PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

1

ASSESSING MOORING FORCES AT AN OFFSHORE WIND TERMINAL
IN BREMERHAVEN, GERMANY
by
Anja Brning
1
, Dr. O. Stoschek
2
, D. Spinnreker
2
and U.Kraus
3

ABSTRACT
Breaking mooring lines of vessels during port and terminal operations are one of the most disastrous events
that affect safety and productivity. Therefore dynamic mooring analysis of vessel motions and mooring
forces are a requirement for port authorities.
Especially in narrow channels and terminals with limited navigation width for ship traffic, long-period
transient waves, drawdown, caused by passing vessels are not negligible for adjacent terminals. Forces on
mooring lines induced by passing vessels cannot be established from the present guidelines. Therefore a
joint modelling approach using DHIs MIKE 21 hydrodynamic model and WAMIT is used.
The present case focuses on determining the operational safety of the new Offshore Terminal Bremerhaven
(OTB) for most severe ship traffic situations. These are derived from a matrix of navigation simulations that
were established for the project and determined the main parameters for the simulation of the vessel
passage. The input parameters regarding moored ships and berth layout are defined with the client based
on the expected operating vessels at the terminal and on information from guidelines and previously used
harbour equipment.
The method outlined in this paper was used for the first time in Germany for a permit process. The dynamic
analyses generally support the proposed mooring and berthing arrangement for worst-case passing vessel
scenarios.
1. INTRODUCTION
To manifest its leading position as one of the main ports for the offshore wind industry in North Germany,
Bremerhaven started the development of the former Fischereihafen. To support this industrial developing
area with best infrastructure connections, a new offshore terminal located in the Blexer Bogen a bend of
the Weser River right before the estuary mouths into the Wadden Sea is planned for offshore components
shipment (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location of planned Offshore Terminal Bremerhaven (Layout by bremenports GmbH &
Co.KG) at the Blexer Bogen (Image OpenStreetmap)

1
DHI, Agern All 5, 2970 Hrsholm, Denmark abu@dhigroup.com
2
DHI-WASY GmbH, Max-Planck-Strae 6, 28857 Syke, Germany
3
bremenports GmbH & Co.KG, Am Strom 2, 27568 Bremerhaven, Germany
PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

2

The water depth at the proposed terminal will be dredged to -14.1m MSL, while the channel has water
depths up to -19.0mMSL in the vicinity of the new Terminal.
In order to ensure a safe operation and berthing of the designated vessels, mooring lines and fenders have
to resist the different external forces that they are exposed to. Endangerment to both terminal and vessel
evokes, besides inexperienced handling of mooring, from external forces that lead to significant ship
movement and vice versa high restoring forces within the applied mooring equipment.
Influencing external forces are typically:
Wind
Currents
Waves (wind-sea and swell)
Passing vessels (primary and secondary wake wave phenomena)

Figure 2: Definition of vessel motions
At the Blexer Bogen, large bulk carriers are passing this planned terminal at short distance off
approximately 270m (see Figure 3, green line). Therefore interplay of ship traffic and mooring forces will
occur.
bremenports GmbH & Co. KG asked DHI to investigate the safety of moored ships in front of this terminal.
The main objective was to document that drawdown generated by passing vessels does not endanger the
proposed mooring and berting system.

Figure 3: Layout of the Offshore Terminal Bremerhaven including marked navigational channel
(bremenports GmbH & Co.KG)


2
T
D
2
m
W
im
sy
d
q
In
to

H
m
A
a
w
tr
m
w
N
W
c
c
In
a
2. METH
The softw
DHIs inho
011) and
mooring a
WAMSIM
mpulse-re
ystem, w
egrees o
uality of
n order to
o the WA
Huge effo
mooring li
As a first s
ccurate p
were integ
rack. The
model res
were inves
Next, the
WAMSIM
alculates
ases befo
n the proc
rrangeme
HODOLO
ware appli
ouse time
d the hydr
analysis o
takes a F
esponse
wind, curre
of freedom
results (C
o investig
AMSIM sim
rt was ma
nes) to b
step, diffe
pathway,
grated int
e modelle
ults. Sev
stigated.
hydrodyn
includes
s the moti
fore such
cess of a
ent was i
OGY
ed to sim
e-domain
rodynam
of coastal
Fourier tr
functions
ent and v
m. The re
Christens
ate vario
mulations
ade in ord
be entered
erent pass
a numer
to this mo
ed primary
veral diffe
namic dat
the ship
ion, moo
as for th
assessing
improved
Da
assess
MIKE
WAM
WAM
PIANC
mulate the
n modellin
ic module
l and offs
ransforma
s (or IRFs
viscous d
eliability o
sen et al.
us moori
s (see Fig
der to ach
d in the s
sing vess
rical hydro
odel as a
y ship-ge
rent case
ta were c
geometr
ring and
he Port of
g the draw
d by iterat
ata
sment
21 FM
IT &
MSIM
C World C
e motion
ng tool, W
e of MIKE
shore stru
ation of t
s), which
damping f
of WAMS
2008).
ng conce
gure 4).
Figure
hieve and
simulation
sel scena
odynamic
a discrete
enerated
es regard
coupled to
ry of offsh
fender fo
f Brisbane
wdown in
tion.
shiphu
berthla
mooring
charact
selection
transfer
setupa
exporta
calculati
checkof
optimisa
Congress
3
of the mo
WAMSIM,
E 21. WA
uctures s
he freque
are then
forces to
SIM was v
epts, two
e 4: Stud
d process
n runs.
arios were
c model w
water-vo
waves w
ding pass
o the WA
hore insta
orces. Th
e (Morten
nduced sh
lls
ayout
garrange
eristicsof
nofpassin
ofshiphu
ndvalidat
andprepr
ionofship
fwidthsta
ationofm
San Fran
3
oored ve
, that inco
AMSIM is
ubject to
ency resp
n combine
solve the
validated
main info
dy metho
s the data
e modelle
with a ver
olume dis
were comp
sing vesse
AMSIM m
allation ve
is metho
nsen et a
hip motio
ment
flinesand
ngvessel
ulltorepr
tionofthe
rocessing
pmoveme
andinglim
mooringlay
ncisco US
ssel and
orporates
s DHI's st
external
ponse fun
ed with in
e equatio
against p
ormation
odolgy
a (eg ship
ed using M
ry high re
splaceme
pared to
el speed
model in th
essels aff
d has be
al. 2009).
ons and m
dfenders
scenario
resenting
emodel
ofresults
entsandm
its
yout
SA 2014
forces in
s the resu
tate-of-the
forcing.
nctions (o
ncident w
ons of mo
physical
aspects
p hulls, be
MIKE 21.
esolution w
ent that p
in-situ m
and dista
he vicinity
fected by
en used
mooring fo
pressuref
mooringfo
n the moo
ults of WA
e-art tool
or FRFs)
wave, hyd
otion for t
model re
had to be
erth layou
. In order
was set u
propagate
easurem
ance to th
y of the t
y the indu
in a num
orces, th
field
orces
oring syst
AMIT (W
l for dyna
to get th
rostatic,
he body
esults to e
e assesse

ut, charac
to receiv
up. Passi
es along a
ments to v
he offsho
erminal a
uced draw
ber of pr
e initial m
tem was
WAMIT,
amic
e body's
mooring
in six
ensure th
ed as inp
cteristics
ve the mo
ng vesse
a defined
validate th
re termin
area.
wdown an
actical
mooring
e
ut
of
ost
els
d
he
nal
nd


3
T
c
F
s
F
T
lo
W
p
T
F
ill
fo

3. SIMU
The magn
haracteri
ve
ve
pr
co
Furthermo
peed.
Figure 5:
The effect
ong-perio
th
ch
Wuebben
parameter
The gener
Figure 6 re
lustrates
ollowed b
LATION
nitude of t
istics and
essel dim
essel spe
roximity o
onfigurati
ore, the fo
Sketch o
t of the w
od wave a
he vesse
hannel.
(1995) m
rs on the
ral effect
epresent
the long-
by the sho
OF DRAW
the drawd
d channe
mensions
eed
of the cha
ion
ormulae a
of the sq
water leve
and will m
ls speed
made phy
drawdow
of the m
ts the sur
-wave pe
ort-period
PIANC
WDOWN
down effe
l configur
(hull sha
annel side
assume t
quat effe
el depress
mainly de
, passing
ysical/in-s
wn, while
oving wa
rface elev
eriod (con
d second
C World C
FORCES
ect has b
rations (B
ape as r
es and bo
the vesse
ect for a s
sion and
epend in i
g distanc
situ inves
e BAW (2
ater body
vation me
nsisting o
ary wave
Congress
4
S
been pred
Briggs, 20
represent
ottom as
el naviga
symmetr
its relate
ts magni
ce, and t
tigations
006) und
is shown
easured i
of bow wa
es.
San Fran
4
dicted by
006) and
ted by le
represen
ating in th
ric passa
ed current
tude on:
the relati
at the Gr
dertook in
n in Figur
n time at
ave, s
B
, d
ncisco US
different
BAW (20
ength, wid
nted by th
e centre
age (BAW
ts is still
ion betw
reat Lake
nvestigati
re 5.
t one loca
drawdown
SA 2014
t formulae
006):
dth, draft
he channe
of a stra
W, 2006)
noticeabl
een the
es to dete
ons in th
ation whe
n and prim
e that de
t and blo
el depth a
ight chan

le at the
cross-se
ermine the
e Weser
en a ship
mary ster
pend on
ock coeffi
and cross
nnel at a c
riverside
ections of
e influenc
River, G
passes b
rn wave,
ship
icient) an
s-section
constant

as a
f ship an
ce of thes
ermany.
by. It
H
P
)
nd
nal
nd
se


F
S
v
s
S
c
p
w
w
(2
H
T
F
la
a
a
M
T
th
T
lo
tr
th
p
F
m
B
B
Figure 6:
Significan
ariations
hips that
Since the
hanges n
pressure f
within the
were trans
2009), wh
Hydrodyn
The MIKE
FM Flow M
akes, estu
pproach
finite vo
Modelling
To implem
he subme
The nume
ocation of
riangular
he spatia
passing sh
Figure 7 s
maximum
Backgroun
Bathymetr
Scheme
t loads a
of water
might ha
empirica
nor the ef
field withi
numerica
sferred in
here resu
namic m
E 21 Flow
Modelling
uaries, ba
uses a fle
lume num
software
ment the s
erged ves
erical mod
f the Offs
(sloping
l discretiz
hip hull a
shows a c
of 8m. W
nd of this
ric data, p
e of the s
re introdu
r levels w
ave unfav
al formula
ffect of a
in a MIKE
al model.
nto the m
ults were
odel, MIK
Model FM
g software
ays, coas
exible me
merical so
e, see (DH
ships dis
ssel hull
del cover
shore Ter
river ben
zation of
as a press
close up o
Within the
s high res
provided
PIANC
ship wav
uced due
with long-l
vourable
a approac
river ben
E 21 FM
. The cha
odel dom
compare
KE 21 Fl
M is a mo
e is appli
stal areas
esh (FM)
olution te
HI, 2014)
placeme
in its dim
red appro
rminal Br
nd and we
the bathy
sure field
of mesh
e navigat
solution m
by the U
C World C
ve system
e to the in
asting an
mooring
ches men
nd or diffe
hydrodyn
aracterist
main. A va
ed to phy
ow Mode
odelling s
icable for
s, and se
based on
echnique.
).
nt that ca
mension w
oximately
remerhav
etland) an
ymetry. F
d (see Fig
resolutio
tion chan
mesh is th
University
Congress
5
m measu
nduced hy
nd strong
arrangem
ntioned a
erent dist
namic mo
tics of the
alidation
ysical mod
el FM
system fo
r the simu
eas where
n unstruc
. For furth
auses the
was gene
y 5km ups
ven. The
nd quadra
Furthermo
gure 7).
ns in the
nnel, quad
he optima
of Applie
San Fran
5
ured at a
ydrodyna
fluxes. T
ments.
bove incl
tances to
odel was
e passing
of this ap
del tests.
or 2D free
ulation of
ever strat
ctured tria
her inform
e drawdow
rated.
stream a
applied f
angular (n
ore, it allo
vicinity o
drangula
al represe
ed Scienc
ncisco US
stationa
amic pres
These for
lude neith
the shor
applied t
g vessel,
pproach w
.
-surface
f hydrauli
tification
angular o
mation re
wn, a mo
nd downs
flexible m
navigatio
ows an a
of the OT
r elemen
entation o
ce Breme
SA 2014
ary point
ssure cha
rces can
her the e
re, DHIs
to reprod
its pathw
was pres
depth-int
ic and en
can be n
r quadran
egarding t
oving pre
stream th
mesh cons
on channe
accurate i
TB. The tr
nts of 2.25
of the wa
en, were
t (BAW, 2
anges tha
cause la
effects of
approach
duce the u
way and m
sented in
tegrated f
nvironmen
neglected
ngular ele
the MIKE
ssure fie
he Weser
sisted of
el) eleme
implemen
riangular
5 m were
ave defor
used for
2006)
at cause
rge move
bathyme
h of using
underlyin
maximum
Mortense
flows. Th
ntal phen
. The mo
ements a
E 21 FM F
ld that re
r River fro
a combin
ents, whic
ntation of
resolutio
e implem
rmation.
mesh int

large
ements o
tric
g a movin
ng physics
m speed
en et al.
he MIKE 2
nomena in
odel
and applie
Flow
presents
om the
nation of
ch optimiz
f the
on was a
mented.
erpolatio
of
ng
s
21
n
es
s
ze
n.
PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

6


Figure 7: left: Passing ship hull included in the mesh in front of the OTB; right: Bathymetry and
extraction points of surface elevation at the Terminal
Furthermore, the hydrodynamic model includes:
stationary boundary conditions: constant water level, no ambient tidal or net currents
displaced water volume (in time and domain) included as moving pressure field inital conditions:
two-dimensional constant water level including the displaced water level at the starting point of the
moving ship/pressure field
The water level was based on information derived from the tidal gauge at Bremerhaven Alter Leuchtturm.
Validation of numerical model
The approach outlined above was used for studies undertaken in navigation channels for harbours around
the world, but never before within the specific conditions found in northern german estuaries. In order to
validate the approach for its applicability within the Weser River, available in-situ measurements at the
location of Dedesdorf were used (BAW, 2006b). The measuring campaign documented mainly two types of
passing vessels, which were also relevant in size and speed for the later simulation at the OTB.
Observations of the produced drawdown for a large bulk carrier (Panmax size) and a General Cargo ship
were taken into account for the validation.
Four different scenarios including the effect of different tidal water levels, distance to the measurement
device, vessel type and speeds, could be investigated to quote the effect on the resulting drawdown and
therefore the quality of the approach. Table 1 summarizes the parameters.

Date/Time
Water
level
Vessel data Passing distance
Type Draft SOG
Heading
N
Kleinensiel
D1
Dedesdorf
D2
23.10.2005/
15:19
+0.91
mMSL
Weserstahl
(Bulk carrier)
10.4 m 10 kn 179 318 m 414m
24.10.2005/
07:06
+1.00
mMSL
Weserstahl
(Bulk carrier)
7.1 m 12 kn 356 381 m 351 m
05.11.2005/
20:07
+0.74
mMSL
Star Ikebana
(GeneralCargo)
8.7 m 14.1 kn 355 390 m 342 m
08.11.2005/
03:30
+1.26
mMSL
Weserstahl
(Bulk carrier)
10.1 m 9.3 kn 184 278 m 454m
Table 1: Parameters of validation scenarios
PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

7

Figure 8 shows the simulation domain of the Weser River at Dedesdorf. Measuring devices were located at
both sides at the landing piers of a former ferry connection Kleinensiel (D1)-Dedesdorf (D2).

Figure 8: Bathymetry of Weser River at Dedesdorf including locations of measurement devices
The maximum modelled and measured drawdown values are compared in Table 2. Figure 9 shows a
graphic presentation. It is seen that the modelled drawdown is in excellent agreement with the
measurements in most cases though with a trend of overestimating the measured drawdown.

Date Type
Comparison
Modelled results Measurements
Drawdown z
A

[m]
Primary wave
height H
P
[m]
Drawdown z
A

[m]
Primary wave
height H
P
[m]
D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2 D1 D2
23.10.2005
Weserstahl
(Bulk carrier)
0.14 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.12
24.10.2005
Weserstahl
(Bulk carrier)
0.13 0.17 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.10
05.11.2005
Star Ikebana
(GeneralCargo)
0.48 0.83 0.31 0.71 0.31 0.50 0.39 0.59
08.11.2005
Weserstahl
(Bulk carrier)
0.11 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.02
Table 2: Modelled results vs. in-situ measurements



F
C
th
h
0
A
a
p
n
s
T
n
w
le
S
F
a
th
s
b
a
F
s
a
S
m
W
B
c
st
s
Figure 9:
Comparin
hat larger
igher wa
8.11.200
A huge dif
nd the 05
primary w
ot only in
ignificant
The reaso
ot finally
worst case
eads to co
Ship pass
For the pe
dvice fro
he ship tr
pecial foc
both single
nd wind
For the ide
imulation
nd their p
STW) der
model.
Within the
Based on
onservat
tudy due
peeds, re
Drawdo
g the res
r passing
ter level)
05.
fference i
5.11.2005
wave heig
nfluenced
t increase
on for disc
be ident
e scenar
onservat
sage at O
ermit proc
m the riv
raffic (Mo
cus on th
e ship ma
influence
entificatio
ns were re
pathway
ived from
e nautical
this infor
tive appro
to the fa
espective
own (top)
sults of th
g distance
) will lead
in the ma
5. Althoug
ht are mo
d by the s
e is assu
crepancy
ified. Eve
io. Furthe
ive result
OTB
cess of th
er pilots i
orgenster
he difficul
anoeuve
e.
on of the
evised re
with rega
m the nau
simulatio
rmation, a
oach. A d
act that on
ely.
PIANC
) and prim
he bulk ca
e, lower v
d to a redu
agnitude o
gh the pa
ore than
smaller u
med to b
y between
en so the
ermore, t
ts.
he Offsho
in order t
n, 2011).
ties occu
rs and m
most dan
egarding
ards to th
utical simu
ons, occa
an additio
eformatio
nly tide-d
C World C
mary wa
arrier pas
vessel sp
uced mag
of results
assing dis
twice larg
nderkeel
be affecte
n modelle
validatio
he tende
ore Termin
to assess
. Hereby
urring whe
eeting of
ngerous s
the effec
he passin
ulations w
asional h
onal wors
on of the
dependen
Congress
8


ave heigh
ssages on
peed and
gnitude o
was foun
stance wa
ger for th
clearanc
ed by the
ed and m
on implied
ency to ov
nal Brem
s the influ
importan
en passin
f upstream
ship pass
ctive vess
g distanc
were use
igher ves
st-case s
transient
nt ships a
San Fran
8
ht (botto
n the 23.
an increa
of the dra
nd for bot
as almost
e passag
ce and th
vessel sp
measured
d that the
verestima
merhaven,
uence of t
nce was s
ng the ne
m and do
sage affe
sel speed
ce to the
ed as a co
ssel spee
scenario w
t wave du
are consid
ncisco US
m) at Kle
10.2005
ased und
awdown a
th upstrea
t the sam
ge of the
e differen
peed.
values fo
e perform
ate both d
, navigati
the struct
set to ma
ew build t
ownstrea
ecting mo
d over gro
quay. Th
onservati
eds and e
was deriv
ue to tidal
dered to p
SA 2014
einensie
and the 0
derkeel c
and prima
am sailing
me for bot
General
nt hull sh
or the pas
mance of t
drawdow
on simula
tural chan
noeuvrab
erminlal.
m sailing
oored ves
ound (SO
he highes
ve appro
easterly p
ved from
l current s
pass clos
el and De
08.11.200
learance
ary wave
g vessels
h events,
Cargo S
ape of S
ssage of
the mode
wn and pri
ations we
nges of th
bility of pa
These s
g vessels
ssels at th
OG) and t
st vessel s
oach with
athways
the overa
speeds w
se to high
edesdorf
05, it can
(less dra
height o
s on the 2
, the draw
Star Ikeba
tar Ikeba
Star Ikeb
el is suffic
imary wa
ere under
he cross-
assing ve
imulation
under tid
he berth,
rough wa
speed (S
in the MI
could be
all results
was negle
h tide at l


f
n be seen
aft and/or
n the
24.10.200
wdown an
ana. This
ana, a
bana cou
cient for a
ave heigh
rtaken wi
-section o
essels wi
ns include
dal curren
navigatio
ater (STW
SOG or
KE 21 FM
e identifie
s as a
ected in th
ow curre
n
r
05
nd
is
ld
a
t
th
on
th
ed
nt
on
W)
M
d.
he
nt
PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

9

Figure 10 shows an example of a passing bulk carrier (STW = 13.0 kn) and the resulting water level
depression at the OTB for an initial still water level of +1.76 m MSL. The significant two-dimensional pattern
indicates the transient wave (consisting of bow wave, drawdown and primary stern wave). The model does
not resolve secondary wave effects.

Figure 10: Passage of a bulk carrier. Shape of the transient wave (bow wave, drawdown and primary
stern wave)
A signal of the surface elevation was extracted at several points along the quay within an approximate
distance of 20m off the wall (Error! Reference source not found.).

Figure 11: Extracted signal of simulated surface elevation for single bulk carrierer sailing
downstream on an easterly pathway Worst Case (Tidal level: +1.76 mMSL)
PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

10

The model results for the scenarios studied showed that the worst case lead to the highest drawdown
effects of approximately 40cm at OTB. Therefore, this most conservative approach was chosen to
investigate the resulting ship motions and mooring forces.
4. ASSESSMENT OF SHIP MOVEMENTS AND MORING FORCES
To estimate the influence of calculated first order ship waves (drawdown) and their corresponding fluxes
received from the MIKE 21 model on moored ships in front of the terminal, the results were coupled to the
time domain simulation package, WAMSIM, in the vicinity of the terminal area. WAMSIM includes the
pre-processed ship geometry of special installation vessels affected by the induced drawdown and
calculates the mooring forces due to the relative movements of the floating ship hull. Further advantage is
this model approach accounts for the non-linear interaction between external forces coupled with the
characteristics of the mooring arrangement (fender and lines) and not only provides static assessments of
motions and forces.
Model set-up
To determine ship motions and mooring forces using the approach outlined above, best knowledge of the
applied mooring arrangement (harbour and deck layout, fender and mooring line characteristics) as well as
the physical parameters of the considered ship (size, draft, displacement and vertical centre of gravity) is
crucial for the liability of results. The simulations undertaken in the study included the set-ups for different
vessels listed in Table 4. Additionally, a friction coefficient of = 0.4 between ship hull and fender as well as
a pre-tension within the mooring lines of 10t were assumed based on experience and best practice.
In consultation with bremenports GmbH & Co.KG for the terminal layout, following assumptions based on
the equipment used for the nearby Container Terminal CT4 were made:
Single block distance: 20m ( 0.25 LoA 0.25 * 90m = 22.5m, see (PIANC, 2002))
Doubble bollards: max. Force 200t, max. 4 mooring lines
Fender : Diameter 2.00m; Length 3.50m
One bollard associated with a fender system in front was placed in each section center. The characteristics
of the fender are listed in Table 3.

Fabricate Type
Diameter
[m]
Length
[m]
Energy
[kNm]
Reaction
[kN]
Trelleborg Sea Guard 2.00 3.50 454 845
Table 3: Fender characteristics
The ships of interest regarding their motion behaviour and mooring forces were chosen by bremenports
GmbH & Co.KG based on the envisaged terminal operations. Information regarding eg ship sizes, mooring
arrangement on deck and used mooring lines was jointly acquired from ship owners. For the investigations,
it was concerted to study predefined loading conditions (ballasted/loaded) resulting in specific draft and
displacement. The principle dimensions of the ship for this study are given in Table 4, while characteristics
of mooring lines are given in Table 5. Digital hulls from the ship archive (representing the shape of the ship
in question) were scaled accordingly and used in the numerical model. An example is shown in Figure 12.

Ship type
LoA
[m]
Lpp
[m]
Draft
[m]
Breadth
[m]
Cargo ship P2-class (balasted) 168.68 155.79 9.50 25.20
Pontoon (ballasted) 90.00 90.00 2.00 32.00
Pontoon (loaded) 90.00 90.00 5.00 32.00
Jack-up ship 1 (ballasted) 100.00 99.20 4.44 40.00
Jack-up ship 2 (ballasted) 147.50 146.80 7.00 42.00



C
R
T
n
a
lim
a

Cargo sh
Pontoon
Jack-u
Jack-u
Results
The moor
umber of
dditional
mited, it w
ppointed
Ship ty
ip P2-cla
n (ballast
p ship 1
p ship 2
ing arran
f eight sy
spring a
was assu
d to ensur
Figure 1
ype
ass (balas
ted/ loade
(ballasted
(ballasted
ngement f
ynthetic m
nd two b
umed tha
re the pre
PIANC
2: Digitiz
Ty
sted) Po
ed)
d) G
d)
Table
for the Ca
mooring li
reast line
at an onsh
etension.
C World C
Table
zed vess
ype of m
olypropyl
Tipto W
Geo Twin
Tipto W
5: Appli
argo ship
nes was
es (see F
hore syst

Congress
1
e 4: Vess
sel hull o
mooring l
lene Octo
Winchline
n Polyam
Winchline
ed moor
p P2-800
judged in
igure 13)
tem such
San Fran
1
el dimen
of cargo
line
Dia
[
oply
e
mid
e
ring line
was inve
nsufficien
). As the
as Shor
ncisco US
nsions
ship P2-
ameter
[mm]
64
70
46
64
characte
estigated
nt.The op
number o
e Tensio
SA 2014
-class (b
Breakin
erisics
with two
ptimised m
of moorin
n (www.s
ballasted
ng load (
[kN]
480
990
512
850
o scenario
mooring s
ng winche
shoretens
)
(BL)
No
os, since
set-up inc
es of this
sion.nl) c

o. of line
8
4
8
12
the initia
cluded tw
ship was
could be
es
al
wo
s
PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

12



Figure 13: Cargo ship P2-800: Initial mooring arrangement (top) and optimised set-up with shore
tensions (bottom)
In the following, Figure 14 and Table 6 compare the maximum motions and line forces occuring during the
ship passage for both mooring configurations. The recorded results of relative motions are based on the
initial position of the ships center of gravity. To relate the motions to the drawdown, the surface elevation
measured at the center of gravity is shown. In general, focus was laid on the assessment of the occuring
maximum values.


Figure 14: Surface elevation (top) and ship motions (middle: translation; bottom: rotation)
PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

13

The initial movement without optimisation is shown as dotted lines. A large drift motion (sway) towards the
navigation channel was prevented by the activated pre-tension within the mooring lines that assured a
constant and therefore safe contact with the fenders. Heave motions are small and limited to the same
magnitude of the significant water level changes. Mainly a high surge motion (parallel to the quay) applied
for the ship, while the rotation was small.
For the initial mooring arrangement, an unacceptable surge motion with up to +2.5m can be seen, while
other motions are relatively small. To optimise this, additional shore-based mooring systems were taken into
account to reduce the motions. The solid line shows that the surge movement significantly reduced to 1.2m
for the optimised mooring arrangement. The slight increase of the roll motion (approximately 0.5) was
neglectible for resulting forces.
Since spring lines are generally applied to compensate excessive surge motions, a resulting overload
occurring for the initial mooring layout is unexpected.
OCIMF recommends using a safety factor to determine the maximal allowable force in the morring lines
during their life time. These reference values are based on the Minimum Breaking Load (MBL) defined for
each line and their material (OCIMF, 2008):
Wire: 55% MBL
Synthetic ropes: 50% MBL
Polyamide: 45% MBL
Results are marked in red when this value is exceeded.

No. of
lines
Position
Initial set-up
Optimised set-up
incl. shore tension
Max. force [kN] Max. force [kN]
1 stern line 221 153
2 stern line 223 157
3 aft spring line 258 203
4 aft spring line 251 199
5 fore spring line 258 175
6 fore spring line 291 170
7 bow line 173 150
8 bow line 172 150
9 aft breast line (with ST*) - 157
10 aft spring line (with ST*) - 183
11 fore spring line (with ST*) - 183
12 fore breast line (with ST*) - 114
Table 6: Max. mooring forces per line compared to maximal allowable force (0.50*MBL = 240 kN)
*ST=ShoreTension(www.shoretension.nl)
Summary
The highest mooring forces found are summarised in Table 7. Furthermore, it shows the rate of line usage.
The results showed that for some cases additional mooring lines were needed to withstand the external load
of passing vessels. The Cargo Ship and the Jack-up ship were optimised to stay within the maximum
allowed forces.
PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

14

Ship type MBL [kN]

Reduced MBL
[kN]
Max. force [kN]
Percentage of
line usage
Cargo ship P2-class
(8 Lines)
480 240 291 121%
Cargo ship P2-class
(8 + 4 lines with st)
480 240 203 85%
Pontoon
(ballasted)
990 495 144 29%
Pontoon
(loaded)
990 495 280 57%
Jack-up ship 1
(initial set-up 6 lines)
512 230 263 114%
Jack-up ship 1
(6 lines + 2x spring lines)
512 230 180 78%
Jack-up ship 2
(initial set-up 12 lines)
850 425 277 65%
Table 7: Max. mooring forces per line occurring during dynamic load assessment
The maximum absolute ship motions occurring within the simulations are summarised for each investigated
set-up below. As a reference for safe operations, the PIANC Working Group no. 24 published recommended
values for maximum allowable ship motions during loading and unloading conditions for General Cargo
Vessels (PIANC, 1995). These are based on experience and investigations and give a good guidance for
different vessel types. Table 8 lists the maximum motions derived from simulations. Red numbers indicate
an exceedance of the values recommended by PIANC.

Ship type Surge [m] Sway [m] Heave [m] Roll [] Pitch [] Yaw []
Cargo ship P2-class
(8 Lines)
4.49 0.06 0.40 1.62 0.19 0.16
Cargo ship P2-class
(8 + 4 lines with st)
2.72 0.05 0.40 0.60 0.19 0.14
Pontoon
(ballasted)
0.19 0.03 0.39 0.11 0.18 0.08
Pontoon
(loaded)
0.94 0.17 0.41 0.34 0.20 0.51
Jack-up ship 1
(initial set-up 6 lines)
2.40 0.12 0.40 0.21 0.21 0.40
Jack-up ship 1
(6 lines + 2x spring lines)
1.58 0.12 0.40 0.13 0.19 0.32
Jack-up ship 2
(initial set-up 12 lines)
0.94 0.17 0.39 0.22 0.20 0.14
Table 8: Max. motions absolute values assessed from ship motion simulations
In general, the simulation results were significantly lower than recommended values. Still the surge motion
was critical for some cases, eg the Cargo ship P2-800 where even an optimized mooring layout with shore
tension was not able to reduce the motion to an acceptable value. In this case, the recommended value was
exceeded by 36% when a maximum 2.0m surge was assumed. Thus it has to be stated that this extreme
event would only occure rarely, and operations could be stopped for the duration of such a vessel passage.
The exceedence of surge motions for both Jack-up vessels could be neglected since loading operations will
most probably take place at a jacked position.
PIANC World Congress San Francisco USA 2014

15

5. CONCLUSION
This study consisted of a central question challenging the permit process of the Offshore Terminal
Bremerhaven: Can large vessels pass the terminal at their required speed for manoeuvring without
endangering the moored vessels at the berth?
The results of the study showed that with only limited improvement of the mooring arrangement by
implementing quay side operation system, all investigated vessels were capable to resist the forces induced
by the worst case scenario of a passing vessel. Dynamic loads induced into the fender system due to rapid
ship motions were analysed as well and found to be non crucial. Regarding operational safety, it was
concluded that an interruption of the loading process should still be considered in certain cases due to high
surge motions.
Finally, it has to be mentioned that a detailed analysis of coincident wind forces was not pursued since
loading operations will only occure during weather windows with low wind speed. Nevertheless, the
resistance of mooring lines comprises auxiliary resistance that ensures safe mooring conditions as a result
of this study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank bremenports GmbH & Co.KG for their kind permission to present this Case
story to a larger audience. Furthermore, the thanks go to all involved shipping and construction companys
who supported this project with relvant information, their help is highly appreciated.
REFERENCES
BAW (2006), Fahrrinnenanpassung der Unterweser, Gutachten zur ausbaubedingten nderung
schiffserzeugter Belastungen, Bundesanstalt fr Wasserbau, Hamburg.
BAW (2006b), Naturmessungen zur schiffserzeugten Belastung der Unterweser, Bundesanstalt fr
Wasserbau, Hamburg.
Briggs, M. J. (2006), Ship Squat Predictions for Ship/Tow Simulator, Coastal and Hydraulics Engineering
Technical Note ERDC/CHL CHETN-I-72. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center.
Christensen, E.D., Mortensen, S.B., Jensen, B., Hansen, H.F., Kirkegaard, J. (2008), Numerical simulation
of ship motion in offshore and harbour areas. Proceedings of the ASME 27
th
International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering OMAE 2008, June 15-20, 2008, Estoril, Portugal.
DHI (2014), MIKE 21 & MIKE 3 Flow Model FM Hydrodynamic and Transport Module Scientific
Documentation, MIKE by DHI, Hrsholm.
Morgenstern, H. von (2011), Simulations-Studie Offshore Terminal Bremerhaven, Abschlussbericht,
Bremen.
Mortensen, S.B., Alley, C., Kirkegaard, J., Hancock, R. (2009), Numerical modelling of moored vessel
motions caused by passing vessels, Proceedings of Coasts & Ports 2009, pp. 544, Wellington, New
Zealand.
OCIMF (2008), Mooring Equipment Guidelines 3
rd
MEG3 Edition.
PIANC (1995), Criteria for Movements of Moored Ships in Harbours, A practical Guide, Supplement to
Bulletin No 88, PIANC.
PIANC (2002), Guideline for the Design of Fenders Systems.
WAMIT (2011), WAMIT User Manual 7.0, WAMIT Inc.
Wuebben, J.L. (1995), Winter Navigation on the Great Lakes, A Review of Environmental Studies, CRRL
Report.