Working together

for a safer world

CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (CAP)

FDA CAPBook
FATIGUE

9 April 2020

Reference:
CAP Fatigue Analysis Rev. 9

Revision date:
9 April 2020

Approved:
Ehud Bar-lev
 CONTENTS
Fatigue Analysis for CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (CAP) 1
1. INTRODUCTION 2
2. EXTENT OF FATIGUE ASSESSMENT 3
3. FATIGUE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE 6
4. RESULTS 8
5. LIST OF SHIP PLANS AND DRAWINGS 9

1
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

1. INTRODUCTION
CAP fatigue assessment (CAP FDA) is a requirement by some wet (oil), dry (bulk) majors and their vetting
companies for ships undertaking CAP. It is a screening assessment with the function of identifying hot-spots that
have the potential to fail during a ship’s charter and will concentrate the CAP inspection process. CAP FDA should
therefore be carried out and completed prior to the hull inspection taking place.
The fatigue screening assessment, the procedure of which was agreed between Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, Det
Norske Veritas and American Bureau of Shipping, constitutes an addendum to the Condition Assessment
Programme (CAP) for tankers and bulk carriers.
Fatigue assessment is an evaluation of the fatigue performance of hull structural details based on the ‘as built’
scantling design, whilst also taking into consideration an assumed corrosion allowance throughout the ship’s life.
It is primarily an assessment of design, not of current condition, since some structural connections and materials
used in ship construction have historically been found to have poor fatigue properties. The approach taken is
therefore intended to be general enough in nature to be applicable to all tankers and bulk carriers, whilst not
having to consider actual condition of each individual ship. To assess each ship uniquely would not be cost
effective.
The fatigue analysis considers each structural connection and its location to identify where fatigue problems may
occur. Although corrosion rates affect the fatigue life of a structural connection, they are not an over-riding factor
in the analysis. ‘Hot spots’ in the hull will still be identified in the same general locations for varying corrosion
rates, albeit with slightly different fatigue lives. The relevance of this report is not dependent on actual corrosion
rates, or condition of the tank coatings, at the time of assessment.
Considering the ship’s trading pattern, areas of long term accumulative stress are evaluated and stress ‘hot spots’
identified. A ‘hot spot’ is considered to be potential area where fatigue problems may occur to longitudinal
stiffeners and girders at connection to transverses. During the CAP survey each ‘hot spot’ that has the potential to
fail within the age of the ship plus 3 years (general lifetime of CAP) is to be subject to special close-up inspection.
In cases where potential fatigue problems are identified, it will be the responsibility of the owner/manager to
propose a programme of structural monitoring /repair/modification to satisfy potential charters’ requirements for
confidence of structural integrity and where applicable to the relevant Classification Society. However, during the
ship’s life structural failure may occur in areas not identified as ‘hot spots’ resulting from poor workmanship,
deficient material, collision damage etc., such areas should be identified during normal periodic survey
programmes.
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

2. EXTENT OF FATIGUE ASSESSMENT

The fatigue assessment is carried out for the end connections of longitudinal stiffener to transverse web and
transverse bulkhead structure. This is includes connections in the deck, side shell, longitudinal bulkheads and
bottom shell areas throughout the parallel body of the cargo length (Fig. 1a and 1b).

Typical end connections of longitudinal stiffeners are shown in Fig.2. At each connection are two fatigue hot
spots (potential crack sites at the weld toes). ‘Hot Spot 1’ being at the heel connecting point to the longitudinal
and ‘Hot Spot 2’ being at the toe connecting point to the longitudinal. The fatigue life of each hot spot is
calculated using the Lloyd’s Register’s ShipRight Fatigue Design Assessment Level 2 (FDA2) procedure.

Where there are end connections with no web stiffener, Lloyd’s Register’s ShipRight FDA2 procedure is used to
calculate the fatigue life of the hot spots at the connections of the longitudinal web to lug/watertight collar, which
could give rise to a crack propagating through the longitudinal stiffener web.

For the longitudinal cut-out/lug arrangements, fatigue cracks can also be initiated around the cut-out and at the
lug connection on the transverse web. To carry out a quantitative assessment of the fatigue performance of these
cut-out/lug arrangements, a finite element based approach, such as the ShipRight FDA Level 3 procedure, is
necessary. However, for Lloyd’s Register classed ships, these areas are assessed by Lloyd’s Register during the plan
approval stage, and it is considered that the additional cost to repeat the procedure is unnecessary.

3
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Figure 1a. Typical Illustration of Tank Arrangement of a tanker

Figure 1b. Typical Illustration of Tank Arrangement of a bulk carrier

 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Hot spot 2 Hot spot 1 Hot spot 2 Hot spot 1

Type A. Flat bar Type B. Flat bar with forward bracket

Hot spot 2 Hot spot 1 Hot spot 2 Hot spot 1

Type C. Flat bar with backing bracket Type D. Flat bar with forward and backing brackets

Hot spot 2 Hot spot 1 Hot spot 2 Hot spot 1

Type E. Tripping bracket Type F. Tripping bracket with backing bracket

Hot spot 2 Hot spot 1 Hot spot 2 Hot spot 1

Type G. Watertight collar Type H. No web stiffener

Horizontal Strg. Strg. Web Strg. Web

Hot spot 2

Hot spot 2
Hot spot 1 Type J. Strg. Web + Backing Bkt. Hot spot 1 Type K. Horiz. Strg. Webs

Fig.2 Typical end connections of longitudinal stiffeners

5
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

3. FATIGUE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

General
The fatigue performance of longitudinal stiffener end connections is assessed using Lloyd’s Register ShipRight
Fatigue Design Assessment Level 2 (FDA2) procedure.
In order to evaluate fatigue lives accurately, it is necessary to establish, as close to reality as possible, the long-term
distribution of the stress range taking into consideration all pertinent stress variations that can be expected during
the life of the structure.
The fatigue assessment will include the following three phases:
 Derivation of a long term distribution of stress ranges;
 Selection of an appropriate S-N curve;
 Calculation of the cumulative damage ratio and fatigue damage.
FDA2 procedure adopts a Spectral Fatigue Analysis in which first principles direct calculation methods are used to
determine the stress ranges and associated number of cycles experienced by the structure throughout the entire
ship’s life. A voyage simulation procedure is used to simulate the ship voyages throughout the entire ship’s life,
using the anticipated ship’s operational profiles, global wave statistical data and mathematical models of the ship.
The FDA2 procedure has been implemented as a WindowsTM based software.
Ship Trading Pattern and Loading Conditions
The trading patterns for Crude Oil Tankers, Oil Product Tankers, and Bulk Carriers, are given in Appendix A. These
trading patterns are derived from world-wide trading statistics, and are used in the voyage simulation procedure
to determine the fatigue wave environment.
For the analysis, two loading conditions are considered, Full Load Departure and Normal Ballast Departure, each at
the ship’s maximum speed.
The following non-sailing time is assumed:
 6 days loading and unloading in harbour for each route (e.g. Persian Gulf to Japan loaded and return in ballast);
 2 days for dry docking for each year of service.
 Wave Induced Loads
 The following wave induced loads are considered:
 hull girder vertical bending moments;
 hull girder horizontal bending moments;
 external hydrodynamic pressures;
 Cargo internal inertial loads resulting from ship motions.
Corrosion Model
The scantlings in accordance with “as built” structural plans are used in conjunction with corrosion allowances
specified.
For calculation of hull girder bending, it is assumed that the vertical and horizontal hull girder section moduli
reduce to 95% of their “as built” values in 20 years. For service extending beyond 20 years, these values are held
constant at the 95% level.
For calculation of stresses due to local pressure loads, a corrosion rate of 0.1mm per year is assumed for all
longitudinal stiffeners in the cargo and ballast spaces. The ballast tanks are assumed to be coated and the
protective coating is assumed to be fully effective for the first eight years of service, after which a corrosion rate of
0.1mm per year is assumed. The cargo tanks (for tankers) are assumed to be uncoated.
S-N curves in air are used in conjunction with the stress increase due to reduction in local plate thickness and
section moduli.
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

S-N Curves
FDA Level 2 software permits the determination of nominal stress S-N curves. The nominal stress S-N curve is
obtained from the combination of the reference hot-spot S-N curve for transverse fillet weld, the geometrical
stress concentration factor (SCF) derived from finite element analysis taking into account the geometrical
configuration of the structural detail and other SCFs to account for construction tolerances and plate thickness
effects.
The design S-N curves used for the assessment represent two standard deviations below the mean curve.

7
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

4. RESULTS
Results of the fatigue assessment are presented in terms of expected fatigue lives in service. These fatigue life
values include the assumed non-sailing time during which the structure is assumed not subject to any fatigue
loads. Based on the result of the voyage simulation for the worldwide trading pattern the average usage rate, i.e.
percentage of sailing time, is 87.75%.

As the port and starboard sides of the ship are subjected to different wave loads, fatigue life results are presented
for the longitudinal end connections on both sides of the ship. Fatigue lives are presented for the two hot spot
locations for each connection detail, as identified in Fig.2.

Typical cellular representation of the fatigue life results is given in Appendix B. Separate diagrams represent the
bottom shell, side shell, upper deck and longitudinal bulkheads. ‘Hot-spot 1’ and ‘hot-spot 2’ are not only both
colour coded in 5 year bands up to 30 years but are also represented by connection type and actual maximum
expectant fatigue life in years.

The fatigue lives are colour coded in the following year ranges:
 less than 5 years
 5 - 10 years
 10 – 15 years
 15 – 20 years
 20 – 25 years
 25 – 30 years
 greater than 30 years
POINTS OF NOTE

All ‘hot-spots’ identified that have the potential to fail within the age of the ship plus 3 years (expected lifetime of
CAP) are to be inspected during the CAP inspection.
‘Hot-spots’ are to be inspected during the CAP survey. Any ‘hot-spot’ found to have failed is required to be
repaired by modification of the connection. The surveyor will report the repair and modification.
Other ‘hot-spots’ that have not failed will be reported by the surveyor as remaining intact.
The Owner is required to include the ‘hot-spots’ in the regular tank inspection maintenance programme. These
locations are to be examined on, at least, annual basis.
In the event that the inspection finds that a connection has failed then remedial action is to be initiated and the
charterer and class society advised.
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

5. LIST OF SHIP PLANS AND DRAWINGS

The ship plans and drawings required to undertake the fatigue assessment are as listed below:

 Midship Section
 Structural details relating to longitudinal to transverse connections (if not already included on the Midship Section)
 Midship Section inertia values (horizontal and vertical)
 Shell expansion
 Longitudinal section and decks
 Transverse bulkheads
 Details of the ‘Normal Ballast Departure’ and ‘Cargo Homogeneous Departure to SLWL’ conditions and to include :
o Status of Water Ballast and Cargo tanks/holds;
o Forward draught;
o Aft draught;
o VCG above keel;
o LCG;
o GM;
o Displacement;
o Cargo SG;
o Maximum still water bending moment.

9
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix A
100A1 Fatigue Wave Environment (World-wide) Trading Patterns for Tankers
and Bulk Carriers
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Table A.1 – Fatigue Wave Environment (World Wide) for Crude Oil Tankers
Trading Route
Ship Type/Group
Exporting area Importing area Time %
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Far East (Taiwan) 17.0
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Japan (Yokohama) 30.0
VLCC Crude Oil Tanker 200 000 dwt and above Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) N. America (New Orleans) 28.0
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 21.0
North Sea (UK/Norway) N. America (New York) 4.0
Former USSR (Black Sea) S. Europe (Marseille) 8.2
Latin America (Venezuela) S. Europe (Marseille) 6.8
North Sea (UK/Norway) N. America (New York) 6.7
North Sea (UK/Norway) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 16.3
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) N. America (Los Angeles) 4.3
Suezmax Crude Oil Tanker 125 000–200 000 dwt Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) S. Europe (Marseille) 9.1
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Australia (Adelaide) 6.6
USA (Alaska) USA (Los Angeles) 5.8
W Africa (Bonny) N. America (New Orleans) 24.8
W Africa (Bonny) S. Europe (Marseille) 6.8
W Africa (Bonny) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 4.6
Former USSR (Black Sea) S. Europe (Marseille) 9.4
Latin America (Venezuela) N. America (New Orleans) 24.9
Latin America (Venezuela) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 2.2
Latin America (Venezuela) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 6.9
Aframax Crude Oil Tanker 80 000–125 000 dwt N. Africa (Libya) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 4.5
North Sea (UK/Norway) N. America (New York) 5.1

11
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Trading Route
Ship Type/Group
Exporting area Importing area Time %
North Sea (UK/Norway) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 24.4
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Far East (Taiwan) 5.4
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Indian Sub Cont (Madras) 2.5
Aframax Crude Oil Tanker 80 000–125 000 dwt (continued) Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Australia (Adelaide) 2.0
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) S. Europe (Marseille) 7.5
S. Asia (Ardjuna, Indonesia) Japan (Yokohama) 2.4
USA (Alaska) USA (Los Angeles) 2.8
Latvia (Ventspils) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 8.8
Former USSR (Black Sea) S. Europe (Marseille) 5.3
Latin America (Venezuela) N. America (New Orleans) 27.0
Latin America (Venezuela) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 28.3
Panamax Crude Oil Tanker 50 000–80 000 dwt N. Africa (Libya) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 8.1
North Sea (UK/Norway) N. America (New York) 3.7
North Sea (UK/Norway) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 10.5
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) S. Europe (Marseille) 2.1
S. Asia (Ardjuna, Indonesia) Japan (Yokohama) 6.2
Latvia (Ventspils) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 13.0
Former USSR (Black Sea) S. Europe (Marseille) 5.0
Latin America (Venezuela) N. America (New Orleans) 24.8
Handy Crude Oil Tanker 5000–50 000 dwt Latin America (Venezuela) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 38.5
N. Africa (Libya) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 9.4
P.R. of China (Qingdao) Japan (Yokohama) 1.9
S. Asia (Ardjuna, Indonesia) Japan (Yokohama) 7.4

12
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Table A.2 – Fatigue Wave Environment (World Wide) for Oil Product Tankers
Trading Route
Ship Type/Group
Exporting area Importing area Time %
Former USSR (Black Sea) S. Europe (Marseille) 2.0
N. Africa (Libya) N. America (New York) 9.2
North Sea (UK/Norway) N. America (New York) 12.2
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Far East (Taiwan) 7.7
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Japan (Yokohama) 28.4
Aframax Oil Product Tanker 80 000–125 000 dwt
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Singapore 16.7
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 5.0
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) N. America (New York) 9.9
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) S. Europe (Marseille) 3.0
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 5.9
Former USSR (Black Sea) S. Europe (Marseille) 5.1

Latvia (Ventspils) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 2.1

Latin America (Venezuela) N. America (New York) 6.4
Latin America (Venezuela) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 12.0
N. Africa (Libya) N. America (New York) 3.2
N. America (Houston) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 5.6
Panamax Oil Product Tanker 50 000–80 000 dwt
N. America (Houston) N. America (New York) 14.2
N. America (Houston) Far East (Taiwan) 1.6
North Sea (UK/Norway) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 7.2
North Sea (UK/Norway) N. America (New York) 4.3
North Sea (UK/Norway) S. Africa (Durban) 3.8
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Singapore 2.9
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Japan (Yokohama) 4.3

13
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Trading Route
Ship Type/Group
Exporting area Importing area Time %
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Indian Sub Cont (Madras) 4.2
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 1.3
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 1.5
Panamax Oil Product Tanker 50 000–80 000 dwt (continued)
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) N. America (New York) 4.4
S. Asia (Ardjuna, Indonesia) Far East (Taiwan) 13.6
S. Asia (Ardjuna, Indonesia) Japan (Yokohama) 2.3
Former USSR (Black Sea) S. Europe (Marseille) 5.1
Latvia (Ventspils) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 2.1
Latin America (Venezuela) N. America (New York) 6.5
Latin America (Venezuela) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 12.2
Latin America (Venezuela) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 1.6
N. Africa (Libya) N. America (New York) 2.9
N. America (Houston) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 5.7
N. America (Houston) N. America (New York) 14.4
N. America (Houston) Far East (Taiwan) 1.7
Handy Oil Product Tanker 5000–50 000 dwt
North Sea (UK/Norway) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 7.3
North Sea (UK/Norway) N. America (New York) 4.1
North Sea (UK/Norway) S. Africa (Durban) 3.9
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Far East (Taiwan) 5.0
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Indian Sub Cont (Madras) 4.2
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 1.1
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 1.3
Persian Gulf (Ras Tanura) N. America (New York) 4.0
S. Asia (Ardjuna, Indonesia) Far East (Taiwan) 14.7

14
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Trading Route
Ship Type/Group
Exporting area Importing area Time %
Handy Oil Product Tanker 5000–50 000 dwt (continued) S. Asia (Ardjuna, Indonesia) Japan (Yokohama) 2.2

15
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Table A.3 – Fatigue Wave Environment (World Wide) for Bulk Carriers
Trading Route
Ship Type/Group
Cargo Exporting Area Importing Area Time %
Australia (Dampier) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 6.2
Australia (Walcott) Japan (Yokohama) 10.1
Australia (Walcott) Far East (Shanghai) 7.1
Canada (Sept Isles) W. Europe (Antwerp) 1.8
Iron Ore 61%
India (Mormugao) Japan (Yokohama) 2.4
Latin America (Tubarao) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 8.2
Latin America (Tubarao) Japan (Yokohama) 12.1
Latin America (Tubarao, Brazil) Far East (Taiwan) 13.1
Cape Size Bulk Carrier 80,000 dwt and
above Australia (Newcastle) Japan (Yokohama) 9.9
Australia (Newcastle) Far East (Taiwan) 4.3
Australia (Port Kembla) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 4.8
Canada (Vancouver) Japan (Yokohama) 4.0
Coal 39% S. Africa (Richard’s Bay) Japan (Yokohama) 1.9
S. Africa (Richard’s Bay) Far East (Taiwan) 2.9
S. Africa (Richard’s Bay) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 4.0
USA (Baltimore) Far East (Taiwan) 2.4
USA (Baltimore) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 4.8
Australia (Dampier) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 2.0
Australia (Walcott) Japan (Yokohama) 3.9
Panamax Bulk Carrier 50,000 - 80,000
Iron Ore 20% Australia (Walcott) Far East (Shanghai) 2.3
dwt
Latin America (Tubarao) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 2.7
Latin America (Tubarao) Japan (Yokohama) 4.4

16
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Trading Route
Ship Type/Group
Cargo Exporting Area Importing Area Time %
Panamax Bulk Carrier 50,000 - 80,000
Iron Ore 20% Latin America (Tubarao) Far East (Taiwan) 4.7
dwt (continued)
Australia (Newcastle) Japan (Yokohama) 11.4
Australia (Newcastle) Far East (Taiwan) 5.0
Australia (Port Kembla) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 5.6
Canada (Vancouver) Japan (Yokohama) 4.6
Coal 45% S. Africa (Richard’s Bay) Japan (Yokohama) 2.2
S. Africa (Richard’s Bay) Far East (Taiwan) 3.3
S. Africa (Richard’s Bay) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 4.6
USA (Baltimore) Far East (Taiwan) 2.8
USA (Baltimore) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 5.5
Canada (Vancouver) Far East (Taiwan) 2.6
Latin America (Rosario, Argentina) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 2.0
Handy Bulk Carrier 5,000 – 50,000 dwt
USA (Charleston) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 4.0
Grain 35%
USA (Charleston) W. Africa (Lagos) 1.2
USA (Freeport) Far East (Taiwan) via Panama 16.5
USA (San Francisco) Japan (Yokohama) 8.7
Australia (Walcott) Japan (Yokohama) 4.4
Canada (Sept Isles) USA (New Orleans) 1.3
Iron Ore 16% Latin America (Puerto Ordaz) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 2.6
Latin America (San Nicolas, Peru) Far East (Taiwan) 2.0
Latin America (Tubarao) Japan (Yokohama) 5.7
Australia (Newcastle) Japan (Yokohama) 8.0
Coal 29%
China (Qinhuangdao) Japan (Yokohama) 2.3

17
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Trading Route
Ship Type/Group
Cargo Exporting Area Importing Area Time %
L. America (Maracaibo, Venezuela) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 3.4
Coal 29% S. Africa (Richard’s Bay) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 11.6
USA (Baltimore) Japan (Yokohama) 3.7
Australia (Newcastle) Far East (Taiwan) 8.7
USA (Charleston) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 6.2
Grain 36%
USA (Charleston) Latin America (Santos, Brazil) 15.1
Handy Bulk Carrier 5,000 – 50,000 dwt
(continued) USA (San Francisco) Japan (Yokohama) 6.0
Australia (Haypoint) USA (Los Angeles) 3.6
Bauxite 10% Latin America (Tubarao) USA (Baltimore) 3.6
Latin America (Tubarao, Brazil) W. Europe (Rotterdam) 2.8
N. Africa (Casablanca, Morocco) Latin America (Rosario, Argentina) 3.7
Phosphate Rock
9% N. Africa (Casablanca, Morocco) Asia (Bombay, India) 3.3
Red Sea (Port Sudan) S. Asia (Jakarta, Indonesia) 2.0

18
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Appendix B
Result of fatigue assessment

19
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

Fig. 3

Typical Section illustrating longitudinal numbering

 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

24
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

25
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

24
 Ship Inspection & Assessment
Condition Assessment Programme

25
For more information, contact one of our regional Ship Inspection and Assessment Services (SIAS) offices:

Piraeus Ottawa Singapore Southampton

T +30 211 990 7700 T +1 (1)613 236 3526 (ext. 26) T +65 3163 0607 T +44 (0) 330 414 0205
F +30 211 268 6985 F +1 (1)613 236 7431 F +65 6273 1662 E [email protected]
E [email protected] E [email protected] E [email protected]

www.lr.org

Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates and their respective officers, employees or agents are, individually and collectively,
referred to in this clause as ‘Lloyd’s Register’. Lloyd’s Register assumes no responsibility and shall not be liable to any person for any loss,
damage or expense caused by reliance on the information or advice in this document or howsoever provided, unless that person has signed a
contract with the relevant Lloyd’s Register entity for the provision of this information or advice and in that case any responsibility or liability is
exclusively on the terms and conditions set out in that contract.

Lloyd’s Register and variants of it are trading names of Lloyd’s Register Group Limited, its subsidiaries and affiliates.
Copyright © Ship Inspection & Assessment Services 2020. A member of the Lloyd’s Register group.