B20-37 - V8C TR 8C 11 Termpol 3.13 Berth Proc - A3s4v0

TERMPOL 3.
13 BERTH PROCEDURES AND

PROVISIONS
Trans Mountain Expansion Project
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
777 W. Broadway, Suite 301

Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4J7
November 26, 2013
Termpol 3.13 Berth Procedures and
Provisions
TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT
November 26, 2013
M&N Project No. 7773
Prepared by: Reviewed by:
MOFFATT & NICHOL MOFFATT & NICHOL
James Traber, EIT. Ron Byres, P.Eng.

Staff Engineer Senior Project Manager
Revision Purpose of Issue Date Author Reviewed Approved

0 For TRC Review November 26, 2013 JT RB
Trans Mountain Expansion Project November 26, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF THE MARINE TERMINAL ...........................................................................................................1

1.2 MARINE TERMINAL COMPONENTS ..............................................................................................................................1
1.2.1 Central Loading/Unloading Platform ..........................................................................................................1
1.2.2 Berthing Structures ......................................................................................................................................1
1.2.3 Mooring Structures......................................................................................................................................2
1.2.4 Access Structures .........................................................................................................................................2
2. DESIGN LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS ....................................................................................................... 3
2.1 MOORING AND BERTHING ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................3
3. MAXIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 4
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................4
4. BERTHING STRATEGY ......................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1 MOORING AND BERTHING OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................5

4.2 PRE-BERTHING ACTIVITIES .........................................................................................................................................5
4.3 PILOT REQUIREMENTS...............................................................................................................................................6
4.4 TUG ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS................................................................................................................................6
4.5 DOCKING MONITORING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................6
4.6 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BERTHING VELOCITY ................................................................................................................6
4.7 MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES ..........................................................................................................................6
4.8 MOORING LINE LOAD LIMITS .....................................................................................................................................7
4.9 COMMUNICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................7
5. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 8
APPENDIX A: MOORING AND BERTHING ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 9
Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions i

1. OBJECTIVES
In accordance with the Termpol Review Process (TRP) Guidelines, TP743E 2001, the
objective of this survey is to outline the berthing and mooring provisions and determine if they
are adequate for the intended vessels calling at the Westridge Terminal. This report
summarizes the different types of loading associated with the design of a marine structure.
1.1 PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF THE MARINE TERMINAL
The two primary functions of the Westridge marine terminal are to:
1. Provide berthing and mooring systems to safely dock and secure a range of
project vessels.
2. Support the topside equipment required for the cargo transfer that ensures the
integrity of the cargo and reduces the potential for cargo release.
1.2 MARINE TERMINAL COMPONENTS
The marine terminal is comprised of various independent marine structures including

central loading platforms, berthing structures, mooring structures, and access structures as
described below. Refer to Termpol 3.10 for more detailed information about the terminal
structures and layout.
1.2.1 Central Loading/Unloading Platform
Each berth features a central loading/unloading platform that facilitates the transferring
of cargo between the vessel and on-shore infrastructure. The vessels cargo manifolds for
loading and unloading cargo are located midships, so the loading platform is located in the
middle of the berth. The central platform is an independent structure that supports the loading
arms and other equipment necessary to the loading/unloading operation. This platform does
not assist in the berthing or mooring of the vessel in any way.
1.2.2 Berthing Structures
There are two berthing structures located on either side of the central
loading/unloading platform for a total of four such structures per berth. These structures have
rubber fenders mounted to their front face which make contact with the berthing vessel and
absorb its kinetic energy. The main function of the berthing structures is to safely bring the
vessel to a stop and ensure that the vessel does not contact the loading/unloading platform.
The berthing structures have mooring hooks installed on top to assist in securely mooring the
vessel.
Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions 1

1.2.3 Mooring Structures
There are three to four mooring dolphins or structures located on either side of the
central loading/unloading platform and berthing structures for a total of six to eight structures.
These structures are recessed back from the berth face by approximately 50 metres to reduce
chance of collision and improve the distribution of mooring line forces. The specific number and
placement of mooring structures is determined by environmental forces and the anticipated
range of sizes of vessels that will call at the terminal.
A typical tanker uses 14 to 16 mooring lines to secure the vessel to the berth. There are
three different classifications of mooring lines that are relative to the ships orientation:
Breasting lines: generally perpendicular to the ship, restraining the vessel from
moving away from the berth;
Spring lines: generally parallel with the ship, restraining the vessel from moving
along the berth (i.e. fore and aft); and,
Head and stern lines: typically are 45 degrees to the ship, which assist in keeping
the vessel alongside and in position.
Modern terminals rely more on the breasting and springs lines to restrain the vessel
since these are more efficient at directly restricting the vessel in those directions. The head and
stern lines are deployed for redundancy by the vessel master and improve safety. The mooring
structures layout incorporates these line configurations in the design.
Based on the preliminary design, six mooring structures are required to accommodate
the range of design vessel expected to call at the terminal. In the design stage of the project a
more detailed mooring and berthing analysis will finalize the required number and location of
mooring and berthing structures.
1.2.4 Access Structures
The access structures, sometimes referred as trestles or causeways, connect the central
loading/unloading platform with the land. These structures are typically wide enough to
accommodate a vehicle lane, pipelines, and utilities used for the cargo transfer system. All
independent structures, such as the berthing and mooring structures, are connected to the
central loading/unloading platform via catwalks or walkways ensuring all marine structures
have pedestrian access.

2. DESIGN LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS
The marine terminal structures are designed to resist all anticipated combinations of
environmental, berthing and mooring loads. These specific loads include, but are not limited to,
dead, live, berthing, mooring, wind, wave, current, seismic, snow, rain, ice, buoyancy, and earth
pressure. Refer to Termpol Study 3.10, Site Plans and Technical Data, for the design loads and
load combinations.
The structural components are designed to industry standard codes, standards, and
guidelines as outlined in Termpol Study 3.10, Site Plans and Technical Data.
2.1 MOORING AND BERTHING ANALYSIS
A mooring and berthing analysis was carried out on a design range of vessels from
17,000 DWT barges to Aframax tankers. A static mooring analysis in accordance with OCIMF1
guidelines was done using OPTIMOOR2 and a berthing analysis was completed to calculate the
required fendering system at the marine terminal. More information on the mooring and
berthing analysis can be found in Appendix A.
1
The Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) is a voluntary association of oil companies whose
mission is to be an authority on the safe and environmentally responsible operation of oil tankers and terminals
2
OPTIMOOR is a computer program based on the OCIMF recommendations and procedures and includes OCIMF
wind and current coefficients for analysis of tanker mooring. It is planning and managing conventional vessel
moorings.

3. MAXIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING CONDITIONS
Operating limits (maximum allowable wind speeds for berthing, cargo transfer, etc.) will
be established later as part of the vessel navigation simulations which have not yet been
completed. The following criteria are assumed to apply, subject to confirmation in the detailed
design phase:
Maximum Operating Condition The maximum operating condition is the wind
envelope in which a vessel may conduct transfer operations. It is determined
primarily from the mooring analysis. Transfer operations shall cease at the
terminal when the wind exceeds the maximum velocity of the envelope.
Operating condition threshold is assumed as the maximum wind velocity for a 30
second gust and a 5yr return period.
Extreme Condition The extreme condition is defined as the state where a
vessel can remain safely moored at the berth during severe wind conditions, but
cargo transfer operations have been suspended. For new terminals, the survival
condition threshold is assumed as the maximum wind velocity for a 30 second
gust and a 25yr return period.

4. BERTHING STRATEGY
4.1 MOORING AND BERTHING OPERATIONS
Several specific berthing and un-berthing procedures have been considered in

determining the initial layout and design of the dock complex. A series of fast time vessel
navigation simulations were carried out to check viability of different approach and departures
manoeuvres from all three berths. The simulations showed that the proposed layout of the
dock complex is safe and practical. Vessels may berth on either their port or starboard side and
the assisting tugs have ample room to manoeuvre and provide the necessary power required to
safely guide the vessel to and from the berth. Approaches to the berth directly from sea or via
anchorage as well as departure to anchor or directly to sea are possible. It is anticipated that
the berthing manoeuvres will be further tested and practised by the pilots and tugs using more
detailed real-time simulation models at a later stage in the project.
The development of the proposed layout shown in Termpol 3.10, Site Plans and
Technical Data, (D11) is influenced in-part by mooring and berthing forces. The mooring and
berthing analysis is included as Appendix A. This analysis considers 4 different berth layouts (A1,
A2, D, and E) which were considered during the development process and led to the proposed
layout shown in Termpol 3.10 (D11). Of these layouts the results from berth layouts D and E are
representative of the D11 forces.
Procedures for the future berth facilities are expected to be similar to the current
operating practises at Westridge, but updated and aligned with requirements of the expanded
dock complex and the increased frequency of vessel calls. The updated manual will be available
approximately 6 months prior to commissioning of expanded operations.
4.2 PRE-BERTHING ACTIVITIES
Trans Mountain will typically receive a vessel nomination request from a pipeline
shipper between 10 to 14 days prior a loading window. After this a stringent process of
reviewing the vessel for acceptance will follow, which is described in Termpol 3.9. If accepted
the vessel will be scheduled to the terminals loading calendar. Preparations to handle the
vessel will commence a few days before the vessels eta (estimated time of arrival).
Maintenance technicians at the terminal will regularly check all components of the
berth including those mentioned here and in Termpol 3.10 to ensure those are always in
satisfactory working condition.
A mooring plan is agreed to by the ship's officers and the pilot depending on the actual
mooring layout of the vessel. Once that information is made available to the Westridge
Terminal personnel, appropriate preparations can be made, including any special requirements.
4.3 PILOT REQUIREMENTS
All project-related vessels are subject to compulsory pilotage. Refer to Termpol Study
3.5 & 3.12, Route Analysis & Anchorage Elements, for a complete description of pilotage
requirements and procedures.
4.4 TUG ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS
Tug assistance is required for all berthing and un-berthing vessels calling at Westridge
marine terminal. It is expected that three to four tugs will be required in the berthing and un-
berthing of the vessels. Laden vessels transiting the movement restricted zone at the second
narrows are required to be escorted by three tethered tugs. Refer to Termpol Study 3.5, Route
Analysis, for more information.
4.5 DOCKING MONITORING SYSTEM
Docking assistance system will be used to measure in real time, the speed of approach,
distance to berth, and angle of approach for vessels from the time the vessel is about 200
meter from the berth. The system will provide this information to the Pilots and crew members
via a large outdoor display board located on each individual berth and on the Pilots personnel
laptop or hand-held monitors. Refer to Termpol 3.10, Site Plans and Technical Data, for more
information pertaining to the docking assistance system.
4.6 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BERTHING VELOCITY
Maximum berthing velocity limits will be established during the detailed design phase
following the completion of the vessel manoeuvring simulations. For preliminary design
purposes it was assumed that tanker vessels (Aframax Class) would have a maximum berthing
velocity of 0.15 m/s and a barge (Crowley 650-6) a berthing velocity of 0.25 m/s. More details
on berthing capacity and velocity are in Appendix A, Mooring and Berthing Analysis.
4.7 MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES
Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) recommends standard

environmental forces applied to the moored vessel to determine initial terminal layouts.
Tankers above 16,000 DWT intended for worldwide trade, the mooring system should be
capable of withstanding the following conditions:
60 knots constant wind from any direction simultaneously with either:
o 3 knots current at 0 deg or 180 deg;
o 2 knots current at 10 deg or 170 deg;
o 0.75 knots current from the direction of maximum beam current loading.
The sheltered environmental conditions found in Burrard Inlet are not anticipated to
exceed these values.
4.8 MOORING LINE LOAD LIMITS
The allowable safe working load (SWL) for the mooring lines are set to 55% of the
minimum breaking load (MBL) as recommended by OCIMF for steel wire mooring lines. To view
the mooring results from OPTIMOOR refer to Appendix A, Mooring and Berthing Analysis.
4.9 COMMUNICATIONS
Ship-to-shore communication will be achieved with intrinsically-safe radios. UHF and

VHF radio transceivers are used in communication with ships, tugs, mooring utility boats, and
mooring crew.

5. REFERENCES
Fisheries and Oceans Canada. (2013, July 29). Waves. Retrieved from Inegrated Science
Data Management: http://www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/isdm-gdsi/waves-vagues/index-
eng.htm

APPENDIX A:
MOORING AND BERTHING ANALYSIS

WESTRIDGE TERMINAL EXPANSION
BC, CANADA
November 22, 2012
Disclaimer:
This report was prepared by Moffatt & Nichol for the account of Kinder Morgan Canada, for a specific purpose and
specific project using the standard of care prevailing at the time the work was done, and is provided for information only. The
material in it reflects Moffatt & Nichols best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use
which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third
parties. Moffatt & Nichol accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions make or
actions based on this report.
Kinder Morgan Canada November 22, 2012
WESTRIDGE TERMINAL EXPANSION

BC, CANADA
7773-03
November 22, 2012
Prepared for:
300 5th Avenue SW, Suite 2700

Calgary, AB
T2P 5J2
Prepared by:
777 West Broadway, Suite 301

Vancouver, BC,
V5N 5X1
PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED

REV DESCRIPTION DATE ISSUED
BY BY BY
A November 22, 2012
Westridge Terminal Expansion Mooring and Berthing Analysis

Rev. A ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 DOCK LAYOUT ...........................................................................................................................................1

1.2 BERTHING ENERGY CALCULATION .................................................................................................................1
1.3 OPTIMOOR MOORING ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................1
1.3.1 OPTIMOOR Analysis Results ..........................................................................................................2
2. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................................................2
3. DESIGN BASIS ....................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1 DESIGN VESSELS ........................................................................................................................................3

3.2 DOCK LAYOUT ...........................................................................................................................................4
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES............................................................................................................................5
3.3.1 Site-Specific Environment..............................................................................................................6
3.4 MOORING MODEL SOFTWARE .....................................................................................................................6
3.4.1 Mooring Line Tension Limits .........................................................................................................7
3.4.2 Fender Loads .................................................................................................................................7
4. BERTHING............................................................................................................................................. 7
4.1 BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY..........................................................................................................................7

4.2 FENDER SELECTION ..................................................................................................................................10
5. MOORING RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 10
5.1 MOORING LINE ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................................................10

5.2 MOORING RESULTS OCIMF APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA ..................................................................12
5.3 OPTION ORIENTATION LAYOUT RESULTS ....................................................................................................14
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 17
7. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 17

Rev. A iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1: Vessel Characteristics for Mooring Analysis ...................................................................................3
Table 4-1: Summary of Berthing Energies .......................................................................................................9
Table 5-1: Peak Mooring Line Loads OCIMF Criteria ..................................................................................14
Table 5-2: Peak Mooring Loads Option Layout Orientation .......................................................................15
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Dock Layout (All Dimensions in Meters) .......................................................................................4
Figure 3-2: Possible Cleat Location on Breasting Dolphins (Typical) ...............................................................5
Figure 3-3: Angles of Current Approach for Layout Options A2, A3, D and E .................................................6
Figure 4-1: Trelleborg SCN Fender Generic Performance Curve ................................................................10
Figure 5-1: Mooring Arrangement for Aframax Tanker ................................................................................11
Figure 5-2: Mooring Arrangement for Handymax Tanker .............................................................................11
Figure 5-3: Mooring Arrangement for Crowley 650-6 Barge ........................................................................11
Figure 5-4: Mooring Arrangement for Oil Barge ...........................................................................................11
Figure 5-5: Peak Mooring Line Tensions for Design Vessel at Loaded vs. Ballast Draft ................................12
Figure 5-6: Peak Mooring Loads Wind and Current Option Layout Orientation ........................................16
Figure 5-7: Peak Mooring Loads with Current Only Option Layout Orientation ........................................16

Rev. A iv
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Kinder Morgan Canada has engaged Moffatt & Nichol to prepare a conceptual level
design of the Marine Facilities for the Westridge Terminal expansion which include the
construction of new Docks which allow for 4 berths. Each berth shall be able to accommodate
the design range of vessels which range from 17,000 DWT barges to Aframax tankers. If bullets
are used, use this spacing.
1.1 DOCK LAYOUT
Each Dock consists of eight (8) mooring dolphins and four (4) breasting dolphins which
are positioned about the loading platform. Each breasting dolphin is equipped with a supercone
fender and fender panel, along with cleats located at outer corners of the dolphin cap to allow
line tending for small barges.
1.2 BERTHING ENERGY CALCULATION
The design berthing impact energy to be absorbed by the fender was obtained from
PIANCs Guidelines for the Design of Fenders Systems 2002 and is a function of the vessels
displacement, approach velocity and other coefficients which account for the berth
configuration.
For the design maximum Aframax tanker at loaded draft under favorable approach
velocity conditions, a single berthing point must be able to absorb 76.1 t-m of energy. If
moderate approach velocities are considered, a single berthing point must be able to absorb
268 t-m of energy.
As a result, a single supercone fender capable of absorbing this amount of berthing

energy (with suitable reserve capacity) was positioned on each breasting dolphin for the
mooring analyses.
1.3 OPTIMOOR MOORING ANALYSIS
All mooring analyses are carried out using the static mooring program OPTIMOOR,
developed by Tension Technology International. OPTIMOOR is a static mooring analysis
program used widely in both industrial marine and naval mooring analyses which provides
mooring line and fender loads for design vessels exposed to user-applied metocean conditions.

Rev. A 1
OCIMF environmental force recommendations for ships mooring equipment criteria are
applied to the design range of tankers and barges. Additionally, four (4) Dock layout
orientations are considered. Each orientation option places the Dock at its respective angle to
the 1-knot current which travels parallel to the shoreline.
1.3.1 OPTIMOOR Analysis Results
The results of the OCIMF applied environmental conditions indicates peak mooring
forces are a result of the largest vessel at ballast draft and high water level conditions.
Of the orientation options A2, A3, D and E, options D and E provide the least amount of
current applied to the moored vessels. Wind is the predominant force for peak mooring loads;
however successful mooring is feasible for all orientation options and metocean conditions
examined.
2. INTRODUCTION
Kinder Morgan has engaged Moffatt & Nichol (M&N) to prepare a conceptual level
design of the Marine Facilities for the Westridge Terminal expansion which include the
construction of new Docks which allow for 4 berths. Each berth shall be able to accommodate
the design range of vessels which range from 17,000 DWT barges to Aframax tankers.
This report summarizes the results of a static mooring analysis for the design vessels
under a series of environmental conditions.
2.1 SCOPE OF WORK
The objective and scope of this study is to determine the following:
Berthing Energy Analysis: Berthing energy calculations will approximate the required
fendering system required by the marine terminal for both tankers and barges; and,
Mooring Analysis: Static mooring analyses were performed on the design range of
tankers and barges to ensure the number and placement of mooring structures is
adequate for safe mooring.

Rev. A 2
3. DESIGN BASIS
3.1 DESIGN VESSELS
Table 3-1 presents a summary of the design vessel characteristics utilized for the
mooring analyses. The Handysize and Panamax tankers were excluded from the mooring
analyses, as they are bracketed by larger and smaller vessels for the mooring analyses. The
information was based on general arrangement drawings as well as information provided via a
Vessel Particulars Questionnaire (VPQ).
Table 3-1: Vessel Characteristics for Mooring Analysis
Vessel Oil Barge Crowley 650-6 Handymax Aframax

Nevisky
Name Sasanoa Independence Virtue Class
Prospect
DWT 12,354 27,456 50,000 117,654
LOA (m) 101.00 179.00 183.20 250.00
LBP (m) - 177.70 174.00 239.00
Beam (m) 22.00 25.56 32.20 44.00
Loaded (m) 1.20 9.24 11.90 15.10

Draft
Ballast (m) 1.20 4.95 7.18 7.13
Loaded (m) 14,232 33,558 54,915 136,337

Displacement
Ballast (m) - 17,083 30,912 59,900
Loaded (m2) 835 739 1,778 2,177

Side Windage
Ballast (m2) 835 1,485 2,595 4,169
Loaded (m2) 177 661 723 800

Frontal Windage
Ballast (m2) 177 756 875 1,152
Mooring Line Type Polyester Dyneema Euroflex Steel-Wire
Mooring Line MBL (mt) 40 82 62 83
Mooring Tail Type - - Nylon Polyester
Mooring Tail Length (m)/MBL (mt) - - 11 m/80 mt 11 m/116 mt

Rev. A 3
3.2 DOCK LAYOUT
The objective of each Dock is to accommodate the design range of tankers and barges to
ensure that an adequate number of mooring structures are available to ensure safe mooring
against applied metocean conditions.
Figure 3-1 presents the general arrangement of a Dock and includes eight (8) mooring
dolphins and four (4) breasting dolphins. While the combined marine facilities for the
Westridge terminal consist of multiple Docks, which may be mirrored about the horizontal axis,
the design and layout of each jetty remains the same as each is exposed to the same metocean
conditions.
Figure 3-1: Dock Layout (All Dimensions in Meters)
Additional cleats are placed at the corners of all breasting dolphins to allow easy access
for mooring of smaller barges. Figure 3-2 presents a possible location of cleats for use with
barges. Positioning barge cleats in this location may create the potential for obstructing or
snagging the mooring lines for larger vessels, so we recommend that this arrangement be
reviewed with operational staff prior to finalizing the design layout.

Rev. A 4
Figure 3-2: Possible Cleat Location on Breasting Dolphins (Typical)
3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES
Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) recommendations for ships

mooring equipment criteria are initially utilized to examine the feasibility of the mooring layout.
OCIMF states for tankers above 16,000 DWT intended for worldwide trade, the mooring system
should be capable of withstanding the following environmental conditions:
60 knots constant wind from any direction simultaneously with either:
3 knots current at 0 deg or 180 deg;
2 knots current at 10 deg or 170 deg; and,
0.75 knots current from the direction of maximum beam current loading.
These are conservative values of current and wind which are not anticipated for the
Westridge Terminal location. All above environmental conditions are simulated considering the
following conditions:
Ballast draft conditions at high water: +5.0m CD
Loaded draft conditions at low water: +0.0m CD

Rev. A 5
3.3.1 Site-Specific Environment
The design vessel which yields the largest mooring line and fender loads from the
applied OCIMF criteria is then subjected to site specific currents, which vary in the orientation
they are applied to the moored vessel depending which layout Option is considered.
The Metocean Study Report, performed by M&N for this project, indicates that shore-
parallel currents up to 0.47m/s (1 knot) occur at the site with eastward-bound and westward-
bound currents during flood and ebb phases, respectively.
Figure 3-3 presents current direction angles of approach corresponding to possible

layout Options.
Figure 3-3: Angles of Current Approach for Layout Options A2, A3, D and E
3.4 MOORING MODEL SOFTWARE
All mooring analyses are carried out using the static mooring program OPTIMOOR
v.5.6.1, developed by Tension Technology International, and is considered a suitable tool at this
stage of the project.
OPTIMOOR is a static mooring analysis program used widely in both industrial marine
and naval mooring analyses. The program allows users to input vessel particulars, pier
descriptions, and mooring arrangements. The environmental conditions can be applied at
various speeds from any direction. The result wind force on the vessel is provided by the
program and distributed to the mooring lines. The lines are modeled with the elasticity of
actual mooring line. The force in each line and the movement of the ship is provided by the
program.

Rev. A 6
3.4.1 Mooring Line Tension Limits
The allowable safe working load (SWL) in the mooring lines was set at 55% of the
minimum breaking load (MBL) per recommendations provided by the Oil Companies
International Marine Forum (OCIMF) for steel wire mooring lines.
3.4.2 Fender Loads
The allowable working load in the fenders was the rated reaction at design
performance.
4. BERTHING
Berthing energy is absorbed by the fendering system which serves as the interface
between a vessel and the marine facility. Fenders should be sized to absorb the kinetic energy
of an incoming vessel without resulting in damage to the vessel or the Dock.
To determine fender size, berthing impact energy is calculated for the largest
displacement tanker at its loaded draft. Additionally, berthing energy is calculated for the
smaller displacement barges, which allow for a larger approach angle and increased berthing
velocities and safety factors.
4.1 BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY
Berthing the design maximum tanker carrier requires a certain amount of the berthing
impact energy to be dissipated by a single breasting dolphin as the vessel makes contact with
the fender system. Berthing large tankers is performed with the aid of tugs to help reduce the
vessel approach velocity and control the incident angle; concurrently, berthing of smaller
barges assumes a higher approach velocity and incident angle.
The design berthing impact energy to be absorbed by the fender was obtained from
PIANCs Guidelines for the Design of Fenders Systems 2002 and is a function of the vessels
displacement, approach velocity and other coefficients which account for the berth
configuration.
ED = *M*V2*Ce*Cm*Cs*Cc* Cab
Where:
ED = design berthing impact energy
M = displacement of vessel

Rev. A 7
V = berthing approach velocity
Ce = eccentricity coefficient
Cm = added mass coefficient
Cs = softness coefficient
Cc = berth configuration coefficient
Cab = abnormal impact coefficient
The governing coefficients are those for added mass and eccentricity; while the
softness and berth configuration coefficients are negligible (Use CS = CC = 1.0) for the marine
terminal.
The eccentricity coefficient, Ce, allows for the berthing impact energy to be dissipated in
rotation of the ship when the point of impact is not opposite the centre of mass of the vessel
and is calculated as follows:
K2 R 2 cos 2
Ce
K 2 R2
K = radius of gyration of the vessel (dependent on block coefficient)
R = distance of point of contact to the center of mass (measured parallel to the wharf)
M
Cb
L*B*D*
K (0.19 * Cb 0.11) * L
Where:
Cb = block coefficient
M = mass of the vessel (displacement)
L = length of vessel (use LBP)
B = Beam of vessel
D = Draft of vessel
= density of water (1.025 ton/m3)

Rev. A 8
The added mass coefficient, CM, accounts for the entrained body of water carried along
with the vessel as it moves sideways through the water. As the vessel is stopped by the fender,
the momentum of the entrained water continues to push against the ship, effectively increasing
its overall mass. The Vasco Costa and Shigeru Ueda methods are calculated, using the most
conservative result for the final berthing energy calculation.
The abnormal impact factor Cab is essentially a safety factor intended to reduce the risk
of damage to the structure if a vessel approaches the dock faster than the design speed. This is
discussed further below.
Table 4-1 presents a summary of berthing energy calculations comparing two approach
velocities recommended by PIANC.
Table 4-1: Summary of Berthing Energies
Vessel Favourable Moderate
Tanker 0.08 (m/s) 0.15 (m/s)
Aframax 76.1 t-m 267.6 t-m
Barge 0.12 (m/s) 0.30 (m/s)
Crowley 650-6 61.9 t-m 386.9 t-m
Note that berthing energy is proportional to the square of the velocity term V. This
means the required fender energy is very sensitive to the design velocity. Doubling the
approach velocity will quadruple the required berthing energy for a given vessel. Even a 10%
increase in velocity results in a 21% increase in required energy. It also means that a smaller
vessel with a higher approach velocity can generate a higher berthing energy than a larger
vessel approaching at a slower velocity. As shown in Table 4-1, the Aframax at 0.08 m/s
approach velocity governs required energy under favourable conditions, while the Crowley 650-
6 barge at 0.30 m/s governs for moderate conditions.
The selection of an appropriate berthing velocity is a matter of engineering judgement.

As the Westridge facility is not exposed to open ocean and berthing is anticipated to be
performed with tug assistance, it is considered reasonable to assume favourable approach
velocities.

Rev. A 9
4.2 FENDER SELECTION
As a result of the berthing energy calculations for the largest tanker and barge at loaded
draft, a minimum of 76.1 t-m of energy is required by the fenders for each breasting dolphin
under favourable berthing conditions and up to 386.9 t-m for moderate conditions. However it
is also considered good practice to provide reserve capacity in the fenders to prevent damage
to the structure or the berth in the event of a hard landing. For the mooring analyses, a
fender system comprising of Trelleborg Supercone Fenders SCN2000 (E1.0) have been
provisionally selected and have a rated energy capacity of 305 t-m and rated reaction of 295
mt. This provides a significant reserve capacity over and above the requirements under
favourable berthing, while not quite meeting the needs of the Crowley barge under moderate
berthing. Reducing the maximum approach velocity to 0.25m/s from 0.3 m/s would reduce the
required energy to approximately 268 t-m which is less than the rated energy of the selected
fender.
The selected fender serves as a placeholder for this level of analysis and can be further
refined as the project progresses.
The general performance curve of the supercone fender is presented in Figure 4-1.
Figure 4-1: Trelleborg SCN Fender Generic Performance Curve
5. MOORING RESULTS
5.1 MOORING LINE ARRANGEMENTS
A working mooring line arrangement was developed for all tankers and barges which
satisfy safe mooring criteria as outlined in Section 3.4. Figure 5-1 through Figure 5-4 present
the mooring line arrangements for the vessels analyzed in the mooring analyses.

Rev. A 10
Figure 5-1: Mooring Arrangement for Aframax Tanker
Figure 5-2: Mooring Arrangement for Handymax Tanker
Figure 5-3: Mooring Arrangement for Crowley 650-6 Barge
Figure 5-4: Mooring Arrangement for Oil Barge

Rev. A 11
5.2 MOORING RESULTS OCIMF APPLIED ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA
OCIMF environmental criteria are applied first to the maximum design tanker at loaded
and ballasted drafts. Figure 5-5 presents a peak line loads for the largest vessel examined at
both loaded and ballast drafts and indicates higher line loads occur at ballast draft conditions;
this is attributed to the larger wind area.
50 Ballast Loaded SWL

45
40
35
Line Tension (mt)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Mooring Line Number
Figure 5-5: Peak Mooring Line Tensions for Design Vessel at Loaded vs. Ballast Draft
Given the results for the largest design tanker, all additional analyses for all other
vessels examined for the vessel mooring analysis are preformed at ballast draft only.

Rev. A 12
Table 5-1 presents a summary of peak mooring line tensions for all OCIMF
environmental criteria examined. Loads are presented as a percent of their minimum allowable
breaking load (MBL). OCIMF recommends the peak line tension does not exceed 55% of the
respective tankers MBL.
The Aframax tanker generally results in the largest mooring line loads, however no
vessel exceed OCIMF recommendations for safe mooring. Fender loads are not reported;
however do not exceed their allowable rated reaction.

Rev. A 13
Table 5-1: Peak Mooring Line Loads OCIMF Criteria
Mooring Line Aframax Handymax 650 Barge Oil Barge
1 25% 39% 18% 27%
2 25% 41% 18% 12%
3 31% 35% 30% 12%
4 29% 38% 31% 12%
5 38% 24% 30% 25%
6 37% 24% 29% 28%
7 34% 43% 30% -
8 34% 53% 30% -
9 28% 40% - -
10 28% 40% - -
11 38% 28% - -
12 38% 28% - -
13 35% - - -
14 34% - - -
15 29% - - -
16 29% - - -
5.3 OPTION ORIENTATION LAYOUT RESULTS
The results of the applied OCIMF environmental criteria indicate the largest mooring
loads are experienced for the Aframax tanker which has the largest draft and largest ballasted
wind area.
The Aframax tanker is examined at loaded and ballast draft for layout specific
orientation, with a 1 knot applied current approaching with respective directions as presented
in Figure 3-3. The same 60 knot static wind is also applied concomitant with current.
Table 5-1 presents a summary of peak mooring line tensions and fender loads for all
layout options examined. Loads are presented as a percent of their minimum allowable

Rev. A 14
breaking load. OCIMF recommends the peak line tension does not exceed 55% of the respective
tankers MBL and that peak fender forces do not exceed 100% of their rated reactions.
Table 5-2 and Figure 5-6 indicate layout Option A2 results in the largest mooring loads,
however load distribution is, in general, proximate between all layout options; which indicates
the prevailing influence on the moored vessel is wind force.
Table 5-2: Peak Mooring Loads Option Layout Orientation
Mooring
A2 A3 D E
Line/Fender
1 30% 29% 28% 28%
2 29% 29% 27% 27%
3 35% 35% 33% 33%
4 35% 34% 33% 33%
5 40% 39% 38% 38%
6 39% 38% 36% 36%
7 35% 35% 35% 35%
8 35% 35% 35% 35%
9 28% 28% 28% 28%
10 28% 28% 28% 28%
11 34% 33% 32% 33%
12 33% 33% 32% 32%
13 40% 39% 38% 39%
14 40% 39% 38% 39%
15 41% 40% 39% 40%
16 41% 40% 39% 40%
FD 1 23% 22% 22% 23%
FD 2 43% 43% 42% 43%
FD 3 38% 37% 36% 36%
FD 4 52% 51% 49% 49%

Rev. A 15
50.0 A2 A3 D E SWL
45.0
40.0
35.0
Line Tension (mt) 30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Mooring Line Number
Figure 5-6: Peak Mooring Loads Wind and Current Option Layout Orientation
Figure 5-7 presents peak mooring line loads for loaded draft vessels with only current
force applied. The load distribution indicates Options D and E results in the least amount of
applied current load.
50
45
40
35 A2 A3 D E SWL
Line Tension (mt)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Mooring Line Number
Figure 5-7: Peak Mooring Loads with Current Only Option Layout Orientation

Rev. A 16
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A Dock general arrangement has been developed by M&N which accommodates the
design range of vessels ranging from 17k DWT barges to Aframax tankers. Each independent
dock layout consists of 8 mooring dolphins and 4 breasting dolphins; each breasting dolphin is
equipped with a single fender and panel.
Berthing force calculations, performed in accordance to methods recommended by

PIANC, indicate the requirement of a high energy absorbing fender is required. A fender system
comprising of Trelleborg Supercone Fenders SCN2000 (E1.0) has been provisionally selected.
Applying OCIMF and site-specific metocean conditions, successful mooring is achieved

for the design tankers and barges. Peak mooring line and fender loads typically occur when the
vessel is at ballast draft when the windage area is largest; however no safe mooring criteria are
exceeded.
The orientation of Docks for Options D and E provide the least amount of current
applied to the moored vessels. Wind is the predominant force for peak mooring loads; however
successful mooring is feasible for all orientation Options.
Statically applied site specific, metocean criteria result in lesser mooring forces than
those recommended by OCIMF. As the project progresses, dynamic mooring analyses are
recommended to ensure safe mooring is feasible for operating conditions.
7. REFERENCES
1. OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum): Guidelines and

Recommendations for the Safe Mooring of Large Ships at Piers and Sea Islands.
2. OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum): Mooring Equipment
Guidelines, 3rd Edition.
3. PIANC: Guidelines for the Design of Fenders Systems: 2002, MarCom Report of
WG33, 2002.

Rev. A 17

B20-37 - V8C TR 8C 11 Termpol 3.13 Berth Proc - A3s4v0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

B20-37 - V8C TR 8C 11 Termpol 3.13 Berth Proc - A3s4v0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TERMPOL 3.

13 BERTH PROCEDURES AND

777 W. Broadway, Suite 301

M&N Project No. 7773

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

MOFFATT & NICHOL MOFFATT & NICHOL

James Traber, EIT. Ron Byres, P.Eng.

Revision Purpose of Issue Date Author Reviewed Approved

1.1 PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF THE MARINE TERMINAL ...........................................................................................................1

2. DESIGN LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS ....................................................................................................... 3

2.1 MOORING AND BERTHING ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................3

3. MAXIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 4

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING CONDITIONS...................................................................................................................4

4. BERTHING STRATEGY ......................................................................................................................................... 5

4.1 MOORING AND BERTHING OPERATIONS .......................................................................................................................5

APPENDIX A: MOORING AND BERTHING ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 9

Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions i

1.1 PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF THE MARINE TERMINAL

1.2 MARINE TERMINAL COMPONENTS

The marine terminal is comprised of various independent marine structures including

1.2.1 Central Loading/Unloading Platform

1.2.2 Berthing Structures

Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions 1

1.2.3 Mooring Structures

1.2.4 Access Structures

Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions 2

2. DESIGN LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS

2.1 MOORING AND BERTHING ANALYSIS

Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions 3

3. MAXIMUM OPERATING CONDITIONS

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING CONDITIONS

Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions 4

4.1 MOORING AND BERTHING OPERATIONS

Several specific berthing and un-berthing procedures have been considered in

4.2 PRE-BERTHING ACTIVITIES

4.3 PILOT REQUIREMENTS

4.4 TUG ASSISTANCE REQUIREMENTS

4.5 DOCKING MONITORING SYSTEM

4.6 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BERTHING VELOCITY

4.7 MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES

Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) recommends standard

4.8 MOORING LINE LOAD LIMITS

Ship-to-shore communication will be achieved with intrinsically-safe radios. UHF and

Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions 7

Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions 8

Termpol 3.13: Berth Procedures and Provisions 9

November 22, 2012

WESTRIDGE TERMINAL EXPANSION

300 5th Avenue SW, Suite 2700

777 West Broadway, Suite 301

PREPARED REVIEWED APPROVED

Westridge Terminal Expansion Mooring and Berthing Analysis

1.1 DOCK LAYOUT ...........................................................................................................................................1

2.1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................................................................................................................2

3. DESIGN BASIS ....................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 DESIGN VESSELS ........................................................................................................................................3

4.1 BERTHING IMPACT ENERGY..........................................................................................................................7

5. MOORING RESULTS ............................................................................................................................ 10

5.1 MOORING LINE ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................................................10

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 17

Westridge Terminal Expansion Mooring and Berthing Analysis

Westridge Terminal Expansion Mooring and Berthing Analysis

1.1 DOCK LAYOUT