Hull
blistering is a problem that has been with us for a quarter-century.
One might think that over a period of twenty-five years this problem
would have long since been solved, and no longer be much of a
problem for surveyors. Unfortunately, our research reveals that
the blistering of boat bottoms continues to be a growing source
of complaints and lawsuits against surveyors. It seems to be one
of those pernicious problems that just won't go away. In fact,
the number of lawsuits against surveyors has actually increased
dramatically in the last several years.
One
of the reasons for the increasing numbers of complaints is clearly
the result of both yards and independent contractors having stepped
up their efforts in marketing blister repair solutions. Blister
repair has become a big business and repairers are roaming around
boat yards looking for blistered boats, seeking repair work. That
can mean that if the surveyor doesn't find the blisters on a hull,
these people probably will.
A
Problem With a Solution Despite the numerous studies, research
reports and magazine articles on the subject, there is not much
concordance on the cause and effect of blistering. Most of the literature
seems directed at repair solutions rather than how to prevent blisters
from occurring in the first place.
The
simple fact is that hull blistering is caused by the use of inferior
materials and shoddy layup. As Lee Dana, former head of engineering
at Bertram Yachts told the audience at the annual conference of
the National Association of Marine Surveyors in 1985, hulls built
with high quality resins don't blister. If builders want to build
hulls that don't blister, all they have to do is "spend another
ten dollars per gallon for resin," he said
This
fact is well known, but rarely considered by surveyors or the boating
public. If boat builders wish to build hulls with inferior resins,
then they, not surveyors, should be the ones who pay the price with
warranty complaints and law suits. Unfortunately, most complaints
and lawsuits against surveyors occur with older vessels which are
either out of warranty or the builder is no longer in business.
Moreover, most warranties only warrant the first vessel owner, leaving
the next buyer in the lurch, which explains why the surveyor ends
up in a particularly vulnerable position.
The
good news is that there are a number of things that surveyors can
do to protect themselves. And, if you're not already doing them,
this article offers some highly effective methods for protecting
yourself against problems that rightfully belong to the boat builder.
The
Genesis of Trouble My review of nearly a dozen complaints against
surveyors shows that nearly all of them got into trouble because
they (1) failed to locate existing blisters, or (2) failed to give
adequate advice to the client. Most allege that the surveyor either
did not inform the client of the presence of blisters at all, or
that he merely mentioned their existence, but downplayed their significance.
In
at least three cases, the client maintained that blisters got substantially
worse shortly after the survey was conducted, a clain which is dubious
at best. In one case, a client claimed that blisters appeared on
an older vessel a year after a survey revealed that there were no
blisters, the so-called "mystery blister syndrome." In
another, it was claimed that blisters appeared only a few months
later.
Frankly,
it is hard to put much stock in the mystery blister syndrome. Although
its well known that blisters will change their profile considerably
as a result of changing environmental conditions such as temperature,
humidity and drying out after being hauled for a period of time,
I've yet to see a case of deflated blisters that wasn't readily
observable under proper conditions. Nor have I heard of any documented
cases where blisters developed rapidly (The lone exception to this
was Hatteras yachts which was known at one time to have used a grossly
inferior gelcoat because they painted their hulls). The minimum
development time in new vessels seems to be around three years but
usually much longer.
There
are three blisters appearing in this photo of a boat bottom which
is very clean and smooth. Two of them are easily revealed by the
fluids that leaked out after the boat was sitting for many weeks.
But the blister at lower center is barely visible. All of these
blisters were highlighted by good artificial lighting used to take
the photo. Without that lighting, and absent the weeping, it would
have been very difficult to locate these blisters. After wetting
down with water, they became much easier to see. If the bottom were
dirty, its not likely that they would have been located.
One
way or another, unless they don't mind footing the bill for what
should be a boat builder's problem, surveyors need to take some
well defined steps to protect themselves from becoming convenient
targets for recovery of repair costs.
Obligation
to Inform The failure to properly advise or inform a client
can certainly be construed as malfeasance or negligence. This means
that the surveyor is charged with the responsibility of making every
reasonable effort to determine the presence of blisters, be they
inflated or deflated, and advise the client accordingly. This does
not mean, however, that under the definition of a survey, surveyors
are charged with making a technical analysis of cause and effect.
It does mean that they have duty to report on conditions that are
discoverable or apparent to any other surveyor or expert who would
be likely to find such conditions.
Economic
Impact Regardless of the prevailing wisdom of the effects of
blisters, whether they cause structural damage or not, it is well
known that blisters are likely to cause an economic loss to the
client, for which the surveyor can be held liable in the event that
he fails to detect and advise. Yet a client may exhibity no concern
for the existence of blisters, nor be interested in repairing them.
The problem usually arises when the client goes to sell the boat.
The new buyer may demand that the your former client reduce his
price by $6,000 to allow for blister repair. Or he may be approached
by a hungry yard manager or repair outfit and given a litany of
horrors on how blisters are destroying his boat. Either way, this
is how a formerly unconcerned client can suddenly become a hostile
adversary.
Without
the dark weephole to announce its presence, this blister is not
visible under ordinary conditions. It has very little raised contour
and is only slightly revealed by a strong light played across it
at a low angle. Yet tapping it with a coin clearly reveals the separation
of the gelcoat by sound.
The
Working Environment Many surveyors get in trouble because
they encounter conditions that inhibit their ability to perform
their work. For the most part, surveyors get so conditioned to working
under extremely poor conditions that they no longer are even aware
of how badly their work is hampered by a poor work environment.
We
should first understand that courts rarely award judgments to plaintiffs
for conditions that are entirely beyond the control of the defendant.
They award judgments simply because the defendant failed to properly
advise the client about what he could, or could not do. It is not
too much for the client to expect the surveyor to advise him of
the limitations of his service, particularly when it involves dangerous
or costly conditions. Therefore, the principle to be applied under
all such limiting conditions is to make sure that the client is
properly advised of any factor that adversely affects the surveyor's
ability to perform his function as the client expects him to do.
Secondly,
surveyors run into trouble as a result of a failure to fully and
accurately inform the client of the full import of any negative
condition, whether by omission or misconstruction of any material
fact. An example would be to say that blisters on a boat bottom
are of no significance when, in fact, they may cost thousands to
repair.
Third,
surveyors also fall victim to the failure to give timely
advice. As we know so well, brokers are eager to close the sale
as rapidly as possible and clients often close a sale long before
the survey report is even written. It is not enough to merely advise
him of defects or limitations only by means of the written report.
Whenever serious and costly defects are discovered, or the surveyor
is seriously hampered in performing his work, it is imperative that
the client be advised as soon as possible. Unless the surveyor does
this, the client may have a legitimate complaint that he suffered
a loss as a result of the failure to give timely advice.
How
Blisters are Concealed I have yet to see a case of blistering
that could not be detected by nondestructive methods, which is not
to say that there aren't conditions that disguise them. Two of the
most common hindrances are heavy paint buildup and dirty bottoms.
Once
blistering occurs, the outer skin or gel coat becomes stretched
and will never fully return to its original contour. The "hump"
may be very slight, but if you are looking for it, you will find
it. But to do so, the bottom needs to be clean and smooth. A bottom
that is dirty and rough is not capable of giving off enough reflected
light to show up the changes in contours so that the blister is
likely to be obscured. If the bottom is not cleaned, or is extremely
rough, the surveyor cannot do his job and therefore he must make
this situation clear to the client, verbally and in writing.
A
heavy buildup of paint that has a lot of flaking yields a very rough
surface that is ideal for hiding blisters. Even so, this does not
mean that if blisters exist they cannot be found. It just means
that the surveyor has to look very close. Wet bottoms reflect more
light and will show up blisters much better than a dull, dry bottom.
You can visually sight the bottom immediately after it is pressure
washed to take best advantage of this. Since boats that have been
out of the water for a while are reported as most likely to have
deflated blisters, get a hose and wet the bottom. If the bottom
is clean, no matter how shallow they are, the blisters will show
up if you sight it carefully.
A
third factor is the positioning of the vessel at the time of the
survey. If the vessel is sitting too close to the ground, it becomes
very difficult to get a good look at it. Another problem is when
boats are hauled out inside of covered buildings where there is
an inadequate light source. When encountering these conditions,
its time to be extra cautious. One way or another, the surveyor
has to overcome these obstacles or risk the consequences.
This
is an example of severe ply separation. The peeled away ply here
measures about 3 feet across. In this case the skin out mat was
so dry that there was little bonding to the inner structural laminates.
The whiteness clearly indicates how dry it is. This allowed the
interface between the two plies to fill with water. While this is
an extreme example, incomplete bonding to lesser degrees is commonplace.
To make matters worse, it was not detectable by sounding, although
there was a bit of a warning sign in that the whole hull sounded
somewhat "dead." These were not blisters but water filled
ply separations that do not appear to have been initiate d by osmotic
pressure but rather enhanced by it. Scraping with a knife below
the gelcoat easily revealed the dryness of the fibers.
Sighting
Careful sighting is a must. To sight the bottom in such a way as
to best locate blisters, it is necessary to view the hull from many
angles. This is not difficult, but it may mean a lot of duck-walking
around so that one can use the available light to best advantage.
A casual look at the bottom just won't do.
Weepholes
and Deposits Some gelcoats are so weak that they are unable
to sustain the buildup of pressure and the blisters rupture either
before, or after they reach a significant size. Under these conditions,
styrene fluids usually weep out of the laminate, leaving a telltale
stain or bubbling deposit as shown in the nearby photos. The important
point to bear in mind here is that the breach in the gelcoat is
also allowing water to penetrate the laminate, so that blistering
is likely to be progressive. Since these are actually ruptured blisters,
these telltale signs should not be ignored but rather reported as
broken blisters that are just as significant as unbroken blisters.
Sounding
Sounding a hull is an audible technique that requires a high
degree of skill and finesse. We've seen surveyors attack hulls with
a plastic hammer as though they were driving nails. That may turn
up a severe delamination, but its not likely to reveal a small blister.
Our experimentation with plastic hammers have determined that these
are far from the best instruments to use to detect smaller flaws.
For one thing, the impact surface is too wide. For another, plastic
against plastic is not a very good combination for getting the best
audible result. Blisters are most responsive to a small piece of
metal, preferably steel, about the size of a silver dollar. Very
light tapping with an instrument of this sort will do a much better
job of audibly revealing differences in laminate thickness, particularly
blisters.
 
Notice
on this hull how the blisters run along a band about one foot below
the waterline. Also note how they appear in clusters lower down
on the bottom, and that some areas between clusters are not affected.
Examples like these prove once and for all that blistering is not
merely a function of material, but also a matter of the quality
of the layup. On this boat, the areas of blistering are not random
but area-specific and directly related to permeability of the laminate
due to imperfections. Once again, the skin out mat was found to
be poorly saturated. Photo at right contrasts the dry mat against
the fully wetted out structural laminate.
Destructive
Probing Should the surveyor break open, probe or scrape
blisters? Certainly its useful to determine whether the underlying
plastic has dissolved or whether there are substantial ply separations.
But doing this falls in the category of destructive testing. Complaints
have been made against surveyors who have gone too far in doing
this. Its best to get the owner's permission before proceeding.
Because
secondary bonding failures have been identified with large blisters,
the surveyor can take one of two approaches. If he does not, or
cannot engage in destructive testing, he can simply warn the client
of the possible implications. However, if he breaks the surface
at all, at that point he needs to go all the way. Sliding a short,
very thin blade such as a cheap steak knife or pallet knife into
the blister and probing the circumference for ply separation will
usually do the trick. If you can continue to force the blade under
the skin out mat beyond the circumference of the blister, there
is definitely a bonding problem.
On
the other hand, if you cannot force it, that does not necessarily
mean that there is not a secondary bonding problem. It could not
exist at one location but appear in others. And since this cannot
be done for all the blisters, this test can only be used to confirm
positive results.
Lamination
Problems Boats that display extreme numbers of, or numerous
and very large blisters may be suffering from more than just water
permeation through the surface coating. My studies of hundreds of
blistered boats reveals that many boats that display very large
blisters are also suffering from secondary bonding failures. Bonding
failures that result in blisters usually occur between the gelcoat
and skinout mat, or the skinout mat and the first layer of structural
fabric, usually roving. The failure to bond can be due to environmental
conditions (temperature and humidity), contamination, or excessive
delay in the layup process. Whatever the cause, the result is an
incomplete bond that provides and ideal environment for very large
blisters to develop. When a vessel has numerous large blisters,
secondary bonding problems should be suspect. For a more complete
discussion of bonding failures, see article titled Blisters Again?
on this site.
If
the bonding of laminate is weak, you may be able to separate the
skinout mat for very long distances, in which case you've got a
serious bonding problem that no commonly accepted method of blister
repair will solve. To remedy the situation, all of the loose laminate
will have to be stripped off.
Describing
Blistering It is important that the general parameters of blistering
be adequately described. One way to describe blistering is to again
use a grid and literally measure and count the number of blisters.
Using a tic-tac-toe grid of one foot squares will yield nine squares
that make it quite easy to count the number of blisters per square
foot.
Since
blisters do not always show up evenly over the bottom surface
, but can appear in clusters or bands, it is probably best not
to attempt to give an exact count, but rather to determine the density
and state the condition in terms of maximum density, but
not attempt to indicate specific sizes or locations. Attempting
to describe the size of the area and specific density can be difficult
and dangerous. This way, if the blistering spreads rapidly to other
areas , the surveyor won't get caught short. In other words,
its better to overstate than understate.
Use
a Camera If you're not carrying a camera and using it, you're
missing out on a better insurance policy that you could ever purchase.
Good photographs will stop most misinformed complaints dead in their
tracks. Using a piece of chalk, write the boat name and date on
the area to be photographed, and then snap a couple shots from a
variety of angles.
If
you are not expert at using a camera, then you need to practice
until you become so. Bad photos won't help you much. Take multiple
shots using different angles and lighting and learn which techniques
work best. Use a flash in virtually all conditions except direct
sunlight, especially when a subject is half-in, half-out of direct
sun. Make sure your flash is illuminating the subject. With good
quality modern cameras, auto exposures will work perfectly; there's
no need to play with timing and f-stops anymore. But I would suggest
avoiding using autofocus which does not always work well. Get in
the habit of focusing manually.
Photos
won't do you any good when, several years later you can't find them.
Storing them in a file is not a good idea because they often fall
out and get lost. I store photos and negatives in the lab's original
envelope and then file them chronologically in shoe boxes, which
are then labeled with the year. This makes for a very convenient
method of locating them quickly.
Reporting
One good approach is to develop a more or less standard statement
dealing with the issues of blisters for every report on fiberglass
boats, one which is modified to fit individual circumstances. A
good statement is one which first informs the client that reinforced
plastics are known to be unstable. It should state that the surveyor
is not able to determine the nature of the plastics and reinforcements
of which the hull is made, and therefore he cannot guarantee the
stability or the performance of the laminate.
To
make assumptions about a laminate is to take risks that we ought
not take. To look at a hull and say, "Ah, fiberglass,"
is making an assumption that is not based on anything we really
know. In truth, we have no idea of what that hull is made of, and
could be an endless array of materials. Nor can we give any assurance
of the quality of those materials.
It
should be clearly stated that warranties of the hull are provided
by the builder only, and that if there are any questions about existing
warranties, the manufacturer should be consulted. It should go on
to state that the surveyor has made every effort to determine the
presence of blisters short of destructive testing, and that blisters
were, or were not found. This, however, does not mean that blisters
won't develop at a later date. It should be made clear that changing
conditions may result in the sudden appearance of blisters where
previously there were none. Finally, one should point out that latent
blisters, or blisters in the very early stages of formation, or
blisters which are depressurized and deflated may also exist, and
which are not detectable by any means available to the surveyor.
When
sighting the bottom, be alert for evidence of prior blister repairs
which are often done shortly before the boat is sold. The reason
for this is that the surveyor has no idea of whether a proper repair
has been made. Often as not, and owner has just ground out the blister
and filled the void with epoxy. In this case the blistering is very
likely to continue and may come back to haunt the surveyor. The
best way to protect yourself is to report all evidence of prior
repairs and disclaim any guarantee that the blistering will not
continue.
Interpretation
Unless a surveyor is going to engage in some serious destructive
testing and analysis, he really doesn't have any way of knowing
what the presence of blisters means. And for clients, the significance
of blisters is an entirely subjective judgment. We've seen sailboat
buyers go ballistic at the mere mention of blisters, while others
may not care in the least.
When
clients question the surveyor about the significance of blisters,
the wise surveyor is one who knows that he doesn't know, and resists
the temptation to speak when he shouldn't. In my view, the best
approach is to advise the client that only a technical analysis
based on destructive testing can answer that question, and that
this is not included in the survey service. It is best to advise
the client that a prepurchase survey is a condition and not an engineering
analysis. If you wish to get involved in destructive testing, separate
this service from the survey and set it up as a consulting service.
Start a separate file and issue a separate report and billing, even
if you end up doing it generally at the same time. This will help
protect the surveyor from claims of a negligent survey.
Communications
Learning to communicate fully and effectively with the client is
a very good form of insurance. But there is a fine line to be walked
between communicating facts and engaging in idle speculation. Engaging
in speculative conversation may lead the surveyor to say things
he didn't intend to say. On the other hand, several complainants
told us that they were particularly miffed by a surveyor's lack
of communication. Doctors are notorious for this and we all know
what its like to visit a doctor with lock jaw. We feel cheated because
our desire for information wasn't fulfilled. Our opinion of the
doctor drops dramatically. Its very easy for the surveyor to fall
into the same trap because his work is strenuous and he's usually
exhausted by the time he's finished, thereby diminishing the effectiveness
of his communication.
Obviously,
the best way to communicate a blistering problem is to physically
show the client what is there. Even if he doesn't want to, make
him look at it with his own eyes. Make it standard operating procedure
to show him the entire hull bottom. There is nothing like direct
client involvement in a problem to head off disputes.
Remember
that a client who seems unconcerned about blisters at the time he
is purchasing a boat that has them, may develop other ideas later
on. If he decides to sell a short time later, and is faced with
a $6,000 repair bill, its pretty obvious what is likely to happen
if the surveyor hasn't adequately covered himself.
Keep
Good Records Any time a problem case ends up going to litigation,
nearly all experienced surveyors will tell you that they often end
up falling victim to a universal shortcoming - the failure to keep
good notes. Litigation usually occurs years after the surveyor's
initial involvement, and long after his memory has faded. Thus,
when a subpoena is shoved under his nose, he retrieves his file
only to find that there's not much there to help him.
Because
hull blistering is such a universal problem, any surveyor whose
been in the business long enough is eventually going to be hit with
some sort of complaint. Every one has bad days and makes mistakes,
often as a result of circumstances beyond the surveyors control,
such as being rushed or hindered by bad weather. Sooner or later,
the surveyor will find himself caught short.
A
marine surveyor can get no better liability insurance policy than
by training himself to keep good notes. Of course its very difficult
to do that on the job when there are so many distractions and difficulties.
He can't take good notes while standing in the rain or on the deck
of a bouncing boat. But he can train himself at every instance to
review his work once back at the office, and to fill in or expand
on those notes he did take while on the job. This is why photography
can be so useful. It only takes moments to snap a picture of a condition
that might take ten minutes to attempt to write up on paper or,
worse yet, can't be written up at all because of adverse conditions.
We
should bear in mind how lame our excuses are likely to sound when
sitting in front of a jury.
Related
Articles: BLISTERS AGAIN?
|
