

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable
 Bureau Veritas Condition Assessment Programme
Thickness Measurement Analysis Report (CapTMA) - Analysis
Ship Name Class / Reg. No. IMO No.
ST EXAMPLE Bureau Veritas / 621F333 19123456
Page 10 of 10
Group of Items Port Detail Grade of Items
Item Stbd Summary 1 2 3 4 N/A

TRANSVERSE WEBS Continued….

Wing/Hopper/D.B. Ballast Tanks
Fr. 62 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Stiffeners X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Centre and Topside Trunk

Fr. 157 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Fr. 130 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Fr. 103 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Fr. 88 Port Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -
Stbd Web Plating X - - - -
Flange X - - - -

Summary 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Comments:

1 - Superior Condition 2 - Good Condition 3 - Acceptable Condition 4 - Poor Condition N/A - Not Applicable