See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344154994

RAMSSHEEP analysis and identification of possible bottlenecks in

maintenance system of the US Navy

Presentation · June 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32291.68645

CITATIONS READS

0 475

1 author:

András Gergely
NA
38 PUBLICATIONS 314 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Transition & industrial scale production of leading-edge lithium-ion battery technologies View project

mainstream PhD research topic View project

All content following this page was uploaded by András Gergely on 07 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RAMSSHEEP analysis and identification of possible bottlenecks, in maintenance system of the
US Navy

This material is aimed at analysing and identifying potential integrity failure events of maritime vessels,
summarising typical and the most severe bottlenecks in the maintenance and support systems, and
offering possible solutions. The study covers detailed analysis of restrained selection of integrity failure
events and based on that simplified but still detailed reliability assessment, comprehensive availability
and cost estimations. The former is based on international literature with large number of case studies
and abundant measurement data, whereas the latter could only plausible be solved by relying on recent
times experience of the US Navy. In case of the latter, restrained nature of this report on some details is
due to the complexity and limited information of the public released LMI reports. Although common
attitude of the experts at the US Navy may well be different from the Dutch one to design and
maintainability, referring to the obviously difference between the US preferred reliability focused
RAMS and the Dutch invented extended type RAMSHEEP approaches, most of the US Navy data and
experience based analysis and drawn conclusions are expected to be useful statements for the Dutch
Ministry of Defense and the Dutch Navy.
Insight into percentage of the corrosion related costs and overall maintenance expenditures revels
shortfalls at the maintenance policy in economic sense. As a distant classification, maintenance actions
were defined as depot and field-level works. Then expenditure of the maintenance actions is analysed
by nature of the work such as preventive and corrective. In second level of details by breakdown in the
cost tree, labour and material costs were segregated. Then labour work was decomposed into groups of
maintenance experts and non-maintenance personals. Similarly, the material cost of maintenance was
split into structures and parts. Insight was provided into different availability of the assets over decades.
Further analysis was on purpose to find clear explanation of relationship between cost structure and
availability, or non-availability, unavailability of the Navy vessels, also in the view of mission capability
and non-mission capability. The assessment also targets to clarify any reason for improvement in either
cost reduction of maintenance or increase of availability of the assets. For compilation of this study,
there was only one coherent official material available as a reference, the series of LMI reports spanning
over more than a decade from 2004 until 2016
1−9
.

Identification and description of problems generally

In case of civil shipping industry, nowadays cycle-life of the vessels are lowered from above 35 years
to only around 25 years. Shortened lifespan is usually improperly matched with the necessary corrosion
allowances considered in design phase. This basically stems from to two reasons, i.e., optimistic scenario
of expected slower corrosion rates of the structures exposed to marine conditions and the common trend
of somewhat lower material consumption falsely anticipated resulting in increased (negligible)
profitability. Beyond that several case studies pointed out the fact the latter statement is simply invalid
over medium long periods, but the former may even lead to premature severe deteriorations. Thus, low
reliability or high risk of functional failure of the ships may realise. In addition to decreased profitability
operation, or even nonoperation, based on lower availability to service with longer downtimes without
servicing and trading, expensive maintenance work after half-life involves huge amount of steel
replacement which coupled with other maintenance activities serves as an unsurmountable cost driver.

FMEA of ship structures, case studies based data & modelling estimations
Based on literature, there are variety of data on trade tankers and very limited information on naval
vessels regarding type and rate of corrosion deteriorations of key functional ship structures. In the
viewpoint of failure mechanisms and effect analysis, lots of data and some modelling relationships have
been gathered. Generally, corrosion as a generic term develops on all sorts of structures at exceptionally
high rate under maritime conditions. This is a prevalent damaging mechanism of all maritime ships
surpassing the effect of mechanical degradation such as fatigue caused cracking over time in respect of
proportion of the failure mechanisms and events by a factor at least 3 times, regardless of the forms of
the events, i.e., uniform and local like pitting or grooving. Corrosion processes under ambient
temperature occurs mostly at the interface and minority in the bulk phase. The nature of corrosion

1
processes is their accumulation and progressive behaviour, generally leading to predictable integrity loss
despite redundant protection tools, e.g., ship hull with paint coatings, unpredictable sudden failures,
regularly used, loaded, torn and worn parts of equipment, i.e., parts of cranes, elevators and other
machineries. Parts like hinges, latches and bolts are discussed only in later section in the subject of
mean-time mission-capable supportability of naval vessel. For modelling, definition of ship structure
categories was performed first. Secondly, typical attributes were manifested and last environmental
conditions were defined. For the latter an example, splash zones of the hull plates and stiffener girders
(if the latter is also exposed) is the most intense immersion type exposure to sea water. For ship hulls,
the immersion zone affected bottom hull plates are ranked in terms of corrosion risk in the same category
of side hull plates with the only difference of somewhat slower rate of uniform thickness loss of the
bottom plates over time than the side hull plates experience in the splash zone which is usually the
highest of all maritime corrosion rates. The rate of corrosion wastage is about 1.5 times larger in the
splash zone in comparison with all other areas of the immersion zone. Deck structures typically
experience atmospheric maritime condition which is still regarded as quite severe.
In the following sections, relevant literature data are summarised for clarification of the critically
affected ship structures by maritime corrosion processes, the rate of these reactions, and the most
appropriate probability distribution functions empirically capable to describe deterioration over time of
life-cycle of the assets depending on the environmental variables using the most typical, probable data.

Coatings and hull structures of civil and trade ships

Number of case studies with large number of measurement results 10 provided enough amount of data
to work out satisfactory modelling approach of which the basics are summarised in Table 1 (originating
from the article). The basic deduction of deterioration of paint coatings follows Weibull distribution
with varied transition in state over time in accordance with their fragile structure to external mechanical
impact and the chemical environment. The paint covered structures are better described with normal or
lognormal distribution over time, which corresponds well with the nature of the structures, accumulation
behaviour and impact of the deteriorating factors.

Table 1. Distribution of random variables of ship structures.

In all cases, the moderate deterioration rate of paint coatings and the protected structures are well
obvious. The most conspicuous is coating deterioration on bottom part of the ship hulls starts generally
around at around 3.5 years (τc) but the ship hull experiences only moderate uniform loss of plate
thickness of around 1.5 mm over a time of complete life-cycle in cases of proper scheduled maintenance.
In comparison, approximate onset of coating deterioration on ballast and cargo tanks takes place around
11 years and the uniform loss of plate thickness remains considerable at least of around 1.9 mm. What
is worth noting, plate thickness loss was found properly modelled with normal distribution from onset
of coating deterioration to reaching the overall allowance, which means some model approaches
consider building-up considerable protection by the corrosion products and even by the paint coatings.

2
 Table 2. Typical corrosion rates of tanker type ships (based on the TSCF report in 1997).

Some of these data, corrosion allowance and complete loss of bottom plates of the ship hulls must
carefully be considered and handled as yearly loss rates of the structures are not given and any
differentiation in service periods over entire life-time of the assets are not known exactly or even at all.
Therefore, it is useful to know recommendations of other communities based on exceptionally wide
database publishing somewhat different results. According to one of the most recognised and referred
international forums, valid data listed by the IMO Tanker Structure Co-operative Forum 11 are provided
in Table 2. These data respected as reference on corrosion impact on civil ships including some data of
naval vessels too. This information partially serves assisting design and maintenance actions on the basis
of empirical prediction. Additional information is gained along with, e.g., the aforementioned study.
Useful knowledge is the yearly loss rate of the bottom plates which can easily reach 0.170 mm on
average. Nevertheless, the shortage of certain data may also seem to reflect in the unknown quality of
the applied coatings and surface treatment in the preparation phase, along with onset time of coating
deterioration besides the important environmental parameters.
When acceptable degree of protection is assumed and coating deterioration well described by log-
normal distribution, then uniform plate thickness loss are modelled linearly over time whereas the
initiation and propagation of some degree of local corrosion as pitting described by log-normal
distribution too over time 12. The almost constant rate of uniform loss of plate thickness of ballast and
cargo tank structures is presented in Figure 1.a, the coating and local deterioration caused reliability
losses over time are given in Figure 1.b. What is obvious and important revelation in this case with the
assumption of the same initial quality of coatings on all structures, all differentiation must be directly
related to individual resultant impact of the independent environmental factors. In addition, lower stool
part of the cargo tanks is most susceptible for integrity loss starting to depart intensively from other
components between 5 and 15 years and reaching critical level of condition (below the reliability of 0.5)
within less than 15 years. Furthermore, lower stool parts of both chamber types boundary plates are the
most affected. The least deteriorating conditions are manifested with bulkhead plate of the ballast tanks.

3
 (a) 7
Ballast tank parts
Bulkhead plate
6 Lower stool

Uniform corrosion rate / mm

5 Cargo tank parts
Bulkhead plate
4 Lower stool

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

(b) 0.300
1.0 PDF of ballast tank parts
0.275 Bulkhead plate
0.250 0.9
Lower stool

CDF - Reliability (normalised)

0.225 0.8 Cargo tank parts
Bulkhead plate
0.200 0.7
PDF (normalised)

Lower stool
0.175 0.6
0.150 0.5
0.125
0.4
0.100 PDF of ballast tank parts
0.3
0.075 Bulkhead plate
0.2 Lower stool
0.050
0.1 Cargo tank parts
0.025
Bulkhead plate
0.000 0.0 Lower stool
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / year

Figure 1. Uniform corrosion wastage of (a) bulkhead and lower stool plates of ballast and cargo tanks,
(b) PDF and CDF of failure probability of the structures in the case of inefficient coatings.

Regarding the most probable PDF and CDF of the aforementioned structures representing the main
part of tanker type ship hulls, characteristic distributions of the coating states coupled with quality states
of the cargo hold and ballast (and trimming) tank areas were estimated in detail 13 and the pivotal findings
are summarised in Figure 2 and Figure 3. As it seems plausible with cargo hold structures (Figure 2.a-
c), most of the lower and middle bound estimations of PDF and CDF on probability of failure occurrence
based on large number of samples based populations are quite similar to each other. Minor difference
was defined between bulk-head and hold-frame parts in some favour of the latter. For both structures,
upper bound reliability type failure probabilities are less sharp and variably shifted to occur over time
as high difference appears in their absolute maxima at around 15 and 32.5 years with considerable tailing
towards later lifetimes. The latter is connected to a relatively defined induction period of onset of
deterioration followed by slower continuation, propagation over time similar to pitting process. To make
conservative reliability assessment relying on outcome of the worst case scenario based on the provided
dataset, reliability of these ship hull parts became subjects of compulsory inspection and maintenance
work at 13 and 18 years of service based on type of scenario and degree of corrosion tolerance.

4
 Cargo hold - Bulk head (PDF)
(a) 0.16 lower
middle 1.0
0.14 upper

0.12 0.8

0.10 CDF of
lower 0.6
PDF

0.08 middle

CDF
upper bound
0.06 0.4

0.04
0.2
0.02

0.00 0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years
Cargo hold - Hold frame (PDF) CDF of lower
lower middle, upper bound
(b) 0.12
middle 1.0
upper
0.10
0.8
0.08
0.6
PDF

0.06

CDF
0.04 0.4

0.02 0.2

0.00
0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

(c)
100

80
Reliability / %

60 Cargo hold
Bulk head
lower
40 middle
upper
Hold frame
20
lower
middle
0 upper bound

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

5
 Figure 2. Lower, middle and upper bound failure probabilities expressed in PDF and CDF for the (a)
bulkhead and (b) hold-frame parts of the cargo hold chambers, (c) reliability of bulkhead and hold-
frame parts of the cargo hold chamber, in the case of defined onset of coating breakdown.

PDF and CDF type failure probability of bulk head and hold frame parts of ballast (trimming) tanks
are given in Figure 3. Yet again, lower and middle reliability bound scenarios (intense and moderate
corrosion rates) resulted in similar functions with maxima and inflections at around 12.5 and 15 years
in regard with bulk head and hold frames, respectively with some additional difference that the latter is
especially susceptible to indicate marked tailing over time in case of shorter period of induction phase,
coating deterioration. The highest reliability meaning upper bound PDF and CFD curves showed tailing
and some symmetric curves with bulk head and hold frames, respectively. The minor and highly shifted
maxima and inflection points around 17 and 27 years can obviously only apply to the highest quality of
structures treated by the best value of maintenance practice.

Ballast tank - Bulk head (PDF)

(a) 0.18 lower
middle 1.0
0.16 upper
0.14
CDF of 0.8
0.12 lower
middle
0.10 upper bound 0.6
PDF

CDF
0.08
0.4
0.06

0.04 0.2
0.02
0.0
0.00

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years
Ballast tank - Hold frame (PDF) CDF of lower
lower middle
(b) middle upper bound
0.08 upper 1.0

0.8
0.06

0.6
PDF

CDF

0.04
0.4

0.02
0.2

0.00 0.0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

6
 (c) 100

80

Reliability / %
60 Ballast tank
Bulk head
lower
40
middle
upper
Hold frame
20
lower
middle
0 upper bound

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

Figure 3. Lower, middle and upper bound failure probabilities expressed in PDF and CDF for the (a)
bulkhead and (b) hold-frame parts of ballast tanks, (c) reliability of bulkhead and hold-frame parts of
the ballast tanks, in the case of defined onset of coating breakdown.

Regarding the latter statement and as it is shown on the figures, durable reliability is really
achievable unless no compromise in types and application of materials coupled with proper practices
apply during production and maintenance phases. Otherwise these performance levels simply cannot be
attained. It hints well the potential of the aforementioned tools on possible reliability of the assets. Thus,
consequent reliability of the assets changes with the coupled required maintenance actions and so
availability can remarkable variate accordingly. As reliability index changes of the bulk-head and hold-
frame parts, probably the last time of compulsory maintenance actions to take must be around 15 and
17.5 years. So, depending on the type of scenarios and corrosion tolerance, around 16% time-span can
be gained by the combination of proper initial material and methods then later combined with good
maintenance practice.

Reliability of ship hull with inefficient coatings

Due to the fact, coatings have pivotal role in protection of ship hull and preserving its best state for long
periods. This is the main stipulation for any possible and contingent extension of asset lifetime beyond
the periods defined in design phases. So, awareness of the mechanism and rate of deterioration of the
coatings depending on some environmental factors can be beneficial for modelling so for the asset
management to planning and carrying out maintenance actions. When inefficient coating protection
evolves regardless of the cause whether severe biofouling or heavy blistering, physically delamination
or detaching, the rate and absolute uniform plate thickness loss was calculated as a function of time.
Even though many of the research works are interested in finding out integrity loss of hull steel plates
in the case of early coating failure with the assumption of zero effective protection from the beginning,
there is a large variety of modelling corrosion rates and integrated wastage over time which are referred
in later section. Although simple linear models can be helpful to provide useful data in the design phase
but sometimes they seem to be completely unrealistic and implausible.
Somewhat more developed estimations utilise non-linear models such as exponential and Weibull
distributions. Some studies found appropriate empirical modelling of corrosion rate and overall wastage
over time relying on Weibull function. So, time-variant corrosion modelling is feasible to describe
immersion exposure of steel plates. In the literature, the behaviour of A grade carbon steel was discussed,
which was located in mid-section of the ship hulls 14. Calculation results are given in Figure 4.

7
 Non-linear (Weibull) modelling of corrosion rate
0.20 and wastage variation over time 2.75
0.18 2.50

0.16 2.25

-1
Corrosion rate / mm year

Corrosion wastage / mm
0.14 2.00
1.75
0.12
1.50
0.10
1.25
0.08
1.00
0.06
0.75
0.04 0.50
0.02 0.25
0.00 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

Figure 4. Weibull function described corrosion rate and integral wastage of ship hull over time with
the assumption of inefficient coating; τc=0 year.

The one sided uniform plate thickness loss was maximised at 2.6 mm and until reaching its limiting
wastage corrosion rate is expected to slow down continuously over time. For such modelling, ship data
with the overall age of up to 25 years was used. In addition, some results in later stage of the ship life-
cycle seemingly matched quite well with estimation of other, i.e., exponential models with valid life-
cycle of the ships for up to 32 years (with 7 years of extension). Nonetheless, shortcoming of this type
of modelling is end wastage or maximal corrosion allowance must be well known for the expected life-
cycle in advance. So, two points are not sufficient to know but the decreasing slope between the initial
and final points may not generalise for other similar but independent cases. Without such an information,
this approach can never really be useful for asset management to plan and carry out predictive
maintenance actions in accordance with state of the vessel structures.

Deterioration and breakdown modelling of coatings on ship structures

The onset of coating breakdown is usually described with log-normal distribution. The onset of
pronounced loss rate of steels always concurs with coating failure. Some examples, intense corrosion of
side watertight girder was found starting at around 5 years 15,16. Transition time was manifested to occur
with transverse bulkhead plates of bulk carriers around 3 years for deep tank bulkheads, whereas it is
around 2 years for watertight bulkheads and may only 1.5 years for stool regions 17.
Temperature dependent deterioration of paint coatings on hull structures and corrosion of mild and
low alloy steels were mathematically modelled incorporating the effect of uniform loss (mm/m2) and
diffusion of the main components 18. The expression to define corrosion rates relies on two variables
from which only one multiplied by time parameter. Both variables are combined and restrained to
increasing over time domain with a power of 0.333. The power of less than 0.5 suggest quite strong
mass transport limitation, e.g., oxygen over time which can be the result of well-functioning coating
over the initial 5 years of exposure and the evolution of additional protection by the adherent, coherent
and compact oxide scales not experiencing any physical impact to spall, delaminate or detach. Variation
of onset of coating deterioration is primarily governed by temperature in the expression and the resultant
model calculations are given in Figure 5.

8
 Diffusion affected start of coating degradation and
0.30 corrosion of substrate ship structures:
o
~3 years at 10 C,
o
1.2-1.5 years at around 16 C
0.25
Corrosion wastage / mm

0.20

0.15 Dyke Wharf

Coffs Harbour
Barents Sea (@ 4oC)
0.10
North sea (@ 10oC)
Port Hueneme (@ 15.5oC)
0.05 Kawasaki bay (@ 17oC)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Time / years

Figure 5. Modelling diffusion dependent variation of corrosion rates and temperature dependent
breakdown of coatings on ship hulls.

Onset of coating was set to 3 and 1.5 years according to the temperatures between 4 and 10 oC and
around 16oC. Strength of the model calculation is the ability to predict corrosion rates under coating
depending on variation of mass transport affected by temperature. Weakness of the model there are no
other parameters inbuilt and so some prediction might well be erratic as the same corrosion rates
obtained at varied temperature. Thus, despite the low temperature of 4oC the experienced corrosion
deterioration was unexpectedly high at the Barents Sea. In addition, this heavily strict mass transport
limitation cannot clearly be valid for longer time periods, as wastage progression seems to follow less
deceleration by time obeying diffusion characteristics.
Viewing wastage rates of steel structures after failing coatings, Weibull distribution was
successfully used to model corrosion losses of steel structures when early coating failure occurs. In this
case, early coating breakdown was set to 1.4 years and the maximum corrosion rate of 0.153 mm/year
was found at around 8 years of service time 19. The one-sided overall wastage of 1.64 mm was much
lower than that used by other literature references which is due to the partial protection of the coating
lasting for a short initial period and the lower bound estimation for shorter service period of maximum
of 25 years. Strength of this proposed modelling is effectiveness to describe three stages of processes
such as exemption, acceleration and deceleration over time as it seems in Figure 6. Variation of these
deterioration stages is in line with the overruling physics and chemistry based regimes according to the
applicable scenarios. The model is attempted to reflect progress of coating failure, the impact of
diffusion through multiple material layers without any surface renewal effect. In this case, reliability of
the system would drop to critical degree within less than 10 years but this can certainly be improved by
the application of high quality materials and methods.

9
 PDF CDF Reliability
0.10
1.0 100

0.08
0.8 80

Reliability / %
0.06
0.6 60
PDF

CDF
0.04 0.4 40

0.02 0.2 20

0.00 0.0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time / years

Figure 6. Weibull distribution of corrosion rate variation, integral wastage and reliability of the ship
hull over time with the assumption of short protection life-time of the coating; τc=1.4 year.

Probability and cumulative distribution functions of coating deteriorations on ballast and cargo tank
plates based on 25 years of service life is presented in Figure 7 20. Empirical description of coating
deterioration was found best fitted with Weibull function. The confidence of coating deterioration on
deck plates of ballast tanks started earlier than on cargo tanks as it shown in Figure 7.a with earlier
setting and wider population than the narrower population of the cargo sample. According to the
observation, what less pronounced is reliability of the structures started dropping to critical levels with
some difference in years. What is more pronounced the much higher slope of increasing hazard or failure
rate of coating failure on deck plates than on ballast tanks (Figure 7.b) but only in that range which is
not subject of interests because reliability of coatings on both structures are practically immeasurably
low. Reliability decreases are differentiated with some years between the two types of structures
between the 95 and 40% of reliability index which signifies the highest integrity risk of these structures
of maritime ships (carrier type cargo vessels).

Weibull distribution of coating failure on deck plates

(a) 0.16
1.0
0.14

0.12 0.8
PDF of coating failure

ballast and
CDF of coating failure

ballast and
0.10 cargo tanks cargo tanks
0.6
0.08

0.06 0.4
0.04
0.2
0.02

0.00 0.0
10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

10
 Weibull distribution of coating failure on deck plates
(b) 8
100
7
ballast and

Hazard rate / (event / year)

6 cargo tanks 80
5

Reliability / %
60
4
ballast and
3 cargo tanks 40

2
20
1

0 0

10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

Figure 7. Corrosion wastage of deck plates of ballast and cargo tanks of tankers: PDF and CDF (a),
hazard rate and reliability index (b).

The resultant uniform corrosion wastage of deck steel plates on deck and ballast tanks were also
measured over the 32 years of service period. Gathered data lead to the conclusion of corrosion processes
converged in a monotonic manner towards plate thickness losses of around 1.85 and 1.91 mm beyond
end of the investigation period 21,22. What interesting finding is the scale of data scattering increased
with deck plates of the cargo tanks far beyond the extent of that obtained deck part of ballast tanks would
experience over around 30 years of exposure (Figure 8). The much higher standard deviation of plate
thickness loss also means higher integrity risk of steel plates on cargo chambers than ballast tanks. Due
to type of the atmospheric exposure, the Garbatov and Soares model reflected decelerating wastage rates
over time possibly due to the evolution of mass transport hindrance caused by the adherent and coherent
corrosion products. This modelling describes the first two phases of wastage mechanism remaining in
the aerobic abiotic regime.

3.0 Corrosion wastage and STD of

plate thickness loss of deck plates on
cargo
Uniform plate thickness loss / mm

2.5
ballast

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

Figure 8. Corrosion wastage and standard deviation of plate thickness losses of deck plates on ballast
and cargo tanks.

11
 In the standpoint of design and asset management concerned on organising predictive maintenance,
necessary inspection and partial repair is probably recommended around 12 years, whereas replacement
may as well be justified at around 22 years of service. The former can be resolved by FLM work but the
latter surely achieved via DM which must be planned in accordance with the results of continuous SHM,
FLM corrective actions and surveys besides the expert knowledge. Nonetheless, performance metrics
of the structures and the organisation of required maintenance actions depend also on degree of corrosion
tolerance observed. Applicable service life in regard with inspection and repair may shift from 22 years
up to 32 years if 50% reliability or half of the reliability index means acceptable and controllable risk
increase as it seems in Figure 9. Lots of useful service life, duty cycle time can be gained favourably at
the cost of the time consuming DM actions by applying increasing degree of corrosion tolerance policy
and it can still be safe if it is coupled with regular FLM inspection by maintenance experts and crew
members. Nevertheless, the latter statement poses an important question on the realisation of optimised
maintenance actions.

0.20 PDF
1.0 100 low
0.18
moderate
0.16 high
0.8 80
extreme
0.14

Reliability / %
0.12 CDF
0.6 60
PDF

low

CDF
0.10 moderate
0.08 0.4 40 high
extreme
0.06
0.2 20 R(t)
0.04
low
0.02 medium
0.0 0 high
0.00
extreme
10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

Figure 9. PDF, CDF and reliability of cargo tank plates in cases of low, moderate, high and extreme
tolerance of corrosion wastage (2, 4, 8 and 12 % of relative plate thickness loss).

Commonly known if DM actions can be carried out fast and effectively, and if extreme cost is not
a critical factor in consideration than minimum inspection interval may arise by low corrosion allowance
and frequent total repair. This policy is obviously not applicable to the navy because total repairs require
long times and expensive, and most importantly frequent DM actions with the necessary cruising and
dry docking would certainly hugely hurt availability. The second option, maximum inspection intervals
are by high corrosion tolerance then partial repairs and replacement of the structures leads to favourable
low total repair cost and seldom DM which is priority by the meaning high availability of navy assets.
In the view of expert knowledge on cargo and ballast tanks, optimal intervals for repair are defined as
more than 8 years at low, between 5 and 8 years at medium, only 2 and 5 years at high frequency of
repairs. Optimal intervals for replacement are defined as low between 13 and 16 years, medium between
16 and 19 years, and high beyond 19 years of frequency. Thus, minimisation of downtime over 22-25
years, repair should probably be needed at around ~50% of the life-cycle (12 years) then replacement of
deck plates must be performed at the end of the expected lifetime which depending on lower reliability
threshold and acceptable tolerance for the sake of optimised availability and cost of maintenance.

Ballast tanks (and trimmers)

One of the most critically affected structures in maritime ships, are the ballast tanks. This is because of
the changing pattern of impact by the sea water via immersion and atmospheric effects. If there is only
aerobe activity in the ballast tanks, then uniform corrosion rate is expected to occur ‘only’ at the rates
of between 0.47–0.082 mm/year on uncoated A grade type carbon steels varying from top to the bottom

12
part of the ballast tanks with increasing loss rates 23. Nevertheless, these data may even increase by up
to an order of magnitude as a consequence of anaerobe bacterial activity of sessile colonies leading to
unexpected loss rates over short time periods.
Corrosion wastage of low alloy carbon steel plates based structures are analysed 17. This proved to
be informative to predict loss of materials and risk evolution and so being helpful for defining necessary
corrosion tolerance, allowance during design phase. The onset of coating breakdown usually following
log-normal distribution was chosen between 3.5 and 7.5 years considering the worst and best case
scenarios for the lowest and the highest quality of paint coatings in combination with surface preparation
and treatment practices (by physical and chemical means) of the steel substrates. International
recommendations appropriate corrosion allowance up to 1.5 mm uniform thickness loss for 25-year
service life in case of well observed coating maintenance routine, although this wastage may even range
up to 4 mm when the most severe cases considered. Based on the most probable linear models with an
assumption of proper maintenance work on the coatings, the most probable corrosion rates are between
0.0466–0.0823 mm/year, which should lead to 1.4 and 2.1 mm loss over 35 years of service life. The
problem with most of the linear models is inherently related to their high improbability, implausible
simplification owing to the fact some diffusion limitation should evolve by time via corrosion scales
despite these such products are far not efficient at blocking mass transport of oxidative and complexing
agents (environmental substances) to the metallic interface and the possible renewal effect by spalling
failure and some mechanical agitation caused detachment of the products over time leading to formation
of almost fresh metal surface.
To circumvent shortage of the aforementioned simplified models and the limitations in validity of
prediction, various degree of mass transport caused limitation or surface renewal connected acceleration
was inbuilt into corrosion wastage models for over long life. Model based calculation results are
presented in Figure 10.

Modell:
3.5 corrosion wastage = C1*(t-tc)^C2

3.0 Coating life: 3.5 years Coating life: 7.5 years

C2: C2:
Corrosion wastage / mm

2.5 0.5 0.5

0.8 0.8
2.0 1.0 1.0
1.2 1.2
1.5 1.5
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years
Figure 10. A time-dependent corrosion wastage model for seawater ballast tanks, depending on
durability of the coatings with breakdown at 3.5 and 7.5 years (worst and best case scenarios) and
variable progression of corrosion rates over time after transition.

Perfect diffusion based mass transport limitation arises when the exponent of 0.5. Variation of the
exponent from 0.5 to 1 means decreasing resistance against mass transport as part of abiotic regime.
Further increase from 1 to 1.5 inherently denotes assisted or catalysed processes which is the most
realistic to occur via biotic regime, microbially induced corrosion under anaerobic condition. The latter
may be coupled with variable time constant of surface renewal, detachment of scales in early phase then
accumulation of corrosion chemical agents like hydrogen sulphide as secreted product of microbial
activity under the sessile microbial colonies. Nature of the deterioration processes takes effective over
time as the higher exponent in the power model leads to pronounced increase of wastage over prolonged

13
service life. Thus, almost regardless of the onset degradation of the coatings would start at 3.5 or 7.5
years (the latter means very good quality of surface preparation and coatings), wastages are expected to
variate between 1.0 and 3.3, 1.0 and 2.7 mm with the increasing exponent (from 0.5 to 1.5), respectively
at the end of 35 years of service. From these data the one can draw two clear conclusions. The one is
that not even high quality coatings are able to provide good protection without proper and regular
maintenance. The second is that even medium or low quality of coatings might provide acceptable
protection over time in case of proper maintenance action. These overall means better surface
preparation and treatment along with high quality coatings are well paid off when combined with regular
purification of the ballast tanks in very good condition of the ballast tanks, low amount of loss of
structural steels and maybe possible extension of life-cycle for over the originally designed period.
There are literature references 24,25 formulating and stating the following recommendations on
application of coatings in ballast tanks. There were around 100% difference between time of visible
detectable onset of corrosion with the worst and best quality of coatings. The independent experiences
were in complete accordance with the findings of other inspection results performed by expert groups.
Regarding the ‘fair’ quality grading of coatings within 11 and 25% of corrosion index accepted by
internationally standards, good and low quality of coatings offer life-times of 20 and 11 years,
respectively. These can be around 10 and above 35 years in cases of low and high corrosion tolerances.
This means poor quality of coatings failing within 5 years lead to unacceptable state of ballast tanks
within 20 years. What was astounding revelation in these studies, the application aluminium galvanic
anodes did not really result in any advantages (in statistic manner) in thermodynamic immunisation
based protection of the coated metallic substrates. So, protection and preservation of ballast tanks for
over 35 years of cycle-life is achievable but it requires proper maintenance. Another conclusion of the
study, wastage related risk may well be mediated by application of proper types of steels.

Corrosion wastage modelling of naval ships was considered as worst cases scenario when paint
coatings and sacrificial galvanic anodes (thermodynamic immunisation) fail completely 26. The model
was developed to make reliable and credible estimation of loss rate of ballast tanks of naval ships over
time. Part of the model is to describe both immersion and atmospheric corrosion processes. Nonetheless,
the former seemed to properly work out with modelling 4 stages of corrosion regimes. Modelling results
are shown in Figure 11.

Corrosion rate variation (mm/ year)

Corrosion wastage (mm) 2.50
0.22
2.25
0.20
2.00
Corrosion rate / mm/year

0.18
Corrosion wastage / mm

0.16 1.75
0.14 1.50
0.12 1.25
0.10
1.00
0.08
0.75
0.06
0.04 0.50

0.02 0.25
0.00 0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

Figure 11. Operational based one-sided corrosion wastage of ballast tanks of naval ships modelled at
an ambient temperature of 13oC (within model validity range).

The 4 stages are defined as an initial short term anaerobic process at a rate of 0.133 mm/year, the
nd
2 medium-long aerobic period with diffusion limitation of the agents proceeding at an average loss
rate of 0.200 mm/year. Then the 3rd stage shifts to anaerobic milieu with high initial loss rate at a rate of
14
0.145 mm/year coupled with the 4th stage of a steady-state, almost constant moderate loss rate at
~0.06 mm/year with the same anaerobic regime till end of the lifetime. The first and especially the 2 nd
and 3rd two phases are connected by the transition time representing complete breakdown of the paint
coatings which is directly related the temperature. Transition time from diffusion regime to reach
complete coating breakdown and enter the anaerobic phase shortens from around 1.4 to 0.2 years with
increasing temperature from 13 to 27oC. Thus, even though loss rates may increase from 0.230 to
0.280 mm/year at the end of the diffusion regime stage as a consequence of increasing temperature from
13 to 27oC, the most severe effect arises by the markedly narrowed regime and fast enter of the linear
increasing 3rd and 4th regimes.
Due to the highest confidence interval of the model estimations, onset time of coating breakdown
and the rate of corrosion processes are properly described by the calculations obtained at a temperature
of 13oC which is expected to be representing to average temperature of the navy vessels experience at
sea in Europe in sea area of the Netherlands).

Fuel tanks
To compare differences in corrosion rates and define the most affected, risky part of ship hulls with
stiffeners and girders, side watertight girders (SWGs) influenced by ballast-water are more effected than
cargo holds of which deterioration may well be expressed in loss of inner bottom plates (IBPs) 15. This
underscores dominant impact of the sea water on corrosion process. In case of properly functioning paint
coatings, the onset of coating breakdown was assumed to vary between 4 and 7 years. Then the two ship
hull structures were modelled to describe deterioration of steel parts over time. The mean of overall
corrosion wastage of IBP and SWG was described with linear models with early loss rates of 0.113,
0.121 and 0145 mm/year along with onset of coating failure at 4, 5 and 5 years of service, leading to
3.5, 3.6 and 4.4 mm decrease of uniform plate thickness until 35 years of service in cases of best and
worst scenarios, respectively. Pronounced difference in upper bound of plate thickness loss of the ballast
and crude oil tanks was around at 0.48 and 0.78 mm, respectively at the end of 7 years of service. So,
SWGs degraded at somewhat lower rate than inside plates of fuel tanks and cargo holds (IBPs)
containing organic and substances other than sea-water.

Deck plates
There is also limited information of credible data on deterioration rate and lifetimes of coatings and deck
plate structures. In regard with pure data, there are data on bulk carriers, single and double hull tankers
27
. These data manifest onset of breakdown of coatings exposed to maritime conditions with minority at
5 years and the majority of around 7.5 years. In the aspect of progress of corrosion depth, inner bottom
plate (IBP) was found to start deteriorating at one of the earliest at a common rate very similar to the
upper deck plate. Although upper deck plates and inner bottom plates of ballast tanks started
deterioration at 7.5 years, these rates proceeded at one of the highest rates and so uniform loss rates soon
became exceeding in comparison with all of the rest structures. These rates were altogether similar to
the uniform loss rate of bottom plates and deck plates on cargo oil tanks. Lower sloping plates, side
plates below draft line of cargo oil tanks and outer bottom plates in ballast tanks were found deteriorating
at lower rate.
The mean and upper bound corrosion wastage of mid-section ship deck plates and girders,
stiffening panels are given in Figure 12. Even though uniform plate thickness loss may satisfactory be
described by power function of time designing mean, low and upper bound loss limits, strength of the
corroded deck panels apparently followed log-normal distribution 28. Data based empirical modelling of
mean and upper bound wastages of deck plates clearly surpassed the loss rate of deck stiffeners. Both
the mean and standard deviation of stiffened deck panels could be well described with power function
of time. Exponents of the power functions were 0.667 and 0.75 which means around half way between
diffusion and entirely free of mass transport limitations, some renewal of the surface over time. Although
the mean of corrosion wastage of deck plates and girders proved to be distinct from each other at the
end of 35 years of service life with overall losses of 2.6 and 1.1 mm, respectively, both sets of mean
data are properly fitted with the exponent of 0.667 suggesting noticeable proportion of mass transport
limitation. What was interesting that data with lower mean exhibited larger lower and upper bound
deviations which hints on the large variation of mechanical loads and environmental factors of that deck

15
plates and their parts experience unlike the more uniform service load that deck plates have to stand. In
addition, so much difference is also due to the large variation of samples with moderately altered initial
conditions of the bulk carrier ships, affected by special factors of service loads, i.e., payload materials,
and certain individual patterns of the environmental factors during cruise routes.

Plate thickness loss in midship section

Corrosion wastage of girders (stiffeners) / mm

2.00
mean mean
3.5
Corrosion wastage of deck plates / mm

upper bound 1.75

3.0
1.50
2.5
1.25
2.0
1.00
1.5
0.75
1.0
0.50
0.5 0.25

0.0 0.00

5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

Figure 12. Mean and upper bound corrosion wastage of deck plates and girders.

To make a comparison with corrosion wastage of weathering deck plates on ballast and cargo tanks,
uniform plate thickness loss side shell plates and differentiated in zones receiving varied affects by the
sea water in the splash – quay contact zone, 3 metre distance from top or fluid level and elsewhere in
the bottom region. Furthermore, wastage rate over time is also interested in relation to other critically
affected structures such as longitudinal bulkhead plates in ballast/cargo and cargo/cargo ship sections,
along with bottom and inner-bottom plating, and not to forget about stiffeners in two different types of
locations of ballast tank and cargo oil tanks. All of the input data including coating breakdown, transition
time and maximum loss of plate thickness (overall allowance) were used for wastage calculations based
on the Garbatov and Soares model 29−32 but with a uniform set of coefficients to make conservative
predictions referring on the possible emerge of the worst case scenarios. Modelling estimations cover
induction time of coating degradation to complete loss of protection function and so transition to
corrosion of the steel substrates. The latter is generally experienced converging slowly towards entire
corrosion allowance over the lifetime of around 32 years of the large number of surveyed ships.
The Figure 13.a shows distinct difference between thickness loss rates of plates affected by various
zones. Sea water and the splash zones are the worst affected with fast onset of coating breakdown and
progress of corrosion of the steel plates which may be critical within or less than 20 years. The regions
some metre below fluid level and the bottom sections in the cargo, ballast tanks and cargo-ship hull are
less severely affected so their condition can be satisfactory up to 25 years. The ballast/cargo and
cargo/cargo sections are less critical in regard of loss rates (Figure 13.b). In accordance with other
literature data, inner bottom plates and bottom plates are more heavily affected with considerably
shortened period of coating breakdown so earlier higher wastage rate of steel plates than longitudinal
bulkhead plates on ballast and cargo sections. What found to be the lowest deteriorating in this selection
is the longitudinal bulkhead plates on cargo/cargo sections, even though the lower thickness loss does
not mean slower deterioration characteristic which was still similar to the group of less affected
structures with initiation of coating breakdown at 7.5 years. Other literature reference provide data
confirming this trend 33.

16
 (a) 1.50

Uniform corrosion wastage / mm

1.25

1.00

0.75 Weathering deck plates on

ballast & cargo tank

0.50 Side shell plates at areas of

sea water level
splash zone, quay contact
0.25
3 metre distance from top
elsewhere, bottom region
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

(b) 1.50
Uniform corrosion wastage / mm

1.25

1.00

0.75 Cargo/ballast
Longitudinal bulkhead
cargo/cargo
0.50
Longitudinal bulkhead
bottom plates
0.25 inner-bottom plates
tank bottom/ballast tank girders
cargo oil tank stiffeners
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

Figure 13. Uniform corrosion wastage of (a) weathering deck plates on ballast and cargo tanks, side
shell plates at different heights, (b) longitudinal bulkhead plates on cargo and ballast tanks.

Some remarks on the aforementioned Garbatov and Soares models, special attributes of this type
of modelling mean covering the 1st and 2nd phases of corrosion deterioration processes. The absence of
physical impact on the coated surfaces, there are no surface renewal. In addition, the modelling data are
probably based on large number of ships subjected to good practice and regular maintenance routines.
Thus, the most deteriorating anaerobic type corrosion phases, the 3rd and 4th ones with linear progression
of wastage, must have been avoided. This is the reason for using a simple exponential expression for
modelling with progressively slowing down rates combined with relatively low thickness loss over long
service-life. So, this also means at the same time limitation to other sorts of vessels utilised under
different conditions.

Failure mechanism and effect analysis 34

Reliability block diagram

For discussion of reliability of navy type vessels, most of the accessible literature data are related to civil
engineering type materials, case studies with lots of expert knowledge. So, the first step of simplification

17
means no consideration of advanced navigation and potential interception equipment, combat system of
regular naval vessels which means full mission operational capable and readiness. In step 2, only the
basic and most important functional parts of civil ship structures are considered which are responsible
for floating, even though there are numerous parts responsible for other types of operational capabilities
such as mobilisation, multiple types of platform capabilities. During prioritisation of ship structures
classical risk classification has been considered. This ranks failure events with extreme consequence of
losing ship and cargo, crew lives and major disasters with a multiplication factor of 10 8. High
classification collocates with two orders of magnitude lower multiplying factor (106) which is connected
to the consequence of any major structural failure, loss of serviceability and cargo. Moderate degree of
classification comes with 104 rating assigned to events of moderate structural damages, partial loss of
serviceability and necessitating unscheduled repair (via either FLM or DM level). The lowest rating
(103) is assigned to events causing unneglectable and/or controllable changes in full or partial
serviceability when immediate repair may not be feasible.
In the viewpoint of reliability, block diagram is given in Figure 14 with schematic representation
of all four main structural domains of maritime ships referred to as responsible for safe floating.

Figure 14. Reliability block diagram of ships with the four main structural domains responsible for
durable safe floating and partly for mobilisation.

Block representation of the reliability of such system includes parts of the main domain, i.e., the coating
and the water-tight ship hull in parallel. Thus, both structural elements must fail at their certain assumed
own individual and independent probabilities to trigger the ultimate failure event. This in logical
speaking means and association of the failure events. This domain is coupled in series with a larger
block of smaller domains. The larger block of smaller domains contains coated ballast tanks, fuel or
cargo tanks and deck plating. All of them are necessary for floating survival (by ballast tanks and deck
plates) and basic operation ability, mobilisation assured partly by the fuel tanks. Despite the latter does
not contain any specific mobile parts, it is still one of the most susceptible for integrity loss similar to
combustion engines having lots of moving and wearing parts. In the three small domains, coatings and
structures are connected parallel to each other because both of them should fail to reach complete failure
of the structures. On the other hand, these structures are independent of each other affecting ultimate
reliability of a ship and so they are in logical sense coupled in parallel. Series coupling with the ship
hull and its coating is due to inevitable complete failure of a ship in case of hull failure event (certain
probability of failure) which also leads to unavoidable affected reliability of the second large domain.
Fault tree diagram of the four main structural domains are presented in Figure 15. Here in a different
structural approach, failure of any of the ‘and’ coupled small blocks connected logically by the ‘or’
element would result in ultimate failure of the asset. In the small blocks, ‘and’ logical coupling means
the necessary failure of both structures so that ultimate failure of the asset must be reached.

18
 Figure 15. Fault tree analysis of ships with the four main structural domains responsible for durable
safe floating and partly for mobilisation.

This RBD and FTA discussion is required and beneficial for modelling reliability of the interested
target object, in this case navy vessels modelling shipping assets. In the aspect of classical FMEA
applied on ships, failure types are classified in line with the consequence of degree of safety loss
completed with the possible failure modes. Primary failure mode affects significant part of the ship
ascertained at 50% (subjective matter of policy) leading to considerable loss of capability relating to
floating, motivation and navigation. Secondary type failure modes affect ships partly via damages or
incapacitated propulsion and navigation abilities for civil ships, even interception and full scale of
combat performance of naval vessels. Tertiary failure modes have impact on small part of the ships by
minor damages and loss of functionalities of the structures and parts. According to this civil engineering
type classification, ultimate level of failures is aggregated into three degrees of relevance based on
severity of failure modes. The primary is plastic flow of the ship mid-section, buckling of panels and
fatigue or fracture. Secondary type failure group is the buckling of stiffened panels and frames. Tertiary
failure group is buckling of unstiffened plates. In standpoint of serviceability, primary importance arises
with first yield of mid-ship cross-section. Secondary degree of importance is assigned to cyclic-load
induced cracking through plates and permanent set of stiffened panels. Tertiary degree of importance is
connected to events of permanent set of unstiffened panels and incomplete fatigue cracking through
cross-section of steel panels.
In regard with FMEA of ship structures, the highest loss rate of plate thickness was ascertained to
bottom shell plating (~0.170 mm/year), moderate loss rates expected to deck plates and longitudinal
elements, bottom shell longitudinal plates, longitudinal bulkhead longitudinal plates (~0.065 mm/year,
by TSCF report, 1997) 35. The lowest severity of loss rate with its mean of around 0.030 mm/year is still
considerable for long-term stability and reliability of side shell and longitudinal plating. Other literature
references gave somewhat different loss rates 36,37 but relative series of the loss rates corresponded the
aforementioned ranking.
For onset of coating breakdown, valuable data are listed in the literature 38 stating majority of these
events fall for around 4.5 and 3.5 years at average temperatures of 4 and 10 oC, respectively. If
temperature increases to around 17oC, then commence period for complete degradation of coatings can
shorten to around 1.5 years. It should also be noticed most of the reported corrosion rates are inferior to
the estimated and predicted ones, usually doubled but in some cases may reach three times.
For naval ships 39, civil shipping based classification was used for database and modelling integrity
loss rates of navy ship structures 40. In this case, the highest loss rate was subjected to deck longitudinal
plates on ballast tanks (~0.240 mm/year). The 2nd highest corrosion rate is experienced by bottom shell
longitudinal plates (web) and side shell longitudinal plates in ballast tanks (~0.140 mm/year). Moderate
19
rates were defined to bottom shell longitudinal plates (flanges), segregated deck plating of ballast tanks
(~0.110 mm/year) and side shell longitudinal plates of ballast tanks (~0.090 mm/year). Low uniform
loss rates were found for deck plating, side shell plating above and below draft line (~0.060 mm/year).
What is interesting and instructive outcome of a study investigating changes of mechanical strength
of naval ship type structures as functions of uniform and several extents of localised corrosions 33.
Effects of the localised corrosion events were studied in the forms of pitting through complete cross-
section of plate thickness (all through type), varied depth of pitting failures and degree of pitting. As for
the 1st type of interests, complete cross-section pitting lead to markedly lowered plate strength of around
25% by far overruling over the effect of 1.5 mm uniform thickness plate thickness loss caused only less
than 5% decrease of plate strength. The 2nd interest of measure related to estimation of impact of depth
of pitting indicated less than 5% variation of the overall depth variation from 1.5 mm to 15 mm through
the plates at a certain surface density of pitting. In this series of experimental, the impact of extent of
uniform corrosion was also addressed with 7.5 and 12 mm loss of plate thickness and compared to the
result of a mild 1.5 mm loss of plate thickness. Authors found plate strength decreased by the two stages
of severe uniform thickness losses, which are expressed in significantly decreasing stiffness by around
50 and 60% with the 7.5 and 12 mm loss of plate thickness over the tested range of strain, respectively.
Degree or surface density of pitting was found significantly affect stiffness of ship plates decreasing
with around 22, 25, 40 and 47% with the density of pitting varied at 10, 20, 30 and 50% over the tested
range of strain, respectively. So, uniform thickness loss of plates within the corrosion allowance and
reasonably tolerable levels may not pose any real reliability concern to key functional ship structures.
The variation of depth of pitting may not have severe effect of plate stiffness but density of pitting
certainly leads to severe loss of mechanical load ability. Owing to the fact, maritime corrosion processes
are known to be able to leading to intense pitting of key functional structures like ship hull, ballast and
fuel tanks, inspection and this type of monitoring along with special adapted maintenance routines must
be adopted to ensure full function capability and highest safety of the assets. Therefore, monitoring
techniques should specifically be designed to assess local deterioration of structures.

Reliability assessment of ship structures

As an example for reliability assessment of ship structures and machinery equipment, all corrosion
affected systems and their components with typical failure causes have been considered based on a
literature study 41 used as a reference for probable failure modes and time intervals for the events. First
and foremost, the power plant with its engines is analysed then in the following seawater and pipework,
cranes based lifting system, diving system and firefighting equipment of the safety system have been
investigated for reliability of the systems and expected lifetime of the components. These systems are
all heavily affected by certain types of corrosion deteriorations. These kinds of deteriorations proved to
be the most severe in terms of reliability loss and decreasing lifetime, availability of the affected
equipment and parts. These aspects are expressed in the MTBF, i.e., between 160 and 853 days for the
engines, 512 days for the seawater and pipework, 640 days for cranes, 853 days for diving structure, and
512 days for the firefighting equipment. For reliability modelling normal function has been used and
lognormal distribution used for expected lifetime of the components. The former is traditionally used
for lifetime reliability prediction and the latter is referred to as an appropriate to model repair times of
structural components and machinery parts 42. So, lognormal distribution was tested to evaluate repair
times of machinery components and draw conclusion on effect of the necessary repair actions on
availability and maintainability of the entire system. Weibull distribution was only attempted to use once
on the safety system but the results were very unrealistic so this modelling function was omitted to use
for any modelling assessment, although it is the best to model increasing failure rates by time.
Reliability of the power plant, engines
There were three types of failure modes such as component failure, corrosion and improper maintenance
practice (as a consequence of human error). These modes were defined to arise within the times of 853,
365 and 160 days so failure rates apply accordingly for reliability assessment. For estimation of
component lifetimes, STD of the failure rates were estimated with some variation according to nature
of the failure modes. So, component failure and corrosion are similar in nature, so material and chemical
related processes are more predictable to occur than the less predictable human errors depending highly

20
on multiple factors. Thus, STD of the failure rates has been applied for lognormal function based
modelling and the results are given in Figure 16.

100
90
80 Exponential distribution of
70 component failure
Reliability / %

corrosion
60 Inappropriate maintenance
50
40 Log normal distribution of
30 component failure
corrosion
20 Inappropriate maintenance
10
0
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Time / years

Figure 16. Reliability assessment variation of engine(s) over time.

The exponentially decreasing reliability of the engine(s) for component failure remained acceptable
within the first year, but rest of the failure causes decreased severely reliability metric of the system
even within this short period especially in case of human error impact which otherwise seems to be
realistic. In terms of severity, corrosion proved to be by far more detrimental than component failure
(based on quality of the material). The explanation is straightforward, the engine experiences continuous
wear and heat in combination with oxidative chemical substances. So, life-time and/or repair times of
the engine parts due to corrosion damages, i.e., fretting corrosion of abraded surfaces, is plausibly
modelled by the lognormal distribution. When the reliability index drops to around 50% (within less
than year of service) then FLM is obviously required to undertake inspection and possible maintenance
actions. Predictability of material failure modes allow proper planning for FLM predictive type actions
relying a proper stock-up of parts in the inventory. So, although partial mission capability may arise
temporarily from incapacitated propulsion system of the ship for the time of CM work, availability of
the ship should not experience severe outage as such would do that in case of DM.

Water cooling pumps, seawater and pipework

Four types of failure modes were defined for the seawater and pipework namely blocking, wear and tear,
corrosion and cracking. The first blocking is an environmentally caused operational type failure mode,
usually nothing to do with quality and loss of integrity of structures and parts but all the rest types are
typically related to material and so structural failure modes closely connected to chemical nature of the
environment. From these modes, wear/tear and corrosion are thought to be more deterministic, more
confidently predictable than cracking. Therefore, STD of these distributions were given tighter factors
than cracking, and the calculation results are given in Figure 17. In case of these system components,
corrosion is considered to be the most decisive factor for deterioration and loss of reliability. Time
constant of corrosion may not seem to be short first but reliability of the system would certainly drop to
a critical level (depending on degree of tolerance) of 50% within a year which surely necessitates FLM
corrective actions. The second less severe group of reliability drop includes rest failure mechanisms,
i.e., blocking, wear and tear, and cracking. In this case, description by exponential distribution with the
continuously decreasing capability of the equipment matched well field level experiences. Furthermore,
by using lognormal distribution intolerable corrosion caused deterioration of the sea water affected
pipework would clearly and unanimously be slated inspection and repair works for the period of 1.25
years or 15 months which should be resolved by maintenance experts in the course of FLM. Other failure

21
modes like wear/tear and cracking would certainly allow more than 2 years of service without any
necessary FLM type inspection and repair.

100
90
80
70
Reliability / %

60 Exp. distriution of
blocking/wear-tear
50
of water cooling pumps
40 corrosion and
30 cracking of seawater & pipework

20 Log-normal distribution
10 blocking/wear-tear
corrosion
0 cracking
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00
Time / years

Figure 17. Reliability assessment of the water cooling pumps, seawater and pipework over time.

Lifting equipment/crane(s)
In view of variety of the possible failure modes, one of the worst affected structures might be the cranes
of ship lifting systems. The various failure modes cannot be avoided to encounter and accumulate over
time of operational readiness and use. These can be wear and tear, mechanical damage, contamination,
corrosion and material failure. Model calculation results of impact of the failure modes on system
reliability is presented in Figure 18a and the expected inspection and repair intervals for each failure
modes are given Figure 18b. Material failure proved to be the most severe failure mode, corrosion and
mechanical damage found moderate in the view of severity. Predictability of mechanical damage is very
low due to high variability of occurrences and the scales of impacts, which also depend on type of use
and the basic labour sentiment. Based on observation results, material failure, stemming from quality
and environmental factors too besides the effect of frequent load caused fatigue, is expected to require
either FLM or DM actions within less than a year. So, this failure mode surely severely affects
functionality and availability of the ship. Over the same period, the corrosion caused drop of reliability
to around 55% may also incapacitate the crane over the same period. Wear and tear along with
contamination would lead to the least serous effect and occurrence of these events are relatively low.
So, the lowest probability of failure modes may well be controlled by FLM via seldom mandatory
preventive or repair type corrective actions taken over 1.75 and 2.5 years, around 50% longer periods
than required to control other sorts of failure events of the system. Even though these events do not
decrease reliability and availability of the system markedly, probability of occurrence can largely be
restrained through observing good practice of use and proper work-morale.

22
 (a) Exponential survive funciton of
100 wear-tear
90 mechanical damage
contamination
80 corrosion
Reliability / %
70 material failure

60
50
40
30
20
10

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Time / years

(b) 100
90
80
70
Reliability / %

60
50
40
Lognormal survive funciton of
30 wear-tear
mechanical damage
20
contamination
10 corrosion
0 material failure

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Time / years

Figure 18. Exponential survive function modelled (a) reliability loss and (b) probable component life-
time of cranes of the ship lifting system.

Safety system, fire-fighting equipment

Reliability of the safety system, i.e., the fire-fighting equipment is one of the highest priority on a ship.
Equipment of this system was found to experience two types of failure modes such as component defect
and corrosion with MTBF of around 853 and 512 days which mean 2.3 and 1.4 years of failure time
intervals on a yearly basis, respectively. These are translated to possible event rates of 0.428 and 0.713
per year (assumed to be constant over time). Then the exponential based reliability of the system would
decrease markedly over time by both type of failure modes as it shown in Figure 19 but such a function
may not seem to be likely. Much more plausible reliability index can be obtained by the use of lognormal
distribution which is well suited for repair and lifetime assessment of system components. Nonetheless,
in this case system components are almost identical with functional capability of the equipment and its
parts. So, functionality of the safety system should be considered highly reliable over at least 1.25 years
of service (15 months). In addition, the validation of service-ability is expected to easily extend to longer

23
inspection and possible repair times up to around 2.5 years or even more if the equipment is stored and
used in ways of sparing from severe corrosion effects of the maritime environment.

100
90
80
70
Reliability / %

60
50
40 Exponential distribution of
component defect
30 corrosion
20
Log normal distribution of
10 component defect
0 corrosion

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Time / years

Figure 20. Reliability variation of the safety system over time and the expected life-time of the fire-
fighting equipment.

Yet again, corrosion can be far more detrimental to decrease reliability of many system components
reaching around 50% within around a year in comparison with other failure mechanisms. All predictable
and controllable failure modes must be handled via FLM actions so that availability of the ship is to be
kept at the highest possible rate. If high reliability threshold or low reliability loss can only be tolerable
then FLM based inspection and repair must be dominant to certain and complete functionality. If it is
required with, e.g. the safety system, then maintenance periods can be shortened to around half a year
which otherwise a generally accepted practice to regularly check state and capability of safety devices
and equipment in the industry.

Supportability of ships with spare-parts

There are multiple types of failure modes and structural failure consequences. Some of the consequences
like repair and recoating of the ship-hull, complete recovery of the ballast and fuel tanks can only be
resolved by DM and several types of degradation of state and integrity losses can surely be controlled
and resolved by FLM actions. The preparation for all well-known (expected) failures and provide fast
reaction to these events by corrective measures necessitates certain extent of stock-up in inventory of
the ship. Relying on these stock-ups in combination of well organised systematic field level inspection,
any loss of full mission capability and possible degradation to partial mission capability over prolonged
times is expected to stave-off. In the aspect of logistic support of ships. Maintainability of the system is
highly dependent on this factor so it is worth taking some consideration and investigation. The extent of
safety stocks with parts must be carefully considered in line with demand for the scale of each parts
besides the overall capacity and time factor of the supply chain. Then relying on statistical calculations
proper prediction can be obtained on scale of the necessary safety stocks for all items to ensure steady
good performance of the users and maximum attainable free space (or lowest necessary occupation of
storing facilities) which means optimum solution of the required stock level at certain confidential level
of safety 43. This approach also helps to minimise the cost of inventory storage. For the calculations,
there are factors required to consider such as natural fluctuations in demand from the end users (ship
crew) highly dependent on type of the mission, forecast inaccuracy, natural variability of lead times of
the materials regardless from logistic support or directly from the manufacturer.

24
 For the equipment and machinery on ships, calculation of safety stock of FLM repairable parts
relies on t-score which depends on confidence or safety level of the support (no stock-outs), performance
cycle or life cycle of the parts, standard deviation of demand, increment or complete lead time.
If there is variability in the support chain too and so lead time varies then two scenarios can be
possible and so they must be considered independently. The one is when variation of demand and lead
time independent of each other, whereas the other when these factors are not independent. In these cases,
standard deviation of lead time is used along with the average demand. Example calculation is provided
in Table 3. Data used for calculation of inventory safety stock on ships and submarines.. Surface warfare
ships and submarines were considered with typical supply periods of monthly and early basis. Standard
deviation of demand was calculated with one fifth part of the demand scale which is expected to address
restrained variability, high predictability of the system over time.

Table 3. Data used for calculation of inventory safety stock on ships and submarines.
Surface warfare ships Submarines
Performance cycle of parts (year): 1 1
Performance cycle of parts (month): 0.083 0.083
Demand (hinges, latches, bolts): 100 500
STD of demand (1/5): 20 100
per month (demand) 100 42
per month (STD) 20 8
Lead time (support ship, days): 3.0 5.0
STD of lead time (cruising, 1/3): 1.0 1.7
per month (lead time) 0.10 0.17
per month (STD) 0.03 0.06
Production cycle or storage (month): 104 104
at logistic support centre
Confidence of stock-in, T level (%): 95 95
Z (number, at tolerance level %): 1.645 1.645
Number of days over periods: 30 30
Safety stock 1 (piece /month): 1.7 0.7
with variable lead time in regard
Safety stock 2 (piece /month): 3.47 2.60
demand & lead time not independent
Safety stock 3 (piece /month): 7.22 4.53

It should be noticed extent of the safe inventory stock (second part in the series topology) primarily
depends on the variability of demand, dominant factor having around an order of magnitude larger than
variability of lead time. Variability of lead time of the supply chain inevitably leads to marked increase
of the necessary safety stock level first. If lead time of the supply chain is not independent, affected by
the demand variability (highly obvious in war times) then safety stock level increases considerably
further again. Thus, it becomes understandable in warfare situations large scale of viable logistic can
only be assured close participation of support ships. This overall means that for duty service missions
in peace times if high level customer support is not required (depending on predictability of CM actions
at the navy), then safety stock can be rationalised to appropriate stock levels.

Reliability and maintainability of vessels

Reliability and maintainability of maritime vessels have been estimated and in case of the latter all three
types of the availability such as inherent, achieved and operational considered for maintainability
assessment. Modelling calculations were restrained for a simplified system composed of the coated hull,
coated ballast and fuel tanks, and coated deck plates. Reliability modelling was performed in accordance

25
with the aforementioned reliability block diagram (Figure 14) and fault tree analysis (Figure 15). Even
though for adaptable and flexible optimisation of the maintenance policy, both the worst and best case
scenarios were considered to estimation of failure times/rates relying on reference data in the literature
to make conservative (low bound with medium quality of paint coatings) and optimistic (upper bound
with high quality of paint coatings) modelling calculations, only results of the worst case scenarios are
discussed in the following. Input parameters used for modelling are summarised in Table 4. As an
example, upper and lower bound failure times of the coatings on ship hull were 6.5 and 11 years, 8 and
14 years for the coatings on ballast tanks, etc. Failure times and event rates are referenced in years.

Table 4. Repair and replacement times during DM actions (the best and worst case scenarios).
ballast tanks
Parameter type coating hull coating coating fuel tanks coating deck plates
(& trimmers)
Lower bound: 6.5 8 10 12
Upper bound: 11 35 14 35 16 35 22 35
Failure rates,
0.154 0.125 0.100 0.083
MTTF (or MTBF)
(event/year): 0.091 0.029 0.071 0.029 0.063 0.029 0.045 0.029

For an availability focused estimation, several times to repairs were defined as follows: lower
bound repair (coating partial repair), medium 1 repair with full re-coating, medium 2 repair with full re-
coating + maintenance actions, and upper bound extent of maintenance actions with full replacement
and re-coating. To have distinct difference in potential effects of the time periods for the sake of impact
investigation on maintainability, inherent, achieved and operational types of availability were also
defined. Therefore, total corrective maintenance (FLM, assumed to be zero), total preventive
maintenance (DM), the lower and upper bound inspection periods (at R= ~50%) their sum have been
defined. The zero assumption of the first element (FLM) was intended to analyse decisive effect of the
extent and occurrence of DM actions. Furthermore, to obtain the total down time (TDT), administration
and logistic delay were also defined, which contained the following terms: docking time with cruising
(back and forth per year), scaffolding and other necessary actions before and after DM works (forth and
back, with placing) and possible waiting times per DM occasions (average estimation in days per a year).

Exp. distribution of reliability of

1.0 WCS and
BCS of coating on
0.9 hull
0.8
WCS and
0.7 BCS of coating on
Reliability index

0.6 ballast tanks

0.5 WCS and

BCS of coating on
0.4
fuel tanks
0.3
WCS and
0.2 BCS of coating on
0.1 deck

0.0 System reliability

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 worst case sceario (WCS)
best case sceario (BCS)
Time / years

Figure 21. Reliability assessment of lumped system elements and the complete system in case of two
distinct scenarios incorporating effect of the ship hull, ballast and fuel tanks, and deck structures.

26
What was interesting as an outcome of this simplified estimation, inspection times expressed in days
projected for a year on average indicated negligible effect less than 1% on availability. As it seen in
Figure 22, steel structure of the ship hull is generally a very reliable sturdy construction but the applied
coatings and value of the maintenance practice is usually one of the most sensitive factor in decreasing
reliability of the ships. Some lower impact but altogether the same behaviour applies to reliability
function of the ballast tanks. Reliability risk of the fuel tanks remain in the same branch of tendencies
but at least it poses the lowest probability of failure and so representing the lowest bound reliability drop
from the key functional structures over time. Coatings on deck structures can be critical in regard of
their impact on reliability of the structure but in combination with deck steel plates it remains reasonable.
The overall system reliability varies between around 10 and may up to 25 years, depending degree of
corrosion tolerance and the required safety level.

Maintainability of structural
1.00 components of

0.95 coating on
hull
0.90
Maintainability index

coating on
0.85 ballast tanks

0.80 coating on
fuel tanks
0.75
coating on
0.70 deck

0.65 System maintainability

based on inherent availability
0.60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years
Figure 23. Maintainability of lumped system elements and the complete system incorporating effect of
the ship hull, ballast and fuel tanks, and deck structures in case of inherent availability.

1.00 Maintainability of structural

components of
0.95
0.90 coating on
hull
0.85
Maintainability index

0.80 coating on
0.75 ballast tanks
0.70 coating on
0.65 fuel tanks
0.60
coating on
0.55 deck
0.50
System maintainability
0.45 based on achived availability
0.40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years
Figure 24. Maintainability of lumped system elements and the complete system incorporating effect of
the ship hull, ballast and fuel tanks, and deck structures in case of achieved availability.

27
Maintainability of the system indicted great variation when ship structures are subjected to maintenance
practice attaining inherent availability of the system (Figure 25). The order of decreasing maintainability
of the structures is reflected in line with reliability priority of the structures. As on overall impression,
immediate corrective actions, from which majority of them are not achievable by FLM rather DM so
these modelling approach theoretically would ensure good maintainability of the system for noticeable
time periods, easily reaching 35 years of service or even more.

Maintainabiliy of structural
1.0 components of

0.9 coating on
hull
0.8
Maintainability index

coating on
0.7 ballast tanks

0.6 coating on
fuel tanks
0.5
coating on
0.4 deck

0.3 System maintainability

based on operational availability
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time / years

Figure 26. Maintainability of lumped system elements and the complete system incorporating effect of
the ship hull, ballast and fuel tanks, and deck structures in case of operational availability.

When both preventive and corrective maintenance actions are considered, then maintainability of the
system would still remain acceptable at around 35 years of service (Figure 27) but the extent of decrease
is noticeable compared to the inherent availability based maintainability metrics (Figure 28). Entirely
based on availability and not considering economic related cost factors, this scale of maintainability
decrease manifests the important and huge role of DM actions. If the assets are required to realise high
availability, then DM intervals must be extended which can be achieved by combination of high quality
initial conditions with regular inspection and good FLM practice.
In case of the operational availability based maintainability assessment when any action depends
on mobilisation of maintenance sources and the logistic supply chains, then maintainability of the system
would be acceptable at the end of 35 years long service (Figure 29). As it seems clearly in tendency of
the decreasing index curves of the components, lumped elements of the interrelated structures from
Figure 30 to Figure 31, readiness of the FLM and DM actions along with reaction time of the supply
chain may highly limit maintainability of complex systems, leading to converging towards an overall
much poorer resultant availability and maintainability which would not be expected. This reflects on the
importance of viability of the maintenance works and support actions contributing to entire functionality
of the ships whilst not limiting their readiness and time of service on long term.

Operational availability of the navy vessels

To exemplify the astonishing impact of mobilisation delay and slow reaction time of support by logistic
system during DM actions, conclusion on dramatically decreased availability of the US Navy forces is
herewith discussed and serves an edifying sample 44. Over a decade between 2008 and 2018, the US
Navy showed high inefficiency and incapability at initiation and completion of the necessary DM works
on majority of the attack submarines on time, which altogether led to arise of significant amount of DM
cost combined with intolerable degree of availability loss. The report also clearly states, around 82% of
delays are exclusively related to DM. The overall loss of 10363 days with 14 submarines over the decade
is decomposed to 60 lost days of maintenance delays and 14 days of idle time of the assets. What more

28
exacerbate is the fact this huge unavailability does not distribute equally over time periods rather in
some occasions completely uneven with the consequence of long idle times with pier-side docking. In
comparison over 16 years of service, aircraft carriers (11 in numbers) experienced quite modest delays
with 8 days per year. So, unavailability of the submarines was at least 20%, whereas surface warfare
assets were managed quite well with a neglect-able loss (2%). All these losses emerged as a consequence
of delays in DM coupled with unavoidable periods of getting into and out of the shipyards. The reason
of heavy workload and busy schedule was blamed originally for the delays but frankly this factor could
not be a valid for idle time of the vessels for over a decade or even longer (highly implausible). The true
reason for such extent of maintenance backlogs is the insufficient capacity of designated dock-yards.
The scale of DM and its necessary time periods required for the fleet far exceeded capacity of the dry-
dock yards, as well as capability and pace of the work performed at shipyard facilities 45. In purely
economic aspects, these delays are associated with tens of millions of dollars per year and submarine on
average which is clearly staggering without operational capability and possible deployment in return.
Nevertheless, the overall picture is more aggravating when the one considers the consequence of idle
times of pier-side docking (not dry docking) on the assets. This allows emerge of favourable condition
to initiation and progress of pitting corrosion. So, the risk of local damage of the hull steel structure may
not only be caused by deposition and biotic type corrosion processes stemming from biofouling, but the
stagnant fluid results in limited mass transport of oxidative depolarisators and so leading to sensitisation,
concentrated metal loss at grain boundaries and dislocations during idle times of the vessels. If dry-
docking does not take place immediate after berthing, then long-term reliability and safety of the assets
can be highly compromised. So, preventive maintenance ensures perfect reliability but availability and
economic factors may become very down-graded. Relying on corrective maintenance, availability and
economic factors may remain in the optimal range but reliability, full mission capability and
modernisation of the vessels are compromised. As for corrective maintenance, the scale of corrosion
tolerance and its consequence in cost of maintenance may not be fully evident over long terms. In fact,
as a consequence of maintenance deferrals, difference between scheduled and required action can be
around 30% distributed over a decade or so before backlogs may properly be addressed. As it learned
from case studies on the largest ship classes, i.e., destroyers and cruiser type navy vessels, the rate of
deferment maintenance may sometimes reach the experienced maximum, half of the scheduled one.
What is more, increasing size of the vessels and their budgetary implications tend to increase this
tendency. Careful analysis pointed out the fact the latter factor is more closely correlate with
maintenance deferrals and backlogs so economic aspects often have overruling effects on availability of
the navy vessels. The intention of increasing spending during realised maintenance is usually attempted
at mitigating the impact of deferrals and the scale of this spending becomes higher with the extent of
maintenance deferment. To some up conclusions on effect of extensive maintenance deferrals, it leads
to comprehensive and progressive deterioration and so much lower maintainability of the facilities after
half of their expected service life.
So, either way the huge fleet size or the frequent DM actions would surely lead to deferrals and so
delays in proceeding with the required maintenance works. Thus, seldom DM actions with the lowest
possible reaction, supply and logistic delays are preferred for the reasons of high availability and service
readiness besides the low risk of local deteriorations. The latter may not be considered as a potential risk
during design phase for good reasons (unexpected occurrence and unpredictable patterns). The local
deterioration like pitting corrosion especially in its early phase can be quite hard to detect by many
techniques during routine inspections without coating removal but its effect may take a huge toll on
strength, stiffness of the structures (unaware of severely decreasing reliability).

Economics, cost of maintenance operations and corrosion cost

Over the period between 2004 and 2016, corrosion related cost of the navy ships was ~25% of the overall
maintenance cost. This ratio seemed to decease only in the last years, especially in 2016 to ~20% which
is considered to be remarkable. In case of aviation and missiles, this number remained steady at ~28%
over the same term. Based on the latter, unavailability of the navy assets was ~31% in 2016 and quite
similar over the previous years (such information on vessels is unknown due to classification).
Considering type of the vessels, submarines and amphibious feature steadily 20% corrosion related cost
of overall M expenditure, whereas this ratio of the surface warfare vessels is around 15%. These ratios

29
are respected healthy and acceptable in middle of the cycle-life. Any vessel may show less favourable
proportion of corrosion share of M cost then large revamp or decommission should be thought over. The
average corrosion cost and U of marine corps were at 22.5% and 23.6%, respectively, somewhat lower
than experienced at the navy, whereas these two ratios moved together rather than departing from each
other as in case of the navy. In comparison, ground army and the air force with corrosion cost of ~16%
and ~21% and U ratio of less than 8% and 11%, respectively are clearly distinct and under the ratios
realised by both the navy and the marine corps. Explanation of origin to these differences is as follows.
The one, exposure of assets to seawater and maritime conditions is an utmost factor on increased
integrity deterioration of the structures. All other groups of assets are less severely affected by the
environmental variables. The second, restrained mobility of the ships and submarines compared to
ground army and air forces, and the wide distance of depot facilities help understand the longer time
spent on structure by DM (NMC state) and departing ratio of corrosion related cost and U. From a
staggering proportion of 42% U equals to 155 days of DM connected out of service of the navy ships,
and still remarkable ~38 days of U remains for corrosion-related work during dry-docking DM on
average. What is more astounding, corrosion-related M cost of the entire dry-dock DM is of ~25%. This
is supported by the statement (found in the LMI reports); DM cost list of navy ships and submarines led
by dry-docking and undocking, painting and blasting of underwater hull and vice versa. Departing ratio
of corrosion related cost and U at FLM may also relate to partial MC statues by longer repair times with
parts. In other words, there is a notable difference between achieved and operational A and so planning
of DM, whereas at FLM achieved A may well be attained by crew members without any notable delay
in getting M action (aside from the time span of M delivery). What interesting, DM requires immoderate
spending but reduces A by an unprecedented extent and despite of that, unlimited spending on PM
usually does not result in reduction of CM. So, this policy generally leads negative impact on both
military budget and A of the vessels.
Similar situation applied to the aviation and marine corps. There is a close relationship between
corrosion cost (especially labour cost) along with components, structures and parts, and corrosion-
related NA days. Yet again, majority of M is preventive up to 67% of all corrosion related NA days of
all aircraft, in which inspection dominates corrosion-related NA days. The average reported MC of Navy
and Marine Corps aircraft was ~70%. So, NMC rate was ~30% and the majority of U was the
consequence of M (20.8%) rather than supply (6.7%) or supportability. More on that, U of aircraft due
to M was ~22% resulted by unscheduled, unexpected NA. Average number of NMC days per aircraft
for all navy and marine corps was 119 days (in 2012). From them, the SH-60B helicopter had the highest
average reported NMC days with 174 days, whereas this type of aircraft was NA for 265 days, the
highest average. At DM, 41.0% of the records were connected to corrosion-related work, but only ~21%
of total DM type UNA days was corrosion assigned. At FLM, ~48% of the records were NMC time
associated with corrosion-related work, but 22% of the NMC days related to corrosion. Based on total
number of aircraft NA days, for both reported NMC and unreported UNA, corrosion was identified as
a direct cause for only 17% of days. So, the Navy and Marine Corps aviation assets were less affected
on U to fulfil their mission due to corrosion. Unlike the percentage of use was close to corrosion cost,
this relationship was not valid for corrosion-related NA days. Scheduled inspections led to ~21% of
corrosion costs and lowered use, but only ~8% translated to corrosion-related NA days. The percentage
of corrosion-related NA days is much higher than percentage of cost or use, which means these NA days
do not relate to frequency of usage and longer than expected. Unless M is dedicated to corrosion-related
inspection, corrosion is only ancillary factor to NMC or UNA time. Generally, mechanical malfunction
is the major part of NMC or UNA M records. So, any problem with supportability may not be
encountered and it must be a low-profile factor in both reported and unreported U. Probably, when
preventive works would approach the degree of C actions then supportability might arise as a critical
factor. In this view, unreported U was high and so it is obviously related to the excessive extent of DM
actions.
As for the ratio of PM and CM actions, DM always ranges from 1.5 up to 4. This seems to be far
excessive even in line with the RAMS principles 46, in accordance with an expected healthy ratio of
around 1 stressed many times by experts in the LMI reports. In comparison at FLM, the ratio of
corrective and preventive actions changes generally between 0.5 and 1.5 which is a healthier, properly
justified acceptable ratio. As an example, necessary of corrective actions is related to corrosion
percentage of ballast tanks typically repaired during DM varying from 60% up to 90%, similar to

30
painting. Healthy condition of ballast tanks is no matter of compromise due to direct dependence of
FMC. This is affirmed by surveys conducted among ship-board M and non-M specialty crew members.
According to the result at FLM, ship-board M specialty makes 45% corrective work of the overall (near
1:1 ratio with preventive), whereas corrective work by non-M specialty crew reaches only 30% and the
rest of ~60% preventive in nature of the overall M actions.
By decomposition of corrosion related material cost to structure and parts, in general the ratio of
corrosion related cost of structure and parts are around 50% and 30% at DM respectively, whereas these
decrease to around 30% and 25% at FLM respectively. These data add up to ~30% corrosion related
cost of the overall M cost. After learning shortfalls of the M management at both levels of economics
and A, then conclusion comes as both quality and performance of the maintenance work fall down under
expectations. In identification of type of the repair work, painting (preventive in nature), trunks and
enclosures along with hull are the most expensive corrosion related M factors of navy ships and
submarines but all other repairs fall below 50% of corrosion share in M. Thus, both DM and FLM need
support at decision making to take justified actions based on real-time SHM data so instruction of a
monitoring system seems to be well-founded. As for the navy aircraft fleet, airframe and engines in this
order are the main cost factors of corrosion related M, comparable to the one by ships.
In regard with DM and FLM, around half of the cases labour cost takes several times of the material
cost no matter of organic and commercial. This ratio may be acceptable for FLM whilst exchanging
smaller parts rather than repairing large structures during DM. Overall, FLM is almost always a larger
cost factor than DM, and labour cost takes up much higher proportion of the FLM than part of DM,
which is propelled by labour of non-maintenance experts, ship-board sailors. Their work is registered as
ONR and props really up FLM cost. Even though ONR is mainly related CM rather than PM, the reason
of inefficient corrosion related FLM by sailors is also confirmed by the following fact. The ratio of
organic and commercial costs by DM are between 1 and 1.5, but at FLM this ratio varies at least an
order of magnitude higher or above, which can only be interpreted by excessive time spent on corrosion
related work far not comparable to the efficiency of dedicated depot and commercial experts. This is the
point to underscore the relevance of employment of educated and skilled experts and training of the
marine crew. Furthermore, this is partly also in relationship with the generally large gap between top-
down and bottom-up approach of cost analysis. This interpreted as dedicated M experts spend more time
with M actions than non-M experts and this gap increases from DM to FLM.
In the aforementioned analysis, safety of the vessels and the crew during maintenance and operation
of the vessels were by far not compromised. Mission capability or partial mission capability was
warranted besides safe operation to pilots and crew members, as provided time for maintenance was
more than required to meet safety aspects. It is believed inefficiency to perform M actions cannot be
related to unreasonable level of safety measures.
To remark on implementation of SHM techniques with unpleasant impact in economic sense,
wireless sensors and assisting management was by far the largest cost factor in the R&D budget evoked
by the LMI report 2006. Despite of that due to the different scale of the sensors and the monitoring
system compared to the value of assets, financial turn-over of introduction of a monitoring system must
have been returned over medium term in the form of rationalised ratio of planned and justified PM and
CM actions and increased A. Inasmuch implementation of a monitoring system, it could be suitable for
rationalisation of DM, to restrain preventive M actions and structure related works to degrees giving
healthier ratio with corrective actions close to 1:1, regardless of labour proportion of the cost structure.

Policy and politics

The MoD is one of the largest employer in the Netherlands with more than 65,000 employees. The
Dutch Navy is responsible for maintaining national security, interests and strategic objectives by
maritime operations in peace times, taking active role in engaging in international security cooperation,
maintaining general safety by coast guarding, offering maritime assistance to diplomacy, acting for law
enforcement and crime fighting in nearby region of the North Sea, in direct borderline with Germany,
Belgium and the United Kingdom, and in close distance with Denmark and Norway and beyond that
territories 47. In regard with meeting these multiple roles, efficient service capabilities of the facilities
and assets affected continuously by the maritime environment, which is one of the most severe of all,
always necessities special assistance. Thus, a carefully designed and well established SHM system is

31
anticipated to effectively support maintenance management with valuable information to plan and carry
out predictive maintenance actions at the navy so as to meet better performance metrics of the assets
and so being able to attain tightly scheduled target objectives. Furthermore, according to the MARPOL
Convention 48 on International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the monitoring
system with appropriate functionality at forgoing corrective type actions can also be helpful to lessen
the environmental impact of corrosion of the navy facilities.

Summary
Reliability of the main functional elements depend almost equally on both initial value of the materials
and technology used for production of the ship structures which is a capital cost driver, and value of the
observed maintenance practice during lifetime of the vessels which is a maintenance related expenditure.
If quality of surface treatment and subsequent application of paint coatings is not followed by good
maintenance practice, then integrity and so reliability of all ship structures will be the subject of
considerable compromise.
Availability of the assets depends highly on reliability of the entire system and also the subsystems.
In case of internal factors such as proper materials and valuable conservation effort, availability of the
main ship system remains high. This is because some maintenance actions can only be performed via
DM and that type of work takes a huge toll on availability. Nevertheless, the multiple types of corrective
actions during FLM are not expected to require substantial amount of time. In addition, in the viewpoint
of external factors, even the best case scenario of the aforementioned parameters with the ships does not
warrant success on long-term preserved reliability and high availability because state and capacity of
the ship-yards responsible for DM actions must be matched with unceasing demand of the navy fleet for
dry-docking works. So, well devised continuous rotation schedules of the vessels along with
maintenance and storing facilities can certainly result in diverse patterns. In addition, genuinely
organising some empty time in the busy schedule and heavy workloads with complete standby and
reaction capability of the ship-yards ensures maximal performance and quality works delivered on time
without any deferral of necessary maintenance and modernisation carried out on the vessels.
FLM actions usually demand large supply of variety of spare parts much more frequently than in
case of DM. So in regard with supportability, there must be careful estimation of the safety stock level
in the inventory for every spare parts to ensure required, e.g., 95% of supportability of service, mission
capability. This performance metric depends much more on the demand side rather than on the logistic
part, supply-chain actions. Thus, in peace times with better probability pattern of usage of the machinery,
safety stock levels can be properly estimated according to former experience, type and extent of missions
to avoid severe stock-outs and so eliminate the chance of partial or complete mission incapability.
In terms of economics, sustainability and maintainability of the ships, too early maintenance actions
of rather preventive nature clearly lead to low availability and high cost, whereas late maintenance
actions with highly deferrals and huge backlogs will certainly compromise reliability and markedly
increasing cost especially after half of the expected lifetime. A well-functioning preventive maintenance
must rely on both comprehensive expert knowledge and a developed SHM system. Valuable information
on state of the structures could help the work of asset management to organise regularity and type of
maintenance events for both DM and FLM works, performing rather preventive and corrective actions
in nature, respectively. Furthermore, this should be complimented and supported by well-organised DM
actions relying on good cooperation with the asset management for rational and viable rotation
schedules.

References

1
The annual cost of corrosion for army ground vehicles and navy ships. LMI Report SKT50T1/APRIL 2006.
2
David A. Forman, Paul N. Chang, Eric F. Herzberg, Amelia R. Kelly, Norman T. O’Meara, James C. Tran, The
annual cost of corrosion for navy and marine corps aviation equipment. Report MEC70T3, LMI Report, Jun 2008.
3
Eric F. Herzberg, Trevor K. Chan, Paul N. Chang, Amelia R. Kelly, Muthu V. Kumaran, Norman T. O'Meara,
The annual cost of corrosion for navy ships. LMI Report 2006–2007 Update, MEC81T3, January 2010.
4
Eric Herzberg, Cost of Corrosion to DoD. at the Maintenance symposium, corrosion prevention and control,
integrated product team, November 15, 2010.

32
5
Eric F. Herzberg, Trevor K. Chan, Paul N. Chang, Mitchell L. Daniels, Norman T. O’Meara, The effect of
corrosion on the cost and availability of navy and marine corps aviation weapon systems. Report OSD0GT1, LMI
Report, August 2011.
6
Eric F. Herzberg, Paul N. Chang, Mitch L. Daniels, Norman T. O'Meara, Estimate of the annual cost of corrosion
for navy ships. LMI Report FY2008–10 Update, Report DAC21T1, September 2012.
7
Eric F. Herzberg, Paul N. Chang, Norman T. O’Meara, Rebecca F. Stroh, The effect of corrosion on the cost and
availability of navy and marine corps aviation weapon systems. Report AKN31T6, LMI Report, December 2014.
8
Eric F. Herzberg, Determining corrosion’s effect on the cost and availability of DoD weapon systems and
equipment: methodology, SAL41T1 (Tysons, VA: LMI, November 2015).
9
Eric F. Herzberg, Trevor K. Chan, Siwei Guo, Alexander K. Morris, Anne Stevenson, Rebecca F. Stroh, FY18
Update by LMI Consulting Firm, Estimated impact of corrosion on cost and availability of DoD weapon systems,
March 2018.
10
A. Zayed, Y. Garbatov, C. Guedes Soares, Reliability of ship hulls subjected to corrosion and maintenance.
Structural Safety 43 (2013) 1–11.
11
Risk-based life cycle management of ship structures, SSC-416 Prediction of structural response in grounding
application to structural design, Ship Structure Committee, 2000.
12
N. Yamamoto, K. Ikegami, A study on the degradation of coating and corrosion of ship's hull based on the
probabilistic approach. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 120 (1998) 121–128.
13
Jörg Lampe, Rainer Hamann, Probabilistic model for corrosion degradation of tanker and bulk carrier. Marine
Structures 61 (2018) 309–325.
14
Hong-Qi Yang, Qi Zhang, San-Shan Tu, You Wang, Yi-Min Li, Yi Huang, A study on time-variant corrosion
model for immersed steel plate elements considering the effect of mechanical stress. Ocean Engineering 125
(2016) 134–146.
15
Spiro Ivosevic, Romeo Mestrovic, Natasa Kova, Probabilistic estimates of corrosion rate of fuel tank structures
of aging bulk carriers. International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering 11 (2019) 165–177.
16
Unyime O. Akpana, T.S. Kokoa, B. Ayyubb, T.E. Dunbar, Risk assessment of aging ship hull structures in the
presence of corrosion and fatigue. Marine Structures 15 (2002) 211–231.
17
Jeom Kee Paik, Anil K. Thayamballi, Young Il Park, Joon Sung Hwang, A time-dependent corrosion wastage
model for seawater ballast tank structures of ships. Corrosion Science 46 (2004) 471–486.
18
R.E. Melchers, Mathematical modelling of the diffusion controlled phase in marine immersion corrosion of mild
steel. Corrosion Science 45 (2003) 923–940.
19
Shengping Qin, Weicheng Cui, Effect of corrosion models on the time-dependent reliability of steel plated
elements. Marine Structures 16 (2003) 15–34.
20
Y. Garbatov, C. Guedes Soares, Structural maintenance planning based on historical data of corroded deck plates
of tankers. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 94 (2009) 1806–1817.
21
Y. Garbatov, C. Guedes Soares, G. Wang, Non-linear time dependent corrosion wastage of deck plates of ballast
and cargo tanks of tankers. abs technical papers 2005, Proceedings of OMAE05, 24th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. June 12-17, 2005, Halkidiki, Greece. pp. 67–75.
22
Y. Garbatov, C. Guedes Soares, G. Wang, Nonlinear time dependent corrosion wastage of deck plates of ballast
and cargo tanks of tankers. Transactions of the ASME 129 (2007) 48–55.
23
A. Heyer, F.D' Souza, C.F. Leon Morales, G. Ferrari, J.M.C. Mol, J.H.W. de Wit, Ship ballast tanks are view
from microbial corrosion and electrochemical point of view. Ocean Engineering 70 (2013) 188–200.
24
Kris de Baere, Helen Verstraelen, Lucien Lemmens, Silvia Lenaerts, Raf Dewil, Yves van Ingelgem, Geert
Potters, A field study of the effectiveness of sacrificial anodes in ballast tanks of merchant ships. Journal of Marine
Science Technology (2013). DOI 10.1007/s00773-013-0232-3
25
Kris de Baere, Helen Verstraelen, Raf Dewil, Lucien Lemmens, Silvia Lenaerts, Tharcissa Nkunzimana, Geert
Potters, Impact of tank construction on corrosion of ship ballast tanks. Materials Performance NACE International
49(5) (2010) 48–54.
26
M.T. Gudze, R.E. Melchers, Operational based corrosion analysis in naval ships. Corrosion Science 50 (2008)
3296–3307.
27
Jeom Kee Paik, Anil Kumar Thayamballi, Jae Myung Lee, Young Il Park, Time-dependent risk assessment of
aging ships accounting for general/pit corrosion, fatigue cracking and local denting damage. For presentation at
the 2003 SNAME Annual Meeting in San Francisco, ABS Technical Papers 2003, pp. 219–255.
28
Feng Guo-Qing, Hu Bing-Nan, Ren Hui-Long, Reliability of the ultimate strength of ship stiffened panel
subjected to random corrosion degradation. China Ocean Engineering 31(1) (2017) 11–18.
29
A. Zayed, Y. Garbatov, C. Guedes Soares, Corrosion degradation of ship hull steel plates accounting for local
environmental conditions. Ocean Engineering 163 (2018) 299–306.
30
Y. Garbatov, C. Guedes Soares, G. Wang, Nonlinear time-dependent corrosion wastage of deck plates of ballast
and cargo tanks of tankers. J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng. 129 (1) (2007) 48–55.

33
 31
C. Guedes Soares, Y. Garbatov, A. Zayed, G. Wang, Corrosion wastage model for ship crude oil tanks. Corrosion
Science 50(11) (2008) 3095–3106.
32
C. Guedes Soares, Y. Garbatov, Reliability of maintained, corrosion protected plates subjected to non-linear
corrosion and compressive loads. Marine Structures 12(6) (1999) 425–445.
33
J K Paik, A K Thayamballi, Ultimate strength of ageing ships. Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 216 Part M: J
Engineering for the Maritime Environment. (2002) 57–77.
34
Military standard procedures for performing a failure mode, effects and criticality analysis by Department of
Defense Washington, DC 20301, MIL-STD-1629A, AMSCN 3074, 24 November 1980.
35
Unyime O. Akpan, T. S. Koko, B. Ayyub, T.E. Dunbar, Reliability assessment of corroding ship hull structure.
Naval Engineers Journal (Technical Paper) Fall (2003) 37–48.
36
Bilal M. Ayyub, Karl A. Stambaugh, Timothy A. McAllister, Gilberto F. de Souza, David Webb, Structural life
expectancy of marine vessels: ultimate strength, corrosion, fatigue, fracture, and systems. ASCE-ASME Journal
of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part B: Mechanical Engineering 1 (2015) 011001:1–13.
37
You Dong, Dan M. Frangopol, Risk-informed life-cycle optimum inspection and maintenance of ship structures
considering corrosion and fatigue. Ocean Engineering 101 (2015) 161–171.
38
R.E. Melchers, Modeling of marine immersion corrosion for mild and low-alloy steels—Part 1:
phenomenological model. Corrosion—59(4) (2003) 319–334.
39
D.W. Temple, M.D. Collette, Minimizing lifetime structural costs: Optimizing for production and maintenance
under service life uncertainty. Marine Structures 40 (2015) 60−72.
40
Paik Jeom Kee, Lee Myung, Hwang Joon Sung, Park II Young. A time-dependent corrosion wastage model for
the structures of single-and double hull tankers FSOs and FPSOs. Maritime Technology 40(3) (2003) 201−217.
41
O. Turan, I. Lazakis, S. Judah, A. Incecik, Investigating the reliability and criticality of the maintenance
characteristics of a diving support vessel. Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 27 (2011) 931−946. DOI: 10.1002/qre.1182
42
Roy Billinton, Ronald N. Allan, Reliability evaluation of engineering systems, Concepts and Techniques.
Second Edition, Springer Science + Business Media, LLC., 1992. ISBN 978-1-4899-0685-4 (eBook). DOI
10.1007/978-1-4899-0685-4
43
Peter L. King, CSCP, Crack the code, understanding safety stock and mastering its equations. APICS magazine
(2011) 33–36.
44
NAVY readiness actions needed to address costly maintenance delays facing the attack submarine fleet. GAO-
19-229, November 2018.
45
Bradley Martin, Michael E. McMahon, Jessie Riposo, James G. Kallimani, Angelena Bohman, Alyssa Ramos,
Abby Schendt, A strategic assessment of the future of U.S. navy ship maintenance challenges and opportunities,
by Rand Corporation, 2017, pp. 1-96. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9923-5
46
“It is better to afraid of happening something rather than let it happen” the RAMS approach invented by the US
military experts, redundant assurance of mission-capability of the assets.
47
Fundamentals of maritime operations Netherlands maritime military doctrine, Ministry of Defense, 13 February
2014.
48
MARPOL - International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973. Amended by Resolution
MEPC.111(50) Amended by Resolution MEPC.115(51) Amended by Resolution MEPC.116(51)

34

View publication stats