Fender System: Exxon Engineering

MARINE TERMINAL DESIGN PRACTICES
FENDER SYSTEM Section Page

EXXON XXXI-M 1 of 31
ENGINEERING Date
PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - For Authorized Company Use Only December, 1998
CONTENTS
Section Page
SCOPE .................................................................................................................................................... 3
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 3
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE........................................................................................................... 3
OTHER REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 3
DEFINITIONS........................................................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4
GENERAL STEPS IN DESIGNING A FENDER SYSTEM.......................................................................... 4

EXISTING FACILITIES ..................................................................................................................... 4
NEW FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................. 5
CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY.................................................................................. 5

IMPACT ENERGY............................................................................................................................ 5
ARRIVAL DISPLACEMENT .............................................................................................................. 5
BERTHING VELOCITY..................................................................................................................... 5
CONSTANT OF PROPORTIONALITY .............................................................................................. 6
VESSEL OFFSET ............................................................................................................................ 7
TYPES OF FENDER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 9
SELECTION OF A FENDER SYSTEM.....................................................................................................11
DESIGN OF FENDER SYSTEM...............................................................................................................13

ENERGY ABSORPTION OF FENDERS...........................................................................................13
VESSEL ANGLE OF IMPACT..........................................................................................................14
HULL PRESSURE OF THE VESSEL ...............................................................................................15
CURVATURE OF THE HULL OF THE VESSEL ...............................................................................15
FENDER SPACING.........................................................................................................................16
PIER ORIENTATION AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE .......................................................................17
WATER ELEVATION CHANGE (TIDE) ............................................................................................17
SHEAR CAPACITY OF FENDERS ..................................................................................................17
TENSION CAPACITY OF FENDERS ...............................................................................................18
WEIGHT CHAINS............................................................................................................................19
ANCHOR BOLTS ............................................................................................................................19
NOMENCLATURE ..................................................................................................................................21
EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

DESIGN PRACTICES MARINE TERMINAL
Section Page FENDER SYSTEM
XXXI-M 2 of 31 EXXON
Date ENGINEERING
December, 1998 PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - For Authorized Company Use Only
CONTENTS (Cont)
Section Page
EXAMPLES ............................................................................................................................................ 22
EXAMPLE 1 – SAMPLE CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY.................................... 22
EXAMPLE 2 – SAMPLE FOR SPECIFYING A FENDER SYSTEM ................................................... 22
EXAMPLE 3 – SAMPLE FENDER SYSTEM WITH BRIDGESTONE SUPER CELL FENDERS ......... 26
COMPUTER TOOLS............................................................................................................................... 31
TABLES
Table 1 Berthing Velocities for Breasting Dolphins and Marginal Piers ......................................... 8
Table 2 General Types of Fender Systems.................................................................................. 9
Table 3 Major Advantages/Disadvantages of Fender System Alternatives.................................. 12
FIGURES
Figure 1 Constant of Proportionality ............................................................................................. 6
Figure 2 Vessel Offset ................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3 Types of Common Fender System Designs .................................................................. 10
Figure 4 Deflection/Reaction Force Curve .................................................................................. 13
Figure 5 Vessel Berthing Angle and Direction of Motion.............................................................. 14
Figure 6 Effect of Vessel Hull Curvature on Fender Spacing ....................................................... 16
Figure 7 Fender System in Compression.................................................................................... 18
Figure 8 Effect of Tensile Force on a Fender Element................................................................. 19
Figure 9 Chain Assembly........................................................................................................... 20
Figure 10 Anchor Bolt.................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 11 Correction Factor for Angular Berthing Trellex Fender Systems..................................... 24
Figure 12 Performance Data Trellex Fender Systems................................................................... 25
Figure 13 Fender System with Two Bridgestone Fender Units ...................................................... 26
Figure 14 Performance Data Bridgestone SUC1250H Fender....................................................... 26
Figure 15 Performance Curve Bridgestone SUC1250H Fender..................................................... 27
Figure 16 Fender System in Compression.................................................................................... 28
Figure 17 Angular Performance Data Bridgestone Suc1250H Fender ........................................... 29
Figure 18 Correction Factor for Reaction Force Bridgestone 1250H Fender .................................. 30
Figure 19 Correction Factor for Energy Absorption Bridgestone 1250H Fender ............................. 31
Revision Memo
12/98 Initial issue of this Design Practice.

ENGINEERING Date
SCOPE
This practice covers fender systems for the berthing of ships and barges at conventional marine pier and sea island facilities. It
covers the design of fender systems through the Design Basis Memorandum and Design Specification stage. It does not cover
NPQC, Commissioning, or Start-up of the fenders.
REFERENCES
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE
IP 4-4-1, Marine Piers and Mooring Facilities
OTHER REFERENCES
Beazley, R. A. and Forester, G. L. Jr., Marine Fender and Dolphin Systems for Very Large Crude Carriers, EE1TTR.72,
January 1972.
Bruun, P., Port Engineering-Harbor Planning, Breakwaters, and Marine Terminals, Gulf Publishing, Company, Houston, (1989).
Bridgestone Cell Fender Series Catalog.
Bridgestone Marine Fender Design Manual.
British Standard, BS 6349, Part 4, Code of Practice for Design of Fendering and Mooring Systems, BSI Standards, Second
Edition, October 1994.
Dorsch, R. E., Designing: The Cost Effective Marine Fender System, World Dredging and Marine Construction, Volume 19
Number 8, August 1983.
Feinberg, A. S. and Mascenik, J., Evaluation of Full Scale Tanker Berthing Impact Forces, EE.16ER.67, June 1967.
Gaythwaite, J. W., Design of Marine Facilities for Berthing, Mooring and Repair of Vessels, Van Nostrand Reinold, New York
(1990).
Marketing Engineering Standards, Marine Facilities Design Specification and Evaluation, EE.3M.86.
Sandstrom, R. E., Fender Analysis - Oblique Loads, 95 CMS2 065, April 1995.
Trellex Application Manual - Trellex MV Elements.
Zwinklis, V. C., Modular Fender Systems for Barge and Coaster, EE.9TT.80, July 1980.
Zwinklis, V. C., Survey of Synthetic Fender Facing Material, EE.10TT.80, November 1980.
DEFINITIONS
Dead Weight Tonnage - Tonnage expressed by the weight actually loaded on the vessel, such as cargo, fuel, bunker oil,
water, passengers and food.
Full Load Displacement - Tonnage expressed by the total weight of the vessel body, engine, cargo (where the cargo is loaded
until the draft line reaches the full draft line of the vessel) and all other materials loaded in it.
Light Displacement - Tonnage expressed by the total weight of the vessel before cargo has been loaded.

Date ENGINEERING
INTRODUCTION
Fender systems at a marine pier serve three distinct purposes. The primary function of a fender system is to reduce the loads
distributed to the pier and vessel by absorbing some or all of the kinetic energy of berthing vessels. Fendering also distributes
berthing and breasting loads along the pier and over a large surface of the ship’s hull. Finally, fendering provides a rubbing
surface between the pier face and vessel hull, preventing abrasion or other damage from vessel maneuvering or vessel
movement due to tides, the environment, or draft changes. Fender systems should be designed to: 1) prevent direct contact
between vessels and fixed structures, 2) ensure berthing impact energies are acceptable for berthing structures and fender
systems in normal and extreme cases so that risk of vessel and pier damage is minimized, and 3) ensure berthing and mooring
loads are within the structural capacity of the individual facilities.
The degree of fendering required depends on many variables, the most important of which are vessel size and approach
velocity. The size or mass of a vessel and the speed in which it contacts the pier are directly related to the amount of berthing
impact energy that must be absorbed through deflection of the fender system. The selected fender system must be effectively
capable of absorbing most of the berthing energy and transmitting as minimal reaction force to the fixed structure as possible.
Energy absorption is a function of load and deflection. The larger the deflection, the lower the resulting load to absorb the
same amount of energy. Stiff fenders, which are only designed for small deflections, will result in relatively high loads
transferred into the structure and ship's hull. Soft fenders, which allow for large deflections will result in relatively low loads.
The tradeoff between fender softness and pier strength should be carefully evaluated when designing a new structure,
upgrading an existing berth, or assessing alternatives to accommodate decreased structural capacity from damage or
deterioration.
GENERAL STEPS IN DESIGNING A FENDER SYSTEM
EXISTING FACILITIES
Many fender system projects involve the design, manufacture and installation of new fender systems on existing marine berths.
This type of project often involves the replacement of existing fenders that are severely damaged or no longer adequate for the
range of vessels calling at the facility. In some cases, a risk assessment of the facility's operations indicates that new fenders
are required to improve the safety of the operations.
Generally, new fender system projects for an existing facility include the following steps through to the Design Specification:
1. Screening Study or DBM
a. Develop Alternative Cases for Type, Number, Size and Layout of Fender System.
(1) Establish the maximum and minimum vessel sizes to be considered.
(2) Determine the load capacity of the berth structure.
(3) Consider the layout of the dock facility (i.e., fender spacing, pier orientation and support structure, and tidal
elevation changes).
(4) Calculate the berthing impact energy.
(5) Select a fender system and evaluate the reaction loads (based on catalog information on the selected fender
system).
b. Determine Requirements for Ancillary Equipment.
(1) Size and select materials for construction of the frontal panel.
(2) Calculate the shear and tension capacity of the fender system.
(3) Determine the requirements for weight chains.
c. Gather Budgetary Quotes for Various Alternative Cases.
d. Select Best Case and Confirm with Affiliate or Local Project Team.
(1) Estimate the investment required for the fender system.
(2) Calculate the expected maintenance costs.
(3) Develop a schedule for the installation of the fender system, and estimate the length of time the berth will be out
of service.
(4) Note any safety considerations.
2. Design Specification and Recommended Vendors List
a. Develop a Design Specification based on the International Practice - Fender Systems (Future).
b. Provide a list of vendors based on consultations with ER&E Marine Terminal Engineering Section.

ENGINEERING Date
GENERAL STEPS IN DESIGNING A FENDER SYSTEM (Cont)
NEW FACILITIES
New (grassroots) facilities generally follow the same steps as existing facilities except the design of the fender system is part of
the overall design of the berth. In a new facility, the fender system and berth structure shall be optimized based on costs, load
capacities, and possible future expansion.
CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY

The impact energy of a berthing vessel is used in the design or evaluation of the pier or dolphin structure and its fender system.
This section presents guidelines for determining the value of parameters used to calculate the design berthing impact energy.
The values presented herein are based mainly on the conclusions developed in Exxon Engineering Report No. EE.16ER.67.
The requirements for existing structures should also incorporate previous berthing experience when determining appropriate
velocities for use in energy calculations.
The impact energy of a berthing vessel is calculated by multiplying the total kinetic energy of the vessel by a constant of
proportionality, as given by the following equation:
c W V2
E = Eq. (1)
2g
where: E = Impact energy of the berthing vessel, ton-ft (tonne-m)

W = Actual arrival displacement of the berthing vessel, ton (tonne)
V = Berthing velocity of the vessel perpendicular to the marine terminal berthing line, ft/sec
(m/sec)
c = Constant of proportionality, dimensionless
g = Acceleration of gravity, typically 32.2 ft/sec2 (9.8 m/s2)
IMPACT ENERGY
The berthing impact energy, E, for any particular portion of a structure is typically controlled by the vessel with the largest
displacement upon berthing which will contact that portion. However, there are situations when this is not the case. For
example, smaller vessels may berth at higher velocities than larger vessels, and may also contact berthing points closer to their
center of gravity. Both of these effects increase the berthing energy to be absorbed. Thus, a full range of vessels that expect
to use the berth should be considered.
ARRIVAL DISPLACEMENT
The actual arrival displacement, W, of the berthing vessel, which depends on the vessel draft condition (i.e., quantity of cargo
onboard), should be used with the above equation. Typically, the displacement governing the design berth impact energy is for
a fully loaded draft, even at loading terminals where the vessel arrives in a ballasted condition. This is to allow for the situation
when a fully loaded vessel departs the berth and then has to return due to an onboard emergency. In some cases, partially
loaded vessels may control the design berthing energy at facilities where the vessel's draft is restricted by the water depth.
BERTHING VELOCITY
The berthing velocity, V, with which a vessel approaches a berth is a significant factor in the calculation of the energy to be
absorbed by the fendering system as the energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. The design berthing velocity of a
vessel should be based on consideration of the vessel size, load condition, location and layout of berthing facilities,
meteorological and sea conditions, the availability and size of tugboats, and on any existing records of berthing velocities.
Table 1 lists design berthing velocities for vessels. These velocities are recommended for facilities where no previous records
of berthing velocities exist. Judgement is required for applying these velocities at a specific location, particularly when
evaluating the adequacy of an existing fender system where previous experience indicates different berthing velocities would
be appropriate.

Date ENGINEERING
CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY (Cont)
CONSTANT OF PROPORTIONALITY
The constant of proportionality, c, indicates the portion of the normal kinetic energy of the vessel that is to be dissipated by the
fender system. It also includes an allowance for energy absorbed by structural deflections of the ship's hull, berthing structure
and foundation soils, the damping effect of water between the pier and vessel and the hydrodynamic added mass of the vessel.
The added mass can be thought of as the amount of water that moves with the vessel as it approaches the pier. This added
mass contributes to the amount of energy the pier must dissipate. The magnitude of "c" will vary according to the following
factors:
• Location of the point of contact on the vessel with the fender system (Vessel Offset)
• Depth of water under the keel
• Current direction and speed
The location of the point of contact on the vessel with the fender system affects the amount of vessel rotation after initial impact
and thus the portion of the normal kinetic energy that is dissipated by the structure during initial contact and by water resistance
during subsequent rotation. The depth of water under the keel (underkeel clearance) and current direction and speed affect the
hydrodynamic mass. The value of "c" is directly taken from Figure 1 when the underkeel clearance is between 4 and 10 ft (1.2
and 3.0 m) and the current is approximately parallel to the pier. For other conditions, adjustments to the constant of
proportionality are required as noted in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
CONSTANT OF PROPORTIONALITY
1.1
1.0
0.9
CONSTANT OF PROPORTIONALITY – "c"
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
a/L
Notes:
(1) a = Distance of impact point from center of gravity of vessel (assumed to be on transverse centerline).
(2) L = Vessel length, overall (LOA).
(3) Increase "c" by 15% if underkeel clearance is less than 4 ft (1.2 m).
(4) Decrease "c" by 10% if underkeel clearance is 10 to 25 ft (3 to 7.5 m), and decrease by 15% if the clearance
is greater than 25 ft (7.5 m).
(5) Add 0.1 to all values of "c" when the current is pushing the ship towards the pier with an aspect angle
between 5 and 10 °. Add 0.2 when the angle is greater than 10°.
DP31Mf01

ENGINEERING Date
VESSEL OFFSET
Ideally, the manifold of a berthing vessel would line up with the pier loading equipment which is generally centered on the berth
structure. However, experience has shown that the tanker manifold and pier loading point can be offset at initial impact. For
marginal piers, an offset distance of 30 - 50 ft (10 - 15 m) is usually used in determining the distance "a" between vessel impact
point on the fender system and the vessel's center of gravity as shown in Figure 2. This distance generally increases from 30 -
50 ft (10 - 15 m) as vessel size increases. However, local conditions and berthing procedures must be evaluated in
determining this value for each individual location.
FIGURE 2
VESSEL OFFSET
Distance from pier

center of manifold to Pier
first point of contact CL
Pier
Berthing Angle
Vessel Berthing
Velocity
Vessel
Vessel
Offset
"a" = Distance from CL
vessel center of
gravity to first point of
contact DP31Mf02

Date ENGINEERING
CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY (Cont)
TABLE 1
BERTHING VELOCITIES, V(1)
BREASTING DOLPHINS AND MARGINAL PIERS(2)
PROTECTED HARBOR
BERTHING SITUATION VESSEL(3)

Barges,
Coasters, Tankers Tankers Tankers
Pier Tankers less 15,001 dwt 30,001 dwt 50,001 dwt
Vessel Load Parallels than 15,000 through through through Over
Condition Tugs Current dwt 30,000 dwt 50,000 dwt 90,000 dwt 90,000 dwt
Full Load Yes Yes 0.550 0.450 0.350 0.325 0.300

No Yes 0.650 0.550 0.450 0.425 0.400
Yes No 0.650 0.550 0.450 0.425 0.400
No No 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.475 0.450
Ballasted Yes Yes 0.650 0.525 0.425 0.375 0.350

No Yes 0.750 0.625 0.525 0.475 0.450
Yes No 0.750 0.625 0.525 0.475 0.450
No No 0.800 0.675 0.575 0.525 0.500
MODERATELY EXPOSED LOCATION
BERTHING SITUATION VESSEL(3)

Barges,
Coasters, Tankers Tankers Tankers
Pier Tankers less 15,001 dwt 30,001 dwt 50,001 dwt
Vessel Load Parallels than 15,000 through through through Over
Condition Tugs Current dwt 30,000 dwt 50,000 dwt 90,000 dwt 90,000 dwt
Full Load Yes Yes 0.650 0.550 0.450 0.400 0.375
No Yes 0.750 0.650 0.550 0.500 0.475
Yes No 0.750 0.650 0.550 0.500 0.475
No No 0.800 0.700 0.600 0.550 0.525
Ballasted Yes Yes 0.750 0.625 0.525 0.450 0.425

No Yes 0.850 0.725 0.625 0.550 0.525
Yes No 0.850 0.725 0.625 0.550 0.525
No No 0.900 0.775 0.675 0.600 0.550
Notes:
(1) In units of ft/sec (1 ft/sec = 0.3 m/sec)
(2) For finger piers reduce the berthing velocity, V, by 20 - 25%. For turning dolphins increase the berthing velocity, V, by 0.050 -
0.100 ft/sec (0.015 - 0.030 m/sec)
(3) dwt = Dead Weight Tons

ENGINEERING Date
TYPES OF FENDER SYSTEMS

There are many different types and configurations of fender systems available for marine piers. Fender systems can be
broadly categorized into three types as listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 3.
TABLE 2
GENERAL TYPES OF FENDER SYSTEMS
FENDER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

Rubbing Strips are timbers or high-density polyethylene material
directly attached to a pier face to provide a smooth rubbing surface
between the pier and hull of a ship. Rubbing strips absorb almost
Rubbing Strips no energy and therefore must be used on flexible piers that are
designed to deflect and absorb the impact energy of berthing
vessels. Rubbing strip fender systems are generally limited to
small wooden pier or bulkhead type barge facilities.
Flexible Pile Systems are steel or timber piles designed to bend in
flexure to absorb berthing impact energy. There are many different
configurations and a wide range of ship sizes that can be
Flexible Pile Systems accommodated by flexible pile systems. These systems can range
from a single or multiple steel pile breasting dolphin which acts like
a cantilever and is entirely independent of any other structure, to a
series of angled timber piles attached to the pier which bow in the
middle when impacted to absorb energy.
Resilient Buffer Systems are comprised of flexible buffers, such as
steel springs, rubber tubes or columns, which are mounted on the
face of a platform or dolphin and absorb impact energy by
compressing. There are many different configurations and a wide
Resilient Buffer Systems range of ship sizes that can be accommodated by resilient buffer
systems. Resilient buffer systems can range from unfaced buffer
units which come in direct contact with the ship, to systems which
use panels to distribute loads amongst several buffers and over a
large area of the ship hull. These panels can either be hung by
chains off the pier, supported by the buffers themselves, or
supported by piles which can also assist in energy absorption.
Typically, two or three of these general types of fender systems are combined to work together in order to capitalize on each
individual system's advantages. A common example of this is a single steel pile flexible dolphin outfitted with a buckling type
rubber buffer and a steel framed panel faced with synthetic rubbing strips.

Date ENGINEERING
TYPES OF FENDER SYSTEMS (Cont)
FIGURE 3
TYPES OF COMMON FENDER SYSTEM DESIGNS
Rubbing Flexible Pile Fender ( Attached

Strip To Breasting Face System)
Flexible Dolphin
Suspended Panel Unfaced Resilient

Resilient Buffer Fender Buffer System
Pneumatic or foam filled Pile Supported Panel

DP31MF03 Resilient Buffer Fender Resilient Buffer Fender

ENGINEERING Date
SELECTION OF A FENDER SYSTEM

Once the energy absorption requirements and the load limitations of the pier facility and vessels are determined, an appropriate
fendering system can be designed. The selection of the best fender system for a particular application depends on:
• Energy absorption requirements.
• Maximum reaction force.
• Maximum deflection and load deflection characteristics.
• Effect of angular impact on performance.
• Coefficient of friction and vertical and longitudinal rubbing forces.
• The range of vessels to be handled, the types of vessels, their hull size and shape.
• Distance requirements between the vessel and pier structure.
• Range of tide and exposure conditions.
• Environmental exposure effects.
• Frequency of berthing and wear considerations.
• Factor of safety and overload capacity.
• Cost and long-term maintenance/repair costs.
• Local availability, costs, and construction practices.
It is impractical to suggest a standardized fender system because local conditions are rarely identical. Because every facility
varies, the design must be tailored for that specific terminal. However, if past experience has proven that a particular fender
design is effective and economical for a site, it should be considered for other sites with similar conditions. In general, the best
fender system will absorb the required amount of energy while minimizing the reaction forces to the pier structure and vessel
hull, at the lowest cost.
Table 3 lists the major advantages and disadvantages of the various types of available fender systems to assist in the optimal
selection. New or used truck tires are occasionally installed at Marketing facilities to serve as the fender system. While these
type systems have performed well in some situations, many have experienced considerable wear and damage of the tires, as
well as structural damage to the pier. This damage is primarily due to their lack of energy absorption capacity or inadequate
restraint systems that expose the pier face. Tires have not been engineered for this application, and there is little data
supporting the use of tires as an effective fender system. Locations utilizing these type systems should ensure fender and
berth capacity has been adequately considered.

Date ENGINEERING
SELECTION OF A FENDER SYSTEM (Cont)
TABLE 3
MAJOR ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF FENDER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
TYPE OF FENDER SYSTEM ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Rubbing Strips
As total fendering system • Lowest Cost • Limited to small barge berths with structures
designed to absorb energy through deflection
• Generally results in high loads into the ship
and pier
As facing for other systems:
• Wood • Low initial cost compared with synthetic facings • Requires periodic replacement
• Helps distribute point loads
• Synthetic • Durable, low maintenance • Higher initial Cost than wood
Resilient Buffer Systems
General/Unfaced • High energy/reaction force ratio • Moderate to high cost
• Can accommodate a large range of ship sizes • Results in high vessel hull pressures
• Moderate cost • Easily damaged by protrusions from ship hull
• Can be installed quickly • Only portion of the buffer is contact effective
• Well suited for barge berths • Load is not distributed along pier
Pile supported panel systems • Ideal for locations with large tide variation • Maintenance of piles, chains, and facing
• Results in low hull pressures materials
• Applicable on almost all types of piers • Difficult to install
• Distributes contact amongst multiple buffers • Moderate distance between vessel and pier
face
Suspended panel systems • Eliminates pile cost and maintenance • Maintenance of chains and facing materials
• Can be installed quickly • Moderate distance between vessel and pier
face
Floating pneumatic/foam systems • Produces low hull pressures and loads into pier • Requires large backing surface
• Can usually be installed very quickly • Pneumatic types susceptible to
puncture/deflation
• Large distance between vessel and pier
• Not good for large tidal or ship size range
Flexible Pile Systems
Single pile breasting dolphin • Low cost for a dolphin structure • May require high strength steels and large
pile driving equipment
• Limited to certain soil conditions
Multiple pile breasting dolphin • Uses smaller lower strength piles • Limited to certain soil conditions
• Welded connections critical
Independent multiple pile • Protects entire platform face • Most suited to barges
breasting face systems
• No resultant loads into the platform • Limited to certain soil conditions
• Good for large range of ship sizes and tides • Difficult to maintain
Attached multiple pile breasting • Protects entire platform face • Difficult to maintain
face systems
• Good for large range of ships sizes and tides

ENGINEERING Date
DESIGN OF FENDER SYSTEM

Regardless of the type of fender system chosen for a particular location, it should be designed to ensure adequate protection of
the pier and vessel, minimize operating restrictions and problems, and reduce and simplify required maintenance. This section
describes design criteria that should be considered when designing or specifying a fender system. In general, the following
should be considered when selecting a fender system: the required energy capacity, configuration of the fender system and
support structure, and the fender panel requirements.
After determining the requirements for the fender system, design information can be obtained from manufacturer's catalogs
which can be found in the Marine Terminal Engineering Library. There are many different options when selecting a fender
system. The size, shape, and material of a fender system determine its energy absorption capacity and reaction force.
Therefore, each manufacturer supplies the required design data about each fender system that they offer. The catalog
provides information about a fender system's physical size and shape, the material composition, the energy absorption capacity
and reaction forces at specific deflections, and effect of angular berthing on the fender. Based on the required performance
criteria determined in this section and the information supplied in the fender catalogs, the best fender system for the application
can be selected.
ENERGY ABSORPTION OF FENDERS

For a given vessel impact energy, the selected fender system must be capable of effectively absorbing most of the berthing
energy and transmitting as minimal reaction force to the fixed structure as possible. The work done by deflecting the fender
system is equal to the area under the load deflection curve as given by the integral:
δ
En =
∫ R (x ) dx
o
Eq. (2)
where: En = Energy absorbed by the fender system

R = Reaction force
x = Deflection
δ = Deflection at the rated or desired energy level
This is expressed graphically as the area under the deflection/reaction force curve as shown in Figure 4.
FIGURE 4
DEFLECTION/REACTION FORCE CURVE
130%
% OF RATED REACTION FORCE
120%
100%
ve
80% Cur
ce
For
on
60%
acti
Re
40%
20%
0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
DP31Mf04 DEFLECTION, % OF FENDER ELEMENT HEIGHT

Date ENGINEERING
DESIGN OF FENDER SYSTEM (Cont)

The selected fender system should have greater energy absorption at normal compression than the berthing impact energy,
and the reaction force should be less than the maximum allowable reaction force of the pier structure. The calculated design
energy should be absorbed within 67 percent of the ultimate energy capacity of the fender system, which is referred to as the
rated energy capacity. Typically, the information provided by fender manufacturers refers to the rated performance of the
fender system. The rated performance is typically based on the rated deflection, which ranges from 45 to 60%, depending on
the manufacturer. Elastomeric and pneumatic fender manufacturers typically supply fender performance curves for each model
they supply. Precautions should be taken to insure that the most current information is being used.
The berthing energy, as calculated using Eq. (2), is based on normal operations and may be exceeded due to accidental
occurrences such as the following:
1. A change in wind or current conditions greater than the design limits.
2. An engine or steering gear failure of the ship or tug.
3. Human error.
In order to provide a margin of safety for such accidental occurrences, the ultimate energy capacity of the fender should be up
to one and a half times (safety factor of 1.5) the calculated berthing energy for normal impacts.
VESSEL ANGLE OF IMPACT

The angle of approach is the angle that the vessel's hull makes with the berthing structure and should not be confused with the
direction of the vessel motion as shown in Figure 5. Energy loss of the fender system can occur under angular approaches
due to the non-uniform deflections and energy absorption by each fender in the system. This energy loss should be considered
in the analysis. Vessels should be assumed to approach at angles up to 10° for tankers and 15° for coasters and barges.
FIGURE 5
VESSEL BERTHING ANGLE AND DIRECTION OF MOTION
Pier
CL
Fender
Pier
Berthing Angle
= 10°
Vessel Berthing
Velocity
Vessel
CL DP31Mf05
Depending on the berthing angle, an angular correction factor will need to be applied to the energy absorption capacity of the
selected fender system at normal (berthing angle of zero degrees) compression, as shown by the following equation:
E < Ea = En Fea Eq. (3)
where: E = Berthing impact energy

Ea = Energy absorption of the fender at angular compression
En = Energy absorption of the fender at normal compression
Fea = Angular correction factor for energy absorption

ENGINEERING Date

If there is any limit in the allowable reaction force to the pier structure, the following equation should be utilized:
Rmax > Rn and Ra = Rn Fra Eq. (4)
where: Rmax = Maximum allowable reaction force

Rn = Reaction force at normal compression
Ra = Reaction force at angular compression
Fra = Angular correction factor for reaction force
Typically, most manufacturers of elastomeric and pneumatic fender systems provide correction factors to the performance data
of their units for use in angular berthing conditions.
HULL PRESSURE OF THE VESSEL

Large vessels with large areas of vertical and parallel sides are vulnerable to local point loads on the shell plating and
stiffeners, which are designed for local hydrostatic pressure. For smaller vessels, however, the local hull strength is not usually
a problem because of the closer frame spacing, greater curvature and inherently greater stiffness. The ratio between the width
of the fender contact area and the vessel transverse frame spacing should not be less than 0.5 to 0.65, and the ratio between
the height and the side longitudinal spacing not less than about two. Because of the wide variety of vessel construction, it is
difficult to determine the transverse spacing for a particular design. Therefore, to simplify the design process, the fender facing
contact area should be sized such that the maximum hull pressure does not exceed 2 tons/ft2 (20 tonnes/m2). From the
maximum hull pressure, the minimum required fender contact area is obtained by the following equation:
Rmax
Fender Facing Contact Area = Eq. (5)
Phull
where: Rmax = Maximum reaction force of fender

Phull = Maximum hull pressure
Typically for elastomeric fender systems, a fender panel is utilized to reduce the contact pressure to the vessel's hull or to
bridge a series of units into a single fender. The fender panels are usually of steel construction with a timber or polymer facing
material to minimize abrasive contact with the hull of the vessel. In addition, the edges of the fender panel are chamfered so
that the panel's edges do not damage the hull or scrape off the paint.
CURVATURE OF THE HULL OF THE VESSEL

Vertical curvature of the hull and hull flare, and overhang or projection such as bulbous bows, must be considered in fender
system layout. The standoff distance from the face of the pier to the face of the fender should be minimized in the interest of
increasing the effective reach of loading equipment and gangways, but should also provide a sufficient buffer zone to prevent
contact of any part of the vessel with the pier face with fenders at their maximum rated deflection. The effect of the vertical
curvature is shown in Figure 6a. The standoff distance usually ranges from 3 to 6 ft (1 to 2 m) for most seagoing terminal
facilities. At offshore installations, this distance will be close to 10 ft (3 m) or more.
The minimum standoff is dependent on the curvature of the vessel's hull, angle of the pile structure, the loading equipment
operating envelope, and the energy absorption requirements of the fender system. In order to calculate the minimum offset
distance associated with the curvature of the hull the following formula can be used:
h
Standoff > D = sin α Eq. (6)
cos α
where: D = The distance from the centerline of the fender element face to the point of contact
between the vessel's hull and the berthing structure.
h = The vertical distance from the fender centerline to the point of contact between the
vessel's hull and the berthing structure.
α = The angle of the vessel hull.
For pile supported structures, the fender standoff distance should account for the pile's slope angle. The vessel's hull should
not come into contact with the piles (see Figure 6a-II). The piles slope angle should be determined before the design of the
fender system standoff. The vertical line from the compressed fender face to the piles should be larger than the molded depth
of the largest calling ship. This is to prevent ships from contacting the piles at the time of berthing.

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 6
EFFECT OF VESSEL HULL CURVATURE ON FENDER SPACING
I O
Vessel Hull
α el
h Vess
Structure
Loading Arms r
Deballasted
Vessel Fender
HWL Fully Loaded

Berth Vessel LWL
θ
Wharf
H
H/2
II P
a. Vertical Curvature b. Horizontal Curvature DP31Mf06
FENDER SPACING
Fender spacing depends upon the type of fender system and structural support, the range of vessel size to be accommodated,
the curvature of the vessel's hull and the type and arrangement of berth and mooring loads. Fenders are typically spaced on
the order of 25% to 50% of the vessel's Length overall (LOA). The vessel overhang beyond the end of the breasting face
should be minimized (less than 33% of the vessel's LOA). A vessel alongside only requires two points of contact while in berth,
but three or more contact points are recommended. The length of the vessel parallel sides controls the maximum spacing
between fenders. The ratio of a vessel's parallel midbody length is on the order of 35% to 55% of its LOA, usually being larger
for longer vessels. This ratio often determines the point of first contact with the vessel's hull, which is usually at the end of the
parallel midbody and also the length of vessel available to contact fenders under moored conditions. The fender spacing must
also prevent the horizontal curvature of the vessel's hull near the bow or stern from contacting the loading platform or other
fixed structure as shown in Figure 6b. The fender spacing should be based on the smallest vessel that is expected to call at
the terminal. The following equation can be used to determine the adequate spacing between fenders for vessels approaching
at angles up to 10 degrees for tankers:
P = 4 Hr − H2 Eq. (7)
where: P = Fender spacing

H = Fender height
r = Vessel hull radius of curvature
For coasters and barges where the bow and stern are typically squared, a continuous fender face is recommended to prevent
any contact with the pier structure.

ENGINEERING Date
PIER ORIENTATION AND SUPPORT STRUCTURE

The choice of fender type is also dependent on the orientation and type of structure to which it will be attached. The ability of
the pier or berthing structure to distribute the load and resist all berthing and mooring reaction forces must be carefully
checked. Fenders with large deflection are more energy absorbent than fenders with less deflection, and in turn provide more
protection to the support structure.
WATER ELEVATION CHANGE (TIDE)

The tidal elevation variation from the high-high water to the low-low water shall be taken into consideration when designing a
fender system. The fender system must prevent the smallest vessel, loaded, and arriving at the lowest tide from traveling
underneath the fender. The fender system may partially be submerged, but shall not be completely submerged during the
high-high water. This will ease the task of maintenance.
SHEAR CAPACITY OF FENDERS

Shear forces are forces exerted on the fender element as a result of friction between the vessel's hull and the fender face.
These forces, if not kept within acceptable limits, will induce shear deformations in the fender. The shear forces are
mathematically expressed as the product of the normal force and the coefficient of friction.
Sshear = Fnormal ffriction Eq. (8)
where: Sshear = Shearing reaction force of fender (ton)

Fnormal = Normal Compression Force on fender face (ton)
ffriction = Coefficient of friction of fender face material (supplied by manufacturer)
The size of the shear chain is determined by the maximum tension on the shear chain which can be calculated by the following
formula:
µRn − Sshear
T = Eq. (9)
cos φ + µ sin φ
where: T = Tension on shear chain

µ = Friction coefficient between ship and fender
Rn = Axial reaction force of fender
Sshear = Shearing reaction force of fender
φ = Angle between the chain and the face of the structure
Figure 7 depicts the movement of the shear chain.

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 7
FENDER SYSTEM IN COMPRESSION
Max. Shear Frontal Frame

Deflection
Compression
Deflection
Max.
Fender Height
Shear Chain
Fender
φ
DP31Mf07
TENSION CAPACITY OF FENDERS

Tension forces are the forces exerted on the fender element as a result of tensile deflections of the fender due to unbalanced
contact with the fender frontal panel due to low tide or small vessel berthing. This berthing creates high tension on the upper
fender element. This tension can only be maintained within the allowable limit by the design of an adequate tension chain.
The allowable deflection of the fender is as follows:
1. Deflection in the middle part of the fender: Max. allowable tensile deflection: 5%.
2. Deflection in the peripheral area: Max. allowable tensile deflection: 10%.
The following are the calculations to determine the proper size chain. Figure 8 depicts the effect of tensile force on the fender
element and the parameters of the equations:
1. Find reaction force of the fender (R2) from its performance curve where (B) receives maximum deflection (δ2) based on the
design impact energy.
2. Calculate the deflection of the fender (δ1) at (A) with the following formula and then find the reaction force of the fender
(R1) from its performance curve:
 l 1 
δ1 =  δ Eq. (10)
 l 1 + l 2  2

3. Substitute the values of reaction force arrived at in 1 and 2, the (R1 and R2) in the following formula (Moment Balance
formula) and obtain the tensile strength to be applied to the chain
T =
R1 (l 2 + l 3 ) + R 2 l 3 Eq. (11)
l
where: T = Tension force on the chain
R1 = Reaction force of fender at δ1
R2 = Reaction force of fender at δ2
F = Berthing force of vessel
δ1 = Deflection at (A)
δ2 = Max. deflection at (B)
l = Distance between point of contact and tension chain
l1 = Distance between tension chain and Point (A)
l 2 = Distance between Points (A) and (B)
l 3 = Distance between Point (B) and point of contact

ENGINEERING Date
FIGURE 8
EFFECT OF TENSILE FORCE ON A FENDER ELEMENT
Tension Chain
Wharf
l1
(A)
R1
l2 l
δ1 δ2 (B)
R2
l3
F
Vessel
W.L.
DP31Mf08
WEIGHT CHAINS
The purpose of the weight chains is to support the weight of the fender facing panel cantilever deadweight when the system is
not in use. In the case of severe vertical shear, the chains may serve both functions. The weight chains strength is determined
based on:
1. Panel weight
2. Number of panels
3. The standoff of the fender
4. The shear force (Shear force = Normal force x Coefficient of friction)
The chain design load is determined based on all these factors. The chains must be designed to have breaking strength at
least three times greater than their maximum design load.
A chain assembly consists of shackles on both sides, end link, rubber flex (for some chains), common links, and turn buckles.
Normally, shackles and common links are made of carbon steel. The end link and turn buckles are made of mild steel. The
rubber flex assembly consists of rubber and mild steel. All steel components are galvanized per ASTM A123 or A153 as
applicable. Figure 9 depicts a typical chain assembly. The choice of the chain type is dependent on the type of service and
the applied load. Some manufacturers for the weight chain recommend rubber flex chains.
ANCHOR BOLTS
Anchor bolts are steel bars cast into new concrete or bolted into existing concrete for the purpose of attaching the chain end to
the fixed structure as shown in Figure 10. The bolts cast into new concrete are usually of the U type unless otherwise
specified by the designer. The concrete embedments (anchor bolts, anchor bolt inserts, and chain anchors) shall be no closer
than 10 in. (250 mm) to an edge and designed to resist a pull out 1.25 times greater than the breaking strength of the male
threads or chain attached to them. Threaded embedments for attaching rubber elements to concrete must have Type 316
stainless steel, female threads. The selection of bolts depends on the design load. The breaking or the pull out strength must
be four times greater than the design load.

Date ENGINEERING
FIGURE 9
CHAIN ASSEMBLY
1 2 3 4
4 2 1
5
LEGEND
1 Shackle
2 End Link
3 Rubber flex
4 Common Link
5 Turn Buckle DP31Mf09
FIGURE 10
ANCHOR BOLT
DP31Mf10

ENGINEERING Date
NOMENCLATURE
a = Distance from vessel center of gravity to first point of contact with the berth as used in Figures 1 and 2, ft (m)
c = Constant of proportionality, dimensionless
D = Distance from the centerline of the fender element face to the point of contact between the vessel's hull and
the berthing structure, ft (m)
E = Impact energy of a berthing vessel, ton-ft (tonne-m)
Ea = Energy absorption of the fender at angular compression, ton-ft (tonne-m)
En = Energy absorption of the fender at normal compression, ton-ft (tonne-m)
F = Berthing force of vessel, ton (tonne)
ffriction = Coefficient of friction of fender face material
Fea = Angular correction factor for energy absorption, dimensionless
Fnormal = Normal Compression Force on fender face, ton (tonne)
Fra = Angular correction factor for reaction force, dimensionless
g = Acceleration of gravity, typically 32.2 ft/sec2 (9.8 m/s2)
h = Vertical distance from the fender centerline to the point of contact between the vessel's hull and the berthing
structure, ft (m)
H = Fender height, ft (m)
L = Vessel Length, Overall (LOA), ft (m)
l = Distance between point of vessel contact and fender tension chain as used in Figure 8
l1 = Distance between tension chain and Point (A) as used in Figure 8
l2 = Distance between Points (A) and (B) as used in Figure 8
l3 = Distance between Point (B) and point of contact as used in Figure 8
P = Fender spacing, ft (m)
Phull = Maximum hull pressure, ton/ft2 (tonne/m2)
r = Vessel hull radius of curvature, ft (m)
R = Reaction force, ton (tonne)
Ra = Reaction force at angular compression, ton (tonne)
Rmax = Maximum allowable reaction force, ton (tonne)
Rn = Reaction force at normal compression, ton (tonne)
R1 = Reaction force of fender at δ1, ton (tonne)
R2 = Reaction force of fender at δ2, ton (tonne)
Sshear = Shearing reaction force of fender, ton (tonne)
T = Tension force on the shear chain, ton (tonne)
V = Berthing velocity of the vessel perpendicular to the marine terminal berthing line, ft/sec (m/sec)
W = Actual arrival displacement of the berthing vessel, ton (tonne)
X = Deflection, ft (m)
α = Angle of the vessel hull as used in Figure 6a
δ = Deflection at the rated or desired energy level, ft (m)
δ1 = Max. deflection at Point (A) as used in Figure 8, ft (m)
δ2 = Deflection at Point (B) as used in Figure 8, ft (m)
µ = Friction coefficient between ship and fender
φ = Angle between the chain and the face of the structure as used in Figure 7
θ = Vessel approach angle as used in Figure 6b

Date ENGINEERING
EXAMPLES
The following examples represent only a few fender system layouts. Depending on the specific needs of the facility, there
could be numerous options for the design of the fender system. The size, shape, placement and materials which make up the
fender are critical factors in the selection process. Because of the uniqueness of each manufacturer's fender system(s), one
should consult the manufacturer's catalogs, application/design manuals and/or representative for assistance when designing a
fender system for a facility.
EXAMPLE 1 – SAMPLE CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY

Given: A loaded 27,000 DWT Tanker (Displacement = 35,000 tonnes) is berthing at an angle of 5° to a marginal pier in a
protected harbor. Adequate tug assistance is available and currents are parallel to the pier. The pier length is 200
ft (60 m) and the underkeel clearance is 5 ft (1.5 m). The overall vessel length is 630 ft (192 m). What is the
berthing impact energy?
Solution:
Using Table 1, determine the berthing velocity, V, for a fully loaded 27,000 DWT tanker (15,001 - 30,000 DWT
category), with tugs and currents parallel to the pier.
V = 0.450 ft/sec (0.135 m/s)
Note: No adjustment to V is required for a marginal pier.
Assume a maximum manifold offset of 40 ft (12 m) from the pier centerline.
Distance "a" = 100 - 40 = 60 ft (30 - 12 = 18 m)
a/L = 60/630 or 18/192 = 0.095
From Figure 1, c = 0.90. No corrections are necessary on "c" for this case since the underkeel clearance of the
vessel, 5 ft (1.5 m), is greater than 4 ft (1.2 m) but less than 10 ft (3 m) and currents are parallel to the pier.
Using Eq. (1) for the berthing impact energy:
c W V2
E =
2g
( 0.9) (35,000 x 0.9842 tons / tonnes) (0.450)2 (0.9) (35,000) (0.135)2

E= or E=
2 (32.2) 2 (9.8)
E = 98 ton − ft or E = 30 tonne − m
EXAMPLE 2 – SAMPLE FOR SPECIFYING A FENDER SYSTEM

Given: Using the information and results given in the example for calculating berthing impact energy (Example 1), specify a
fender system for this application. The following is additional information about the design criteria for the pier
facility:
• Dock Type Continuous, Open Pile
• Maximum Dock Reaction 180 tonnes
• Maximum Berthing Angle 5°
• Maximum Hull Pressure 20 tonne/m2
• Maximum Undeflected Standoff 1.0 m
• Berthing Speed 0.135 m/s
• Elevation of Top Mounting Area 6.0 m
• Elevation of Bottom Mounting Area 1.0 m
• Width of Mounting Area 3.5 m
• Elevation of Top of Panel 3.75 m
• Elevation of Bottom of Panel 0.25 m
• Special Conditions Tide 0.0 - 1.92 m

ENGINEERING Date
EXAMPLES (Cont)
Solution:
From Example 1, the required energy dissipation is 30 tonne-m. Including a safety factor of 1.5, the design energy
dissipation is 45 tonne-m.
For this example, the following catalog data, Figures 11 and 12, from Trellex Fender Systems will be used.
Using the maximum standoff distance of 1.0 m and selecting fender panel with a thickness of 0.178 m, the height of
the fender, H, must be less than 1.178 m.
Therefore, two examples of acceptable fender systems would be:
Option 1 - (2) MV1000 x 1000 A : E = 50.0 tonne-m and R = 108.8 tonnes
or
Option 2 - (2) MV 800 x 2000 A : E = 64.0 tonne-m and R = 174.4 tonnes
Choosing to mount the fenders one over the other as shown in Figure 11 and using the chart, L = 0.9H and L =
1.9H, respectively. Therefore, based on a maximum berthing angle of 5o, the energy absorption including the
effects of angular berthing are as follows:
Option 1 - MV1000 x 1000 A : E(@5o) = (0.97)(50.0) = 48.5 tonne-m
or
Option 2 - MV800 x 2000 A : E(@5o) = (0.88)(64.0) = 56.3 tonne-m

As specified, the fender panel must be 3.5 m tall, therefore, the panel's width, W is as follows [using Eq. (5)]:
R
W =
PHull H
108.8
Option 1: W = = 1.6 m (use 2.0 m)
( 20 )(3.5 )
174.4
Option 2: W = = 2.4 m (use 2.5 m)
(20 )(3 .5 )
Next, we need to calculate the spacing between fenders [using Eq. (7)].
P = 4Hr − H2 , where r is the radius of curvature of the hull (for this example r = 98 m). Therefore,
Option 1: P= 4(1.0 + 0.178 )(98 ) − (1.0 + 0.178 )2 = 21.5 m
or
Option 2: P= 4(0.8 + 0 .178 )(98 ) − (0.8 + 0.178 )2 = 19.5 m

Date ENGINEERING
EXAMPLES (Cont)
Recommendation:
Option 1: (2) MV1000 x 1000 A Trellex Fender elements with E(@5o) = 48.5 tonne-m and R = 108.8 tonnes
(1) 3.5 m by 2.0 m fender panel, and
a Fender Spacing = 20 m on center
Option 2: (2) MV800 x 2000 A Trellex Fender elements with E(@5o) = 56.3 tonne-m and R = 174.4 tonnes
(1) 3.5 m by 2.5 m fender panel, and
a Fender Spacing = 18 m on center
FIGURE 11
CORRECTION FACTOR FOR ANGULAR BERTHING
TRELLEX FENDER SYSTEMS
α
H
0° 5° 10° 15° α
100
L = 0.625 H
90
L = 1.0 H
80
70
Reduction Factor, RI %
60 L = 2.0 H
50
40
30
L = 4.0 H
20
10
0
DP31Mf11

ENGINEERING Date
EXAMPLES (Cont)
FIGURE 12
PERFORMANCE DATA
TRELLEX FENDER SYSTEMS
MV ELEMENT SELECTION PERFORMANCE VALUES IN THE TABLE ARE

VALID FOR ONE SINGLE ELEMENT
STANDARD SIZES
Single element may be used, but they are normally
Other lengths L are available on request. placed in pairs of 2, 4, 6 or more elements behind a
Ask your nearest Trellex Office for advise. shield or panel.
Element size H x L Rated performance for one element

F
Compound A or B E R E R E R
Tonne-m Tonne kNm kN Ft-kips Kips L
MV 300 x 600B 0.9 6.8 9 66 6 15 R
x 600A 1.3 9.8 13 96 9 21
x 900B 1.4 10.3 14 101 10 22
x 900A 2.0 14.7 20 144 14 32 r
x 1200B 1.8 18.7 18 134 13 30
x 1200A 2.6 19.6 26 192 19 43
x 1500B 2.3 17.2 22 168 16 38 H
x 1500A 8.3 24.5 32 240 24 54
MV 400 x 1000B 2.8 15.3 27 150 20 34
x 1000A 4.0 21.8 39 214 29 48
x 1500B 4.2 22.9 41 224 30 50
x 1500A 6.0 32.7 59 321 43 72
x 2000B 5.6 30.6 55 300 41 67
x 2000A 8.0 43.6 78 428 58 96
x 2500B 7.0 38.2 68 375 51 84
x 2500A 10.0 54.5 98 535 72 120
x 3000B 8.4 45.8 83 449 61 101 E = Energy absorption
x 3000A 12.0 65.4 117 642 87 144
R = Reaction force
MV 500 x 1000B 4.3 19.0 43 187 32 42
x 1000A 6.2 27.2 61 267 45 60 F = Compression force
x 1500B 6.5 28.6 64 280 47 63 R=F
x 1500A 9.3 40.8 91 400 67 90 r = Rated deflection
x 2000B 8.7 38.2 85 374 63 84
x 2000A 12.4 54.4 122 534 90 120
MV 550 x 1000B 5.3 21.0 52 206 38 46 Trellex MV elements are available in
x 1000A 7.6 30.0 75 294 55 66 two standard compounds A and B.
x 1500B 8.0 31.5 78 309 58 69
x 1500A 11.4 45.0 112 441 82 99 The softer compound B gives lower
MV 600 x 1000B 6.3 22.8 62 224 46 50 values E and R than compound A for
x 1000A 9.0 32.6 88 320 65 72 the same size of element.
x 1500B 9.5 34.2 93 336 69 76
x 1500A 13.5 48.9 132 480 98 108
The rated values in the table are
MV 750 x 1000B 9.8 28.7 96 282 71 63 valid for a deflection of 57.5% of H.
x 1000A 14.0 41.0 137 402 101 90
x 1500B 14.7 43.1 144 423 106 95
x 1500A 21.0 61.5 206 603 152 135 For performance rating at other
deflections, use the curves on page
MV 800 x 1000B 11.2 30.5 110 299 81 67 9 in conjunction with the ratings in
x 1000A 16.0 43.6 157 428 116 96
x 1500B 16.8 45.8 165 449 122 101 the table.
x 1500A 24.0 65.4 235 642 174 144
x 2000B 22.4 61.0 220 599 162 134 When selecting a MV element it will
x 2000A 32.0 87.2 314 856 232 192 minimize reaction force, panel size
MV 1000 x 900B 15.8 34.3 155 337 113 76 and often cost if the element chosen
x 900A 22.5 49.0 221 481 162 108 has the maximum H permitted and
x 1000B 17.5 38.1 172 374 126 84 the application.
x 1000A 25.0 54.4 245 534 180 120
x 1500B 26.3 57.1 258 560 189 126 For use of single elements, odd
x 1500A 37.5 81.6 368 800 270 180
x 2000B 35.0 76.2 343 748 262 168 number of elements and other
x 2000A 50.0 108.8 490 1068 360 240 special applications contact your
MV 1250 x 900B 24.6 42.8 241 420 177 95 nearest Trellex office.
x 900A 35.1 61.2 344 600 253 135
x 1000B 27.3 47.6 268 467 197 105
x 1000A 39.0 68.0 383 667 282 150
x 1500B 41.0 71.4 402 701 296 158
x 1500A 58.5 102.0 574 1001 423 225
x 2000B 54.6 95.2 536 934 395 210
x 2000A 78.0 136.0 766 1334 564 300
MV 1450 x 1000B 36.8 55.3 361 543 266 122
x 1000A 52.6 79.0 516 775 380 174
x 1500B 55.2 83.0 542 813 399 183
x 1500A 78.9 118.5 774 1162 570 261
x 2000B 73.6 110.6 722 1085 532 244
x 2000A 105.2 158.0 1032 1550 760 348
MV 1600 x 1000B 44.8 61.0 440 599 323 135
x 1000A 64.0 87.2 628 855 462 192
x 1500B 67.2 91.6 659 898 485 202
x 1500A 96.0 130.8 942 1283 693 288
x 2000B 89.6 122.1 879 1197 647 269
x 2000A 128.0 174.4 1256 1710 924 384
DP31Mf12

Date ENGINEERING
EXAMPLES (Cont)
EXAMPLE 3 – SAMPLE FENDER SYSTEM WITH BRIDGESTONE SUPER CELL FENDERS

Given: A loaded 60,000 DWT Tanker is berthing at an angle of 9o to a marginal pier at a berthing speed of 0.15 m/s. The
design berthing energy has been calculated to be 63.8 tonne-m. Recommend a fender system utilizing two
Bridgestone Super Cell fenders connected with a single fender panel as shown in Figure 13.
FIGURE 13
FENDER SYSTEM WITH TWO BRIDGESTONE FENDER UNITS
Plan View
Compression
9°
Super Cell Fender

SUC1250H (RS)
1250mm
Minimum Spacing
DP31Mf13
Solution:
For this example, a fender system will be selected from the Bridgestone - Cell Fender Series Catalog.
Based on the design berthing energy, a candidate for the fender system is the Super Cell Fender SUC1250H (RS).
At normal berthing (at 0o), the rated energy absorption and reaction force of the fender systems (see Figures 14
and 15) are:
En = 2 × 57.3 = 114.6 tonne-m
Rn = 2 × 104.3 = 208.6 tonne
FIGURE 14
PERFORMANCE DATA
BRIDGESTONE SUC1250H FENDER
Rated reaction Maximum reaction Rated energy Maximum energy

Rubber grade force force absorption absorption
Tons Tons Ton - M Ton - M
Kips Kips Ft - Kips Ft - Kips
117.6 125.0 64.5 68.3
RE 259.3 275.6 466.7 494.2
RS 104.3 110.9 57.3 60.6
230.0 244.5 414.6 438.4
RH 90.4 96.1 49.6 52.6
199.3 211.9 358.9 380.6
RO 69.6 73.9 38.2 40.4
153.5 162.9 276.4 292.3
R1 55.6 59.2 30.5 32.3
122.6 130.5 220.7 233.7
Rated deflection: 52.5% Tolerance: ± 10%
Maximum deflection 55% DP31Mf14

ENGINEERING Date
EXAMPLES (Cont)
FIGURE 15
PERFORMANCE CURVE
(Tons)
(Ton – M)
(K ips)
Reaction Force RE
120
250
RS
(Ft – Kips)
RH
200 90 90
Energy Absorption
Reaction Force
RO
150 RE
RS
60 60
R1 200
RH
100
Energy Absorption RD
R1
30 20 100
50
0 0 0 0
10 20 30 40 50 55
DP31Mf15 Deflection (%)
The energy absorption and reaction force at an angular berthing of 9o is the summation of the energy absorption
and reaction forces from each individual fender cell.
N N N N
Ea = ∑
y =1
Eay = ∑
y =1
Eny Feay and Ra = ∑
y =1
Ray = ∑R
y =1
ny Fray ,
where: N = number of fender cells
For this example, using Figure 16:
Ea = (En1 Fea1) + (En2 Fea 2 ) and Ra = (Rn1 Fra1) + (Rn2 Fra2 )
To determine the maximum energy and reaction force, Fender 1 will be compressed to its rated deflection at an
angle of 9o. Using Figure 17, the following information is obtained:
Rated Deflection of Fender 1, δ1 = 47.5%
Ea1 = En1 Fea1 = 49.6 tonne-m
Ra1 = Rn1 Fra1 = 101.5 tonnes
Assuming a rigid fender panel connects the two fender cells, the deflection of the fender cells due to angular
berthing are proportional, as shown in Figure 16. Using trigonometry, the deflection of Fender 2 is
δ2 = δ1 − P tan α = 23.8%
where: P = minimum spacing between fender cells and can be obtained from the catalog.

Date ENGINEERING
EXAMPLES (Cont)
FIGURE 16
FENDER SYSTEM IN COMPRESSION
9°
P
δ2
δ1 α
∆
P DP31Mf16
Based on this deflection, the energy absorption, reaction force and associated angular correction factors can be
obtained using Figures 18-19 or from the manufacturer's representative. For this example, the following information
can be used:
Ea2 = En2 Fea2 = 20.0 × 0.95 = 19.0 tonne-m
and
Ra2 = Rn2 Fra2 = 100.0 × 0.95 = 95.0 tonnes
Therefore,
Ea = E1 + E2 = 49.6 + 19.0 = 68.6 tonne-m
and
Ra = R1 + R2 = 101.5 + 95.0 = 196.5 tonne
From the calculations, the selected fender cells can absorb the berthing energy of the vessel. However, the
reaction forces are relatively high. If the dock structure is capable of handling these forces, it is acceptable to use
this design. If the reaction forces are too high, then another option should be looked at. For example, if a single
SUC1450H (RH) fender cell is used, the reaction forces are significantly smaller (118.4 tonnes) while still
maintaining an energy absorption of 65.9 tonne-m.

ENGINEERING Date
EXAMPLES (Cont)
FIGURE 17
ANGULAR PERFORMANCE DATA
MAX. REACTION ENERGY MAX. REACTION ENERGY

ANGLE RUBBER DEFLECTION FORCE ABSORPTION ANGLE RUBBER DEFLECTION FORCE ABSORPTION
Deg. GRADE LIMIT. Metric Tons Metric Tons Deg. GRADE LIMIT. Metric Tons Metric Tons
% Kips Ft – Kips % Kips Ft – Kips
RE 125.0 68.3 RE 115.4 58.4
275.6 494.2 254.5 422.5
RS 110.9 60.6 RS 102.5 51.9
244.5 438.4 226.0 375.5
0 RH 55.0 96.1 52.6 RH 88.8 44.9
211.9 380.6 7 49.1 195.8 324.9
73.9 40.4 68.3 34.6
RO 162.9 292.3 RO 150.6 250.3
59.2 32.3 54.6 27.6
R1 130.5 233.7 R1 120.4 199.7
RE 119.9 64.0 RE 115.4 57.1

264.4 463.0 254.5 413.1
RS 106.4 56.8 RS 102.5 50.7
234.6 410.9 226.0 366.8
3 RH 52.5 92.2 49.2 RH 88.8 43.9
203.3 356.0 8 48.3 195.8 317.6
RO 71.0 37.9 RO 68.3 33.8

156.6 274.2 150.6 244.5
R1 56.8 30.3 R1 54.6 27.1
125.2 219.2 120.4 196.1
117.4 62.5 114.4 55.9
RE 258.9 452.2 RE 252.3 404.4
104.2 55.5 101.5 49.6
RS 229.8 401.5 RS 223.8 358.9
4 RH 51.6 90.3 48.1 RH 88.8 43.0
199.1 348.0 9 47.5 195.8 311.1
RO 69.5 36.9 RO 67.7 33.1

153.2 267.0 149.3 239.5
55.6 29.6 54.1 26.5
R1 122.6 214.2 R1 119.3 191.7
116.6 60.9 112.7 55.0
RE 257.1 440.6 RE 248.5 397.9
103.5 54.1 100.1 48.8
RS 228.2 391.4 RS 220.7 353.1
5 50.8 89.7 46.9 86.7 42.2
RH 197.8 339.3 10 RH 46.7 191.2 305.3
69.0 36.1 66.7 32.5
RO 152.1 261.2 RO 147.1 235.1
R1 55.2 28.9 R1 53.4 26.0

121.7 209.1 117.7 188.1
RE 116.3 59.7 RE 112.3 49.3
256.4 431.9 247.6 356.7
103.2 53.0 99.6 43.8
RS 227.6 383.5 RS
219.6 316.9
6 50.0 89.4 46.0 86.4 37.9
RH 197.1 332.8 15 RH 42.6 190.5 274.2
RO 68.8 35.4 RO 66.4 29.2

151.7 256.1 146.4 211.3
55.0 28.2 53.1 23.4
R1 121.3 204.0 R1
117.1 169.3
DP31Mf17

Date ENGINEERING
EXAMPLES (Cont)
FIGURE 18
CORRECTION FACTOR FOR REACTION FORCE
BRIDGESTONE 1250H FENDER
θ = 9°
1.1
θ = 6°
θ = 3°
SU Series θ = 9°
Cell Series
θ = 6°
θ = 3°
1.0
Correction Factor
0.9
0 10 20 30 40 50
DP31Mf18
Deflection (%)

ENGINEERING Date
EXAMPLES (Cont)
FIGURE 19
CORRECTION FACTOR FOR ENERGY ABSORPTION
BRIDGESTONE 1250H FENDER
SU Series
Cell Series
θ = 3°
1.0
θ = 6°
Correction Factor
θ = 9°
0.9
10 20 30 40 50
DP31Mf19 Deflection (%)
COMPUTER TOOLS
Using the same principles as demonstrated in the examples, more complex fender systems can be designed such as a
continuous fender face system in which multiple fender units are connected by a single fender facing or multiple fender panels
hinged together to form a continuous facing. For reference, there are two (2) computer tools that are available to assist in the
design of fender systems.
One computer tool is an Excel™ spreadsheet that was developed to assess oblique loading of a cylindrical fender. The
spreadsheet is available through ER&E's Marine Terminal Engineering Section. The spreadsheet can be used to asses the
sensitivity of fender characteristics, tension chain placement and load distribution in cylindrical fenders. The spreadsheet
approximates fender reaction forces and moments due to a user specified angular rotation and zero displacement location. In
addition, it calculates the resultant load in the Tension Chain and the Ship Impact Force using static equilibrium principles.
Another tool that can be used to evaluate a potential fender system configuration is ABAQUS. ABAQUS is a Finite Element
Analysis program that is located on the VAX maintained by the Mechanical Engineering Section. In order to use ABAQUS, the
user must be trained and authorized to use the program or must have someone with access to it perform the analysis.

Fender System: Exxon Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fender System: Exxon Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MARINE TERMINAL DESIGN PRACTICES

FENDER SYSTEM Section Page

GENERAL STEPS IN DESIGNING A FENDER SYSTEM.......................................................................... 4

CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY.................................................................................. 5

TYPES OF FENDER SYSTEMS ............................................................................................................... 9

SELECTION OF A FENDER SYSTEM.....................................................................................................11

DESIGN OF FENDER SYSTEM...............................................................................................................13

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

GENERAL STEPS IN DESIGNING A FENDER SYSTEM

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

GENERAL STEPS IN DESIGNING A FENDER SYSTEM (Cont)

CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY

where: E = Impact energy of the berthing vessel, ton-ft (tonne-m)

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY (Cont)

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

Distance from pier

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

CALCULATION OF BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY (Cont)

BERTHING SITUATION VESSEL(3)

Full Load Yes Yes 0.550 0.450 0.350 0.325 0.300

Ballasted Yes Yes 0.650 0.525 0.425 0.375 0.350

MODERATELY EXPOSED LOCATION

BERTHING SITUATION VESSEL(3)

Ballasted Yes Yes 0.750 0.625 0.525 0.450 0.425

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

TYPES OF FENDER SYSTEMS

FENDER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

TYPES OF FENDER SYSTEMS (Cont)

Rubbing Flexible Pile Fender ( Attached

Suspended Panel Unfaced Resilient

Pneumatic or foam filled Pile Supported Panel

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

SELECTION OF A FENDER SYSTEM

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

SELECTION OF A FENDER SYSTEM (Cont)

TYPE OF FENDER SYSTEM ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

• Applicable on almost all types of piers • Difficult to install

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

DESIGN OF FENDER SYSTEM

ENERGY ABSORPTION OF FENDERS

where: En = Energy absorbed by the fender system

DP31Mf04 DEFLECTION, % OF FENDER ELEMENT HEIGHT

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

DESIGN OF FENDER SYSTEM (Cont)

VESSEL ANGLE OF IMPACT

where: E = Berthing impact energy

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

DESIGN OF FENDER SYSTEM (Cont)

where: Rmax = Maximum allowable reaction force

HULL PRESSURE OF THE VESSEL

where: Rmax = Maximum reaction force of fender

CURVATURE OF THE HULL OF THE VESSEL

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

DESIGN OF FENDER SYSTEM (Cont)

HWL Fully Loaded

a. Vertical Curvature b. Horizontal Curvature DP31Mf06

where: P = Fender spacing

EXXON RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY - FLORHAM PARK, N.J.

DESIGN OF FENDER SYSTEM (Cont)