Safety Aspects Affecting The Berthing Operations of Tankers To Oil and Gas Terminals
Safety Aspects Affecting The Berthing Operations of Tankers To Oil and Gas Terminals
Safety Aspects Affecting The Berthing Operations of Tankers To Oil and Gas Terminals
This report has been produced by an international Working Group convened by the
Maritime Navigation Commission (MarCom). Members of the Working Group represent
several countries and are acknowledged experts in their profession.
http://www.pianc.org
VAT BE 408-287-945
ISBN 978-2-87223-196-6
One of the most effective tools for this is the group The analysis can be established by qualitative or
‘HAZID’ (Hazard Identification) or SWIFT (Structured quantitative methodology, or a combination of both.
What-if ? Techniques) meeting(s) where stakehold- Qualitative risk assessment is generally conducted
ers (under the guidance of a suitable facilitator), on the basis of objective estimates of risk and con-
identify new hazards and authenticate existing haz- sequences. Quantitative Risk Assessment involves
ards and their risk control measures. analysis based on historical data, mathematical
modelling or other calculations of the probability and
These stakeholders should include port managers, consequence for each hazard. Whichever method
marine professionals (including harbour masters, is used, it will greatly assist the subsequent (rank-
port control/VTS officers, pilots, PEC holders, tug ing) process if a numerical value can be assigned
masters) other port workers and users (both com- to each risk.
mercial and leisure). In all cases, personnel from
management to the lowest operational level should The baseline condition for the analysis should be
be included to facilitate the full identification of the clearly identified, and in particular which existing
different levels of hazard. risk control measures are assumed to be in place.
Ideally, the baseline condition would assume no ex-
Risk Analysis isting risk control measures in place (ground zero).
However, if effective use is to be made of current
Risk can be defined as the product of the probability experience and historical data (where such meas-
of an event occurring and the consequences flow- ures would generally have been in place), this is
ing from it. Thus, an event which occurs infrequently difficult to achieve in practice.
and has a low level of consequence constitutes a
lower risk than one which occurs more frequently The analysis should generate a complete hazard list
and has a higher consequence. The analysis for which is ranked by severity of the risk associated
each hazard requires the establishment of probabil- with each hazard. The ranking assigned should
Figure 5.1: Relationships between the Safety Management System and Risk Assessment:
Risk Assessment defines the risk, Safety Management System manages the risk
It should also be noted that the use of simulation • Variations required/permitted for different envi-
techniques is not confined to towage. They can ronmental conditions (weather, tide and current
also be used, for example, to establish manoeuvr- considerations, etc.)
ing strategies and to examine potential modifica- • Permissible reductions for ships with thrusters,
tions to channel design. high lift rudders, etc.
• Preferred method for securing and utilising tugs
5.4 Towage • Procedures for restricted visibility
• Training requirements for tug crews (e.g. simula-
Formal Risk Assessments as described above fa- tion, training with pilots, etc.)
cilitate the formulation of Towage Guidelines for a
port. While not every port will use all the tools de- There is obviously some overlap between Towage
scribed above to decide on tug requirements, each Guidelines, VTS, Vessel Movement and Pilotage
port should nevertheless develop Towage Guide- Procedures and it may be considered that some
lines which indicate the minimum number, type and of the above content would be more appropriately
size of tugs to use for particular ship types and siz- placed in these alternative procedures. For control
es approaching or leaving particular berths and any purposes, it is good practice to cross-reference
difficult navigational areas within the port. rather than duplicate these entries.
When developing Towage Guidelines, the following The Towage Guidelines should clearly identify to
factors should be considered: what extent they are wholly or partially advisory, or
mandatory.
• The geography of the port and approaches
• Any difficulties associated with specific berths, Operational safety issues associated with tug use
locks, bridges, etc. during berthing are addressed in Section 12.
• Principal channels, depths, underkeel clearance, The performance of pilots is critical in ensuring
etc. effective risk reduction. The competent authority
• Tidal streams, heights, etc. which authorises pilots for the port should ensure
• Principal navigational marks, leading lines, etc. that an effective system is in place for recruitment,
• Dangers and clearing lines training and certification of the pilots operating with-
• Maximum speeds, avoidance of wash, areas in the port (see References 12, 22 and 26). The
where squat is a concern, etc. Training and Certification system should be docu-
mented within the Pilotage Procedures.
These data may additionally or alternatively be pre-
sented pictorially in the form of a generic port pas- Pilotage Exemption
sage plan.
The qualifying conditions for obtaining and main-
It should be noted that ports will not generally have taining Pilotage Exemptions should be set out in
a ‘procedure’ for passage planning as such. How- the Pilotage Procedures and should include the
ever, they should actively promote and support the vessel types and sizes for which Pilotage exemp-
process of passage planning by ship’s staff and tions are issued.
pilots through the compilation of generic passage
plans (see 5.6 below). Such procedures as they It should be noted that Pilotage Exemptions ap-
may have in this respect would generally be con- ply to an individual person (the ‘holder’) and not to
tained within the Pilotage Procedures. the vessel. The type and size of vessels for which
the exemption applies will generally be limited and
Boarding and Landing of Pilots should be specified.
The shift pattern adopted will depend on local fac- SOLAS (Regulation 34) requires that the vessel’s
tors within the port including the length/duration of master ensures that the intended voyage is planned
Pilotage trips, the traffic density and access time to using appropriate nautical charts and nautical
Detailed guidance on planning a voyage from berth The port’s pilotage service should develop their
to berth can be found in References 11, 20, 21 and own passage plans for safe transit to and from all
24. While this guidance is intended for ship’s Navi- berths and anchorages, for the range of ship sizes
gating Officers in preparing their passage plans, and types accepted by the port. These will be based
it also has direct application to the act of Pilotage on the port’s generic plans but will be individually
within the port. tailored to the specific ship and berth. A copy of this
plan should be provided to the ship’s Master for dis-
Port Information cussion with the Bridge Team when the pilot boards
(during the Master/Pilot Exchange). The plan to be
The pilot and port authority have information which adopted for the transit should be agreed between
is relevant to the ship’s passage plan but which may the pilot and Master and the Bridge Team should
not be available to the ship’s staff at time of initial be briefed before the vessel commences the transit
compilation. Communication between the vessel through the port area.
and port authority prior to arrival, as well as with the
pilot upon boarding, is vital to the preparation of an Good passage planning can materially reduce the
effective plan for the safe transit of the ship through risks inherent in the transit of vessels through the
the port. port. It does this by generating a plan which opti-
mises safety margins whilst facilitating accurate
Ports are recommended to establish general guid- monitoring of the ship’s position and progress along
ance for simple, generic entry to and exit from the the track.
port. These can then be elaborated where appro-
priate for particular port areas, berths, ship sizes Position Monitoring
and even specific environmental conditions, tidal
constraints, tug allocations, etc. Particular attention Monitoring the ships position and progress in con-
should be paid to critical port movements like, for
fined waters, whether carried out by a licensed pilot
example, the movement of deep draught vessels
or ships officers, is normally done by reference to
to particular berths. The object of this port passage
visual, radar information and/or AIS. Undue reliance
guidance is to ensure that:
should not be placed on information provided by
electronic navigational aids such as portable ECDIS
• All parties know relevant details of any particular
units and GPS receivers.
port passage in advance
• There is a clear, shared understanding of po-
Conning vessels in port areas is normally based al-
tential hazards, margins of safety and the ship’s
most entirely on visual navigation. The advantages
characteristics
of visual conning are that it is generally very accu-
• Intentions and required actions are agreed for the
rate, simple and less prone to error. Visual naviga-
conduct of the vessel’s transit
tion aids may be official marks, such as beacons
This information may be published either in a graph- and leading marks, or ‘unofficial’ geographical fea-
ical form, such as a Generic Passage Plan, includ- tures. Optimum placement of the former can greatly
ing relevant chart extracts, or in a plain text format, facilitate safe navigation and the production of pas-
to update and augment the information contained in sage plans that are easy to follow and therefore less
Pilot Books, such as the British or US ‘Sailing Direc- prone to error. Visual navigation marks which are
tions’. aligned with the vessel’s intended track (especially
leading marks or ranges) are particularly useful and
The posting of information on the port’s website greatly reduce the possibility of errors inherent in
facilitates easy access by ship’s staff and enables more elaborate position monitoring systems and
updating of the information in real-time (as opposed techniques.
• Basis of design for project, including identification • Offshore and nearshore wave modelling. This can
of design ships, level of operability required, spe- be used in the absence of, or in addition to, wave
cific owner/operator requirements. measurements at the site. For exposed sites, this
is needed to determine if breakwater protection
• Charts, maps and survey drawings. These are will be required to meet the design operability of
usually available, but may be out of date should the planned berth(s).
no recent surveys have been undertaken, or if
the original tanker or terminal design basis has • Wave disturbance/penetration modelling. This is
been changed. These may be acceptable for use not usually available and will need to be under-
in early design stages, especially if the nature taken if breakwater protection is required, or if
of the site is such that it has not changed sig- the site is located within another harbour or a site
nificantly since the last survey date (i.e. predomi- that is not directly exposed to the open sea. This
nantly rocky seabed, or a stable environment). If should include, where necessary, the assessment
the data applicable to the port, terminal or berth of potential harbour resonances and the impact of
is over 5 years old, consideration should be given long waves.
to validating the data. Contact should be made
with the relevant Hydrographic Office or port hy- • Visibility. Some data on visibility, and the likeli-
drographic department to identify the most up-to- hood of periods of poor visibility, may be available
date information relevant to the site and project from, for example, the UK Admiralty Pilot or other
requirements. Sailing Directions. If other marine operations take
place nearby, local knowledge may be used to
• Wind measurements. These may be undertaken assess the likely impact of poor visibility at early
at the site but may also be available from other design stages.
local ports or airports. Any non-site-specific data
must be assessed for suitability, e.g. if a local • Ice. Where affected, information on the likely ice
airport is sheltered from any direction to which coverage and thickness may be available from lo-
the site in question would be exposed. Measure- cal agencies.
ments should also be taken over an adequate pe-
riod of time to define return periods and should be • Geological and geotechnical data. This includes
converted to the appropriate reference height and borehole and seismic survey data, taken from the
duration. Offshore wind data, which can be used immediate vicinity of the site. This data is highly
• Coastal dynamics. Consideration of longshore Mud needs to be assessed for the stability of side
drift and other sources of sedimentation and ero- slopes of any dredged channel or manoeuvring
sion, including nearby dredging. area. It also needs to be assessed for the likelihood
of the fluidisation of the mud during storms, which
• Seismic assessment. The potential for seismic may result in significant or even catastrophic infill of
activity at the project site needs to be determined dredged areas.
and taken into account in the design.
Nearby dredging activities, unrelated to the site of
• EIA and other permit requirements. Consider- interest, may have an impact on siltation rates and
ation should be given to the requirements of the could cause additional dredging during the opera-
Environmental Impact Assessment and the data tional phase.
required to satisfy such an assessment. These
can be extensive, depending on the local author- PIANC has published several reports regarding
ity requirements, but should include water turbid- dredging with a focus on environmental aspects,
ity caused by dredging and acoustic effects from cost-benefit and maritime navigation. More infor-
piling works. mation can be found in these reports.
Topography and bathymetry are important factors It is essential that consideration is given to the da-
to be considered in the design and location of the tums and co-ordinate systems of the charts of the
terminal facility, particularly to ensure that the loca- site of interest. Only consistent datums and co-
tion of the terminal does not adversely impact the ordinate systems should be used and they should
safe berthing and unberthing of tankers at the ter- be confirmed with the appropriate hydrographic au-
minal. Considerations include: thority.
• Manoeuvring area and berthing pocket design 6.6 Water Levels and Tidal Range
• Dredging requirements
• Nearby or adjacent dredging A ship’s dynamic behaviour, both when manoeu-
• Siltation, siltation rates and the need for over- vring and when moored, will be influenced by the
dredging depth of water available. With regard to manoeuvr-
• Potential for scour near structures and its long- ing, ships in shallow water tend to turn with a small-
term impact er drift angle, a larger turn diameter and a higher
• Seismic conditions steady state speed. In addition, stopping times and
• Nautical bottom definition, if required distances are decreased in very shallow water.
There are different types of data collection meth- See Section 7 for issues related to underkeel clear-
ods, such as side scan, multi-beam, dual frequency ance and vessel squat.
multi-beam and interferometric. The choice of the
most suitable method should be made in conjunc- 6.7 Environmental Design Conditions
tion with a specialist field measurement vendor.
Environmental design conditions are often a func-
6.4 Geology and Geotechnical tion of the design life of the facility and its ancillary
Condition equipment, and the conditions in which they are
expected to operate. The return periods for design
The seabed type may dictate the amount and type and operation should be derived accordingly and be
The availability of site-specific measurement data On channel or river bends, where there is a current
is critical and data collection and monitoring pro- along the channel, the flow velocities generally will
grammes should be undertaken at the earliest be greater around the outside of the bend. These
possible stage of the design process. Where prac- can result in localised erosion of the bed. Similarly,
ticable, these measurements should be continued the flow speeds will be slower in the inside of the
post-design in order to provide information to assist bend and hence siltation may occur, reducing the
with monitoring and to establish and verify the de- available depth in such areas.
sign conditions. This will enable a firm foundation
to be provided for review of the design and opera- Currents can have an impact on siltation. This is par-
tions and allow any development to be based on ticularly the case with dredged berth areas, such as
validated data. dredged pockets, slips/docks where current veloci-
ties may slow, allowing for increased siltation rates
compared with those expected at the site.
6.8 Current
Current flows which are aligned with the berth can
The currents at the site need to be understood as
assist berthing (and unberthing) manoeuvres as, by
they can have a significant effect on ship manoeuvr- placing the current slightly on one bow or the other,
ing, berthing and mooring. Currents can induce set the drift vector can be used to advantage to move
and momentum on the vessel which may affect ma- the vessel laterally towards or away from the berth.
noeuvres significantly. Conversely, current flow which is not well aligned
with the berth is likely to severely hamper berthing
The effect of current flow on a ship depends on the and unberthing manoeuvres and may result in haz-
flow speed and relative direction, and the area of ardous situations. For this reason, where current
hull that is exposed to the current. The direct effect flows are significant, the orientation of the berth in
of current flow on a manoeuvring ship is for it to tend relation to current flow is probably the single most
to cause the ship to drift down-current. significant factor when planning the location and
alignment of the berth, and must therefore be care-
If the ship is moving through the water at significant fully considered.
speed in a cross-current, the ship’s Master or pilot
will attempt to counteract the effect of the current by Strong currents may also affect the ability of support
adopting a set or drift angle (the angle between the vessels, such as tugs and mooring line boats, to op-
ship’s heading and the track) into the current, such erate. These vessels will need to use more of their
that the ship’s overall (ground) velocity moves the own power to control their own position in strong
ship in the desired direction. However, this will result flows, leaving less for providing assistance to the
in an increased swept path for the ship which, in ship, hence reducing their overall effectiveness.
extreme cases, may approach double the beam of
the ship. When the ship is stationary or moving very In areas of strong current, consideration will also
slowly through the water, as will be the case for a need to be given to the manoeuvrability of the tank-
ship engaged in close-quarters manoeuvres, the pi- er itself, i.e. the propulsive power available to over-
lot may have to rely on tug assistance to overcome come the flow effects and still enable it to manoeu-
the current forces acting on the ship. vre safely.
LNG carriers with a spherical containment system Methods to assess the wind conditions at site in-
(Moss-Rosenberg) have proportionately higher clude:
windage than those with a prismatic/membrane
containment system and vessels in ballast have • Information published in sailing directions;
relatively more windage than laden vessels be- • Local experience;
cause of the increase in freeboard. Consequently, • Local measurements, including the impact of
while all ships will be affected by the wind condi- shielding or other local influences;
tions, LNGCs with spherical tanks and vessels in • Wind modelling and other data sources such as
ballast will be more sensitive to the wind than laden those offered by NOAA, WMO; UK Met Office
vessels or those with membrane tanks. etc.
In significant wind conditions, tankers will gener- The calculation of wind forces is discussed in Sec-
ally drift downwind. The ship’s master or pilot will tion 10
Waves can also originate from other sources, in- For ships alongside, large motions can be generat-
cluding pressure field effect (caused by passing ed by resonance due to the elasticity of the overall
ships) and subsurface thermal differences. Any mooring system and the interaction of local wave
wave may be augmented by resonance (seiche) conditions. The natural period of a moored vessel
effects. These can occur when the period of an ex- can be increased by the use of longer and more
citing wave is similar to (or a harmonic of) a natural elastic moorings and softer fenders and can be de-
physical dimension of a harbour, estuary or even creased by the use of shorter, stiffer moorings and
an ocean basin. stiffer fenders. This can be used to reduce the po-
tential for resonance in mooring systems, depend-
Long period wave action is typically considered ing upon the prevailing wave climate at the site.
as relating to periods ranging from around half a
minute to several minutes or more, and can be a The wave induced vertical motions of the ship
serious hazard even in protected waters, when the (heave, pitch and roll) will need to be assessed with
wave periods are similar to the natural oscillation regard to the risk of sea bed contact both when un-
periods of the mooring system. derway and when at the berth. Sufficient underkeel
clearance will need to be provided to ensure safe
Wave resonance effects can also be a serious haz- navigation and mooring.
ard in harbours, both at nodal points where the hor-
izontal flow of water associated with an oscillation Smaller support vessels involved in ship manoeu-
is at its greatest (e.g. mooring breakout hazard) vring operations, such as pilot boats, tugs and line
and at antinodal points, where oscillations reach boats, are generally more affected by waves than
maximum amplitude (e.g. mooring breakout and the ships they are assisting. At many ports it is the
grounding hazards). performance limitations and safety considerations
of the required support vessel operations that gov-
The effect of wave activity on a ship depends on ern the limiting wave conditions for safe ship ma-
the wave height, period and relative direction. The noeuvring (see Section 11 for a discussion on how
manoeuvres of large tankers and gas carriers are environmental conditions affect ships).
generally not significantly affected by short period
waves (i.e. less than about six seconds). However,
The impact of wave activity on a moored ship is to
in longer period wave conditions these ships will
induce motion and consequent forces in its moor-
increasingly tend to turn broadside onto the waves
ing lines. This depends on the wave height, period
and drift slowly down-wave. Depending on the
and direction, relative to the ship. The forces that
wave period and wave length and the relative an-
are experienced by the ship whilst moored can be
gle of the wave to the ship, certain wave conditions
determined from an appropriate computer based
can cause a ship to pitch and/or roll significantly. In
dynamic mooring evaluation tool or by physical
shallow water this may increase the risk of part of
modelling.
the ship’s hull making contact with the seabed.
In areas of relatively high tidal range and narrow
The motions of moored vessels are typically char-
acterised by low frequency horizontal motions (with channels, tidal bores may occur where a head dif-
typical periods of 1 to 2 minutes) caused by long- ference between the wider (seaward) and narrow
period wave effects and high frequency vertical mo- (river) areas, together with a strong out flowing cur-
tions, with periods ranging from 5 to 20 seconds. rent, combine to cause a rolling wave or wave train
Methods to assess the wave conditions at site in- If an ice-bound port is intending to receive conven-
clude: tional tankers and gas carriers, due account will
need to be taken of the above limitations. In addi-
• Information published in sailing directions tion, the need for ice-breaker assistance to escort
• Local measurements using, for example wave transiting vessels and specialist tug support to as-
rider buoys or acoustic Doppler current profiler sist with berthing and unberthing operations should
(ADCP) equipment be assessed at the berth design stage.
• Wave modelling
Further information on operations in ice is contained
The calculation of wave forces is discussed in Sec- in Reference 27, 35 and 36.
tion 10.
6.13 Other Environmental Aspects
6.11 Visibility
Other environmental aspects that will need to be
In general, when navigating in port areas, it is ad- considered are:
visable to use visual information rather than instru-
ments to judge the vessel’s position, rate of turn • Earthquake/seismic conditions
and, to some extent, speed. Visibility is therefore a • Risk of tsunamis
major factor in safe manoeuvring. Visibility can be • Risk of hurricanes/ cyclones
affected by fog, dust, sand, heavy rain and other
local phenomenon. Methods to assess visibility as- The frequency of occurrence of these conditions
pects include: will need to be evaluated for the site in question
and suitably detailed studies undertaken to evalu-
• Information from sailing directions ate the impact on design and operation.
• Local knowledge/experience
• Local measurements 7 Approach from Open Sea
Consideration should be given to the issue of vis- to the Terminal
ibility in the design of visual aids to navigation (such
as range marks, lights, etc.). The requirement for 7.1 Requirements for the
alternative aids, such as radar-based systems for Approach Channel
use when visibility is compromised, should be con-
sidered on the basis of the risk assessment, using For many ports and terminals, an approach chan-
statistical visibility data. nel provides access from the open sea. Such
• A static underkeel clearance of 5 % of the ship’s Guidelines for the design of anchorage areas is
actual maximum draught while alongside. contained in the PIANC WG 49 report (Reference
• Where it is considered necessary to allow for 33).
ship motion at the berth, the minimum underkeel
clearance may be defined as a function of the 7.7 Places of Refuge
ship’s beam or length, e.g. 2 % beam.
Subject to further amendments and changes, and
7.5 Air Draught and Clearance in order to meet the expectations of IMO Resolution
A.949(23) (Reference 13), which provides guidance
The air draught of a ship is the distance from the on the need for coastal states to develop strategies
water level to the highest point of the ship at the to provide places of refuge for ships in need of as-
prevailing draught. The highest point is typically a sistance, national administrations may appoint one
radar or radio antennae, but can occasionally be or more competent authorities with strategic pow-
a part of the ship’s superstructure or other equip- ers to develop national plans to accommodate such
ment. There must be sufficient clearance for the situations.
ship to safely pass under all bridges, cables and
other structures to gain access to a terminal/berth, While every potential vessel in need of assistance
given the ship’s draught, trim and the tidal state at will have a unique set of circumstances, contingen-
the time of transit. Sufficient clearance is defined cy plans may require a port, or ports, to pre-identify
as that needed to avoid damage to structures and places of refuge that may be used for the various
equipment and may be 1 to 2 m, where appropri- scenarios envisaged, and that have taken into con-
ate, or 5 % of the ship’s air draught. sideration factors such as:
It should be noted that meteorological effects such • The identity of the authority that will receive and
as storm surges and low barometric pressure can handle such situations and ultimately make the
reduce air draught clearance and these need to be independent decision on accepting or refusing
taken into account. The effects of ship squat will the ship a place of refuge
increase air draught clearance, but are usually not • The procedures by which that decision on accep-
taken into account due to the unreliability of de- tance or otherwise is determined
termining the precise value for any given ship and • Factors influencing a rapid decision on whether
scenario. to accept the ship in need of assistance, which
will include, amongst others, a description of the
Consideration should also be given to the poten- environmental, economic and social factors, as
tial construction of new bridges, cable cars, electric well as natural conditions
cables, etc. on the passage to the site in question • The resources and installations in the place of
and the possible impact of hot exhaust gases on refuge suitable for assistance, rescue and com-
structures or equipment under which the vessel will bating pollution
pass. • Procedures for co-ordination and decision mak-
ing in respect of the ship in need of assistance
7.6 Anchoring Areas
It is accepted that while IMO Resolution A.949(23)
The availability and suitability of anchorage areas provides guidance, regional or national regulations
at or near the terminal in question should be as- may exist that complement these requirements;
sessed as part of the terminal design process and e.g. the European Directive on Maritime Safety
this will form part of the risk assessment. The as- (2002/59 as amended by 2009/17). These should
8.1 Mooring System The most basic means of securing the ship’s moor-
ing lines is by use of a bollard, which is simply a
The mooring system consists of the mooring lines fixed mooring point on the berth. This type of moor-
and a means of securing the lines to the berth ing arrangement may be found on many older oil
structure capable of holding the vessel in position and gas jetties.
against loads imparted on the vessel due to envi-
ronmental conditions. Typically, on more modern oil and gas jetties the
mooring fittings comprise of quick release hooks
Ship’s lines will generally be of wire or ultrahigh mo- (QRHs). Quick release hooks have the advantage
lecular weight polyethylene (HMPE), construction of reducing the amount of manual handling required
with rope tails of synthetic fibre. Other man-made to moor the vessel. QRHs also enable the vessel to
fibres may be used, but it is not normally acceptable be unmoored quickly in the event of an emergency
to mix these materials in a mooring system, due to and facilitate both manual and automatic release of
their differing elasticity. The mooring system needs the mooring lines without the need to reduce ten-
to be designed to suit the environmental conditions sion in them.
The distance requirements can vary from terminal • L1 LOA of vessel moored to Berth 1
to terminal depending on the safety philosophy in • L2 LOA of vessel berthing at Berth 2
each location and will be determined by the termi- • L3 Length between manoeuvring vessel and
nal operator, port or national administration. The end of basin/grounding line
safety distances will be influenced by many factors • R1 Safety zone centred on vessel manifold at
and should be determined from risk assessments Berth 1
and, where appropriate, engineering studies taking • R2 Safety zone centred on vessel manifold at
into consideration some or all of the following fac- Berth 2
tors: • RT Working distance of combined tow line and
tug from vessel hull
• Navigational and ship manoeuvring parameters • W1 Spacing between moored vessels and
including ship size and availability and type of passing vessel
tug support • W2 Spacing between a moored vessel and
• Availability and experience of pilots for types of opposite obstruction
vessels to be handled • W3 Distance between berth fronts at finger
• Likelihood, proximity, speed, and density of piers
passing traffic including the behaviour of moored • d Offset of vessel’s position on approach
ships from passing ship effects
• Fire regulations, hazardous cargo zones and Typical values can be used as a baseline from
risks associated with various scenarios involving which site-specific determinations can be factored
loss of product containment into the risk assessment for the location. These
• Cargo types being handled and whether adjacent may be in the following ranges.
vessels/berths are being operated by the same
facility owners Typical clearance (L3) between vessels moored
• Proximity to population centres and environmen- at adjacent berth(s) or manoeuvring onto
tally sensitive areas berths, subject to appropriate risk assessment
• Environmental considerations, e.g. current/tide, (see Figures 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4)
wave, swell, wind, etc.
• Additional safety measures or equipment that will • The distance between a moored oil tanker and
enhance safety of vessels at the berth, e.g. ad- another vessel (end to end) may be in the range
vanced load cell monitoring of moorings, Emer- of 30 to 100 m
gency Release Systems (ERS), Emergency • When a LPG tanker is moored end to end with
Shutdown Systems (ESDs), etc. another vessel, the distance may be from 30 to
150 m
It is not possible to determine a prescriptive value • When a LNG tanker is moored end to end with
for safe distances due to the individual site-specif- another vessel, the distance may be from 50 to
ic considerations for each location. It is acknowl- 150 m
Vessel size, engine power and manoeuvrability, in- • The effectiveness of the mooring arrangement
cluding any operational aids such as thrusters and • Current velocity
enhanced steering systems, such as those incor- • Effect of a low passing ship speed on its steer-
porating twin or high lift rudders, will impact on the age
area required for manoeuvring. • Depth of water at berth and in channel
• Individual ship draughts
The distance between the tankers will also depend • Speed
on the tug type, LOA, capacity and length of towline • Orientation of moored tanker relative to channel,
used when berthing and unberthing tankers. i.e. parallel or perpendicular
• Separation distance between the passing and
In a berthing situation where there are two or more
moored vessels
adjacent vessels, in order to allow cargo transfer
• Collision risks arising from equipment or naviga-
operations on the tankers to continue safely, it is
tional failures of passing vessels
recommended that the safety zone (see below) of
the berthed tanker(s) should not be breached by
Safety zone (R1, R2) around manifolds of berths
the vessel berthing/unberthing or the attending tugs
and tankers
and other support craft, unless a risk assessment
has determined that cargo transfer operations can
A safety zone centred on the tanker’s manifold
continue.
should be determined from the risk assessment to
Distance (W1) between navigational channel enable the tanker to berth and unberth without the
and moored vessels safety zone on an adjacent vessel being breached.
The risk assessment will be product, site and event
To minimise the risk of damage or breakout of the specific. Factors to be considered would include:
or economically possible. If avoiding overlapping treated as constants, variables will have site-spe-
safety zones is not possible, it is advisable to only cific values based on local climatic factors detailed
use equipment appropriate for use in the overlap- within the Operating Conditions (see Section 6).
ping safety cones. Such equipment may include
spark arresters or other equipment with isolated The following Section contains a summary of cal-
ignition sources. culation methodologies which are further detailed
in Appendices B, C and D.
10 Calculation of
Environmental Forces 10.1 Wind Forces
Environmental forces, mainly consisting of wind, Wind force is due to the resistance offered by the
current and waves acting on a vessel, may result in vessel’s upper work to the atmospheric flow. Both
an increase of the loads exerted on the fenders and the wind drag and the pressure over the vessel’s
mooring lines, as well as vessel movements and hull may vary considerably depending on a vessel’s
velocities. Therefore, determination of such forces size and geometry and are usually calculated as a
acting on the vessel’s hull, which may vary consid- single force by means of the drag equation. The
erably depending on both its size and geometry, wind force calculation methods described in this
are of primary importance for design and planning document represent a set of different recommen-
(including provision of tugs). Standard formula and dations to obtain the magnitude of the wind force.
coefficients are available to assist in calculating the
approximate magnitude of these forces and these The main standards and guidelines referenced are
are described in further detail in this Section. the following:
Environmental forces can also be determined by • Spanish Standard ROM 0.2-90 (References 5
numerical and physical modelling and more so- and 6)
phisticated numerical approaches continue to be • OCIMF 2008 Mooring Equipment Guidelines
developed. (Reference 4)
• British Standard BS 6349 Part 1:2000 (Refer-
Analytic formulations provide force values which ence 7)
usually depend on a number of parameters that
characterise the fluid (air or water) and variables In essence, all the calculations are based on the
that characterise the action. While parameters are established drag force (F) formula:
Differences are found in the way the different fac- ρ air = 360.77819 ⋅ (273.9+ º C )−1.00336 (10.2)
tors of the drag force formula are calculated. These
differences are analysed in Appendix B. Barometric pressure and air moisture also has a
significant effect on air density, although it is un-
The following provides a description of the factors €likely that conditions at a specific site allow an as-
that are included in the drag formula. sumption of consistently high or low pressures to
be sagely made.
Drag Coefficient C
Wind Average Velocity
The drag coefficient is empirical and thus its value
is estimated from experimentation. BS and OCI- Important differences may arise depending on the
MF’s formulations provide relatively accurate esti- recommendation used, not only in the adopted val-
mations of the drag coefficients, depending on the ue of the gust factor, but also in the defined time
wind angle of attack relative to the vessel. In ad- used to characterise a wind gust.
dition, OCIMF’s formulations take into account the
loading condition of the vessel (ballasted or fully Generally, a ten minute (10 min) average stan-
loaded) and the bow configuration. dard (considered at 10 m height and 50 year return
period) has been adopted for the sustained wind
The OCIMF ‘Mooring Equipment Guidelines’ in- definition. Different organisations have utilised dif-
clude specific drag coefficients for gas carries in the ferent durations such as 1 min or 2 min, defining
75,000 to 125,000 m3 class (spherical or prismatic simple factors to convert from one to another. For
tanks). The existing wind coefficients for VLCCs instance, the peak 1 min wind (averaging time for
were not considered applicable to gas carriers due the standard for sustained wind) used by the World
to inherent differences in hull shape and wind area Meteorological Organisation in the Atlantic and
distribution. The presence of spherical tanks on gas Northeast Pacific tropical cyclone basins, is roughly
carriers has the most significant impact on the wind 12 % higher than the peak 10 min wind.
drag coefficients. The deviations in the coefficients
result from differences in the relative force contri- However, when considering the wind forces acting
bution and distribution due to the configuration of on a moored vessel, the focus is on the wind gust
the spherical tanks. Therefore, separate curves for that is capable to overcome the vessel inertia. For
conventional prismatic and spherical tanks have a given vessel (characterised by its length, shape,
been developed (see Appendix B). Differences in etc.), such wind can be defined by two dependent
load conditions are not significant due to the rela- variables: wind duration and velocity. Different ap-
tively small change in draft from a ballasted to a proaches have been applied to assess the definition
fully loaded condition for the sizes of gas carriers of the design velocity to be used in the calculation.
reviewed.
Spanish ROM’s formulation first characterises the
Only the OCIMF ‘Mooring Equipment Guidelines’ vessel by its length ‘L’. The value of ‘L’ determines
define specific wind drag coefficients for gas car- the wind gust duration and consequently the gust
riers. coefficient that affects the sustained velocity.
Table 10.1.2: Summary of Gust Duration and Gust Factor Considered in Different Formulations
Current force over a vessel’s hull may vary consid- • ‘Mooring Equipment Guidelines’ include drag co-
erably depending on both vessel size and geom- efficients for VLCCs taking into account the cur-
etry, and is best determined by scale modelling. rent attack angle, the loading condition and the
water depth to draught ratio
The current force calculation methods described in • The OCIMF coefficients used to compute current
this document represent a set of different recom- loads on VLCCs are also generally applicable to
mendations to obtain the magnitude of such force. gas carriers in the 75,000 to 125,000 m3 class
due to the similarity of the submerged hull ge-
In essence, all the calculations are based on the ometry when compared with VLCC’s having con-
established drag force (F) formula: ventional bows
F = C ⋅ ρ⋅ A⋅V 2 (10.4)
British Standard
• The British Standard includes drag coefficients
With: C as the drag coefficient
and correction factors for shallow water effects
ρ as the fluid density (water)
€ • The drag coefficients take into account the cur-
A is the area projected onto a plane per-
rent angle attack and the vessel’s geometry
pendicular to the flow direction of move-
(small or very large tankers)
ment
V the flow average velocity relative to the Where more relevant drag force data are available
body for a specific ship, these should be used in prefer-
ence to the general data from available publications.
Differences are found in the way the different fac-
tors of the drag force formula are calculated. These Current Forces
differences are analysed in Appendix C.
Transverse current forces calculated by ROM are
The following provides a description of the factors more conservative than those given by BS and
that are included in the drag formula. OCIMF. OCIMF and BS transverse forces show
good conformity for tankers in a loaded condition.
Drag Coefficients However, the current forces for tankers in a ballast-
The drag coefficient is empirical and thus its value ed condition show significant differences.
is estimated from experimentation. Since its value
depends mainly on the vessel’s geometry, it is diffi- Although values for longitudinal current forces at
cult to determine whether one recommendation pro- 0º, 90º and 180º are of the same order, the course
vides a better or more accurate value than another. of the graphs between these points is different for
Nevertheless, the following information should be each formulation. The results for longitudinal cur-
considered. rent forces at 0º and 180 º from BS and ROM are
quite comparable. OCIMF’s longitudinal current
ROM forces at 0º and 180 º are lower than the two other
formulations.
• ROM formulation includes a shape factor for the
calculation of transverse and longitudinal current It should be noted that OCIMF have defined par-
force ticular recommendations for tankers.
• The transverse factor depends only on the water
depth to draught ratio. ROM’s transverse coeffi- 10.3 Wave Forces
cient does not depend on current attack angle or
load condition Wave forces, caused by the complex interaction of
• The longitudinal factor depends only on the ge- the water particle kinematics and the vessel’s body,
ometry of the ship’s bow. ROM’s longitudinal co- may originate from a broad number of wave sourc-
efficient does not depend on current attack angle, es, such as swell or sea waves or pressure field ef-
load condition or water depth to draught ratio fect caused by passing ships and harbour seiching.
An evaluation of necessary tug bollard pull for tank- It is recommended that there is always an opera-
ers should at least be based upon the design speci- tional safety factor when determining the power re-
fications obtained from the following: quirements of tugs. The following formula may be
useful as guidance in determining tug power. How-
• OCIMF Mooring Equipment Guidelines (Refer- ever, the results should be verified through simula-
ence 4) includes formulae for wind and current tions:
forces
TC
• SIGTTO have a wind load calculator (on-line) SO ≥ ≥ 1.1 to 1.25 (12.2)
• Spanish Standard ROM 0.2 - 90 (References BP (12.2)
5 and 6) includes formulae for estimating wave
forces
The Safety Operation Factor (SO) ≥ 1.1 to 1.25 is
€
Consideration should be given to ensuring that en- obtained by the actual total available tug capacity
vironmental factors, such as swell, do not cause (TC), including any bow thrusters, being divided by
loads in equipment that exceed its SWL. the total required effective tug bollard pull (BP) due
to environmental forces during each phase of the
SIGTTO recommends that there should always be berthing and unberthing operation.
Optional parameters for consideration can be wind, Information on mooring lines is provided in ‘Moor-
current, sea and swell. ing Equipment Guidelines’ (Reference 4).
An additional consideration should be the age pro- On larger ships, mooring lines typically are con-
file of the Pilot group and the need for recruiting structed of wire or high modulus fibre, such as
and developing new pilots. It should be borne in HMPE and Aramid and are provided with a synthet-
mind that it can take up to 7 years from introducing ic rope pennant or mooring tail. The tail is designed
a new pilot to the individual achieving full compe- to provide stretch or elasticity in the mooring line to
tency to handle the largest vessels. prevent breaking.
Where there is more than one pilot onboard, it is The ‘cycling’ of mooring lines on exposed berths
important to ensure that the ship’s master knows can lead to sudden unexpected failure due to fa-
which pilot is taking the lead role. Where duties are tigue in the lines.
It should be ensured that the vessel’s hull is not 13 Nautical Port Information
subjected to excessive pressure in way of fender
landing areas. This is of particularl importance Ship’s masters, agents, charterers and other stake-
where berths are in an exposed location. The same holders in the shipping industry have an interest in
should also apply to tug fenders. obtaining reliable and up-to-date port and terminal
information.
Fender pressures are determined through static or
dynamic mooring simulations and a berthing evalu- A number of developments underline the growing
ation. It is important to determine the appropriate interest in the availability, preferably on-line, of ac-
analysis model based upon the site-specific envi- curate and reliable information about ports and ter-
ronmental conditions. minals:
When a vessel is to attend a berth for the first time, • IMO Resolution A.893 (Reference 11) and ICS
it may be necessary for the ship owner to confirm Bridge Procedures Guide (Reference 21) require
the hull pressure rating which should not exceed voyage or passage planning, which is essential
the guidance provided in PIANC’s ‘Guidelines for for all ships engaged on international voyages.
the Design of Fender Systems’ (Reference 17). The aim of passage planning is the preparation
of a ship’s navigation plan so that the intended
The terminal should use the characteristics of the passage can be executed from the departure
fenders and the area of fender panel faces in or- port to the arrival port (’berth to berth’) in a safe
der to determine fender loading during the mooring and efficient way in respect of both the vessel
studies both during the design phase and subse- and the environment.
quently in use. On existing terminals, where fender • There is an increasing number of ships which
loadings exceed the safe pressure on the tanker have onboard access to the Internet and, in
Table 14.2.1: Example of Dimensions of Different Classes of LNG and LPG Carriers
Dimensions
Figure 14.3.B: Common Sizes of LPG Carriers Draught (or Draft) is the depth of the keel below
the waterline.
15 Definitions Fairway Depth is the minimum depth in the fairway
at chart datum.
General Terms
Freeboard is the vertical distance measured from
Crude Oil (or unrefined petroleum) is a naturally
waterline to the freeboard deck, normally the up-
occurring volatile and flammable liquid consisting
permost continuous deck or maindeck.
of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, originating
from geological formations beneath the earth’s sur-
Keel Top Distance (or Keel-Masthead Distance)
face.
is the distance from the keel to the highest point on
the entire ship.
Liquefied Natural Gas [LNG] is natural gas which
has been refrigerated to liquid state (typically -160
Parallel body length is the length of the flat side of
to -170°C) for ease of storage or transport.
the ship at the waterline.
Liquid Petroleum Gas [LPG] generally refers to
propane, butane and mixtures of these gases, which Underkeel Clearance (UKC) is the least vertical
are maintained in liquid state by refrigeration, pres- distance measured from the sea bed to the ship’s
surisation or a combination of these measures. keel.
Terminal Safety Zone is a specified distance from Metocean Conditions are the environmental con-
the terminal within which certain activities (includ- ditions due to wind, wave, current, etc.
ing those of the third parties and the general public)
may be restricted. Wind Area is the projected area of the ship above
water level presented towards the wind.
Turning Basin is an area within a port or waterway
designated for turning ships around. Wind Force is the total amount of wind forces act-
ing on the ship at any time.
Terms of mooring
16 References and
Active Escort refers to the practice of securing a
tug on a line from the stern from a ship which is Recommended Literature
transiting confined waters. The purpose is to as-
sist in emergency stopping and/or steering the ship
away from danger in the event of malfunction of the 1. Thoresen, C.A. (2010): “Port Designer’s Hand-
ships machinery. Tugs used for this purpose are of book”.
special design. 2. UK Department for Transport (2009): “Port Ma-
rine Safety Code”.
Passive Escort is the corresponding term used 3. UK Department for Transport (2009): “Port Ma-
where the tug accompanies but is not made fast to rine Safety Code – A Guide to Good Practice on
the ship. Port Marine Operations”.
4. OCIMF (2008): “Mooring Equipment Guide-
Master is the Captain or person in charge of a lines”, 3rd Edition.
ship. 5. Ministerio de Obras Publicas y Transportes,
Madrid (1990): “ROM Recomendaciones para
Mooring Boats are workboats used to assist in Obras Maritimas (Maritime Works Recommen-
taking the ship’s mooring lines to the shore moor- dations, Actions in the design of maritime and
ing facilities. harbour works ROM 0.2-90, English version)”.
6. Puerto Del Estado (2007): “ROM 3.1-99 Rec-
Mooring Tails comprise of a short length of syn- ommendations for the Design of the Maritime
thetic rope attached to the end of a mooring line to Configuration of Ports, Approach Channels and
provide increased elasticity and also ease of han- Harbour Basins” (English version).
dling. Also referred to as ‘pennant’ or ‘pendant’. 7. British Standards (2000): “BS 6349, Maritime
Structures. Part 1: Code of Practice for General
Pilot is the person licensed by the competent au- Criteria”.
thority who provides navigational advice and guid- 8. British Standards (1988): “BS 6349, Maritime
ance to the ship’s Master for the navigation within Structures. Part 2: Design of Quay Walls, Jet-
ports, canals, rivers and certain other areas. In ad- ties and Dolphins”.
dition to special ship handling skills, Pilots also pro- 9. British Standards (1994): “BS 6349, Part 4,
vide specialised knowledge of the local area and Code of Practice for Design of Fendering and
environmental conditions. Mooring Systems”.
10. EAU (2004): “Empfehlungen des Arbeitsauss-
Tugs assist in the manoeuvring and mooring of chusses für Ufereinfassungen (Recommenda-
larger vessels. They are normally controlled by tions of the Committee for Waterfront Structures,
Harbours and Waterways)”, English version.
. Liaison with Port User Groups (Including The study included all commercial vessels trading
Leisure Users) externally to and from the Port. Leisure vessels and
. Formal links should be established with port intra-port traffic were included in relation to their in-
user groups, including leisure users to create a teraction with commercial vessels.
channel for two-way communications between
the Port Authority and user groups. These The study included all navigation-related operation-
should operate at management and operation al functions including environmental and operation-
levels. al limitations (i.e. tidal regime, channel limitations,
weather limitations, vessel cargoes, etc.) and the
General Comments traffic management infrastructure and its impact on
the safety of navigation.
The results of our study indicate that the operation
of shipping into and out of Genesis Harbour is gen- Methodology
erally carried out in an efficient and safe manner.
The approach taken by Leedham Marine Consul-
The Pilots, Shipmasters, Radio Station Operators, tants Ltd is based on the Formal Safety Assess-
Tug skippers and others interviewed during the ment (FSA) method, adopted by the International
course of the study all demonstrated very high lev- Maritime Organisation, (IMO). This consists of five
els of professionalism and seamanship, together distinct steps:
with a firm commitment to safety. This is attested
by the low levels of recorded incidents over the last 1. Hazard Identification
few years of operation. 2. Risk Assessment
3. Risk Control Options
Masters and port users interviewed generally ex- 4. Cost Benefit Analysis
pressed satisfaction with the way in which the port 5. Recommendations for Decision Making
has operated up to the present time.
This report covers steps 1, 2 and 3 of the FSA pro-
We nevertheless consider that the provision of a cess, specific to the Port of Genesis. Some new risk
new port radar and the upgrade of the Port Radio control measures are outlined, along with a number
Service towards a full Port Control / Vessel Traf- of comments and recommendations. The costs and
fic Service would materially assist in the safety of benefits of new risk control measures are excluded
marine operations through the provision of better from the scope of this report. From the generation
information to vessels and the facilitation of vessel of the risk profile, the necessary core components
movements. of a Navigational Risk Management System can
also be developed.
We further consider that the advent of the Port Ma-
rine Safety Code will require formalisation of the The report describes the methods used to develop
procedures by which the port is currently managed. the hazard list and associated risk assessment.
This best achieved by the development of a Navi- The information presented has been obtained from
gational Safety Management System. data provided from:
Documents studied included: There are currently approximately 550 vessel move-
ments per annum in the Port of Genesis. The Sail-
• Port Plans and UKHO charts ing Club has a membership with some 230 yachts,
• Port of Genesis Byelaws (1995) with a further 35 visitors moorings, which are fully
• Port of Genesis Harbour Orders 1934, 1948, utilised during the summer season. The club holds
1949 and1992 regular races and regattas in the estuary, obviously
• Port of Genesis Harbour Order (Explosives) involving the transit of boats through the harbour
1981 waters.
• Sumner Estuary Hydrographical Study 1979-81
• Sumner Estuary Bathymetric and tidal data 1972- The Port of Genesis has a generally open and un-
2001 obstructed approach, with approximately 12 metres
• Industrial Explosives (shipping) Ltd. – Standard of water above chart datum in the channel (main-
Route and Passage Plans tained by occasional dredging).
• Port of Genesis – Navigational Consultation Pa-
pers 1997 The harbour has a maximum tidal range of approxi-
• Port of Genesis – Towage Consultation Paper mately 1.2 metres. The tidal stream in the harbour
1999 entrance generally runs rectilinearly, up to about
• Genesis Port Ltd .– Port User Consultation Pa- 1½ knots at springs.
per 2000
There is a regulatory speed limit of 6 knots within The Radio Station is equipped with a modified ma-
the port limits (Byelaw 17). rine (ship) X-band radar, which is approximately six
years old. It is reported as ‘somewhat unreliable’
Mistlefoot Power Station (Primary Energy) and none of the staff has attended any formal train-
ing in its use.
The marine terminal for Mistlefoot Power Station
lies within the limits of Genesis Harbour on the Other Port Services
northern side. It comprises No 1 (HFO) Jetty, ca-
pable of accommodating vessels up to 65,000 dwt, Tugs
and No 2 Jetty, capable of accommodating smaller There are two tugs of 25-tonne bollard pull and a
tankers and service vessels. further two tug/workboats of 3-tonne bollard pull
currently in the port. In addition, 2 work boats are
Mistlefoot ‘A’ power station operates exclusively on available for line handling and other duties. Ad-
heavy fuel, and deliveries average around 17-19 ditional tugs are available from Beckfoot, on 2-4
tanker calls per year, with a typical tanker size of hours’ notice.
about 40,000 tonnes DWT. According to Byelaw 16,
tanker movements are restricted to daylight hours There is no set compulsory requirement for vessels
only. using the Port of Genesis to employ the services of
tugs. This is generally left to the Pilot’s and Masters’
Blue Chip Timber Facility - Whitby Wharf discretion, but the Harbour Master has the power to
issue directions on the use of tugs, should he con-
This site comprises a timber storage facility and a sider it appropriate (Byelaw 2).
conventional berth, with a least depth of 7.2 me-
tres, which is used for import and export. The for- Bunkering
mer Bitumen facility has now been closed and the Bunkering operations by barge are not generally
site now operates purely as an import/export facility undertaken within the Harbour. Small quantities
for timber and occasional third party cargoes. of gas oil bunkers and lubes are delivered by road
tankers on a daily basis. There is no black oil op-
Pilotage eration.
Area Detail
4 Harbour Area
Where:
The risk data obtained from the above process was Serious damage to the vessel is possible with loss
then analysed to obtain four indices for each haz- of hull integrity. Serious pollution is also possible
ard as follows: if bunker tanks are breached. Evacuation may be
required. SAR operations would be hampered by
A) the average risk value of the four categories in restricted visibility or darkness.
the ‘most likely’ set
B) the average risk value of the four categories in Measures currently in place to control this risk in-
the ‘worst credible’ set clude:
C) the maximum risk value of the four categories
in the ‘most likely’ set • Navigation marks: the Nevasa Shoal is marked
D) the maximum risk value of the four categories by a temporary isolated danger buoy (following
in the ‘worst credible’ set destruction of the Nevasa Beacon in December
2004)
Average risk values are sensitive towards hazards • Pilot’s expertise and training
which score moderately or highly over a number
of categories, whilst the maximum risk values are Further possible measures to reduce this risk in-
sensitive towards hazards which score particularly clude:
high in any category.
• All effort should be made to expedite the replace-
These values were then aggregated to produce a ment of the Nevasa Beacon. In the meantime,
numeric value representing the average of the four it is recommended that the present buoy be up-
indices. graded to a Class 1 buoy and possibly supple-
mented with a further buoy to the northward of
The hazard list was then sorted in order of the ag- the shoal.
gregate of the four indices to produce a Ranked • Development of generic Port Passage Plan
Hazard List, in descending order, with the highest
risk hazards at the top. This list is produced in full Hazard 4 - Collision - Coastal Traffic and Explo-
in Appendix A.2 to this report. sives Cargo Vesse. (Areas 1 and 2)
This hazard scores moderate/high in life and prop-
Stage 3 erty in both the most likely and worst credible sce-
Mapping Defences narios. It also scores moderately in the worst cred-
(Risk Control Options) ible environment scenario.
The Ranked Hazard List was reviewed at a further In addition to generic causes, particular causes for
this may include poor watch-keeping and equip-
meeting at the offices of Genesis Port Limited on
ment standards on the explosives vessels, which
March 27, 2006 and the defences currently in place
are generally under the tonnages required for com-
to control the hazards identified by the ranking pro-
pliance with SOLAS and other maritime legislation.
cess as most important, were reviewed.
The most likely scenario would be a glancing blow
The result of the review of the top thirty ranked haz-
with minor damage and few injuries. In the worst
ards (in order of highest overall risk) was as fol-
credible scenario, serious damage to both vessels
lows.
Hazard 30 - Grounding - Any vessel on Stag • Loading, Discharge and Stowage Procedures:
Rock (Area 2) Industrial Explosives Ltd.
This hazard scores moderate/high in property in • Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regu-
lations 1987
the most likely and worst credible scenarios. It also
• Port Byelaws 60, 82 85
scores moderately in the worst credible environ-
• MOD Procedures
ment and port business scenarios.
It is considered that this hazard should be ade-
In addition to generic causes, particular causes for
quately covered by the above measures.
this may include the inability to distinguish Nelson
Beacon from the background lights on approach
Hazard 72 - Contact – Tanker lands heavily on
and/or vessels cutting the corner when approaching
No 1 Jett. (Area 3)
from the north and passing inside Nevasa Shoal.
This hazard scores high in the property category in
both the most likely and worst credible scenarios. It
The most likely scenario would include significant also scores moderately in the worst credible pollu-
damage to the bottom of the vessel. In the worst tion and life scenarios.
case scenario significant pollution may occur and
evacuation may be required. Restricted visibility or In addition to generic causes, particular causes for
darkness would hamper SAR operations. this hazard may include strong Northerly winds on
the flood tide, inadequate power in marginal condi-
Measures currently in place to control this risk in- tions, failure to take sufficient tugs or unavailability
clude: of tugs at short notice.
• Stag Rock South Cardinal Buoy The most likely scenario could include significant
• Nelson Beacon – heading mark when approach- damage to the hard-arm facility and vessel. The
ing from the east; maintaining a least bearing of worst case scenario could include serious injuries
265° clears Stag Rock by one mile and pollution.
• Provision of radar facility for the port; this would In addition to generic causes, particular causes for
enable the port to monitor the position and prog- this may include strong winds which occasionally
ress of vessels gust down the valley and through the port area.
• Addition of day lights on the leading line; this
would enhance their visibility in marginal condi- The most likely scenario could include significant
tions recovery costs and possible injuries, together with
• Development of Towage Guidelines restrictions on port movements. In the worst case
scenario fatalities are possible, together with long-
Hazard 6 - Grounding - Any vessel, close to No. term port closure.
15a buoy (Area 3)
This hazard scores moderate/high in property in Measures currently in place to control this risk in-
the most likely and worst credible scenarios. It also clude:
scores moderate/high in the worst credible environ-
ment and port business scenarios. • External Procedures: Master’s expertise and
training
In addition to generic causes, particular causes for • Timber regulations
this include the significant eddy which occurs on
the spring ebb between 15 and 15a buoys and the It is considered that this hazard should be ade-
position of No 15a buoy which no longer marks the quately covered by the above measures.
furthest intrusion of the bank into the channel.
Hazard Summary
The most likely scenario could include significant
damage to the bottom of the vessel. In the worst 1) Only one hazard (Ref No 40) ranked as ‘High
case scenario significant pollution may occur and Risk’ (rating = 8,9 or 10) within any of the sce-
evacuation may be required. narios examined.
2) Seventeen hazards ranked as moderately high
Measures currently in place to control this risk in- (rating=7) and a further sixty-six ranked as
clude: moderate (rating=6) within the ‘Worst Credible’
scenarios.
• Pilot’s expertise and training 3) Two hazards ranked as moderately high
• External Procedures: Master’s expertise and (rating=7) and a further twenty-seven ranked as
training moderate (rating=6) within the ‘Most Likely’ sce-
• Leading line: this leads vessels clear of the dan- narios. These hazards generally correspond to
ger (i.e. duplicate) those captured within the ‘worst
credible’ in (2) above.
Additional measures which could improve control
of this hazard include: We consider that the top twenty-three hazards from
the ranked hazard list together with the hazards de-
• Addition of day lights on the leading line; this scribed above under Stage 3 merit continued re-
would enhance their visibility in marginal condi- view and consideration should be given to the risk
tions control measures proposed.
V gust = C G (τ ) ⋅ V v (5)
this factor by the average wind speed given by the AT is the Broadside or lateral ballasted
wind climate results in the wind speed sought in the projected area
present calculation.
Nevertheless, in the absence of accurate informa-
As an example, for the calculation that will be car- tion about the drag coefficients for the different
ried out later (from a vessel of Lbp = 346 m), equa- vessels and loading conditions, the wind forces
tion (4) provides a value equal to 60 sec (1min) for can be calculated according to the following sim-
the gust duration τ, which results in a gust factor plification:
FG = 1.31. An average wind climate characterised
by a wind speed VV = 10 m/s , the gust velocity ρ air (7)
Rv = C V ⋅ V r ( AT ⋅ cos α air + AL ⋅ sin α air )
2 2
1min
equals to V gust = 13.1m/s . 2
Continuing the description of the formula (2), we Where Cv=1.3 for any vessel and wind angle.
have: €
€
€ Formulations by OCIMF
• αair is the angle at which the wind blows relative
to the longitudinal ship dimension Overall wind forces are described as follows.
• Фair is the angle of the resultant force ρair relative (see figure B.2 on the next page)
to the longitudinal ship dimension
The longitudinal wind force FXW (in kN) is such:
In addition:
ρA
A1 = C L ⋅ AT ⋅ cos2 α air and A2 = C T ⋅ AL ⋅ sin 2 α air F XW = C XW ⋅ ⋅AT ⋅VW2
7,600 (8)
(6)
The lateral wind force FYW (in kN) is such:
Where:
€
CL is the shape factor of the ship when the € ρA
wind blows in the direction of the ship’s F YW = C YW ⋅ ⋅A L ⋅VW2
transversal axis. As a first approach, 7,600 (9)
CL = 0.8 if αair = 0º, and CL=1,0 if αair = 180º
CT is the shape factor of the ship when the The wind yaw moment:
wind blows in the direction perpendicular to ρA
M XYW = C XYW ⋅ ⋅A L ⋅VW2 ⋅ L BP
the transversal axis, CT = 1.25 if αair =€90º 7,600 (10)
AL is Head on or transverse ballasted
projected area
€
81 PIANC Report 116
Figure B.2: Sign Convention and Coordinate System
(Mooring Equipment Guidelines, OCIMF)
Where:
CXW (non-dimensional) is the longitu-
dinal wind force coefficient
CYW (non-dimensional) is the trans-
verse wind force coefficient
CXYW (non-dimensional) is the wind
yaw moment coefficient
Figure B.3: Lateral Wind Drag Coefficient (CYw) Figure B.4: Longitudinal Wind Drag Coefficient (CXw)
vs. Angle of the Wind vs. Angle of the Wind
(Mooring Equipment Guidelines, OCIMF) (Mooring Equipment Guidelines, OCIMF)
These coefficients are based upon data obtained erage mean velocity. The selection of the 30 sec-
from model tests, and: ond wind is based on the time it takes the forces
in a mooring system to respond to wind velocities
ρA (kg/m3) is the air density, equal to changes. 30 seconds is a typical value for a ballast-
1.223 kg/m3 (at 20ºC) ed VLCC. Smaller ships will respond more quickly
AL (m2) is the longitudinal projected area of and a fully laden VLCC may require 60 seconds
the vessel above the waterline to respond. However, for consistency, a 30 second
AT (m2) is the transverse projected area of average period is suggested for all ship sizes and
the vessel above the waterline loading conditions.
VW (knots) is the design wind speed at height
10 m above the water level The reading and use of OCIMF’s Formulation, as
published in ’Mooring Equipment Guidelines’, is
Wind velocity is the velocity measured at the stan- clear and very straight forward. However, the for-
dard datum height of 10 m above ground or water mulation is in terms of a sustained wind velocity
surface and is representative of a 30 second av- and does not consider wind gusts of limited duration
Continuing:
CTiW is the transverse wind force coefficient
€ (forward or aft)
CLW is the longitudinal wind force coefficient
ρA (kg/m3) is the air density. It varies from
1.3096 kg/m3 (at 0ºC) to 1.1703 kg/m3
(at 30ºC)
AL (m2) is the longitudinal projected area of
the vessel above the waterline
VW (m/s) is the design wind speed at height
Figure B.6: Wind Duration vs. Conversion Factor 10 m above the water level
(Marine Oil Terminal, Division 3)
In the case of ships, the British Standard recom-
A second correction for the wind speed comes from mends the use of a 1 minute mean wind speed for
the elevation. The wind speed measured at an el- the design of moorings, because of the time need-
evation of 10 meters above the water surface, with ed for full line loads to develop, taking into account
duration of 30 seconds shall be used to determine the inertia of the vessel. If other duration wind data
the design wind speed. If these conditions are not is available, it could be adjusted to 30 second dura-
met, the following correction shall be applied: tion, in accordance with the gust factor included in
Figure B.6.
⎛ 10 ⎞1.7
VW = V h ⎜ ⎟
⎝ h ⎠ Formulations summary
(12)
Where:
The table on the next page summarises the differ-
Vw = wind speed at elevation 10 m
ences of the following three formulations consid-
Vh = wind speed at elevation h
€ ered, with some simplifications with respect to the
h = elevation above water surface of wind
formulation.
data [m]
Where:
€ CL is the shape factor of the ship when the current
€ acts in the direction of the ship’s longitudinal
axis. This factor depends on the geometry of
the ship’s bow. It can vary between 0,2 and
0,6. Lacking a more precise determination, a
value of 0,6 is adopted for conventional bows
CT is the vessel’s shape factor when the current
acts on the direction of the transversal axis
Where:
RC is the total current force over the vessel
FT is the transverse component of the force
FL is the longitudinal component of the force
φC Figure C.2: CT vs. Non-dimensional Water Depth H
is the angle of the resultant force relative (ROM 0.2-90)
to the vessel longitudinal dimension
ρwater is the water density, equal to 1.030 kg/m3
The non-dimensional water depth H is determined
for seawater and 1.000 kg/m3 for fresh water
€ by h/D, where:
Vr is the current speed relative to the vessel,
h = total water depth
according to the following conditions. It is
D = vessel’s draught
considered at half the draught of the vessel.
ρC
F XC = C XC ⋅ ⋅L BP ⋅T ⋅ VC2
7,600 (23)
The lateral current force (in kN) is such:
AL = L BP ⋅ dm (30)
Design Ship
For comparison purposes, a 200,000 DWT design
oil tanker in fully loaded condition is used having
the following particulars:
Figure C.13: CLDEPTH vs. Angle of the Current − Length Loa = 350 m
(British Standard 6349 Part 1) − Length between perpendiculars Lbp = 346 m
− Width B = 56.2 m
Practical analysis of the formulation − Draught (Fully loaded) Dd = 20.4 m
Figure D1: Wave Forces Sketch The value of Cfw is given in the following figure as
(Source ROM 0.2-90) a function of the relative wave length (Lwr) at the
depth of the site (h) and the vessel’s draught (D).
Where:
FT is the transverse component of the force The length of apparent wave relative to the vessel
FL is the longitudinal component of the force (Lwr) at the site’s depth may be calculated by the
α is the angle of wave’s propagation relative following expression:
Figure D.2: Waterline Coefficient and Depth Coefficient (Cfw and Cdw.)
(Source ROM 0.2-90)
1 1 V ⋅ cosα wb (34)
= +
Twr Tw Lw
Where:
V is the vessel’s absolute speed with respect
€ to the sea bottom, in m/s
α wb is the angle formed between the vessel’s
absolute speed and the wave direction
(incoming)
β = Vessel’s drift angle
€
In the case Twr is negative, it will be taken that the
relative waves are in the opposite direction.
http://www.pianc.org
VAT BE 408-287-945
978-2-87223-196-6
PIANC Report 116