Chemical Tanker

Related terms:

Oil Pollution, Oil Tankers, Bulk Carrier, Gross Tonnage, Passenger Ship, Liquefied
Gas

View all Topics

Learn more about Chemical Tanker

Tanker construction
D.J. Eyres M.Sc., F.R.I.N.A., G.J. Bruce M.B.A, F.R.I.N.A., MSNAME., in Ship Con-
struction (Seventh Edition), 2012

Chemical tankers
The structural configurations and arrangements of chemical tankers often are ba-
sically similar to those described for oil tankers, particularly where the chemical
product is not required to be carried in an independent tank. For some cargoes tanks
constructed of stainless steel are preferred. Where the chemical product is required
to be carried in an independent tank the structure and arrangements may be similar
to ships carrying liquefied gases described in Chapter 23.

Regardless of size, ships built or converted on or after 1 July 1986 and engaged in
the carriage of bulk cargoes of dangerous or noxious liquid chemical substances,
other than petroleum or similar flammable products, are required to comply with
the International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying
Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code). Such ships built or converted before that
date are to comply with the earlier Code for the Construction and Equipment of
Ships Carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (BCH Code). Ships that comply with
these requirements are issued with an ‘International Certificate of Fitness for the
Carriage of Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk’.
Under the IBC Code chemical tankers are designed and constructed to one of three
specified standards. A type 1 ship is a chemical tanker intended for the transportation
of products considered to present the greatest overall hazard. It should be capable of
surviving the most severe standard of damage and its cargo tanks should be located
at the maximum prescribed distance inboard from the shell plating. Type 2 and 3
ships carry products of progressively lesser hazards. Where a ship is intended to carry
a range of products it is assigned the standard applicable to the product having the
most stringent ship type requirement.

The IBC Code also defines cargo tank types. Tank type 1 is an independent tank
that is not contiguous with, or part of, the hull structure. Tank type 2 is an integral
tank, i.e. it is part of the ship’s hull structure. A gravity tank (G) is an independent
or integral tank that has a design pressure of not more than 0.7 bar gage at the top
of the tank. A pressure tank (P) is an independent tank that has a design pressure of
more than 0.7 bar gage.

The IBC Code specifies for each individual product to be carried the ship type and
required tank type, e.g. sulfuric acid—ship type 3—tank type 2G.

Also, requirements for the materials of construction, freeboard, stability, general

arrangement, piping arrangements, electrical and environmental arrangements,
tank venting and gas freeing, fire protection, etc. of chemical tankers are covered
by the IBC Code.

Figure 22.4 shows a 130 m LOA type II oil products/chemical tanker of 12,700 tonnes
deadweight. The 130 meter length overall by 20 meter breadth by 9.75 meter depth
vessel has 12 cargo tanks, equipped to carry six different types or grades of cargo
simultaneously. Each tank has a deepwell pump rated at 300 cubic meters per hour
and the ship’s maximum discharge rate is 1800 cubic meters per hour with six lines
working at the same time.

Figure 22.4. Oil products/chemical tanker of 12,700 tonnes deadweight.

> Read full chapter

Intact Stability Regulations I

Adrian Biran, Rubén López-Pulido, in Ship Hydrostatics and Stability (Second Edi-
tion), 2014

8.2.4 Oil Tankers of 5000 t Deadweight and Above

An oil tanker is defined as a ship constructed or adapted primarily to carry oil in bulk
in its cargo spaces. The definition includes combination carriers and any chemical
tanker when it is carrying a cargo or partial cargo of oil in bulk. When in port, the
initial metacentric height corrected for the free-surface effect shall not be less than
0.15 m, and when at sea:

1. The area under the righting-arm curve shall be not less than up to 30°, and not
less than up to 40° or the angle of flooding, whichever is smaller. Additionally,
the area under the righting-arm curve, between 30° and 40° or the angle of
flooding, whichever is smaller, shall not be less than .
2. The righting lever shall be at least 0.20 m at an angle of heel equal to or greater
than 30°.
3. The maximum righting arm shall occur at an angle of heel preferably exceed-
ing 30° but not less than 25°.
4. The initial metacentric height, corrected for the free-surface effect, shall not
be less than 0.1 m.

> Read full chapter

Hydrogen Storage and Transport by Or-

ganic Hydrides and Application of Am-
monia
In Science and Engineering of Hydrogen-Based Energy Technologies, 2019

Organic Chemical Hydride Method

The organic chemical hydride method (OCH) is a method of converting an aromatic
group such as toluene to a hydrogenation reaction, converting it to a saturated
cyclic compound such as methyl cyclohexane, and using this as a hydrogen storage
medium at room temperature and atmospheric pressure. It is a method of storing
and transporting in the liquid state and generating hydrogen by dehydrogenation
reaction at the place of use.

Since OCH can be stored and transported in the liquid state at normal temperature
and normal pressure, there is little latent risk involved, and transportation is per-
formed similarly to conventional liquid chemicals in chemical tankers and chemical
lorries. In such a situation there is reduced risk and more efficiency as compared
to the transportation of compressed or liquid hydrogen. It is easier to compare and
it is considered to be particularly suitable for storing and transporting hydrogen
in large quantities. Representative hydrogenation/dehydrogenation reaction pairs
include methylcyclohexane (MCH) type, cyclohexane type, and decalin type as shown
in Eqs. (5.10) to (5.12) in Fig. 5.16.

Figure 5.16. Representative hydrogenation/dehydrogenation reaction pairs include

methylcyclohexane type, cyclohexane type, and decalin type.

These hydrogenation/dehydrogenation reaction pairs have comparatively high val-

ues of weight storage density and volume storage density. Fig. 5.17 shows a com-
parison of weight storage density and volume storage density of various hydrogen
storage and transport methods [24]. The OCH method has a high value of 7.1 wt%,
55.5 kg-H2/m3 in cyclohexane system, 6.1 wt% in MCH system, 47.0 kg-H2/m3. In
addition, the hydrogen storage density of the decalin system is as high as 7.2 wt%
and 64.9 kg-H2/m3, compared with 6.5 wt%, which is the development target value
of the U.S. Department of Energy, 62.0 kg-H2/m3.
Figure 5.17. Comparison of weight storage density and volume storage density
[25,26].

Figure 5.18. Schematic diagram of dehydrogenation reaction and hydrogen addition

reaction.

The MCH system of the OCH method has been compared and studied together with
the liquid ammonia method and the liquefied hydrogen method in the Euro-Québec
hydrogen project from the 1980s [25,26]. However, since a dehydrogenation catalyst
that operates stably has not been developed, it is a method that is not technically
established.

Schematic diagrams of dehydrogenation reaction and hydrogen addition reaction

are shown in Fig. 5.18 [25,26].

In the dehydrogenation reaction, a 10 wt% Pt/C activated carbon cloth catalyst is

used, but the CH bond of MCH is broken, hydrogen atoms are dissociated, and
toluene is produced. And H2 is generated at the same time. In the hydrogen addition
reaction, it is common to use Ni or Pd catalyst [27,28].

> Read full chapter

Damaged material volume method
Shengming Zhang, ... Richard Villavicencio, in Probability and Mechanics of Ship
Collision and Grounding, 2019

4.6.1 Introduction
The International Maritime Organization (IMO, 1995b) adopted Interim Guidelines
for Approval of Alternative Methods of Design and Construction of Oil Tankers under
Regulation 13F(5) of Annex I of MARPOL 73/78. These guidelines give a probabilistic
procedure for assessing the oil outflow performance of an oil tanker design in a
collision and/or grounding accident.

One of the important elements in the guidelines is the damage density distributions,
which were derived from the actual damage data of 52 collisions and 63 grounding
accidents of oil tankers, chemical tankers of 30,000 tons deadweight and above (Hys-
ing, 1993). These data were collected in the period from 1980 to 1990 by different
classification societies, such as American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), ClassNK, Det
Norske Veritas (DNV), Lloyd's Register (LR), and Registro Italiano Navale (RINA).
Fig. 4.43 shows the probability density distributions for the longitudinal length, the
vertical penetration, and the transverse extent of the expected grounding damages
according to the IMO guidelines. It is seen that the bottom grounding damages
are assumed to scale linearly with the ship main dimensions. The same approach is
assumed for the side collision damage distributions.
Fig. 4.43. Probabilistic density distributions for bottom grounding damages.

Based on International Maritime Organization (IMO), 1995b. Interim guidelines for

approval of alternative methods of design and construction of oil tankers under
regulation 13F(5) of annex I of MARPOL 73/78. Technical Report, Resolution MEPC.
66 (37), pp. 1–40.

Since the publication of the IMO interim guidelines, many authors have used them
to assess the environmental performance of oil tankers; see, for example, Bocken-
hauer and Jost (1995) and Michel et al. (1996). The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers (SNAME) formed a special technical committee to make further
assessment of the performance of oil tankers suffering collision and grounding
accidents from 1995 to 1997 (Sirkar et al., 1997). As discussed by Sirkar et al. (1997)
and Rawson et al. (1998), a major shortcoming of the IMO guidelines is that they
do not consider the effect of the local structural design or the crashworthiness on
the damage extent and that all tankers have the same nondimensional damage
distributions. Sirkar et al. (1997), Simonsen (1997a,b), Cerup-Simonsen et al. (2009),
and Rawson et al. (1998) performed theoretical grounding analyses and established
damage density distributions given a grounding event for a specific ship. These cal-
culations are based upon many assumptions, such as the distribution of grounding
speeds and the distribution of rock shapes and rock elevations, and thus, the validity
of the damage density distributions obtained by such theoretical calculation needs
further verification. One way to validate these assumed distributions of speeds,
ground shapes, etc. is to choose the speed and the rock shape distributions so that
the calculated grounding damage distributions for old and traditional single-hull
tankers become identical to the damage distributions represented by Fig. 4.43. The
idea is then to use the same ground and speed distributions to construct damage
distributions for the new generations of tankers. It is evident that the result of such
direct calculation procedures depends strongly on the validity of the IMO damage
distributions given in Fig. 4.43 for grounding damages.

Previous analyses of bottom damages due to grounding on plane, sloping sand,

or rock bottoms have shown that larger ships suffer considerably larger bottom
damages than smaller ships. In addition, larger ships are exposed to larger hull
girder sectional forces due to grounding (Pedersen, 1994).

In this section, we shall first derive a procedure for analysis of the effect of the ship
size and the building material on grounding on irregular rocks, that is, grounding
scenarios resulting in raking damage to the ship's bottom. Thereafter, the results will
be validated by a comparison with statistical grounding damage data. One purpose
of this analysis is to investigate whether it is reasonable to assume that grounding
damages scale linearly with ship dimensions, as assumed in the IMO guidelines.

> Read full chapter

Renewable Hybridization of Oil and

Gas Supply Chains
Ahmad Rafiee, Kaveh Rajab Khalilpour, in Polygeneration with Polystorage for
Chemical and Energy Hubs, 2019

8 Renewable Energy Applications in the Shipping Sector

Globally, around 90% of all trades in goods, raw materials, and energy in recent
years has been transported by the shipping industry [105]. According to the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), estimated international
seaborne trade increased from 2.6 to 10.05 billion tons loaded between 1970 and
2015 [106]. The trend in shipping demand is anticipated to grow even further. Break-
down of the international shipping trade in 2015 implies that the share of oil and
gas cargoes by weight in the international trade was about 2.95 billion tons (29.3%)
[106]. A more precise measure of the global demand for seaborne trade capacity is
obtained by multiplying the weight of cargoes by the distance traveled. In 2015, the
total of shipped cargoes by weight and distance was 86.24 trillion tons × km. The
share of shipped oil, gas, and chemicals cargoes by weight and distance traveled
was 27% of the total shipped cargoes.

The required energy for the propulsion of ships has been evolving significantly over
the past decades. The shipping industry relies mainly on oil as its energy source.
The estimated amount of fuel consumed by the world's marine fleet between 2007
and 2012 ranged from 247 to 325 million tons [107]. The global demand for marine
fuel in 2016 was met mainly by fuel oil (194.499 million tons) and gasoil (31.225
million tons), which are the two fuels with the highest environmental impacts.
Data of 2012 show that international shipping accounted for 2.2% of global GHG
emissions (796 million tons of CO2, to which can be added 12.7 and 9.8 million tons
of N2O and CH4, respectively). The breakdown of CO2 emissions from different
shipping sectors by fuel type is illustrated in Fig. 17. International oil tankers,
chemical tankers, and liquefied gas tankers emitted 124, 55, and 46 million tons
of CO2 in 2012, respectively [107]. This means that about 28.3% of the total CO2
emitted from international ships originated from oil tankers, chemical tankers, and
liquefied gas tankers.

Fig. 17. CO2 emissions from shipping sectors by fuel type in 2012 [107], HFO (heavy
fuel oil), MDO (marine diesel oil), LNG (liquefied natural gas).

It is important to note that the shipping industry, compared to other means of

transport, emits the lowest CO2 emissions per kilometer per ton [108]. Fig. 18
compares typical CO2 emissions between various modes of transport. Whereas
on average, air flight emits 435 gCO2/km/ton, and the value for large trucks is
80 gCO2/ton-km, tankers consume < 7.9 gCO2/ton-km. The emission footprint of
ships reduces as their size or deadweight increases. Deadweight tonnage is defined
as the total weight of cargo, fuel, fresh water, ballast water, provisions, passengers,
and crew.
Fig. 18. Comparison of typical CO2 emissions between modes of transport [109].

Mandatory operation and technical measures have been stipulated by the Interna-
tional Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), aiming for
CO2 emission reduction and efficient energy use. Considering 2008 as the base
year, it has been estimated that the shipping sector can reduce its CO2 emissions
per ton per km traveled by at least 20% and 50% until 2020 and 2050, respectively
[105]. To meet these targets, cleaner power and fuel options must be considered by
ship operators.

Renewables can be used in all types of ships for primary, hybrid, and/or ancillary
propulsion, along with onboard or onshore energy use. Using a hybrid combina-
tion of renewable sources increases the complementarity and availability of energy
sources.

Potential renewable energies for shipping applications are solar PV, wind (e.g., fixed
sails, soft sails, kite sails, Flettner rotors, as well as conventional wind turbines),
wave energy, biofuels, and use of electricity capacitors charged by renewables. It is
noteworthy that small ships (i.e., DWT < 10,000) are more predominant globally.
Small ships compared to larger ships transport a lower amount of the total cargo
while emitting more GHG per kilometer per weight of load [108].

The following benefits can be achieved by using renewable energy sources in the
shipping sector [108]:

1. Direct economic benefits:•fuel cost substantially reduces•security of supply

and stability in energy prices increase•wear and tear leading to increased
stability reduce•port fees, as well as local levies, potentially reduce
2. Indirect economic benefits:•resilience to externalities increases•uneconomical
routes potentially revive, resulting in increasing trade system access together
with motivating regional growth•new or expanded existing industries are
created•competition in energy supply chain increases•death toll related to
shipping emissions reduces, in turn lowering healthcare costs
3.
Social/environmental benefits:•GHG emissions significantly decrease•risk of
fuel spills and consequently environmental damage diminishes•marine noise
decreases•health benefits arise•the danger of exposure of passengers and crew
to flammable fuels drops•new challenges are encountered by deploying new
renewable devices and technologies•new employment opportunities are cre-
atedAccording to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) [108],
advanced biofuels have high potential to supply energy choices of the shipping
sector. Also, hydrogen fuel cells can be used for power supply. However,
the production of hydrogen (e.g., via electrolysis of seawater using electricity
sourced from either offshore wind farm or wind-powered generators on ships),
along with reliable and low-cost storage options, is a critical issue that must be
considered. IRENA addressed the viability of several biofuels (as drop-in fuels)
for seaborne transport, including straight vegetable oil (SVO), dimethyl ether-
, biomass-based Fischer-Tropsch diesel, biomethanol, bioethanol, biodiesel,
hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO), liquefied biomethane (LBM), and pyrolysis
oil [108]. Furthermore, marine gas oil or marine diesel oil can be replaced
by pyrolysis oil, biomethanol, dimethyl ether, as well as conventional and
advanced biodiesel (best option is to blend fuel with maximum 20% biodiesel).
In addition, intermediate or heavy fuel oil can be replaced by HVO and SVO.
However, liquefied natural gas can be replaced by LBM or biomethane and
dimethyl ether. Biohydrogen fuel cells can be used for electricity production
in ships. It is important to note that if LBM is to be used as fuel in ships, some
cargo space must be allocated and dual fuel cryotanks (i.e., storage tanks for
supercold fuels) operating at low temperatures are needed. Nevertheless, DME
also needs cargo space for storage. If using HVO, SVO, or biodiesel, some
indirect costs are associated, including the nexus across water, energy, land,
and food (WELF), which can impose serious impediment [108]. A full list of
ships (either newly built or retrofit of existing ships) categorized by (1) renew-
able source, (2) market status of each renewable technology (currently in use,
proven application, concept proved, design stage, concept, and uncertain), (3)
vessel weight (< 400, 400–10,000, 10,000–50,000, and > 50,000 tons), and (4) a
crude assessment of the overall potential, is given in Table 6 [108]. The overall
potential was assessed based on three metrics: economic, environmental, and
social factors. A high, medium, or low potential application was identified
for ships which scored on three, two, or one of the three metrics.Table 6.
Application and potential of renewable energy for the shipping sectorKey:
, high potential; , medium potential; , limited; NA, not available.a-
For example, recreation, tourism, small fishery, coastal patrol and security,
research, passenger, break.bIncluding medium fishery, large landing craft,
tramp, domestic RollOn-RollOff (Ro-Ro), container, tanker, etc.cFor example,
deep sea fishery, Ro-Ro, cruise liner, car carrier.dIncluding very large crude oil
carriers, large container ships, Aframax, Panamax.Color indicators: , currently
in use; , proven application; , concept proved; , design stage; , concept; ,
uncertain.

The Modec company offers up to 125,000 m3 LNG storage (known as Medium

Solution) with power generation range of 83–480 MW [110]. Medium Solution
benefits from integration with intermittent wind, solar, hydropower. Supplemental
power is dispatched as and when required.

> Read full chapter

Internal mechanics of ship collision

and grounding
Shengming Zhang, ... Richard Villavicencio, in Probability and Mechanics of Ship
Collision and Grounding, 2019

3.8.3.1 Striking bow shape

Ship bows vary in size and shape. It seems very difficult to characterize the
scantlings and the geometry of striking bows by a simple model. Therefore, some
assumptions must be made. Different ship types can be divided into the following
groups: (1) oil tankers, (2) bulk carriers, (3) chemical tankers, (4) gas tankers, (5)
general cargo ships, (6) container vessels, (7) passenger vessels, (8) Ro-Ro ships, (9)
fishery vessels, (10) navy vessels, and (11) others.

Some years ago, statistics showed that about 40%–50% of all the above-mentioned
ships have bulbous bows and the others have conventional bows (Nielsen, 1995).
However, today, more and more bulbous bows are used in modern seagoing mer-
chant vessels, since a ship with a bulbous bow most often requires less propulsive
power and has better resistance characteristics than the same ship without bulbous
bow (Schneekluth, 1987). Therefore, the descriptions of ship bows are here focused
on bows with a bulb (bulbous bow).

The shape of a ship bow is influenced significantly by its hull form and the ship
speed. More specifically, it is dictated by the Froude number that is defined as

(3.117)

where V is the ship design speed, g is the gravity (= 9.81 m/s2), and L is the ship
length. The block coefficient of a ship can also give good indication of a ship hull
form and ship speed. The block coefficient of a ship at design draught can be
approximated by
(3.118)

Typical values of Froude number and block coefficients for some commercial ships
are the following:

The basic data for describing a bulbous bow can be separated into two parts: the first
part is for the upper part of a bow, and the second part is the lower part for the bulb.
Fig. 3.57 presents a detailed hull form of the bow of a container ship.

Fig. 3.57. Hull form of the bow of a container ship.

Through an investigation of actual designs, the upper deck profile can be represent-
ed by the following expression:
Fig. 3.58. Definitions of bulbous bow parameters.

(3.119)

where C0 is a coefficient, B is the ship breadth, and x is the distance measured from
the upper deck tip (see Fig. 3.58). The typical values for the coefficient C0 and the
stem angle are the following:

C0 = 0.57;    = 75 degrees for oil tankers

C0 = 0.47;    = 65 degrees for LNG ships

C0 = 0.40;    = 56 degrees for container ships

The coefficient C0 and the stem angle (in degrees) can be determined approxi-
mately from the block coefficient of a ship:

For the lower part of the bow, we assume that the bulb has three radii that are
proportional to the height (Hdeck) of the uppermost deck:

Average values of the coefficients L, V, and H, based on statistics of existing

ships and the design guidelines for bulbs, are found as follows:

The coefficients L, V, and H may also be determined approximately from

empirical expressions using the block coefficient Cb:

The distance RD, between the bulb tip and the forecastle deck tip perpendicular, can
be calculated from

For example, for a container ship, if the stem angle is  = 56 degrees, the distance
RD becomes

In order to describe the bulb mathematically, the origin of an x1y1z1-coordinate sys-

tem is positioned at the bulb tip, as shown in Fig. 3.59. The formulae for describing
the bulb of a bow can be written as follows:
Fig. 3.59. Coordinate systems for the bulb of a bow.

When x ≤ RL,

(3.120)

where the coefficients Cy and Cz can be taken as follows (based on actual ship
designs analysis):

The coefficients Cy and Cz may be determined approximately from empirical

expressions using the block coefficient Cb:

In the vertical x1z1-plane (y1 = 0), the equation becomes

In the horizontal x1y1-plane (z1 = 0), the equation becomes

When x > RL,

In the vertical x1z1-plane (y1 = 0), the approximation is

In the horizontal x1y1-plane (z1 = 0), the equation becomes

Fig. 3.60 presents a summary for a bulbous bow descriptions and equations for quick
reference.
Fig. 3.60. Summary of ship bow descriptions and equations.

> Read full chapter

Classification societies
D.J. Eyres M.Sc., F.R.I.N.A., G.J. Bruce M.B.A, F.R.I.N.A., MSNAME., in Ship Con-
struction (Seventh Edition), 2012

Periodical surveys
To maintain the assigned class the vessel has to be examined by the society surveyors
at regular periods.

The major hull items to be examined at these surveys only are indicated below.

Annual surveys
All steel ships are required to be surveyed at intervals of approximately one year.
These annual surveys are, where practicable, held concurrently with statutory annual
or other load-line surveys. At the survey the surveyor is to examine the condition
of all closing appliances covered by the conditions of assignment of minimum
freeboard, the freeboard marks, and auxiliary steering gear. Watertight doors and
other penetrations of watertight bulkheads are also examined and the structural fire
protection verified. The general condition of the vessel is assessed, and anchors and
cables are inspected where possible at these annual surveys. Dry bulk cargo ships
are subject to an inspection of a forward and after cargo hold.
Intermediate surveys
Instead of the second or third annual survey after building or special survey, an
intermediate survey is undertaken. In addition to the requirements for annual
survey, particular attention is paid to cargo holds in vessels over 15 years of age and
the operating systems of tankers, chemical carriers, and liquefied gas carriers.

Docking surveys
Ships are to be examined in dry dock at intervals not exceeding 2½ years. At the
dry-docking survey particular attention is paid to the shell plating, stern frame and
rudder, external and through hull fittings, and all parts of the hull particularly liable
to corrosion and chafing, and any unfairness of bottom.

In-water surveys
The society may accept in-water surveys in lieu of any one of the two dockings
required in a five-year period. The in-water survey is to provide the information
normally obtained for the docking survey. Generally, consideration is only given to
an in-water survey where a suitable high-resistance paint has been applied to the
underwater hull.

Special surveys
All steel ships classed with Lloyd’s Register are subject to special surveys. These
surveys become due at five-yearly intervals, the first five years from the date of build
or date of special survey for classification and thereafter five years from the date
of the previous special survey. Special surveys may be carried out over an extended
period commencing not before the fourth anniversary after building or previous
special survey, but must be completed by the fifth anniversary.

The hull requirements at a special survey, the details of the compartments to be

opened up, and the material to be inspected at any special survey are listed in detail
in the rules and regulations (Part 1, Chapter 3). Special survey hull requirements are
divided into four ship age groups as follows:

1. Special survey of ships—five years old

2. Special survey of ships—10 years old

3. Special survey of ships—15 years old

4. Special survey of ships—20 years old and at every special survey thereafter.
In each case the amount of inspection required increases and more material is
removed so that the condition of the bare steel may be assessed. It should be noted
that where the surveyor is allowed to ascertain by drilling or other approved means
the thickness of material, nondestructive methods such as ultrasonics are available
in contemporary practice for this purpose. Additional special survey requirements
are prescribed for oil tankers, dry bulk carriers, chemical carriers, and liquefied gas
carriers.

When classification is required for a ship not built under the supervision of the
society’s surveyors, details of the main scantlings and arrangements of the actual
ship are submitted to the society for approval. Also supplied are particulars of
manufacture and testing of the materials of construction, together with full details of
the equipment. Where details are not available, the society’s surveyors are allowed to
lift the relevant information from the ship. At the special survey for classification, all
the hull requirements for special surveys (1), (2), and (3) are to be carried out. Ships
over 20 years old are also to comply with the hull requirements of special survey
(4), and oil tankers must comply with the additional requirements stipulated in the
rules and regulations. During this survey, the surveyor assesses the standard of the
workmanship, and verifies the scantlings and arrangements submitted for approval.
It should be noted that the special survey for classification will receive special
consideration from Lloyd’s Register in the case of a vessel transferred from another
recognized classification society. Periodical surveys where the vessel is classed are
subsequently held as in the case of ships built under survey, being dated from the
date of special survey for classification.

> Read full chapter

Marine safety
In The Maritime Engineering Reference Book, 2008

11.3.7 Periodical Surveys

To maintain the assigned class the vessel has to be examined by the Society surveyors
at regular periods.

The major hull items to be examined at these surveys only are indicated below.

(i) Annual survey All steel ships are required to be surveyed at intervals of approxi-
mately one year. These annual surveys are where practicable held concurrently
with statutory annual or other load line surveys. At the survey the surveyor is
to examine the condition of all closing appliances covered by the conditions of
assignment of minimum freeboard, the freeboard marks, and auxiliary steer- (ii)
ing gear. Watertight doors and other penetrations of watertight bulkheads are
also examined and the structural fire protection verified. The general condition
of the vessel is assessed, and anchors and cables are inspected where possible
at these annual surveys. Dry bulk cargo ships are subject to an inspection of a
forward and after cargo hold.
Intermediate surveys Instead of the second or third annual survey after building(iii)
or special survey an intermediate survey is undertaken. In addition to the
requirements for annual survey particular attention is paid to cargo holds in
vessels over 15 years of age and the operatings systems of tankers, chemical
carriers and liquefied gas carriers.
Docking surveys Ships are to be examined in dry dock at intervals not exceeding(iv)
years. At the drydocking survey particular attention is paid to the shell plating,
stern frame and rudder, external and through hull fittings, and all parts of the
hull particularly liable to corrosion and chafing, and any unfairness of bottom.
In-water surveys The society may accept in-water surveys in lieu of any one (v)
of the two dockings required in a five-year period. The in-water survey is to
provide the information normally obtained for the docking survey. Generally
consideration is only given to anin-water survey where a suitable high resis-
tance paint has been applied to the underwater hull.
Special surveys All steel ships classed with Lloyds Register are subject to special
surveys. These surveys become due at five yearly intervals, the first five years
from the date of build or date of special survey for classification and thereafter
five years from the date of the previous special survey. Special surveys may
be carried out over an extended period commencing not before the fourth
anniversary after building or previous special survey, but must be completed
by the fifth anniversary.

The hull requirements at a special survey, the details of the compartments to be

opened up, and the material to be inspected at any special survey are listed in detail
in the Rules and regulations (Part 1, Chapter 3). Special survey hull requirements are
divided into four ship age groups as follows:

1. Special survey of ships – five years old

2. Special survey of ships – ten years old

3. Special survey of ships – fifteen years old

4. Special survey of ships – twenty years old and at every special survey thereafter

In each case the amount of inspection required increases and more material is
removed so that the condition of the bare steel may be assessed. It should be noted
that where the surveyor is allowed to ascertain by drilling or other approved means
 the thickness of material, non-destructive methods such as ultrasonics are available
in contemporary practice for this purpose. Additional special survey requirements
are prescribed for oil tankers, dry bulk carriers, chemical carriers and liquefied gas
carriers.

When classification is required for a ship not built under the supervision of the
Society's surveyors, details of the main scantlings and arrangements of the actual
ship are submitted to the Society for approval. Also supplied are particulars of
manufacture and testing of the materials of construction together with full details of
the equipment. Where details are not available, the Society's surveyors are allowed
to lift the relevant information from the ship. At the special survey for classification
all the hull requirements for special surveys (1), (2), and (3) are to be carried out.
Ships over 20 years old are also to comply with the hull requirements of special
survey (4), and oil tankers must comply with the additional requirements stipulated
in the Rules and Regulations. During this survey the surveyor assesses the standard
of the workmanship, and verifies the scantlings and arrangements submitted for
approval. It should be noted that the special survey for classification will receive
special consideration from Lloyds Register in the case of a vessel transferred from
another recognised Classification Society. Periodical surveys where the vessel is
classed are subsequently held as in the case of ships built under survey, being dated
from the date of special survey for classification.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.