search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR


The Editor, THE REPORT, The International Institute of Marine Surveying, Murrills House, 48, East Street, PORTCHESTER, PO16 9XS


Dear Sir The Dangers of Overplating


Following Alan Broomfield’s informative article on the above subject, your readers may be interested in the following: -


The vessel concerned was a steel narrow boat. It had been purchased on the strength of a statement by


the owner that he, not a marine surveyor, had carried out a number of thickness measurements on the hull and had found them satisfactory. Where, on the hull, the measurements had been taken was not known. The new owner had jumped down into the forward cockpit for some reason and had found as a result, the 6mm thick bottom plate leaking badly. The vessel was dry docked and a marine surveyor had carried out some thickness readings on the bottom forward and had found it badly corroded and holed. A hammer test had discovered that the plate was, in fact, virtually non-existent. The corroded area was cropped out and a new plate scarphed in. The photograph of part of the cropped out damaged plate, taken on a white cloth, shows the extent of the corrosion and two apparently satisfactory thickness readings some 250mm apart. The plate clear of the obvious hole is also badly pitted by galvanic action, many of the pits going right through the plate.


Had the corrosion been discovered before the purchase mentioned above, doubtless the area would have been overplated. would have continued unabated. Doubling is NOT a repair.


Clearly a bodge as the corrosion It merely hides the damage and also carries


a number of down side points that are very rarely mentioned. The marine surveyor should at all times remember the law of unintended consequences. The corrosion would not have been discovered by a UTS test as the above experience clearly shows.


colleagues on numerous occasions that a UTS test is not the final means of determining whether or not a vessel is in good condition. The UTS test is an addendum to not a replacement for a hammer test.


Yours faithfully, Eur. Ing. Jeffrey N. Casciani-Wood. C.Eng., Hon F.I.I.M.S.


It is an often unacknowledged point that I have mentioned to


20 | The Report • June 2017 • Issue 80


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80