Berthing Criteria for Wind Turbine Crew Transfer Vessel with Low or High Friction Fender

Laurent BARTHELEMY
Ecole Nationale Supérieure Maritime, Nantes 44103, France. E-mail: laurent.barthelemy@supmaritime.fr

Boat access against a boat landing is realized by means of fenders made of rubber. Depending on their stiffness, the behaviour of the
boat with the waves will be different. The works performed use the following methodology:
1. Calculate the efforts of a monochromatic wave applied against the boat in the case she can heave (low friction) or not (high friction).
2. Calculate the fender friction coefficient against the boat landing.
3. Compare the berthing criteria with those from another publication.
4. Compare the berthing criteria for a low or high friction fender.
The following results are found for a 27m catamaran: low (high) friction fender berthing is possible for 1.5m (0.5m) Hs, or for 2m Hs
with small wave periods.

Keywords: Operation and Maintenance, Crew Transfer Vessel, Offshore Wind Turbine, Significant Wave Height, Wave Period.

1. Introduction
Developing offshore wind farms involves offshore O&M
workers safety. It is therefore of upmost importance to
know the constraints and acceptable conditions for
berthing a CTV when she comes and pushes her fender
against the boat landing ladder.

Fenders are made from rubber, a material providing a good

grip coefficient against steel. After material grip, comes
material friction. Two main berthing systems exist: fenders
with hard rubber (stiff fenders) and with soft rubber (soft
fenders). In those 2 cases, the CTV comes to lean against
the ladder and keeps contact by means of her thruster. The
stiff fender gets hardly compressed and therefore provides
low friction (see fig. 1). The soft fender gets more
deformed and therefore provides high friction: in the latter
case, the bow clings against the ladder (see fig. 2).
Fig. 2. CTV berthing with high friction fender boat landing [2]
2. Method Description
2.1. Assumptions
As soon as the CTV is positioned against the monopile,
facing the incoming waves, some of her motions get
constrained by her contact against the boat landing on one
hand, by the propeller thrust on the other hand. We assume
that the CTV motions are only surge, heave, pitch. We
account for the 3D-coupling between those 3 motions,
which is caused by the propeller thrust. We Submit the
CTV to a friction force fmoy x P, where fmoy is the friction
coefficient & P the propeller thrust. We also assume the
CTV berthing to be lost as soon as her fender is no longer
in contact with the boat landing. The CTV surge is limited
to the fender length. One also notes that there is no wave
screening for a CAT CTV against a monopile (see fig. 3).

Fig. 1. CTV berthing with low friction fender boat landing [1]

Proceedings of the 31st European Safety and Reliability Conference

Edited by Bruno Castanier, Marko Cepin, David Bigaud and Christophe Berenguer
Copyright ©2021 by ESREL2021 Organizers. Published by Research Publishing, Singapore
ISBN: 981-973-0000-00-0: doi: 10.3850/981-973-0000-00-0 esrel2021-paper
2 Laurent BARTHELEMY

[ where G' is the fender minimum deformed half length ]

2.2. CTV friction coefficient onto boat landing (berthing)

Fig. 3. Transfer of Personnel between CAT CTV & Turbine [3].

Fig. 5. Coulomb’s Law [14].
The present work relies on results of a study performed by
HSVA [4] & endeavours to meet the results obtained in its Friction coefficient for no sliding is (action-reaction law):
CTV model tank test. However, the approach is different.

2.2. Loads of a unidirectional wave on CTV (seakeeping) Tangent force at vertical wall T −Σ F ext z
f= = = (2)
The CTV is modelled by a CAT Wigley hull (fig. 4). Normal force at vertical wall N −Σ F ext x
Assumptions:

1. A thrust P is added to N, in order never to reach N<0:

2
P‖ ⃗x =( m+ ma1 ) ω G ⃗x ( avec P<0 et G< 0 )
P=−‖⃗
⃗ '
Fig. 4. Wigley CAT CTV Hull [5].

The ship, due to the wave excitation, moves as follows: 2. Low friction berthing: since CTV leans on boat landing,

Rotation around floatation centre 1 dof Pitch θ

Σ F ext z=( I 33 + I a33 ) Z̈
'
Translation from original position O 2 dof surge τx,
heave τz
3. High friction berthing: since CTV clings on boat landing
The calculation is based on a simplified linear diffraction-
Σ F ext z=( I 33 + I a33 ) Z̈+ f m P ( f m :mean friction coeff . )
'
radiation model applied in the frequential domain [6].

I Ẍ=F exc−I a Ẍ−B Ẋ −KX ⇒ ( I + I 'a ) Ẍ =Σ F ext ( 1 ) The equation at berthing point A- becomes therefore:

[ ]
m 0 m ZG Σ F ext z=( I 33 + I 'a33 ) Z̈+ f m P with f m <0
'
with I a :addit . inertia¿ I = 0 m 0 ,
2 Σ F ext x =+ P=( I 11+ I 'a 11 ) Ẍ + ( I 15 + I 'a 15) θ̈
m Z G 0 I G +m Z G
−( I 33 + I a 33) Z̈−f m P
'
I a :¿ added inertia , F excit : vector of wave loads ⇒f=
−( I 11+ I a 11 ) Ẍ−( I 15+ I a 15 ) θ̈+ P
' '
( I a , F exc calculated by NEMOH [ 7 ] ) , damping ¿

[ ]
−( 1+ Cm 3 ) Z̈−f m ( 1+Cm 1 ) G ω
' ' 2
λH 0 −λ H 2 /2 b3 =2 ρBC √ gH × bc⇒ f =
−( 1+C m 1 ) Ẍ−( 1+C m15 ) Z G θ̈+ ( 1+C m 1) G ω
' ' ' 2
B= 0 b3 0 4
2 3 λ= ρC C d ω ( x max + H θ max )
−λ H /2 0 λ H /3 3π
[
where G=P / m ( 1+C 'm1 ) ω2 . t T ∧t N aretime phase]

[ ]
0 0 0 corrections required to get calculated loads T(t) and N(t) in
K= 0 mg/H +P ¿ phase with HSVA test results THSVA(t) and NHSVA (t) [4].
0 −P −mg CG+mg [ B / ( 12 H ) ]
2
Z=Z m cos [ ω ( t−t T ) +φ z ] ,

P=( m+ m a ) a
g
h √ ' 2
ω+ ( m+ m a ) G ω ⟹
lim ¿ x m G '
k →0 a
= ¿
a
X =X m cos [ ω ( t−t N ) + φ x ] ,
 Berthing Criteria for Wind Turbine Crew Transfer Vessel with Low or High Friction Fender 3

θ=θm cos [ ω ( t−t N ) + φθ ] lim |f max ( T )|=max ¿

ω→0

If T ≝ tan ( ωt / 2 ) , A ≝ ( 1+C 'm 3 ) Z m cos (−ω t T +φ z ) , The selected criterion for CTV boarding at berthing point
is that friction coeff. must never exceed the grip factor [8]:
B ≝ (1+C m 3 ) Zm sin (−ω t T + φ z ) ,C ≝ ( 1+C m 1 ) X m
' '

cos ( −ω t N + φx ) + ( 1+ C'm 15 ) Z G θ m cos ( −ω t N + φθ ) , |f max ( T )|<f grip ( f grip =0,8 ( rubber−cast iron ) ) ( 10 )
D ≝ ( 1+ C'm 1 ) X m sin (−ω t N +φ x ) + ( 1+C 'm 15 ) Z G θm
3. Results in the Case of the Wigley Hull
sin (−ω t N +φ θ ) ,then friction coef . is givenby eq . ( 3 ) :
3.1. Model

f=
[ A+( 1+ C ) f G ] T '
m1 m
2
[
+2 BT − A−( 1+C 'm 1 ) f m G ] (3 The mode used to approach the 2.116m HSVA CAT CTV
model
) is a Wigley hull of same length, same 0.22m draft,
( C−G ) T 2 +2 DT −( C +G ) same 79kg displacement Δ [4]. The added mass and
radiation damping calculations are done with NEMOH [7].
For f(t) to get extremes, eq. (3) denominator must be >0, The additional inertia matrix is defined as follows:
which gives eq. (4):

[ ]
m ( 1+C m 1 ) ω | AD−BC|
' 2 '
|P|> (4 ) 0 0 0 C m 30 ( a=0.03 m )=C m 3

√ [ A+( 1+C ) f C ] +[ B+( 1+C ) f D ] I 'a=∆ 0 C 'm 3 ( ω ) 0 ¿ ( C m 3 is calculated

2 2
' '
m1 m m1 m
0 0 0 with NEMOH )
Moreover, the denominator must never be null. Physically
that means that the propeller thrust should be great enough ' '
C m 30 ( a=0.04 m )=C m 30 ( a=0.03 m ) ×0.03/ 0.04
in order never to get N<0. Mathematically that implies that
is discriminant must never be negative and that Ɡ-C<0:
The reason for defining Cm3’ comes from the difference
between the calculated and recorded HSVA friction
|P|> m ( 1+C 'm 1 ) ω2 √ D 2+C 2 ( 5 ) coefficients found in our previous publication [9]. Here we
If conditions (4) and (5) are met then, over a wave period, assume Cm3’ to vary with ω in the same manner as for the
the friction coeff. will reach its extremes at instants t + and vertical diffraction force [10]:
t-, which relate to the following values T+ and T- (eq. (6):

|| |
2
∆g C sin ( kB /2 ) ∙ sinh {k [ h−( H /2 ) ] }
[ A G+(1+C ) f ]
|
'
GC Fdiffr z m B m3
T ±=
m1 m
± (6) =
AD−BC + BG+ ( 1+ Cm 1 ) f m D G
' a cosh ( kh )

√ {[ ] [
2
A + ( 1+C m 1 ) f m C + B+ ( 1+C m 1 ) f m D
' '
]}
2 2 ⟹
G −( AD−BC )
' '
2 C m 3 =Cm 30 | sin ( kB/ 2 ) ∙ sinh { k [ h−( H /2 ) ] }
cosh ( kh ) |
AD−BC + BG+ ( 1+C m1 ) f m DG
'
The damping matrix parameters are adjusted so as to
match as closely as possible the HSV CAT heave and pitch
Then the maximum friction coefficient over a wave period is:
amplitudes, but only at the operating point:
|f max ( T )|=max ¿  λ/B=1.75 for the stiff fender.
We must choose Ɡ. That is the surge over which the CTV  λ/B=1.39 for the soft fender.
captain has the time to adjust the propeller thrust P, in
order for the fender never to lose contact with the boat The incidental and diffraction wave loads are calculated
landing. Nevertheless, the CTV is limited by her maximum with NEMOH [7]. Calculations are done with MATLAB.
thrust Pmax. We infer that:
3.2. Sea Keeping with a Low Friction Fender
|P|=min ( m ( 1+C )|G|ω ,| Pmax|) ( 8 )
'
m1
2
The damping matrix parameters are adjusted to:

Or in other words, b c =30 % , x max=(200/0.03) E HSVA /E CAT CTV ,θ max=0

(
G=−min L ,|Pmax|/ m ( 1+ Cm 1 ) ω [ ' 2
]) Figures (6) and (7) compare the heave and pitch
Eventually, by an asymptotic calculation, we note the amplitudes versus λ/B with the ones provided by HSVA
following behaviours at the large wave periods, for a ship: [4]. We obtain a close match at λ/B=1.75 operating point.
4 Laurent BARTHELEMY

Fig. 6. Wigley and HSVA heave amplitudes - low friction Fig. 9. Wigley and HSVA pitch amplitudes- high friction

3.4. Berthing
The value of the propeller thrust P which is added is the
same as the one tested by HSVA: 127N if low friction,
61N if high friction [4]. See figure 10.

Fig. 7. Wigley and HSVA pitch amplitudes - low friction

Fig. 10. Berthing Model

Back to scale 1, the fender length is L=1m. Indeed, HSVA

3.3. Sea Keeping with a High Friction Fender
model scale is 1/10 [4]. f m=0 (low friction) of 0.5 (high
The damping matrix parameters are adjusted to: friction). Indeed, in the last case, T mean#30Te and -Nmean#-
65Te ~ P=-61Te, therefore f= T mean /P#30/ (-61) #-0.5. The
b c =80 % , x max =0 ,θ max =0.
reason why we may relate T mean to Nmean is that the HSVA
Figures (8) and (9) compare the heave and pitch curves showing THSVA(t) and -NHSVA(t) are in phase.
amplitudes versus λ/B with the ones provided by HSVA
[4]. We obtain a close match at λ/B=1.39 operating point, 3.5. Berthing with a Low Friction Fender
but not as much beyond. This discrepancy is even worse
for the pitch. However, that reveals not to be an issue for
the berthing calculation: indeed, we found that pitch
contribution is less significant than heave contribution.

Fig. 11. Low Friction Coefficient f(t) (a=0.03m, λ/B=1.75)

In fig. 11, calculated friction coefficient matches properly

the HSVA recorded one [4]. Reasons why are as follows:
 Wigley and HSVA CART CTV amplitudes match
Fig. 8. Wigley and HSVA heave amplitudes- high friction
properly at the operating point λ/B=1.75.
 The present calculation assumes the 3D-coupling
between surge, heave and pitch, on the contrary to
the previous publication which only assumed a
2D-coupling between surge and pitch, while
heave would remain uncoupled [9].
 Berthing Criteria for Wind Turbine Crew Transfer Vessel with Low or High Friction Fender 5
 An additional inertia Ia’ is added: it is equal to the
added inertia Ia. However:
_ on 1 hand Ia’.d²X/dt² is treated as a pseudo load,
_ on the other hand Ia. d²X/dt² is a radiation load.
Figures 12 & 13 (friction & grip coeff. versus λ/B) show
the berthing limits for a 27m long CAT CTV with Hs=2m
and Hs=1.5m. That CTV is extrapolated from the HSVA
model, by applying the geometrical similitude laws
(Froude) used by ship model tank test facilities [13]. Table
1 gathers the calculated berthing criteria. Fig. 14. High Friction Coefficient f(t) (a=0.04m, λ/B=1.39)

In fig. 14, calculated friction coeff. matches roughly the

HSVA one [4]. Fig. 15 & 16 (friction & grip coeff. versus
λ/B) show berthing limits for a 27m long CAT CTV with
Hs=2m & Hs=0.5m. Table 13 gathers the berthing criteria.

Fig. 12. Low friction berthing (a=1m)

Fig. 15. High friction berthing (a=1m)

Fig. 13. Low friction berthing (a=0.75m)

Table 1. Berthing Criteria for Transfer between

CTV and Wigley Hull (Low Friction Fender)

Wavelength λ / CTV length B 0 1.85 14

27m CAT CTV FAST2017 [11] 2m Hs 1.5mHs
Wavelength λ/ CTV length B 0 1.88 14
27m Wigley Hull (same displac )t
2m Hs 1.5mHs Fig. 16. High friction berthing (a=0.25m)

Table 2. Berthing Criteria for Transfer between

The relative range between the calculated berthing limit CTV and Wigley Hull (High Friction Fender)
(λ/B=1.88) and the FAST one (λ/B=1.85) is small: +2%.
Moreover, the Wigley CTV and FAST publication [11] Wavelength λ / CTV length B 0 14
agree on 0.5m being the value for berthing may take place 27m CAT CTV FAST2017 [11] Not applicable
whatever λ/B is. Eventually we had to assume C m3’=0 to Wavelength λ/ CTV length B 0 1.49 14
build the figures 12 and 13. In other words, references of 27m Wigley Hull (same displac )t
2m Hs 0.5mHs
HSVA model scale CAT CTV and FAST full scale CAT
CTV are incompatible. An explanation could be that such FAST ref. [11] has no values to compare with calculations.
a phenomenon of additional vertical inertia is non-linear. At 1st glance, the calculated Hs (0.5m) for which berthing
That would mean the similitude law could not apply. may take place whatever λ/B is questionable: there is a
peak. However, such a peak has no physical meaning: a
3.6. Berthing with a High Friction Fender
hull cannot reach big friction coeff. with a 0.5m sea state.
6 Laurent BARTHELEMY
4. Conclusions and Recommendations The author gratefully acknowledges the support from ENSM and
Results presented here meet accurately FAST 2017 results its deputy director, Mr. Yann VACHIAS, throughout the present
[11], as regards berthing criteria for a low friction fender. research work.

If we rely on that criteria (which is the friction coefficient Appendix A. Abbreviations and Acronyms
not to exceed the grip coefficient), then it looks like a low
Abbreviation Definition
friction fender allows a safer berthing than a high friction
fender. The present calculation also meets accurately the Cat Catamaran
HSVA model test results [4], on the contrary to the CTV Crew Transfer Vessel
calculations of our previous publication [9]. However, in d.o.f. Degree Of Freedom
order to get those results, we had to introduce an additional
DP Dynamic Positioning
vertical inertia, so as to achieve for the friction coefficient
the same levels of amplitude as those of HVA. Moreover, Hs Significant Wave Height
the physical meaning of that “pseudo inertial load” leaves HSVA Hamburgische Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt
to be desired: is it like a slipping floor effect? Indeed, does GmbH (Hamburg Ship Model Tank Test
the vessel bow heave up higher because it gets out of Facilities)
water? Only further model tank test results could clarify O&M Operation & Maintenance
that point. Moreover, it looks like that “banana skin effect”
RAO’s Response Amplitude Operators
dissipates when getting from the model scale to the vessel
scale. However, one cannot help being amazed by the 3D Three Dimensional
proximity between the calculated results and the HSVA 2D Two Dimensional
selected operating points: see table3. WT Wind Turbine

Terminology Designation
O, x, y, z Absolute reference frame
Table 3. Comparison of CTV Berthing Criteria
with HSVA Selected Model Test Operating Points M Operating point fixed to the barge
ρ Water specific gravity
Case Calculated HSVA Selected Relative
Berthing Limit Model Test Range h Water depth
at 2m Hs (λ/B) Operating Pt (λ/B) EHSVA Scale factor between HSVA model test and
Low friction 1.88 1.75 +7% full scale HSVA CAT CTV
High 1.49 1.39 +7% ECATCTV Scale factor between HSVA model test and
friction
full scale studied CAT CTV

Indeed, it looks like HSVA studied the CAT CTV berthing B Ship length
the monopile just below the value where she loses grip C Ship width
against the boat landing. It is also worth noting that the m (or Δ) Ship mass (or displacement)
HSVA numerical berthing calculations, although more
G Ship centre of gravity
sophisticated, cannot either meet the measured friction
coefficients. Eventually, another advantage of the IG Ship inertia at G
proposed friction calculation method is that it may allow C Ship centre of buoyancy
further developments: I Matrix of ship own inertia
Ia Matrix of ship added inertia
 It is independent from the hull shape, so further
investigations may be performed with other K Matrix of stiffnesses
shapes than Wigley hull. B Matrix of dampings
 It may be kept to study more realistic sea states F Vector of wave loads
than unidirectional waves: bidirectional, etc.
Fx Wave force towards x axis
Fz Wave force towards z axis
Acknowledgement
λ Wavelength
 Berthing Criteria for Wind Turbine Crew Transfer Vessel with Low or High Friction Fender 7
My Wave moment around y axis at point O 5. Mbatia B. & Phung V.L. (2020): “Etude comparative
de la tenue en Mer de différents bateaux: passage à un
A Berthing point couplage 3D cavalement-tangage-pilonnement”,
O’, X ‘, Y’, Z’ Reference frame attached to the barge ECOLE NAVALE, Rapport de Projet de Fin d’Etude,
Nantes, France.
F Ship centre of floation 6. Le Boulluec M. (2015): “Comportement d'un cylindre
vertical dans la houle”. Cours 2015-16 de Mastère
g Gravitational acceleration Spécialisé Energies Marines Renouvelables. ECOLE
H Ship draft NATIONALE SUPERIEURE DES TECHNIQUES
AVANCEES, Brest, France
xG, zG Coordinates of ship gravity centre 7. Babarit A., Delhommeau G. (2015): “Theoretical &
xC, zC Coordinates of ship buoyancy centre numerical aspects of the open source BEM solver
NEMOH”, ECOLE CENTRALE NANTES, 11th
b3 Ship heave damping coefficient European Wave & Tidal Energy Conference
(EWTEC2015), Nantes, France https://lheea.ec-
ZA +
Vertical coordinate of ship propeller
nantes.fr/logiciels-et-brevets/nemoh-presentation-
XA -
Horiz. coordinate of ship berthing point 192863.kjsp
8. Muller J. (2015): “Formulaire technique de Mécanique
k3 Ship vertical hydrostatic stiffness Générale 16è édition - Théorie et dimensionnement”,
Cd Ship drag coefficient DUNOD.
http://maron.perso.univ-pau.fr/meca_old/ch3coef.htm
Cm1 Added mass coefficient in x direction 9. Barthélemy L. (2020): “Accostage en mer d’un bateau
X Vector of ship motions contre un embarcadère à défense «low» ou «high
friction»”, ENSM, 17èmes journées de
τx Ship surge l’hydrodynamique, Cherbourg, France.
10. Faltinsen O.M. (1990): Sea Loads on Ships and
τz Ship heave Offshore Structures, ISBN 0 521 37285 2
θ Ship pitch angle 11. Skomedal N. G. and Espeland T. H. (2017): “Cost-
effective Surface Effect Ships for Offshore Wind”,
T Regular wave period ESNA AS, KRISTIANSAND S, NORWAY, FAST
k Wave number 2017 conference, Nantes, France.
12. Journée J.M.J. (1992): “Experiments and Calculations
a Wave amplitude (half crest to through) on Four Wigley Hullforms”, Delft University of
Technology, Ship Hydromechanics Laboratory, ISBN 
x (or bc) Flat rate heave damping coefficient
90-370-0064-9
(percentage of critical damping)

x max /a (or τxm) Adimensional max. surge estimate (for the

quadratic damping force calculation)
Cm3 Added mass coefficient in z direction
ω Wave pulsation

θmax Adimensional max. pitch estimate (for the

quadratic damping force calculation)

G
' Fender mininimum deformed half length

References
1. Gontier, J. (2020). “Accostage en mer d’un bateau à un
embarcadère: prise en compte du cas d’un bateau avec
une défense « high friction »”. ENSM, Soutenance de
Projet de Fin d’Etude, Nantes, France.
2. Gontier, J. (2020). “Accostage en mer d’un bateau à un
embarcadère: prise en compte du cas d’un bateau avec
une défense « high friction »”. ENSM, Rapport de
Projet de Fin d’Etude, Nantes, France.
3. https://cache.apolloduck.com/image_bin/
545631_3.jpg?510646216.
4. König M., Ferreira González D., Abdel-Maksoud M. &
Düster A. (2017) ):“Numerical investigation of the
landing manoeuvre of a crew transfer vessel to an
offshore wind turbine”, Ships and Offshore Structures,
12:sup1,S115-S133,
DOI:10.1080/17445302.2016.1265883,
https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2016.1265883