Giannotti & Associates, Inc,: Apolis, M Ar - B Erkeley, C Alifornia

-- - -- ---
-, --!--- ! i~
! :
C-)
GIANNOTTI & ASSOCIATES, INC,

apolis, M ar land -_ alifornia
Berkeley , C SAnn
roved for pu8ic 8relea0 10 SApp~
rIBDistribution Unlimited |..
88 08 12 026
NAVAL ARCHITECTS
OCEAN ENGINEERS
MARINE ENGINEERS
DEVELOPMENT of ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

for the ASSESSMENT of
ENERGY ABSORPTION MECHANISMS
in MARINE FENDER SYSTEMS
March 1983
Richard C. Janava
Chen-Wen Jiang
Acceion For
NTIS TAt, Prepared for
DTIC TAB
UJnu,';':',.
t t Office of Naval Research
Ju:;~tififl. .. 800 North Quincy Street
Arlington, Virginia 22217
, !i,'L A
1,t'.t
1725 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY, SUITE 912 *ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202 .(703) 892.2360
1847 Berkeley Way *Beikeley. Calilornia 94703 0415) 841.5875
703 Giddings Avenue, Surte U.3 *Annapolis, Maryland 21401 a (301) 268-0030 *D.C. 261-1031
UNCLASSIFIED
SECOjRIVY CLASSIFICATION Or THIS PAGE rut,., Doe I*d)
Ke.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE REFORE COMPLTN FORM

I R4EPORT NU64BER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
CA 31-115-001 -"x'l 111______________

T IT LE (.~d Subtitle) S. TYPE or REPORT 6 PERIOD COVER1ED
Development of Analytical Techniques for Technical
Assessment of Energy Absorption Mechanisms Dec. 1981 - Sept. 1982
in Marine Fender Systems 6. PERFORMING ONG. REPORT NU"DBER
____ ___
___ ______ ____ ____ ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ None
17 AU T"Oft(s 8, CONTRACT Oft GRANT NUMUE11110
RicharJ C. Janava, Chen-Wen Jiang .N00014-82-C-0018
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROOECT. TASK
AREA A WORK UNIT NUMBERS
Giannotti & Associates, Inc.
703 Giddings Avenue, Suite U-3
Annanoliq. Maryland 214013____________
11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE
Office of Naval Research March 1983

800 North Quincy Street IT. NUMBER OF PAGES
Arliwzton. Virginia 22217 ill
14 MONITORING AGENCY NAME 6 AODRESS(Il di~fferen from CeensooIling Ofice~) I5. SECURITY CLASS. (of 1)1. report)
UNclassified
IS&. OECLASSI FICATION/ DOWNGRADING
SCmNECu L E
16 DISTRIUBUTION STATEMENT (of Chia Report)
Approved for Public Release: Distribution UMlimited.
17 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the Abettect antor.d n Block 20. if differentIf"v. Report)
It SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
It KEYV WORDS (Continue an fewer&* aid. #I n*C00eeP mid Identify by block nwiber)
Fender Design, Fender Performance
20 A BSTRPACT (Continue an revere. Old& Iffn.c*9*V w'E

mIdnIlfy by blockrnumber)
Performance algorithms have been determined relating energy and

loLad/defleczion characteristics for various generic types of fendering
systems. These systems are typically rubber, pneumatic, foam filled, etc.,
and have been investigated herein.
The fender type variables have been identified to define the particular
;.wriorniance relationships. This generalized relationship is based on the
(Continued on reverse side)
D DA 14 7 E01702.OF1.
S3 No 4 s01 oLT UNCLASSIFIED
S/ 00-04661SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (6e e ats-
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF' TIS PAGt(When D0ta SnPeeE-
S-,performance data acquired from numerous manufacture sources for

different types of fender systems. The correlation and
condensation of particular energy performance curves substantiates
the choice of the volumetric interrelation as a significant
relationship for the fender types.-
!*
UNCLASSIFIED
S$CURli''v CLASSIFICATION OF ThIS PAGE ("o.ni Dea 8at.9q*
ir , , ;i .-
CONTENTS
REVIEW OF TASK OBJECTIVE AND ESSENTIAL TASK ELEMENTS 1

Objective 1
Essential Task Elements - Phase I 2
Essential Task Elements - Phase II 2
II. DATA BASE ACQUISITION RELATIVE TO FENDER-RELATED
INFORMATION 3
III. GENERIC TYPE FENDERS INVESTIGATED 4
IV. DERIVED FENDER PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS 7

Approach 7
Polynomial Performance Equations - General 13
Cylindrical Fenders - Transversely Loaded 14
Axial Loaded Cylindrical Fenders 20
Hollow Cubic Rubber Fenders - Shear Loaded 25
Hollow Cubic Rubber Fenders - Transversely Loaded 32
Trapezoidal Rubber Fenders - Transversely Loaded 37
Solid Cylindrical Shear Fenders 42
Rotary Donut Fenders - Transverse Compression 47
Pneumatic Rubber Fenders - Floating Type 53
Rubber Pneumatic - Air Block Fender 59
Rubber Pneumatic - Air Block Cushions 65
Foam-Filled Rubber Fenders 71
Summary Tables for Generic Fender Algorithms 76
V. RANKING OF FENDER SYSTEM MECHANISMS 79
VI. PRELIMINARY FORMULATION OF THE FENDER/VESSEL
INTERACTION RESPONSE PROBLEM 80
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A - BIBLIOGRAPHY A-1
APPENDIX B - "DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE SHIP AND THE BERTHING

FENDER SYSTEM AFTER IMPACT" B-1
ii
SiII
mmI . REVIEW OF TASK OBJECTIVE AND ESSENTIAL TASK ELEMENTS
OBJECTIVE
i The proposed two-phased effort is intended to result in an analytical
procedure which is capable of predicting the response associated with a
ii fender/vessel interaction. As part of Phase I efforts, performance algorithms
--- would be determined relating energy and load/deflection characteristics for

I--various generic types of fendering systems. These systems are typically
rubber, pneumatic, foam-filled, etc. and have been investigated herein. The
resulting algorithms would be used to characterize a particular generic type
fender which would be represented in the response vessel/fender interaction
procedure developed in Phase II.
The response analysis to be developed would be capable of estimating the
following.
a. The maximum energy absorbed by a generic type fender represented in

the response problem.
b. The maximum reaction load input to the pier and vessel hull during
response.
c. The maximum local deflections occurring in the fender and hull during
response.
d. The relative amounts of energy stored in fender, local hull, hull
mode motions and hydrodynamic dissipation during response, thus
defining the energy storage requirements for the fender system.
The benefits of fender/vessel response capability would include:
a. The ability to simply explore a specific vessel/fender response

subject to design constraints such as maximum permissible reaction
loads and deflections or fender system energy absorption requirements.
b. The ability to plug in and out alternative fender performance charac-
teristics via algorithms and explore overall vessel/fender response.
c. The capability of optimizing a specific vessel/fender response for
a given set of problem constraints.
m1- 1mm
,I t..i
i~ ..........
11 -ESSENTIAL TASK ELEMENTS - PHASE I
-IiTask 1 - Acquire, review and assess the performance characteristics of currently
llm used fendering systems in the available literature in order to estab-
lish a data base of energy absorption and load deflection data.
Task 2 - Determine algorithms which quantify fender system performance for generic
fenders. Identify and rank energy absorption mechanisms for these fender
I III
systems.
" J Task 3- Based on the literature search performed, identify an approach leading
to the development of a rigorous analytical technique for predicting
1 )vessel/fender interaction. This technique will be fully developed in
Phase II work.
ESSENTIAL TASK ELEMENTS - PHSE II
Task I- Formulate the generalized equations of motion for the vessel/fender
dynamic interaction problem based on the approach identified in
Phase I work. This approach will consider fender performance
algorithms, local vessel stiffness, dock mass and stiffness, vessel
and berthing characteristics.
Task 2 - Characterize vessel local hull or appendage stiffness.
Task 3 - Characterize dock stiffness and mass characteristics.
i Task 4 - Characterize hydrodynamic mass and damping for vessels considered.
Task 5 - Computer code methodology.

l iIii
Task 6 - Validate results against existing experimental data.
"-I Task 7- Validate results against proposed test program.
II 2
l - atlrIm
II. DATA BASE ACQUISITION RELATIVE TO FENDER-RELATE) INFORMATION
A data base of fender performance data and related information has been
established during the initial efforts of this project. Some 110 reports,
papers and manufacturers' catalogs have been accumulated and are included
as a bibliography with brief abstracts in Appendix A.
The sources of information relative to fender performance data have been
designated by single asterisks (*). Similarly, those sources relative to the
vessel/fender response problem have been designated with a double asterisk(*).
A search of the available literature listed in Appendix A resulted in the
following observations relative to fender performance data.
* The most significant source of energy and load deflection data is con-
tained within the catalogs of individual marine fender manufacturers.
0 Fender performance data listed within individual papers or reports

[ generally reflect data extracted from mhnufacturers' catalogs.-
I.
* The most common generic type of fender for which performance data
is available is rubber.
* A minimum, and in some cases negligible, amount of performance data

is available for wood, gravity, torsion, hydropneumatic, hydraulic
and spring fendering systems.
0 The second and third most common fendering.systems for which performance
data is available is pneumatic bag and foam-filled fenders. There
appears to be two primary manufacturers of pneumatic fenders, Sumitomo
and Yakohama, and two primary manufacturers of foam-filled fenders,
Seward and Samson.
* Much of the performance data for large size fenders, especially pneumatic
bag types, is extrapolated and not the result of full-scale testing due
to the magnitude of the loads required in compression.
..
III. GENERIC TYPE FENDERS INVESTIGATED
The result of extensive literature search relative to ships fendering
systems concluded that fendering systems generally fall into two categories:
one considered commonly available, the other highly specialized. Common
"type fenders are readily obtainable from many marine fender manufacturers
who have performed extensive full-scale fender tests relative to energy
absorption and load deflection data. These systems are widely used for com-
mercial and naval applications. Other systems considered highly specialized
have been determined to have little performance data available and have limited
or questionable practical field application. By far the most common fender
m* system, for which extensive performance data was available, was rubber fenders
followed by pneumatic and foam-filled fender types. Specialized torsional,
"hydropneumatic, gravity and hydraulic fenders haa little available performance
data and relatively limited practical field application. The small quantity of
data results available for specialized fender types was concluded so specific
and unique to the system investigated that generalized fender performance relation-
ships could not be readily determined. Generalized relationships require per-
- - formance data for variations of fender system parameters. Thus, the performance
data derived from a particular specialized fender test could not be generalized
I_ to describe the generic family-type action.
For the commonly available systems consisting of rubber, pneumatic and

. foam-filled systems, sufficient data was available for variations of system
j= parameters, including basic geometric dimensions, materials, pressures, etc.
in addition to full-scale test and extrapolated load and energy deflection
I -j performance data. Because of the availability of required information, rubber
pneumatic bag and foam-filled fenders were selected for detailed investigation.
5m-==------ I 4
I' 5
Included in this investigation were the following

specific type fender systems:
I * Rubber
- Hollow cylinder - transverse loading
- Hollow cylinder - axial loading
- Trapezoidal - transverse loading
- Solid cylinder - shear loading
- Hollow cubic - transverse loading
- Hollow cubic - shear loading
- Rotary donut - transverse loading
* Pneumatic
- Floating bag - transverse loading

- Air block fenders transverse loading
- Air block cushions - transverse loading
* Foam filled
- Floating bag - transverse loading
Table I indicates the various manufacturers

of the fender systems investigated
in this task.
i!
* 1]
I<
I0
-------------------------------------------
Y'-'I
f- el 1 o'I
I i*
z C
< I T FI
AiCO.CC 0
W - -&-
10101 z-jzww
ZityLi I U
zi < M u z Im JM u
U N -MU MW - -J -J < <
D0 0 I01 -
XI !U =i= m I C ~ U- <I <Ic L
II
171
IV. DERIVED FENDER PERFORMANCE RELATIO1NSHIPS
APPROACH
"Figure 1 illustrates typical energy and load/deflection performance data
for a rubber fender system. In this case the data reflects the performance of
a set of hollow cylindrical fenders under transverse loading. This data is
"typical of data obtained from various manufacturers and test reports. As can
be seen, the energy and load relationships vary as functions of geometric and
material properties between various manufacturers.
In order to characterize a particular type fender system, it is necessary
to determine a relationship between the fender type variables capable of con-
densing or collapsing the particular performance relationships shown in Figure 1
into more generalized ones which represent a family of curves. An equation for
this generalized relationship can then be determined as a function of the vari-
ables established. The generalized relationships are based on the performance
data acquired from numerous sources and are the basis for characterizing the
generalized performance of the fender type.
The resulting generalized relaticnships derived will have an associated
degree of dispersion in the relationship which reflects the choice of variables
selected to collapsed performance curves and the accuracy of the test or extrapo-
lated performance data in addition to the effects from manufacturers' material
differences. The more accurate the choice of collapsing and nondimensionalizing
variables and the more accurate the available test or extrapolated data, the less
dispersion will be evident in the relationships determined.
The collapsing variable identification process is illustrated typically
in Figure 2 which correlates the energy-absorbing capacity of rubber cylindrical
fenders at the rated 50 percent deflection to the volume of material tested.
IA
4' 1
Figure 1: TYPICAL PERFORMANCE DATA
Load/Deflection /Energy Absorption

Cylindrical
"Loadapplied Hanging Fenders
perpendicular to bore. to 24"
5"Test O.D.1 ft.
length:
S24" OD Approximate load

Load vs. Deflection 21" OD V. deflection
240
15" 0...18" 00I24 Lbs./ Lbs.I
-15" OD 18", OD 0.D..D. ft. igth. ft. igth.
12" OD (In.) (in.) @50% @67%
._ _._ E-`200 10" OD
S, 0 5 21/2 3,500 25,000
" 7 3 1/2 4.400 44,000
-JJ
Z:160 8" OD 8 4 5,800 50,000
B 10 5 7,000 66,000
-- 7OD 12 6 8,000 75,000
Qjl120 5" OD 15 71/2 10.000 85,000
. 18 9 12,000 101,000
-o
121 101/2 14.000 106,000
M24 12 16,"00 110,000
0
-- 40
*0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deflection in Inches
56
Energy vs. Deflection 24" O0 Approximate energy
Eng vvs. deflection
48
48
Ft. Mbs.I Ft. lbs./
-O"" O.D. L.D. ft. Igth. ft. Igth.
S21 0 (in.) (in.) @ 50% @67%
40 5 21/2 365 1 1,700
0 18" OD 7 31/2 650 3.000
S328 4 970 3,800
-24
15" OD
/ 10
12
15
5
6
1,460
2,000
7/ 3,125
5,200
5,800
11,800
,. 12 OD,. 18 9 4,500 15.200
16 O-OD - -- 21 10 6,125 22.800
8 D 24 12 8,000 24,000
`" ~8" OD
1 8 OD
7"OD
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Deflection in inches
-- - -- .- . - , - ,-
nFigurde' 2:- 'Y I5 ,-E M I-R
I'180 TYPE: 180.A

RUBBER CYLINDRICAL FENDERS M
LOADING: TRANSVERSE
PLOT: ENERGY ABSORPTION VS. VOLUME
160 (per foot length of fender)
0 t VREDESTEIN
Sx o GOODYEAR
cr) o U.S. RUBBER
L140 JOHNSON RUBBER
CD,
-J
120
z
0
uc -00-
zI- 80 -
80
rr
0
Li- 8060
I- 0
z^/
20
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80
FENDER MATERIAL VOLUME (1J3 )
9
I Intuitively, it is reasoned that a quantifiable relationship between energy
1 capacity and volume exists but is not evident, since energy storage per
linit volume may be significantly affected by manufacturers' brand materials
and by the variable ratio of cylinder inner and outer diameters and any other
pertinent factors. However, the high degree of linearity illustrated by the

resulting relationship from four manufacturers' data sources based on some 70
cylinder sizes indicates that this relationship is well defined, highly linear
and has very little associated dispersion, regardless of the material differences
I'I and variation of diameter ratio generally existing. This identifies energy
Ii storage per unit volume as a strong collapsing relationship for this fender
type. (This relationship has prevailed for most types of rubber fenders
I jinvestigated.) The above correlation and significant condensation of particular

energy performance curves which occurs based on this relationship substantiates
I the choice of the volumetric relationship as a sig-nificant relationship for
oII..,,,I i caatyndoleexssbtsnoevdnsneergsoaepe
rubber fender types. A relative independence of the effects of geometry and
material differences is implied by this relationship for fenders presently
II available from fender manufacturers. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the typical
in a more well-defined relationship.
II~ Once a satisfactory set of condensing or collapsing variables has been

formulated and determined to result in a minimum of dispersion for the generic
II relationship when plotted, a polynomial regression analysis is performed to

i itdetermine the polynomial equation of order (n) which best describes the energy!
deflection or load/deflection generalized relationship for the fender type.
I! II 10
Figure 3: NON-EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE CONDENSATION
- 14
400 TYPE* RUBBER CYLINDRICAL
LOADING: TRANSVERSE
PLOT: LOAD / DEFLECTION
S350 - o VREDESTEIN
o GOODYEAR
* SIGNIFICANT DISPERSION
0
300
250
L
200
I ,
150 '
CL
00
0
100 0
U) 01 0
I oO
0i 0
0 .. c 0
500 UL 00
0 , &
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 ,0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4,
SA / Di (NON - DMvENSIONAL)
'",=:,=,i=, mnm.ii,
nL " ~ i ' Vmb :
11
Figure 4: EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE CONDENSATION 00'
TYPE. RUBBER CYLINDRICAL

LOADING: TRANSVERSE
I PLOT: LOAD / DEFLECTION
(per foot length of fender)
- GOODYEAR 0001
oI VREDESTEIN
. LITTLE DISPERSION 0 0
C] 0
700
0
mm mm3 0C
mm
t m
11--,mm mm
200
fN
p
0 0
I\1
K0-=;; 0..02..... 0 00 0 0
00
0_-E=-=-
o.[
="~(- " (
i, D20
[]
-- im v
,i.FOR C12
212
The equations which result are considered characteristic of the performance
relationships which exist for the fender type based on available manufacturers'
data.
POLYNOMIAL PERFORMANCE EQUATIONS - GENERAL
1. The polynomial equations derived from regression analysis of manufacturers'
data for energy and load/deflection are of the following form:
E X i y (i)
I..
where:
[ E - Fender energy absorption
c = Characteristic fender volume
/ IP = Fender reaction load
y = Characteristic fender area
X,Y = Nondimensionalized deflection--

L
I (L) = characteristic dimension of fender type
n = Order of polynomial equation used in regression analysis
Polynomial coefficients
I "Tables 2 and 3 located at the end of this section, summarize the polynomial
* coefficients determined for energy absorption and load deflection described in
detail in the following pages.
1 "13
I"
K 71
1
Ii
I. *
CYLINDRICAL FENDERS - TRANSVERSELY LOADED
I.
F
I.
I -
IT
II
Ii 14
II
IFigure 5: CYLINDRICAL FENDER INSTALLATION
I4f
Mongstad (ne.ar bergan), Norway Jumbo fenders 0 27O0x 16O0x4000mm long.

Oiltanker tertmnal
-co
ii
15
OEM
F,4
CYLINDRICAL FENDERS -TRANSVERSE LOADING
This type fender is by far the most commonly available from various fender
manufacturers as indicated in Table 1. The variables determined most effec-
I tive in condensing the test energy absorption performance data were cylinder
volume for energy absorption, and cylinder inside diameter for nondimensionalizing
deflection. Figure 6 indicates the generic energy absorption relationship
* which resulted from the data sources considered. In this case, the length of
cylinder considered is on a per foot basis. The relationship between variables
wohich best fits the trend indicated in Figure 7 for energy absorption is:
E - OL 10.09X - 5.07X 2 + 914X3 10 3o (2)
where:
L E -Energy absorption Cf t-lb)

D0- Outside diameter of the cylindrical fender (ft)
Di=Inside diame~ter of the cylindrical fender (ft)
L -Length of fender (ft) (plotted in Figure 6 per foot length)

X =AID nondimensional
A -Deflection under load (ft)
= 'rr
(D 2 _-D 2)(t2
The above equation is representative in the range of X < 1.5.
I 16
The load/deflection relationship indicated in Figure 7 can be characterized
by the following equation.
IP - DoL {105.76X - 254.88X2 + 163.95X3 } o3 (3)
where:
P - Reaction load (lb)
D = Cylinder outside diameter (ft)

X -I/Di nondimensional
D . Cylinder inside diameter '(ft)
A - Deflection under load (ft)
L = Length of fender (ft) (plotted in Figure 7 per foot length)
The above equation is representative in the range of X < 1.5.
17
S10 Figure 6: GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
i i II TYPE. RUBBER CYLINDRICAL I-

I- LOADING: TRANSVERSE
9 PLOT: ENERGY ABSORPTION
,',(I (per foot length of fender) L
a VREDESTEIN
o GOODYEAR
. U.S. RUBBER
ii -- i---i
ce) 6
iill
A
i I i
1L4
mm. I . .m #*
"--'--" ,1" A] Di (NN DW.ON '-.
0_e 3A i(O DMNINL A

0e2l .18 08101
"18
I- Figure 7: GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT 00
- I 90
1
I TYPE- RUBBER CYLINDRICAL
LOADING: TRANSVERSE
0 U.S.RUBBER
0 GOODYEAR O(D
0 VREDESTEIN
C0 0
0
300
0 0
10
50
0.
D
o
00
30
200
-- K0
-19
I 0.
0 0.1 0.2 0.~33 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
A /D (NON- DMENSIONAL)
AXIAL LOADED CYLINDRICAL FENDERS
t' .1
20
Figure 8: AXIAL LOADED FENDER INSTALLATION
Axial Loaded Fenders
121
"Ww wmI i wm
I!
AXIAL LOADED CYLINDRICAL FENDERS
Ii Next to transversely loaded cylinders, the axial loaded fender was the
most common type for which performance data was available. These fender
systems are annular columns which comprass and deflect as buckling columns
with added energy capability resulting from its "hoop" effect. Being
circular, they have equal shear resistance for all directions of transverse
I'|loading.
Figure 9 indicates the generic relationship for energy absorption
determined for this type fender system. The energy-volume relationship
"* I determined for transversely loaded cylinders was equally effective for
axial fender types. In this case, the nondimensionalizing characteristic
- I dimension for deflection was the length of the cylinder. The resulting
algorithm for energy absorption derived from Figure 9 was determined to-be:
E = 8H {5.95X + 51.13X2 + 20.79X 3 103 (4)
The corresponding load/deflection algorithm illustrated in Figure 10 is:
I P =SH {140.69X + 6.4X2 - 15.65X3 } 103 (5)
.I where:
P, E, D0 , Di, 8, A are previously defined.
X = A/H
H - Height of fender (ft)
The applicability of the above equations is X < 0.6.
I22
z
!-------- - --- -' ~.*v$ '

Figure 9: GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
TYPE: RUBBER CYLINDRICAL FENDERS

LOADING: AXIAL COMPRESSION
PLOT: ENERGY ABSORPTION 0
25
25fr GOODYEAR0
~0
L U. S. RUBBER
0 UNIROYAL
20 - 0
lln20 00O
0 0
QN
-iI-.
co
15 .
-j0
10 0 l E]
000 0
0 0
ooic 00
!| !t *. * C*.
0 0.1 0:2. 03 014 0
23
. .. Figure 10:" GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
* 90- TYPE: RUBBER CYLINDRICAL FENDERS
Iii $LOADING: AXIAL COMPRESSION
I-PLOT: LOAD / DEFLECTION A/
i 80 a UNIROYAL
- U.S. RUBBER 0
0 GOODYEAR
70- A 00
e 0
.
60_
* I|0
0
*cvf5% 0 0
. cl). 50-
1'
I
.40.
ox of
0
300
i-' "--I- 30 A
20-
10-
0
l
I
0 .05 .10 .15 .20 .25 .30 .35 .A0 .45 .50 .55 .60 .65
24
i~ij
. II
I Sl
i~i i25
.lI
I I
II
II Figure ii: CUBIC SHEAR LOADED FENDER INSTALLATION
II
Ij
I'
* I
I
II
I-
LI
I'
I1
II 26
II
-;, I' I i
,- 1I I
KWb1
illi
MOUNTING RECOMMENDATIONS
-- BCLTS(P) 1/2 UNC-2Ax--3/bLG

CORROSION PROTECTION REQD.
SAE GRADE 5
STANDARD WASHER
SHEAR FENDER
. Ii_ DOCK STRUCTURE 2i7_
TYP. (FIXED)
.= l.I= I27
HOLLOW CUBIC RUBBER FENDERS - SHEAR LOADED
ii JShear fenders have the ability to stretch in four shear directions in
addition to withstanding large compression loads and limited tension loads.

IjThis feature allows for wale movement away from, into or tangential to docks
as vessels berth. In compression, the fender can be used alone or in tandem,
bolted between a wall and whale. Tension and compression loading allow the
shear fender to support the wale. This is illustrated in the previous figure
(Figure 11). Although this type fender system is simple and effective, it is
not commonly available from fender manufacturers as indicated in Table 1.
The data used to determine the appropriate performance algorithms has
been selected from a single source but reflects the eight different size
fenders available. These fenders are characterized by a cylindrical bore
running lengthwise in the direction of shear loading.
I Figure 12 indicates the characteristic energy absorption curve deter-
mined by correlating the fender energy volume and the normalized deflection
relationship. In this case the characteristic length was the height of the
II shear fender normal to the direction of shear. The representative equation
for energy absorption was determined to be:
= H {2.63X - 5.39X2 + 10.62X3 _ 3.44X4

8E .103 (6)
The corresponding load/deflection relationship illustrated in Figure 13 is:
II 1 8 {21.6X - 21.9X2 + 19.76X3 _ 5.06X4 103 (7)
where:
Wb27r 2 (ft
b W, ~Bd (t
'3 28
Wb - Width of fender base (ft)
.Bd - Bore diameter (ft)
"RH
- Height of shear fender (ft)
X - A/H (nondimensional)
I E - Energy absorption (ft-lb)
-i The above equations are representative for X < 1.9.
m~Ii
i m I
i Ii 29
iREiI
.... III
TYPE: HOLLOW RUBBER CUBIC

-LOADING: SHEAR
PLOT: ENERGY / DEFLECTION
15 0 MORSE
0 0
14 0
0
0.00
13
00
12 0
]l il i11
o0 000
;J
00
00
'-L0. /
S- =, 0/0
0
07 0
0
4
o/
3-
S a
0 0
09
i/H i1i il
090
:|A / H
_-- - _-
0~
0 L-6
0 51. 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
-'U ~30 /*
30 TYPE: HOLLOW RUBBER CUBIC 0
29 LOADING: SHEAR
0
JJJ ' :i ="27 28 PLOT: LOAD / DEFLECTION
26 0 MORSE
25
24 .0
23 0
22
21 0
1- 20
LL 00
i19
-18 0
17
C- 16
~15 .0
n14
==
=-- L 13 o
12
110
*10
90
8 0i
7
i K 2i
6 ii1 0 p
i:I
iii
I- 10'
5 ~ 0
5. 7. :11:13.15.17:19:
-A //
0
.__- '=__-31
---. 11
00
30
="= II
I. ll
ii.(I
-- 3OL2CBCRBBRFNES-TANVREYLA
Figure 14: HOLLOW CUBIC COMPRESSION FENDER INSTALLATION
t7
~:d~! ~ 233
II_ __ _ ____ __-__ _ ____ _
HOLLOW1 CUBIC RUBBER FENDERS - TRANSVERSELY LOADED

'I This fendering system generally offers larger energy absorption and
larger reaction loads compared to similar sized cylindrical fenders although
it does not exhibit the typical buckling phenomenon. Their use is generally
between wood walers and concrete piers or draped as indicated in Figure 14.
The parameters determined significant in collapsing the energy and
reaction load relationships were determined to be fender volume and fender
height in the loaded direction. Fender deflections were normalized by the
characteristic fender height.
Figure 15 indicates the resulting generic relationship for energy
absorption. This curve can be defined by the following equation.
i- - I2 3} 13
E = HWbL {21.1X - 74.X + 208.8X 10- (8)
P HL {178.7X - 702.8X2 + 1600.9X3 13 o (9)
where:
E = Energy absorption (ft-lb)
P - Reaction load (Ib)
H - Height of cubic in direction of loading (ft)
Wb = Base width of cubic (ft)
L - Length of fender (ft)
X - A/H (nondimensional), X < 0.65
iii i'
34
;80-
"80" TYPE: HOLLOW RUBBER CUBIC 0
.LOADING:
TRANSVERSE
PLOT: ENERGY ABSORPTION

II-(per foot length of fender)
!!!! !-!70-
""0 -A UNIROYAL
- JOHNSON RUBBER
- U. S. RUBBER
o GOODYEAR
60
cv,
LL
I 0-
I.l II l "-.
'.* "Z'"
rri i
200
i--.- 0:: 0. 0"-. .506.
If III I
0i. . 03040. 60
o
A / H 35(NON-DIMENSIONAL
iii35 20
A
/H(O-IMNINL
-- I'
.el TYPE: HOLLOW RUBBER CUBIC

*-LOADING : TRANSVERSE
CD PLOT: LOAD/DEFLECTION
(PER FOOT LENGTH OF FENDER)
c?' GOODYEAR
- UNIROYAL
X JOHNSON RUBBER
o U.S. RUBBER
0-0
IA
lo 0
100
01
- - -- A A
I 08
0 03. oo 0
A HA
. A A .
"'"---'o .... . -,,.= , ",i - '"l/" ""... - ".;- 6-". c'"t w D-
i' ' I,], ,NON - DIMENSIONAL)

S36
'1
!1
I
TRAPEZOIDAL RUBBER FENDERS -TRANSVERSELY LOADED
F
L.
!37
* I
Ii Figure 17: TRAPEZOIDAL FENDER INSTALLATION
. ........
a lng oun~ew high Wing TyeTrapezoidal fenders. 10 ft.

York, N.Y.
38
TRAPEZOIDAL RUBBER FENDERS - TRANSVERSELY LOADED
Trapezoidal rubber fenders employ two mechanisms in the absorption of
energy, these are: direct compression and buckling. They are generally
mounted directly to open-faced structures,or they can be used in combination
with timbering.
I Figure 18 indicates the generic load/deflection curve which is
characterized by the region of buckling generally occurring at approximately
30 percent deflection.
Figure 19 illustrates the generic energy/deflection curve for this type
fender. For this case the characteristic height of the fender in the direction
of loading was determined to be the significant condensing parameter for energy
absorption and load/deflection.
The following equations are representative of tradezoidal fender -
performance:
IE - HLWb {0.57X + 36.55X2 - 56.55X3 + 40.37X4 10 3 (10)
The corresponding load/deflection relationship is:
P - HL {105.82X - 207.06X2 48.24X3 + 423.72X4 103 (11)

where:
SWb - Fender base width (ft)

H = Fender height in direction of load (ft)
L - Fender length (ft)
E - Energy absorption (lb-ft)
K X- A/H (nondimensional, X < 0.53)
39
iI. . ...
RFORMANCE. PLOT ,
- 2 F igure 18: GENERIC' PE
31
11i30
29 TRAPEZOIDAL RUBBER
TYPE:
I1 CLOSED BASE
28 0
"LOADING: TRANSVERSE .COMPRESSION
27 PLOT: LOAD / DEFLECTION
25 O GOODYEAR
"24 0 UNIROYAL*
23 A ISEIBU
23
N% 210
~20
coo
__-" i 13
19 9 -0 0g r
C 13
11
12 00
15 0
120
000
E).4 0.3
11 ~ 0 0
i||. /E)l E)
Illl
- ! l
0 O. 012
nnp=111 I
iii1 0 0. 0. 0. . .
44 ~A/ 40---
1lII II
TYPE: TRAPEZOIDAL RUBBER - CLOSED BASE

l LOADING: TRANSVERSE COMPRESSION
PLOT: ENERGY/ DEFLECTION
(per foot length of fender)
I 6
o GOODYEAR 0
o UNIROYAL
A SEIBU
co
3-J
cv, 0,01l02 I31.40.l0.
,DIMENIONAL (NON
il I41I
14
Jlii ii
SOLD YLNDICLJHER ENER
I
ii UiI
1 DIil el
.____ S
liBII
4.
. . . I
.%...... .
an-. I -
I!!!.
m% I .*IN
* .**H i
III.lI,"
r
4 - -- . , -i - - - --.-.. .. ... .
II
SOLID CYLINDRICAL SHEAR FENDERS
In shear fender installations, as in Figure 20, woodenSIfendering is fitted
over by means of supports on metal plates. The fenders are then mounted on
brackets secured to the quay. When the wood fendering is compressed, the shear
fenders are loaded into shear. Since the shear modulus of rubber is only a
third of its modulus of elasticity, reaction forces are kept low for this type
configuration.
Figure 21 indicates the generic energy absorption relationship which
-characterizes this type fender. In the figure fender energy absorption
curves have been condensed by the volume of the fender. The deflection
under load has been nondimensionalized by the fender height normal to the
loading.
The energy equation which characterizes this relationship is:
E = $H {O.54X + 8.79X2 1 103 (12)
P {22.77X + 1.14X
1 - 1.43X3 ) 10 3
(13)
* iwhere:
, I 0 D t
X -A/H X < 1.0
D0 Diameter of cylinder (ft)
I-H - Height of fender (ft)
A = Fender deflection under load
E - Energy absorption (ft-lb)

* I 44
TYPE: 'SOLID RUBBER CYLINDER

LOADING: SHEAR
12 PLOT: ENERGY ABSORPTION

o VREDESTEIN
"" ii o REGAL
100
8 00
0
6
- _= = _= _
! I
-=- -= IiiiiI 0
_" _- __ __- m--0
00
,tomB ][] 0
802
0iii l 03 04 05 0. . . . .
IN Al (NNDMNINL
2 0 0 )
lil I I45
I 3I
00
00
02. 0. . 0. 0. 0. 07 08 09 10
1.01
Ij Figure 22: GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
(I iTYPE: SOLID RUBBER CYLINDER

U
LOADING: SHEAR
S"! 24
I 2 PLOT: LOAD / DEFLECTION
23 o VREDESTEIN cpo
S22 '1' 22 EGL
21
20
0
19 0
"18
17-
16 0 D
, " 15 .
i--
LL 14
m 13
12 0
C) 11
* ' 10
-9 /
8 0
7
6 00
5.
J 4
3 0
2
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
AI/H
(NON - DIMENSIONAL)
46
I{
ROTARY DONUT FENDERS -TRANSVERSE COMPRESSION
iI-.e 47
i'| i-
_ - _
Figure 23: ROTARY DONUT FENDER INSTALLATION
* 48
. . . .....'
. . ... .. ,...i=. .
l4] if 1
ROTARY DONUT FENDERS - TRANSVERSE COMPRESSION

Rotary fenders consist of hollow section rubber wheels which are mounted
on a control axis that allows them to rotate freely when ships horizontal shear
forces are applied. This type fender is available in multiple-wheeled configu-
rations in a variety of wheel size diameters. The hollow wheeled section
essentially absorbs its energy in material compression and exhibits signifi-,
cant absorption compared to the reaction loads developed.
S!!Figures 24 and 25 illustrate the energy absorption and reaction load
deflection curves derived for single-, double- and triple-wheeled fender
configurations. In these figures the energy absorption relationships have
been modified by characteristic dimensions of fender inner and outer diameters,
the number of donuts per axial and the width of the donut base. For the
reaction load relationship: the number of donuts, outer diameter and base
width were significant. For both relationships deflection was normalized by
the characteristic depth of the donut tire.
The generic relationships derived for energy absorption and load/deflection
and indicated in Figures 24 and 25 are:
m e, 31X2 2 . 53 13
E N$ {5.51X - 21.31X + 28-05X3 10 (14)
The corresponding load deflection curve determined was:
-- 322 63 18.64 13
P NDWb {-0.45X + 67.32X - 189.6X + 188.46X 1 (15)
where:
N Number of donuts per axial
...... I ,b(o-i) D 9
]i ii49
=-----------
I= D - Outer donut diameter (ft)
0
. - Wb - Base width of donut (ft)
.D = Inner donut diameter (ft)
Ii E = Energy absorption (lb-ft)
P - Reaction load (ib)
X Do-Di X < 0.68

[ 0 2.
II 2
Fender deflection (ft)
i" 50
*
IT 5
Li.!, TYPE: ROTARY DONUT

IjLOADING: TRANSVERSE" COMPRESSION
. PLOT: ENERGY ABSORPTION
i DUNLOP
I-A o SINGLE WHEEL
II.z . DOUBLE WHEEL
- TRIPLE WHEEL
3.0.
I 2.5
- O0
*00
2.0
00C
12.0 0
07
I'I'
1.0
.5-
0 0.1 02 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

- A /Do-Di
51 2
"i) --'' .... .... .. . -- .*'
TYPE: ROTARY DONUT

LOADING: TRANSVERSE COMPRESSION
I% PLOT: LOAD / DEFLECTION
DUNLOP
0 SINGLE WHEEL
DOUBLE WHEEL
TRIPLE WHEEL
ill b
13
12 -
11'
* 10 -
vv
8-
6/
:il52
3
S
2
0 .i i ! e "
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

A Do-Di
52
PNEUMATIC RUBBER FENDERS FLOATING TYPE
- -i,
53
Figure 26: PNEUMATIC FLOATING FENDER
I..
.......
1 54
____ ______ ______I__I__ , __i__
PNEUMATIC RUBBER FENDERS -FLOATING TYPE
Floating pneumatic fenders utilize the compressive elasticity of air
to support loads. For this reason performance deterioration due to fatigue

1 is absent. For realistic oblique ship loading, pneumatic type fenders do not
I suffer significant loss of energy absorbing capacity as do solid rubber fenders.
S* For rough weather mooring, this type fendering system exhibits much less damage
i -I due to the fact that maximum reaction forces under combined shear and compres-
- sion increase slowly and sustain large allowable deflections. Under excessive
loads these fenders do not result in excessive reaction loads as do solid or
bottomed out rubber fenders.
Figures 27 and 28 indicate the results for 32 different size pneumatic
fenders investigated. These fenders ranged in pressures from 4.3 to 11.4 psi
-l internally. Figure 27 illustrates the characteristic energy absorbing relation-
ship resulting from condensing the plot of energy absorption by the relationship
I1/1.4 2
p LD . the pressure, length and diameter characteristic of the fender.
This quantity is plotted against the deflection normalized by the diameter of
the cylinder bag.

-- oThe following relationship was determined representative of energy absorp-
tion for pneumatic fenders.
E 8D {0.82X - 2.54X2 + 17.94X 3 10 (16)
- 5.19X + 39.95X
{iP - 77.02X 3 + 149.09X4 0 (17)
where:
- p 1/ .4 LD
55
p - Internal pressure (psf)
L = Length of fender (ft)

D0 - Fender diameter (ft)
X =- A/Do, X < 0.55

A - Fender deflection (ft)
E - Energy absorption (lb-ft)
P = Reaction load (ib)
iii 56
n56
I Figure 27: GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
TYPE: RUBBER PNEUMATIC - FLOATING BAG

LOADING: TRANSVERSE COMPRESSION
3.0 _ YOKOHAMA
0 DUNLOP
2.5
i2.0
F 0
z
z 1.5
0
z
1.0
00
0 0.1 0.2 0 .3 0.4 0 .5 0.6

A~ /D (NON-DIMENSIONAL)
57
S.Figure 28: GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
TYPE: RUBBER PNEUMATIC-FLOATING TYPE

. .- LOADING: TRANSVERSE COMPRESSION 0
'I PLOT: LOAD / DEFLECTION
0 DUNLOP0
II
'15
15<
limb
__ ,
am mi 00
co
10
z
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.05 0.

A D (NON-DI0ENSiONAL)
58
II
I =i
RUBBER PNEUMATIC -AIR BLOCK FENDER
59
Ix
I'
* Ii
* Ij
Figure 29: PNEUMATIC AIR BLOCK FENDER INSTALLATION
-9.-.
I . -
I . . .
I -,
60
I -*
S~1
1 RUBBER PNEUMATIC - AIR BLOCK FENDER
*, Ij Air block fenders are pneumatic, axially loaded fenders which can be
bolted to docks and applicable when floating bag types cannot be used.
They offer all the performance advantages that pneumatic bag types generally
exhibit.
The characteristic performance curves illustrated in Figures 30 and 31
were determined by nondimensionalizing the energy absorption and load/deflection
curves by P, H, and D, the characteristic pressure, height and diameter of the
block fender. The energy absorption and load/defelction relationships were then
"- plotted against nondimensional deflection A/H, the percentage fender height.
The resulting relationships are based on the investigations of 13 fender sizes
i at 14.2 psi. Since this type fender was available in only one pressure size,
S.1 the pressure variable was considered similar to the relationship determined
SI for floating bag types.
The following relationship is representative of the energy absorption of
air block fenders illustrated in Figure 30:
E SD {2.58X + 9.73X2 _ 13.40X3 + 40.09X4} 103 (18)
The corresponding load/deflection relationship illustrated in Figure 31 is
represented by:
* P - B {43.96X - 8.77X - 62.48X3 + 256.23X4 10 3 (19)
where:
E - Energy absorption
P - Reaction load
* 61
* I
* I
S- p1 /1. 4 HD
H - Fender height
D - Fender diameter
. .p - Internal pressure
X - A/H (nondimensional) X < 0.6
A - Fender deflection
The above relationships are valid for any set of consistent units.
iiiiBii
Ii 62
i ,'.-'-.
TYPE: RUBBER PNEUMATIC -AIR BLOCK.FENDERS

LOADING: AXIAL COMPRESSION
0 YOKOHAMA
.nJ
=-- .4 1 Z
0
z
IIm II
- - -'
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

A H (NON - DIMENSIONAL)
63
'1 TYPE: RUBBER PNEUMATIC - AIR BLOCK FENDERS
LOADING: 'AXIAL COMPRESSION

"o YOKOHAMA
60 .
50-
I'
@
.44Q 0
z
t 0
30.0
z
30-
iz
i20
z.100
, 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
A IAH (NON - DIMENSIONAL)

64
,-.ii f . ii - ' l
LiiJNII
RUBBER PNEUMATIC -AIR BLOCK CUSHIONS
"C *
-65
iil65
"Fgue-2:AI BOC CSHO
; I,
* . I
.. .2 * - .. . .. .
IiI __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
"RUBBER PNEUMATIC - AIR BLOCK CUSHIONS

This systeui is similar to the air block fenders except that it is
"rectangular in shape. It is mounted on a steel backing plate which can
be bolted to docks or semisubmersible drill rig legs. Although this fendering
system appeared to have a significant number of merits typically associated
with pneumatic systems, they were only available from one fendering manu-
facturer.
The data represented in Figures 33 and 34 are for only two fender
lengths at the same internal pressure. In these figures the energy and
load curves have been normalized by the characteristic pressure, length
and base width dimensions, while the deflection has been normalized by
the cushion height ii,the direction of loading.
[ The derived relationship which best fits the condensed data for energy
was determined to be:
E = BH -0.12X + 7.46X -_1271X 3+ 1477X (20)
The corresponding load deflection relationship is:

P -- 8---m2'X
1-X2 4O3
4 (3
,P = B 19.22X - 4.16X + 5.10X + 29.55X (21)
where:
E = Energy absorption
P - Reaction load
B pl1/1. 4 WL
b
p Internal pressure
Wb Base width of cushion
67
.----
..-
..
L - Cushion length
H - Cushion height in direction of load
X = A/H, X < 0.6
-- A - Fender deflection
! The above relationships are valid for any set of consistent units.
i-1-
68
_- - _
i, ,Figure 33: GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
TYPE: PNEUMATIC RUBBER - AIR BLOCK CUSHIONS

. .,LOADING: TRANSVERSE
"2.0 PLOT: ENERGY ABSORPTION
!1 II I
i . YOKOHAMA
1.75
1.50 -
~1.25
z
z
0 1.0
z
w
5 .75
*~0. z S--I I *
-T-
- i - -- -* L .-- -
4 l w .2j
5
4 .50
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

A /H
69
S9 Figure 34: GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
TYPE: PNEUMATIC RUBBER - AIR BLOCK CUSHIONS

LOADING: TRANSVERSE
8 PLOT: LOAD / DEFLECTION
o YOKOHAMA
Z5
CIO
z
I4
0
z
P
a.. o
3
i0
1' 1
ii
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Iil A H (NON
70
- DENSIONAL)
I]
mI [.'" FOAM-FILLED RUBBER FENDERS
Ill -
*ii~i.-
iii i. .N. N *-
I Figure 35: FOAM-FILLED- FENDER
F - j.*
~AN
72 -
"FOAM-FILLED RUBBER FENDERS
This system resembles the pneumatic bag type fenders except internally
- they are completely filled with resilient, closed-cell foam. They typically
have greater energy absorption and less reaction force than pneumatic fenders
of equal size. They are generally lighter than pneumatic fenders of equal
capacity and cannot explode or sink if punctured.
I Figures 36 and 37 indicate the results of investigating two primary
sources of performance data for this type fender system. For these curves
the parameters found to condense the performance relationship were fender
length and diameter.
The energy absorption relationship found characteristic of Figure 36 was
I. determined to be:
"E D {0.27X - 1.03X + 6.43X - 4.69X 4 10 (22)

"L
I
The corresponding load deflection relationship illustrated in Figure 37 is:

3 4If 3
*i P = 6 {1.77X + 6.25X2 - 13.81X3 + 16.32X 4 103 (23)
where:
E= Energy absorption (ft-lb)
D = Fender diameter (ft)
L = Fender length (ft)

X -xA/D (nondimensional)
A - Fender deflection (ft)
I 73
"If Figure 36: GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
0.8- TYPE: FOAM FILLED FENDER

. LOADING: TRANSVERSE
0.7 L/ SAMSON
ii SEAWARD
0.6.
==/) 06-
cf)
,.5
L-
_, 0..3-
i -0.4
0.202 . 0.' , .
A /D (NON-DIMENSIONAL)
74
I Figure '37:,..GENERIC PERFORMANCE PLOT
13.5TYPE: FOAM FILLED RUBBER FENDERS

LOADING: TRANSVERSE
0 SEAWARD
13.0 6 SAMSON
2.5
I?0 m
1.0A
0A
0h0. 0.2 0'3 0.4 0,5_ 0.6 0.7

K ti /D (NON-DIMENSIONAL)
75
SUMMARY TABLES FOR GENERIC FENDER ALGORITHMS
I 76
e S2
-J~~~~ a z &p 9
< x
I< e'jtf 14 4 4 % i -'1 J i
ali ceo
cr- 0 V- LID
t I~ :C:
0 l CJ 0
u0 I
;~
C.) -' c M-
Zl C')Q 0 Lc)
cQ CJ U
)
Cl) 0) C L() co C4
Q1 LO4J M
LUz W\ uN -) mm
W0) cm
-
L
o
n
(5) U- 7. LW cj
co
C? CF II , N 0 .ci
C-j Y
I~ ~ ~ 00
~ C co vnwinmnimn lmimCm7
.S2
> X
LO L
z ~
Cw Lo~%
C~ O
LU CY % Lo C ~
~ 10 U)
<o o 04 U-) CV)
~j z IT V-. V- CM -
C,, UY) () CID

a) ') CC) 7D ED). 0) CD r CM U')
oo
a: ZC
0
0) CD.
CD -J
0 < v: C ~ C vQ . U ~ C I.)--
0 Q 'oC rC) - 6 6C
F- I - a x
C/ (. m, 0 +~
CC) L-
M: LLM*) 0* CI r-Xr
C~ L6) Cf C
LUC~ I P.0
- 9
00 C. coM- cc0,a, - aVe

<L or~C X OCY
xci -
a. N~i up. m-
-J -o coi mu C13
co O3CYz
L
mm
r CC00+ t x ujU amm
x
I :;uCX
Y n4LZy~
clU-
V. RANKING OF FENDER SYSTEM MECHANISMS
Commonly available fenders from manufacturers of fender systems operate

on the basis of one or more mechanisms which determine the way An which the
fender stores energy and deflects under loading. These mechanisms are commonly:
a. Axial compression
b. Transverse compression
c. Transverse shear
d. Pneumatic bag compression
e. Foam-filled bag compression
These different mechanisms result in considerable differences in the basic

performance characteristics of the individual fender types. The ranking of
energy-absorbing mechanisms takes on a significantly different importance
depending on the measure of merit or goal which is established for the ranking
process. Since a designer is concerned with many variables such as fender
energy absorption, reaction load, deflection, relative system costs, system
durability, etc., the ranking of fender mechanisms will vary in accordance
with his selected criteria. For purposes of this discussion, only two measures
of merit are considered: energy absorption capability and reaction load as a
function of deflection. These measures of merit are generally diametrically
opposed.From a design point of view, one would like maximum energy absorption
with minimum reaction load generation for a given deflection. In ranking the
candidate mechanisms, the first approach considers which mechanisms absorbed
the most energy for a given deflection with reaction load not a factor. The
second viewpoint considers which mechanisms resulted in the least reaction
load for a given deflection not considering energy absorption.
79
k -
II VII. PRELIMINARY FORMULATION OF THE FENDER/VESSEL
INTERACTION RESPONSE PROBLEM
The references included in Appendix A relative to the ship/fender
response problem have been designated by (**). These references approach
the dynamic response problem in various ways and to various depths. Of the
references cited in Appendix A, the "Dynamic Response of the Ship and the
Berthing Fender System after Impact," (37) included as Appendix B for
ready reference, was considered the most appropriate for further development.
The response problem formulation appears generalized enough to be
adapted to include the generic fender algorithms preliminarily developed
in Phase I work and hull, dock and berthing characterizations.
The essential task steps envisioned for Phase II efforts would include:
* Formulate the generalized equations of motion for the vessel/fender

dynamic interaction problem based on the approach identified in
Phase I work. This approach will consider fender performance
algorithms, local vessel stiffness, dock mass and stiffness, vessel
and berthing characteristics.
* Characterize vessel local hull or appendage stiffness.
Characterize dock stiffness and mass characteristics.
* Characterize hydrodynamic mass and damping for vessels considered.
* Computer code methodology.
* Validate results against existing experimental data.
Validate results against proposed test program.
It is envisioned that the first two task elements above would be based on
Phase I results, references (37, (32) and (33), the basic methodology for
the dynamic problem and studies related to local hull stiffnesses. Task 3
will be approached through a representative dock characterization for the
80
C--- .Ci
II
ship selected initially as part of the response problem. The hydrodynamic
mass and damping characteristics for this vessel would be investigated using
references (37), (20) and (75) in addition to other relevant sources of mass
n and damping information.
1 Itisassumed that computer coding of the dynamic equations of motion
and their bolution will require the significant Phase II effort. An initial
validation effort will include correlation between program results and any
known test results for which comparisons can be made. These will consider
the results in references (8), (62), (21), (26) and (3) but not be limited
to those references.
Actual test programs to be developed as part of task 7 would consider
validation of fender algorithms for large size generic fenders via static
_I or model testing since most data issued by manufacturers is based on extrapolation
Ij of small scale test data. This would be further developed as part of Phase II
efforts. In addition, test programs could include validation of response
I program results through small scale model testing. This also would be
developed further into Phase II efforts.
18
I8
t4
..........................................-
Silia
Im,I
:I
Appendix A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1A-1
Bibliography
1. Ackroyd, J., "Why Fender? What Fender?" International Dredging & Port
S Construction, January 1981. This article examines reasons why port authorities
and shipowners fit their structures and vessels with expensive fendering systems,
at a time when costs are rising rapidly and every kind of economy is being
exercised.
2. Atack, D.C., Kohring, W., "Berthing and Mooring Systems for Mammoth Ships." Dock
and Harbor Authority, October 1970.
*3. Balfour, J.S., Feben, J.C., et al, "Fendering Requirements/Design Fender Impact
y Criteria." Ports '80, 1980. The paper describes the collection and analysis of
3 berthing impact energy records from the BP jetties in the 6th Petroleum Harbor,
Rotterdam. It shows that a simple logarithmic transformation of these records
yields a distribution that can be extrapolated to predict extreme probability
values. Records for several groups of fully and part laden oil tankers are
analyzed.
*4. Beach, R.L., Davis, N.B., "Specialized Fender Sys:ems Requirements and Design."
SPorts '80, ASCE, May 1980. Case studies are presented for the berthing of large
vessels with low allowable reaction pressure loads. The case studies include
i specific design cases where large floating foam-filled or pneumatic fenders and
floating donut fenders have been utilized. Fender selection, spacing, rigging
and operational experience are detailed. These cases are not meant to summarize
all types of standard dock fendering designs, but'to instead provide an analysis
of several unique and specialized designs.
5. Bijlsma, T.J., "Super Fenders for Super Tankers." Dock and Harbor Authority,
April 1970.
**6. Blok, J.J., Dekker, J.N., "On Hydrodynamic Aspects of Ship Collision with Rigid or
SNon-Rigid Structures." Offshore Technology Conference 3664, April 1979. ?*,el
test data to support the design of fendering systems is presented.
k7. Broersma, G., ?dddelbiik, C.G., "Middlebiik Fender." Naval Engineers Journal,
April 1971.
*8. Brolsma, J.U., Hirs, J.A. et al, "Qn Fender Design and Berthing Velocities."
1 .4th International Navigation Congress, 1977. Two aspects of fender design are
emphasized in this paper, calculation of energy to be absorbed by the fender, and
berthing velocities. Measurements of berthing velocities at Europoort, Rotterdam
II are included.
9. Brolsma, J.U., "Docking and M~oring of a VLCC Inside a Harbor." Symposium on

j Shiphandling, Netherlands Ship Mbdel Basin, 1973. The paper discusses two
electronic navigation devices designed to assist in the berthing of VLCC's, the
shore-based jetty approach speed system and the ship-based Sonar Dopplar System.
II.0. Brunn, P., "Alternative to Conventional Fendering." Norwegian Institute of

Technology, April 1979. The paper examine4i.zhe concepts of forced fendering and
recoiling versus non-recoiling fenders. Arguments for and against forced
A-2
I fendering systems are presented. The Irving marine (non-recoiling) fender is
highlighted.
ili Brunn, P., Wharves and Ouays." (Chapter from the Book - Port Engineering.) Gulf
Publishing Company, 1976. This book is a basic research tool for the designer of
ports and port structures. Chapter subheadings include: Berthing and Mboring
"Forces on Structures; Fenders; and Dolphins. The book contains excellent
diagrams of various port structures.
12 Carlin, B., Ibrley, C, et al, "Offshore Fender Systems." Det Norske Veritas,
1 November 1977. The stated objective of this study was to give recommendations
for the protection of offshore structures, covering both design criteria and
possible fendering systems. The scope of the work covers shipping in the North
j Sea in general and shipping in the vicinity of offshore installations in
particular. An evaluation of relevant design criteria included looking into
collision mechanism and establishing force deflection and energy deflection curves
for ships and platfcrms. A literature survey of fendering systems was also
performed.
3. Chapman, P.O., "Comparative Tests of Boat Fenders." 1961, USCG, Baltimore,

Maryland.
4. Davies, I.L., "A Method for the Determination of the Reaction Forces and
Structural Damage Arising in Ship Collisions." EUR 237 European Offshore
Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, October 1980.
1'5. Dent, G.E., Saurin, B.F., "Tanker Terminals, Berthing Structures." Conference on
Tanker and Bulk Carrier Terminals, Institute of Civil Engineers, November 13,
1969.
16. Dent, G.E., "Berthing Structures for Large Oil Tankers." Structural Engineer,
February 1964.
17. de Oliveira, J.G., "Simple Methods of Estimating the Energy Absorption Capability
of Steel Tubular Members Used in Offshore Structures." University of Trondheim,
I Norwegian Institute of TecLnology, August 1979.
"*18. Derucher, K.N., Heins, C.P., "State of the Art Bridge Protective Systems and
I Devices."
as an aid in
Uniersity of Maryland/USCG,
the design of bridge protective
1979. This 320 page report is intended
systems and devices. The report
includes; (1) factors considered in design and type of systems used; (2)
advantages and disadvantages of seven types of fendering systems; (3) material
I properties of fendering systems; (4) design parametsr; (5) hand calculation and
computer application; and (6) conclusions and recommendations of state of the art
study.
I'. Drelicharz, J.A., "Design, Construction atid Installation of the Rich Ship's
Fendering System at Naval Installations." CEL, February 1971.
*I. Endo, H., "Motions of a Vessel M'ored Near Vertical Walls and With Limited Under-
Keel Clearance." University of Hawaii, Hay 1981. The purpose of this study is
I to develop a method for computing the hydrodynamic characteristics of and the wave
A-3-
i fI.ill l~ii ~ lini ...

i ! excitation on a three-dimensional vessel of arbitrary shape floating freely in
shallow water and near two semi-infinite vertical walls placed at right angle to
each other.
*,1. Fontijn, H.L., "Berthing of a Ship to a Jetty." Journal of Waterway Port Coastal
zind Ocean Division, May 1980. This paper presents a mathematical model
describing the behavior of a ship berthing to a Jetty (or similar facility) and
predicting the fender loads in a theoretical way, in which all essential features
are maintained and that produces quantitative results of sufficient accuracy for
practical applications. To this end, use is made of the so-called "impulse
response function (IRF)" technique, which has as the restriction that the ship-
fluid system is supposed to be linear and time invarient.
12. Fontijn, H.L., "The Berthing Ship Problem: Forces on Berthing Structures from
1boring Ships." Delft University of Technology, 1978.
3. Ford, D.B., Young, B.O., Waler, G.W., "Hi-Dro Cushion Camel - A New Floating
Fender Concept." Conference on Coastal Engineering, London, September 1968.
S. Fumes, 0., Amdahl, J., "Computer Simulation Study of Offshore Collisions and
Analysis of Ship-Platform Impacts." Brazil Offshore 1979. The paper outlines
a method to evaluate the probability of collisions between ships and fixed
offshore installations by making use o! simulation techniques. The greater
benefit of the method is to compare various alternatives by assessing the relative
frequencies of collision. A total risk assessment was not feasible for the time
being due to the scarcity of data concerning collision events. In brder to
I j account for the influence of both human failures as well as actions taken to avoid
collisions, the model was being linked to an interactive. simulation unit
developed presently by DnV.
I.
s... Girgrah, M., "Practical Aspects of Dock Fender Design." 24th International
Navigation Congress, 1977. The author reviews briefly the first stage of dock
fender design relating to energy computation, and discusses, in some detail,
practical aspects of fender system design.
j. Goulston, G., "Ikasured Berthing Energies and Use of Control Instrumentation."

NATO Conference on Berthing and ?boring of Ships, 1973.
"Han, E., Priori, G., et al, "Improved Fender Systems for Shallow and Deep Draft
Berths, Phase I." Dravo Van Houten/Marad, June 1976. This report was written
with port administrators and operators in mind. The purpose of the study was to
examine the nany types of fender damage and interrelated causes oi damage and then
to rank the problems in terms of relative importance. The ultimate objective of
the Phase I report was to develop apecific design objectives which are to be used
as the basis for specifications and type plans for possible solutions as part of
* - the future Phase IT study.
*218. Heins, C.P., Derucher, K.N., "Force Interaction of Piers, Wharves and Fenders."
*
I Journal of Civil Engineering Design, 1979.
ship impact forces against
been prepared, relating
interactive
the
pilings.
interaction of
The paper discusses the problem of
a
A series of design charts have
series of vertical pilings and
associated horizontal whalers and their respective stiffnesses.
A-4
P-. . * ~. .
I
f*29. HJelde, E., Nottveit, A., et al, "Impacts and Collisions offshore. Progress
Report No. 2: Pilot Tests with Pendulum Impacts on Fendered/Unfendered Concrete
Cylinders." Det Norske Veritas, February 1978. The report describes a pilot
study to the main experimental investigations described as Part Project No. 5 in
the main project "Impacts and Collisions Offshore." Two concrete cylindrical
shells have been tested with a local radial impact load with and without
fendering, in order to obtain early information about dynamic responses and the
relationship between input energy and impact loads. Prior to the impact tests,
the models had been used in another project, where they were tested to failure
under hydrostatic pressure. Thus, the "models" described in this report should
only be understood as "foundations" or suitable impact-receiving bodies for the
impact tests.
30. Holley, M.J., "Fendering for Structural Steel Dolphins." Hansen Holley and
Biggs, Cambridge, Mass. 1976.
31. Hysing, T., "Impacts and Collisions Offshore. Progress Report No. 4, Analysis of
Penetration of Hull." Dot Norske Veritas, July 1978. A theoretical calculation
model has been developed to determine the relationship between load and
penetration and the corresponding energy involved during indentation of the side
of a ship. The model is based on large plastic deformations and takes into
account the membrane tension stresses in the ship's side, deck and bottom and the
plastic buckling load of the deck, bottom and transverse frames.
32. Kawakami, M., Nobukawa, H., et al, "On the Required Function of Fender Considering
of Prevention of Damage of Ship Side Structure." ftiroshima University, 1976.
33. Kawakami, M., Nobukawa, H., et al, "On the Relations of Fende- to Strength of Ship
Side Structure." Hiroshima University, 1975.
34. Khanna, J., Bict, C., "Soft Mooring Systems at Exposed Terminals." ASCE Port 77
Specialty Conference, Long Beach, California.
35. Kikutani, H., "Some Requirements for the Design of Sea-Berths from the View-Point
of Ship Handling." 24th International Navigation Ccngress, 1977. As indicated
in the title, the paper analyzes the problems associated with designing sea-berths
from the view-point of tanker maneuvering and handling. After surveying ship
captains and berth owners on the subject of tanker berthing, the authors present
some sea-berth design requirements.
.36. Ko'an, B., "Fender System Requirements at Open-Sea Berths." Ports '80, ASCE, May,
1980. This paper discusses the special fender design requirements necessitated
by the oscillations of moored ships at offshore terminals. E:amples of energy
absorption and load deflection curves are given for breasting dolphins.
7. Komatsu, S., Salman, A.H., "Dynamic Response of the Ship and the Berthing Fender
System After Impact." Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Proceedings, 1972.
This paper describes a method of analysis for evaluating the portion of ship
kinetic energy and impact force transmitted to a berthing structure provided with
fenders which have linear or nonlinear spring constant. In the analysis the
dynamic responses of the ship, fender and berthing structure, after impact, are
considered, and derived equations for the selection of different parameters needed
S~A-5
Ji | for
the the solutions
virtual of the
mass of the dynamic
ship, inequations are included.and These
both translational are comprised
rotational motion, of
in
addition to the time interval required for the solutions of the motion equations
by numerical integration methods.
**38. Komatsu, S., Salman, A.B., "Generalized thod for Designing Petractable Fender
Systems." Japan Society of Civil Engineers, April 1971, This paper describes a
generalized method for designing the retractable fenders system. The presented
tI hypothetical method of design is based on the mathematical analysis of the
frictional resistance created during retraction, between the fender frame and both
the ship hull and the sliding surface of the supporting brackets. In the design
procedure included herein, a particular attention is directed to the influence of
SI I the combined dynamic behavior of the system, including the berthing ship, the
fender and the marine structure.
39. Lackner, E., Wirsbitzki, B., "Fendering for Bulk Carrier Ports and Container
Terminals." 6th International Harbor Congress, May 12-18, 1974.
40. 1Larsen, C.M., Engseth, A., "Ship Collision and Fendering of Offshore Concrete
Structures." European Offshore Petroleum Conference and Exhibition, October
1978. The first part of this paper discusses the risk of collision between
offshore platforms and ships, and how that risk might be taken into consideration
when designing a platform. Part 2 describes a fender proposal for protecting a
deep water concrete platform.
41. Laura, P.A.A., Nava, L.C., "Economic Device for Protecting Bridge Piers Against
Ship Collisions." Ocean Engineering, 1981. This brief technical note describes
a floating energy-absorbing device designed to protect bridge piers. It consists
of a floating V-shaped system of concrete barges.
*42. Lean, G.H., "Subharmonic ?btions of Moored Ships Subjected to Wave Action."
t43. Lee, T.T., "Biological and Physical Deterioration of Timber Fender Systems."
University of Hawaii, June 1981. Biological deterioration and mechanical damage
by berthing and mooring ships have significant effects on energy-absorption
capabilities of conventional timber fender piles. This paper presents
significant findings of on-site investigations and subsequent technical and
economical analyses of existing fender systems at ten representative Naval
stations and shipyards on both west and east costs. Special emphasis is placed on
* .the effects of biological and physical deterioration on the cost effectiveness of
approximately 200,000 linear feet of fender systems studied.
-44. Lee, T.T., "Hydraulic-Pneumatic Floating Fender - Additional In-Service Tests,

Second Series." CEL, March 1967. This report summarizes the results of in-
"service tests of two experimental hydraulic-pneumatic floating fenders in the
] harbor of San Diego, California. The test period was from June 1965 to June
1966. A previous series of tests, reported by Lee (1965a and 1966a), covered a
19-month period - 14 months in a well-protected harbor (Port Hueneme, California)
and then 5 months in a moderately exposed harbor (San Diego). Full-scale
.. measurements of 35 berthing impacts at Port Hueneme were also reported. It was
concluded that the energy-absorption capacity of the fender is adequate for a
well-protected harbor and that the fenders provided satisfactory service during
"A-6
the preliminary tests at San Diego. Rowever, the following shortcomings were
listed and have existed since the initial tests: (1) high initial and maintenance
costs, (2) excessive distance (up to 5 feet) between moored ship and wharf face
J due to the width of fender, and (3) high rebound forces resulting from the use of
pneumatic rubber bags on the test fenders.
11*45. Lee, T.T., "Hydraulic-Pneumiatic Floating Fender - Additional In-Service Tests,
First Series." CEL, March 1966. Tests of two experimental hydraulic-pneumatic
floating fenders, first in a well-protected harbor (Port Hueneme) and then in a
relatively exposed harbor (San Diego), are described. Each fender consists of a
50-foot long bulkhead fronted by two air-filled and two water-filled rubber
bags. Also included is information to aid engineers in increasing the energy-
absorption capacity of existing dock fender systems.
*46. Lee, T.T., "Review of 'Report on the Effective Fender Systems in European
Countries', by Risseleda and Van Lookern Campagne." CEL, October 1965. With
the purpose of providing improved fenders for U.S. Navy used in berthing ships up
to 20,000 tons, a Navy-contracted report by Risselada and Van Lookeren Calmpagne of
the Netherlands on effective fender systems in European countries is digested and
reviewed. Additional material has been added by the reviewer to provide a more
useful treatment of the subject of European fendering systems. This report is
intended as a supplement to NCEL Technical Report R-312, "A Study of Effective
Fender Systems for Navy Piers and Wharves," issued March 1965. Significant
European systems are described, with emphasis on systems attached to docks.
i ii [Civilh
47. Lee, T.T., "Imarine Fender." Department of the Naly, Patent Appl. April f965.
pElngineerin Laboratoy TeanDical. Note Ner, June 1963.n Thshworkcoins part
*48. Lee, T.T., "A Study of Effective Fender Systems for Navy Piers and Wharves."
i II 'Ilsted andhave exised sincethe inita-?et:()hihiiilan aneac
Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Technical Report R-312, March 1965. The
i I ==
report
_-'L
is intended to assist engineers in the selection of effective and
economical fenders. Search of literature, consultation with authorities, field
,mn
inspection and research, lead to the conclusions that, for berthing ships of up to
20,000 tons displacement, the most effective and economical fender systems for
Navy docks are: (1) for sheltered harbors, a modified retractable system; (2) for
unsheltered harbors, standard greenheart timber pile with rubber bearing block at
deck level; and (3) for dock corners generally, the Raykin (rubber-in-shaer)
system. Drawings and specifications for the three recommended fendering systems
are included. Also included are: (1) comments by authorities in the field of
marine fendering, (2) case histories, (3) load transmission and energy-absorption
data, and (4) cost of construction and maintenance.
*49. Lee, T.T., "A Hydraulic-Penumatic Floating Fender." Naval Civil Engineering
Laboratory, Technical Report R-334, February 1965. The report is intended to
provide technical information and data to engineers and designers who are
* concerned with an effective increase in the energy-absorption capacity of existing
fender systems. In-service tests of two 50-foot long floating fenders (each a
bulkhead fronted by two water-filled and two air-filled bags) indicate that they
* meet the requirements of reducing damage to piers, ship-hulls and pier. fenders,
particularly in protected harbors with only moderate swell and wind.
*50* Lee, T.T., "Evaluation of a Hydro-Pneumatic Floating Fender or Camel." Naval
S~I!
'I'' .of an effort to develop a family of camels (floating fenders) which will be lower
in combined first cost and maintenance costs than existing fenders and will reduce
damage to ship-hulls or to pier fender systems. The performance in Port Hueneme
(California) Harbor of a pair of 50-foot long hydro-pneumatic camels has been
studied over a four-month period.
151. Lee, T.T., "Design Criteria Recommended for Marine Fender Systems." Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory. This paper summarizes the world-wide effectiveness of
marine-fender systems. A design criteria is recommended as a result of an
I extensive research and development program executed at the U.S. Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory, Port Hueneme, California, under the sponsorship of Naval
Facilities Engineering Command. Pertinent information includes analytical
treatment and experimental investigation of the effects of berthing impact on the
design of berthing structures; definition, function, and types of fender
systems; advantage and disadvantages of various fender systems, cost-
effectiveness and design procedures for different marine environment and exposure
conditions. The energy absorption characteristics, berthing velocity, and
virtual mass of ship are discussed in detail.
'2. Li, S-T, Ramakrishnan, V., "Ultimate Energy Design of Prestressed Concrete Fender
Piling." ASCE, Journal of Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering Division,
November 1971. This article examines the advantages of lightweight, prestressed
concrete fender piling over other types of marine fender materials. Energy
absorbing capacity, ultimate energy design and optimum stress are among the
factors analyzed.
1 3. March, F.A., Davis, N.B., "Floating Donut Fendering System." Coastal

Engineering, 1979. A new dock fendering system with special application in
Im_ remote areas and areas of large water level variation is described. The system
is based on the use of a large floating Donut fender which rides up and down on a
central driven steel piling. A summary of general design requirements for dock
fendering systems is presented, followed by a description of Donut fender
construction and features.
**54. Oortmerssen, G., "Berthing of a Large Tanker to a Jetty." Offshore Technology
Conference, May 1974. A method to describe the berthing maneuver of a large
tanker to a jetty is presented. The method, which results in the perdiction of
maximum deflection of and maximum load in a dolphin, is based on an equation of
motion with a constant added mass coefficient and zero damping. Data are
* presented on the added mass and damping of large tankers in shallow water.
55. Ostenfeld, C. et al, "Ship Collisions Against Bridge Piers." Offshore Technology
Conference Proceedings 1975, 2252.
56. Petersen, M.J., Pedersen, P.T., "Collisions Between Ships and Offshore
Platforms." Offshore Technology Conference, May 1981.
57. Fiaseckyj, P.J., "State of the Art of Fender Design." 24th International
Navigation Congress, 1977. The author is a technical consultant to Mitsubishi
* International Corporation for "Seibu" Dock Fender in North America. In this paper
he reviews three systems, the ship (docking operation), the fender (design and
spacing), and the berthing structure.
A-4
C -
58. Powell, R.G., Carle, R.B., "The Use of Hydraulic Cushioning in the Docking of
Super Tankers." Offshore Technology Conference, May 1972.
1*59. Ouinn, A., "Design and Construction of Ports and Marine Structures." McGraw-
Hill, 1976. An extremely valuable source of fendering performance data. The
chapter includes numerous tables with load-deflection, energy absorption and
iI reaction data, and diagrams depicting specific brand-name fenders.
60. Reese, L.C., O'Neill, M.W., et al, "Rational Design Concept for Breasting
Dolphins." ASCE Journal of Waterways and Harbor Division, May 1970. A single
freestanding tubular pile-dolphin forms the basis of the design concept examined
in this article. The authors present an informative discussion of breasting
absorption capabilities, and include a case study as an example problem to
illustrate their design concepts.
**61. Seidl, L.H., "A System for the Analysis of the Dynamics of Vessels and Platforms
Moored Offshore." Brazil Offshore 1981 International Symposium, September
1981. A systematic approach for the numerical simulation, of the behavior of
* vessels or platforms moored offshore is presented. The paper illustrates how
"different analytical techniques are used in various applications. Among the
applications discussed are those of vessels moored to conventional pier-type
offshore loading terminals, vessels or platforms moored to offshore multi-point
moorings and finally single point moorings. The theoretical background for each
of the analyses is presented first. The method of treating the various components
of the mooring system as well as the -assessment of the nonlinear, mooring
restoration function for the time-domain analyses Is then outlined.
.*62. Seidl, L.H., Lee, T.T., "Correlation between Theoretical and Experimental Values
of ?btions and Moring Forces of Ships Mbored at a Sea Berth." 3rd International
Ocean Development Conference, Tokyo, 1975.
63. Surin, B.F. "Berthing Forces of Large Tarkers." 6th World Petroleum Congress
1963, Frankfurt, Section VII, Paper 10.
64. Svendsen, I.A., "Measurement of Impact Energies on Fenders." Dock and Harbor
Authority, September 1970.
65. Svendsen, !.A., Jensen, J.V., "Form and Dimensions of Fender Front Structures."
Dock and Harbor Authority, June 1970. This article discusses the required
dimensions the front structure of a fender must have to avoid the fender causing
plastic deformations in the side of a ship. Diagrams for tankers and bulk
carriers are presented from which the dimensions of the fender front can be
determined when the fender force and the size of the ship is known.
**66. Takagi, M., Shimomura, Y., et al, "Design of Mooring System of Vessels Inside
Breakwater." Ocean Engineering, 1981. A method of simulation calculation for a
mooring system of vessels inside a breakwater is illustrated. Using a simulation
program based on the above method, a test design for a mooring system for oil-
storage vessels of total 5.6 million kiloliters rzas conducted. In order to obtain
data for the simulation program, various experiments such as wind tunnel tests to
test wind resistance, and wave tank tests to test the waves transmitted through or
over the breakwater, and the motions of vessels inside the breakwater due to
A-9
I|
waves, were conducted. Some proposals concerning design criteria and safety
* factors are presented. Finally, the results of the test design under estimated
sea and weather conditions are shown, and the design is concluded to be both
technically and economically feasible.
67. Tam,
1971, W.A.,
April "Dynamic
SII
1971. lboring and Fendering System." Offshore Technology Conference
68. Terrell, M., "A New Look at Fendering Systems." Dock and Harbor Authority, .y
1972.
69. Thoresen, C.A., Torset, O.P., "Fenders for Offshore Structures." 24th
International Navigation Congress, 1977. The design of fender systems for fixed
offshore structures and the influence of collision potential between ship and
structure.
"70. Thorn, B.J., "Engineering and Economic Evaluation of Floating Fender Concepts."
CEL, June 1966. This report contains an engineering and economical evaluation of
* eight different concepts of floating fenders to be con- idered for Navy docks.
The engineering aspects involve discussion of different design criteria, such as
vessel approach velocities, acceptable lateral dock loads, hull loads and stresses
in structural timber. A description of the dynamics of a berthing ship is given,
including a discussion of the various energy correction coefficients to be
used. The hydrodynamic mass coefficient is especially emphasized. The results
obtained on this coefficient by many different investigators are summarized,
showing that large unexplained discrepancies exist.
'1. Toppler, J.F., Harris, H.R.. Weiersma, J., "Planning and Design of Fixed Berth
Structures for 300,000 to 500,000 DWT Tankers." Offshore Technology Conference,
May 1972.
**72. Van Orrschot, J.H., "Subharmonic Components in Hawser and Fender Forces."
Coastal Engineering, 1976. Forces in mooring lines and fenders of a moored
vessel exposed to waves have a mixed harmonic and a subbarmonic character. Thne
subharmonic oscillations, with periods well beyond the range of wave periods, may
cause forces that are as large as, or even larger than the forces associated with
the harmonic oscillations. The origins of the subharmonic oscillations are
discussed and it is shown that in model testing, the correct reproduction of both
the mooring arrangement and the irregular wave motion is essential.
3. Vasco Costa, F., "Dynamics oi Berthing Impacts." NATO Advanced Study Institute
on Analytical Treatment of Problems in the Berthing and Mboring of Ships, Nay
1973. The analytic approach presented in this paper is intended to help naval
architects with the design of ship's hulls, engineers with the selection of
fenders and the evaluation of the forces on which to base the design of berthing
structures, and, finally, to help masters and pilot choose berthing procedures
less likely to go wrong.
74. Vasco Costa, F., "Fenders as Energy Dissipators." Dock & Harbor Authority,
September 1979. The author's purpose in writing the article was to point out the
advantages of developing new types of fender systems that dissipate energy instead
of giving it back to the ship.
A-10
1^5. Vasco Costa, F., "Mechanics of Impact and Evaluation of the Hydrodynamic Mass,
Analytic Study of the Problem of Berthing." July 1965.
]6. Vasco Costa, F., "Shipping Ropes as Energy Absorbers." Dock & Harbor Authority,
- October 1978 and February 1979.
f7. Vasco Costa F., "The Berthing Ship, the Effect of Impact on the Design of Fenders
I and Other Structures." The Dock & Harbor Authority, May, June and July, 1964.
8. Vine, A.C., "Advanced Marine Technology. Handling and Transfer at Sea

Section." Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, ONR, December 1974.
"79. Young, R.A., "Marine Fender Specifications." Ports '80, ASCE, May 1980. This
paper examines the various parameters and characteristics which can be specified
for a marine fender system. These factors include vessel size range and type,
type of installation, fender size and arrangement, energy, reaction, deflection,
hull pressure, elastomeric material, etc.
'80. "Cambridge Fender." Tanker and Bulk Carrier, March 1969. A brief description
of the Cambridge fender including its energy absorption capabilities.
*81. "Dunlop Oil and Marine Division Fender Manual." Dunlop Oil and Marine
Division. This very complete manual describes in detail each of Dunlop's fender
types. Performance data includes energy absorption, load-deflection and the
manual provides charts, diagrams and tables describing the characteristics of
Dunlop Fendering systems.
-" Engineering Data on Duramax Commercial Fenders, Johnson Marine Fender
Catalog." Johnson Rubber Company, January 1982. Included in this package is a
description of Johnson's commercial bumpers and marine products in general.
Detailed information on Johnson's rubber fender systems is provided, including
energy absorption, deflection and reaction data. This booklet is a valucble
source of engineering data.
83. "Fender Manufacturers - Expanding Range and Capacity." Cargo Systems

International, July 1980. The results of a Cargo Systems survey of the worldwide
fender market are presented. Only fourteen fender manufacturers responded; their
products and capabilities are briefly summarized.
"Fender Selection Guide." Intertrade Industries, Ltd. Intertrade produces the

Ship Guardian foam-filled fender. The company's brochure emphasizes the
importance of guidelines for selecting fender systems. Energy absorption,
reaction force, and standoff are discussed.
*85. "Fender System - Laid on the Line." Cargo Systems International, February
1980. A brief article describing Bridgestone's latest fender type - the Cell
Shock Absorber; performance curves are included.
"4. "Fenders for Marine Structures and Ships." International Dredging and Port
Construction, January 1981.
,P7. "General Tire Marine Fender Guide." General Tire & Rubber Company. This
A-lI
pamphlet describes General Tire's marine fender systems. Two tables depicting
energy deflection curve and load deflection curve are included.
i5. "Heavy Duty Fendering." Tanker & Bulk Carrier, February 1973.
i 89. "Lord Kinematics Vibration/Shock/Noise Control Products." Lord Kinematics, Lord

"Corporation, 1978.
90. "Marine Fenders - Becoming an Essential Insurance Against Damage." Cargo Systems
International, March 1979. A brief article examining the design and selection of
marine fender systems, with emphasis on the changing requirements for fenders.
Some of the fender types discussed include pneumatic, rubber, foam, gravity and
pile systems.
i*1 "Marine Fenders Engineering Data." Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. This fender
manual is very detailed and informative. It is divided into chapters dealing with
descriptions of Goodyear's product line, applications, engineering calculations
and performance data, rubber compounds and the marine hardware used in
installation. An extremely useful research tool.
,5,. "Ybrse Fendering Products." Mbrse Chain, Borg Warner, 1982.
"Nordell Hydrocarbon Rubber, Engineering Properties and Applications." DuPont

Company, Elastomer Chemicals Department.
If "Offshore boring Fenders for ULCC's." Marine Engirieers Review, October 1973.
95. "Pier Designs for the Fleets of the 1990's and Beyond. Proceedings of a Workshop
Sponsored by CEL." CEL, February 1981. The workshop, sp6nsored by NAVFAC/CEL,
was held in order to obtain a cross-section of fleet requirements, problem areas,
priorities, and ideas to aid in the development and evaluation of improved pier
design concepts. The Proceedings include the findings and long and short range
recommendations of the workshop.
-96. "Ravkin Marine Dock Fendering." General Tire & Rubber Company, Engineered
Construction Products.
*97. "Regal Marine Products." Regal Tool & Rubber Co., 1979. Regal's marine
vroducts include boat bumpers, sub strips and shock cells, among others. This
package provides basic information on the products with details on performance
data.
"Rubber
' Fendering Reduces Damage to Vessels and Piers." Maritime Reporter, July
1981. A brief article describing the advantages of rubber fender systems, their
energy absorption capabilities and reaction loads.
"- "Samson Ocean Systems Marine Products." Samson Ocean Systems, Inc., November
1976. Short brochures and a descriptive paper on non-pneumatic fenders and
flotation devices.
:100. .Seaward harine Fenders." Seaward International, Inc., May 1977.
A-12
I dim"
I l"Seibu Dock Fenders." Seibu Polymer Chemical Co., Ltd., 1981. Seibu
manufactures rubber fenders for a wide variety of marine applications. Seibu's
manual is a comprehensive guide to the company's product line. It includes
detailed performance data, photographs and diagrams.
('02. "Sumitomo Rubber Fenders." Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. Brief descriptions
of Sumitomo's full line of fenders, including pneumatic, rotary and rubber V-type
and D-type fenders.
13. "Survey of Naval Port Fender Systems." VSE Corporation/CEL, January 1980. A
. . survey of Navy pier fender systems was conducted to evaluate the need for an RDT&E
program leading to improved fender systems. Eighteen major activities were
surveyed by mail and on-site visits were made to activities in San Diego and
Norfolk. Among other problems, the survey revealed poor to fair conditions for
pier fender systems, increasing costs and declining quality of timber materials.
4. "Survey of Naval Port Fender Systems. Berthing of Submarines, Aircraft Carriers,

Hydrofoils and Surface Effect Ships." VSE Corporation/CEL, June 1980. This
_ -survey is a follow-on to the overall survey of naval port fender systems conducted
from May 1979 to January 1980. This present survey provides information, data,
conclusions and recommendations concerning fender systems and camels used for
submarine berthing, aircraft carrier berthing, and berthing of hydrofoils and
surface effect ships.
*105. "Technical Manuals for Oreco Protective
Systems." Oreco III, Inc., January
- 1982. Oreco III manufactures boat and offshore -platform bumpers of thi donut
. type. Their brochure gives a brief description of their product.
.. _06'he Irving Marine Fender, Non-recoiling." Marine Aluminum Aanensen and Co., A/S
Hawgesund, Norway.
*107. "Uniroyal Marine Fendering Systems." Uniroyal, Inc. Uniroyal produces primarily
rubber fenders, small line of pneumatic. This comprehensive fendering manual
includes detailed descriptions of and extensive performance data for Uniroyal's
line of rubber fenders. Also included are results of full-scale testing, rubber
-I compound specifications and descriptions of marine hardware for installation.
_108. "Vredestein Industrial Products in Building, Dredging, Marine and Offshore."
Vredestein Building/Dredging/Marine, 1981. Vredestein's marine manual reflects
the varied character of the company. It includes detailed descriptions of and
performance data for Vredestein's rubber dock fenders as well as for dredging and
sealing equipment.
" "Yokohama Pneumatic Rubber Fenders." Yokohama P ibber Co. Ltd., 1980. A
comprehensive manual describing Yokohama's line of pneumatic rubber fenders. The
.. manual contains photographs and diagrams of the fenders plus numerous tables and
figures depicting performance data.
SDra m1
A-13
Appendix B
"1DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE SHIP AND THE BERTHING

FENDER SYSTEM AFTER IMPACT"
/11-i
__ ___a__ __:~
,B-
S~~111 i
PROC. OF JSCE,
11 No. 200. APRIL 1972
DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE SHIP AND THE BERTHING

I, FENDER SYSTEM AFTER IMPACT
By Sadao KOMAtsu* and Abdel Hamid SALMAYN"
where AfM=virtual .mass of the ship,

ABSTRACT 19 =virtual moment of inertia about the
C) vertical axis through the ship's cen.
This paper describes a mothod analysis for ter of gravity.
evaluating the portion of ship kinetic energy and V@ =velocity of translation,
impact force transmitted to a berthing structure 'a =angular velocity.
provided with fenders which have linear or non-
linear spring constants. In the analysis, present. (2) The Effective Energy for Fender System
ed herein,4 the dynamic responses of the ship, IDsg
fender and -berthing structure, after impact, are During berthing the kinetic energy of the ship
considered, and derived equations for the selec. may be dissipated in several ways, among which
tion of different parameters needed for the solu. are the foilowing:
tions of the dynamic equation are included. i) Elastic deformation of the structure and
These are comprised of the virtual mass of the fender.
ship, in both translational and rotational motion, ii) Swinging of the ship due to yawing mo-
in addition to the time interval required for the tion.
solutions of the motion equations by numerical iii) Heeling of the ship due to rolling motion.
integration methods. iv) Elastic deformation of the ship's hull.
-v) Piling of the water trapped between the
1. INTRODUCTION ship's hull and the face of the berthing
structure. (This occurs in the case of a
Since the size of ships, particularly tankers, long closed structure.)
has increased in recent years, the design of off- Designers who are involved with marine struc.
shore berthing structures has become more -m- tures design are interested in the portion of
portant. One of the prime difficulties facing de. energy indicated by i) which is called the effec.
signers is the evaluation of the portion of .thip tive energy (E&). The problem of determining
kinetic energy and the impact force transmnirted the effective energy has been treated analytically
to each of the fenders and the berthing struco by several investigators. Michalosl),i) treated the
ture, especially structures provided with rubber. problem as one which had a single.degree.of-
like fenders, freedom dynamic motion, and considered the
theory of elastic impact in his analysis. The
(I ) The Kinetic Energy of the Berthing Ship judgement of others,'),, including the authors,
When a ship is approaching the berth with is that the ship's dynamic impact on the struc-
both translational and rotational motion, its kine. ture can be considered as a plastic impact, where,
tic energy is given by the following equation; upon impact, both the ship and the fender sys-
S1 1 tem move together as one combined mass. Vasco
S...... Costal) has derived a dynamic equation for esti-
mating the effective energy in which only the
Professor of Civil Engineering, Osaka Uni- portion of the energy dissipated by the yawing
versity. motion of the ship was considered. The rolling
Doctorate Course Student, Civil Engineer. motion and the influence of the fender system
ing Department, Osaka Univeasity (Eng. dynamic response were ignored. Hayashi and
Suez Canal Research Center, Egypt). Shirai#) have dealt with the problem as one which
S" B-2
* I
Sil|:iii i.
, ; itlFIIii|ml
112 S. KomAiSU and A. H. SALMAN
has three-degrees.of.freedom dynamic motion; still a problem, especially in the case of fenders
swaying, yawing, and rolling motion. The equa. with non.linear spring constants, and rubber.like
tions are valid i) for structures which are pro. fenders, which are in this class, are being used
vided with linear spring constants, such as steel extensively due to their large energy.absorbing
spring.like fenders. ii) for only one case of ap- characteristics.
proaching mode of berthing, in which the vector The authors have presented a method of analy.
of the approaching velocity is perpendicular. to sis based on the dynamic behavior of the system,
Sthe arm connecting the ship's center gravity with after collision, to evaluate the impact load and
the point of contact, the portion of the ship's kinetic energy trans-
Besides, the dynamic response of the fender mitted to the berthing structure and fenders
system -was ignored. The empirical equation for which includes fenders that have both linear and
determining the effective energy (&.) is also used non-linear spring constants. Also, to evaluate
for design purposes and is of the form the portion of the energy dissipated in the swing.
ing and rolling of the ship after impact.
I =CE, ...... (2)
where Be represents the approaching ship's kine-
tic energy and C is the reduction or dispersion 2. DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE SHIP
factor. Pages") suggests the following equation AND THE BERTHING STRUCTURE
for determining for C; AFTER THE FIRST IMPACT
C=11/(1+16a) ...... (3)
where a=d/l. L represents the ship's total length (1) General Mode of Berthinig
and d represents the distance between the ship's When the ship is approaching the berth under
center of gravity and the point of contact, mneas- its own power, it is angled in to make the first
ured parallel to the berthing face. Other design- contact with the fender system at a point near
ers have selected a value of C which varies from its bow or stern. This point of contact is always
0.2 to 1.0 depending on several factors, such as located in a horizontal plane higher than that
the mode of berthing operation, local hull de. passing through the ship's center of gravity.
formation, structure type, etc.2.S),-,?),) During this mode of berthing, the ship will
From published information it became clear undergb dynarmic motion which has three-degree.
!shat the portion of the energy transmitted sepa. of-freedom, namely; swaying, yawing, and roll.
rately to the berthing structure and fender is ing. The other motions, heaving, pitching and
- -
Mir. I Behaviour of ship after contact.
B-3
l - =:d
[ amkb~-'
lie Iml I ~ll le I [ I [[ [ [ [ [ [ [ ms l m || m m
JIDynamic Response of the Ship and the Berthing Fender Sstem After Inspac 113
ii
- ]sipation
surging are of little consequence in energy dis.
and may be neglected.
Mjj,.Px-Kz.X-px.,_
5 (
.M...Pr-Kr.Ya-,uy.....
(6)
(2) Equations of Motion In the previous equations the value of P is evalu-
I .sliding
In the following analysis it is assumed that no
contact is made along the fendei's surface.
Consider
under
the motion of the ship, as a *free dody
ated from the given load-deflection relation (P-
D) of the fender in question, The load is con-
sidered to be applied in small increments atsoci.
the action
"uof contact C, we of the load Pacting at the point
have; ated with the time interval. This P-D relation
is determined from statical analysis or tests. At
time , after the ship came in contact any time 1, the deflection D will be calculated
A any
--
At nwith
the fender system
withthefener
ystm, Fg.s 1,, is
Fig. its center
cnte of from the
and the deflection
displacement of the
of the point ofwhich
structure, contactwillC
gravity will sway in the direction of the acting e fl
load, to the position G. Then the ship will swing equal to;
about its vertical axis passing through C, an Dx=Xc-Xt " d
angle 0 due to the yawing motion and finally it D). = Y- Ys a
will roll about its horizontal longitudinal axis an ...... (7)
angle #. Denote the coordinates of the final In considering the second impact, the velocity
positions of G and C, with respect to the axes of the point of the first contact at separation,
X and Y, by (Xe, Ye) and (Xv, Y) respectively, magnitude and direction is needed, which will
The X and Y axes are taken parallel and nor. equal to;
mal to the surface of berthing respectively.
From the figure, the relation connecting the V 'Xc+'. 4 . .
fender system motion at C with the motion of at=tan-3 (Xc2'Ic1)j
G is; At time of contact a4=a, the angle that the ap-
keX=jtv+(r1+H0)cos(T+a) proaching velocity makes with Y-axis. a is con-
-Vc=P-(rI+H s) )I ...... (4) sidered positive when the velocity vector of V.
at G points towards the point of contact C.
the second order terms in the above equation, If the value of the spring constant of the ship
Is, 01 are neglected, hull at point of contact is available, the elastic
Consider the dynamic equilibrium of G, the deformation of the ship's hull can be evaluated.
following equations of motion will hold; Let Kx, SA. and pA define the spring constant,
deflection, and the damping coefficient of the
hull at point of contact respectively, then the
MsX.=-Px-Rw"x equation of deflection of the ship's hull, in P-
WMse-Pr-Rwr direction, will be;
ii) YAWING "SA(P-KA.SA./J.SA)....... (9)
&s-I=Pr.r.sin(T+a) ..... (5) In this case P will be function of (Xc, Yc, X,. Ys,
-Px.r.cos(r+*)-NZ S).. The initial conditions of motion, at time of
Siii) ROLLING contact, are;
I.. .=(Pr.cos 41-Px -sin O)H X 9= Y@=8=0=XV= Yo
-- - W H,.- N=X,= }8=SA=O.O
!C=.kCX= V,sin a ...... (10)
Px, Pr and Rw, Rywr are the components of the
!ender reaction and the water resistance, after kPe=kc=V cosa
:he ship came in contact with the fender system, 1#Xs=s=S5 0.0
"espectively. N1 and Ns denote the water resis. The solution of dynamic equations is carried out
a:nce to yawing a&-.rolling motions respectively, by numerical integration methods with the help
Hlowever, as the time of contact is very small, of the digital computer.
mater resistance, is safely allowed. Water resis.
ince is effective in the time between the first (3) Energy Equations
.nd the second impact, this will be discussed in The developed previous equations are valid as
letails in next paper. long as the ship being in contact with the fender.
As for the berthing structure response, the During this timt, the following energy equations
'ollowing eq. will hold; are valid;
B-4
114 S. KOMAMIU and A. H. SAXLMA
I. Part of the ship's kinetic energy trans. ii) Ship (+fender)

mitted to; k.,=-P/Mi
i) Fcnder Vj=iP.dDs in which P=K.r(Y,-Y,) and Y,.Y, are the dis.
) Scontact
I placements of the structure and the poin. of
respectively in Y.direction Fig. 1.
ii) Structure V K1 .dS. If, at the time of contact, the following condi.
[ I' tions exist;
iii) Ship's Hull V-- K.dS,,
5 Y,=Y =0.0
ei0t 4=0.0 3',=V1 ......
=effective energy E, and assuming p=0.0, the analytical solution of
II. Work done by the ship in rotational these eq. (13) is given by;
motions; Ys=A 3 sin pil+Aisin pit
i) Swinging W,= P.r.dO,

4 Ye=AiBssinpzt+A3Bssin
m ii)Heeling
i HThe W,,=','.do., ,V.
=S'I,, Y,,dY. = .KYI?
equations of energy become:
Ill. Part of energy induced in the system

vibration;
i) Ship a,%.=tM,(X',+Ye')................... -...... (16)
. =12K,[Ai(Ba-1)sin pit
2 2 +As(Bs-1) sin pi)ll
i) tuu-- M1 In the case of a very rigid berth, which offers
i-) Sru -- a large resistance, the deflection Y, will be very
small and, consequently, its ability for energy
. ....... (1)
..........
absorption will be very poor, and can, therefore,
The above equations should satisfy the con- be neglected. In this case all the portion of
servation of energy during berthing i.e. energy consumed in the swaying motion of the
il ,E,=-FMjV,'=Z,+Es,.+E, -I--- E+E + (2
...... (12) ship should be absorbed by the fenders.
Notations
T (4) Broadside Berthing ji.i=polar moment of inertia about
If the motion of the ship during the berthing the longitudinal axis (1-1)
operation is mainly governed by tugboats, as is passing through the C.G.
always the case with the large ships, the ship s..i=polar moment of inertia about
can make contact with the berthing structure the vertical axis (2-2) pass-
entirely broadside. In this casc the ship will ing through the C.G.
undergo dynamic motion which has two.degree Mi=the effective mass of the
of.freedom; swaying and rolling, and terms con- structure.
taining OPin equations (5) and (11) with vanish. M,=the virtual mass of the ship
If the energy dissipated by rolling motion is while swaying.
neglected for safety, then the fender system P=the ship acting load.
will be designed to absorb all of the kinetic H, Ri=the vertical distances between
energy of the ship, which is the case when C= the C.G. and the point of con.
1.0 in equation (2). This mode of berthing is tact and the reta.center re-
considered ideal as the ship impact load will be spectively.
. uniformly distributed on the structurell). r=the distance from the C.G. to
If we assume that the berthing structure is the point of contact.
provided with a fender which has a linear spring w=the ship's displacement
constant K7 the equations of motion will be; weight. ..... (17)
i) Structure T-the angle that the velocity

I (vector makes with the arm
-__ __-J1,. ..... (13) r at time of the first contact.
S,~I
..5
Dynam.ic espsc of Me ship and the BerthsIg 'der System Aficr impaci i
X ,K ,=structure stiffness in X and than one approaching under its own power.
Y direction. 2) Berthing conditions
pa, ps structure damping coefficients In the case where the berth is exposed to wind,
in X and Y direction. waves, currents, etc., it is more difficult to con-
X-, Xi=the displacement of the struc, trot the ship velocity than in a sheltered berth
ture in X and Y direction. and the velocity may become large. However,
As: Vo/p,(B-EBs) for extremely high wind velocities in the order
AIi -
A,_-_V.(B-,-Bs) _00 of to 120 mph that occur during short peri.
IjBz=b/(pz'-a) p.,==(a+b)12TI(a+b)2+bcs,
Bs=b1(ps1-a)
it is advisable to require ships to temporari-.
ly anchor away from the berth in order to avoid
being damaged").
, l(Kj+Ks)IMz 3) Ship size
sceK,/Ml Larger ships are always berthed with great
SIc=K;/Ms care and with the assistance of tugboats. It is
generally assumed that the larger the ship, the
3. SELECTION OF THE PARAMETERS smaller will be the velocity with which the ship
FOR SOLUTIONS OF THE DYNAMIC will contact the fender systems).
II iEQUATIONS 14.
The dynamic equations of motion presented in ,.0

Zi H
section 2 contain the following parameters;
for the ship, Va, Ms, I,.., I1-,. Hi,
"forthe structure. M,. K.s
80 i ,, , : toot
for the fender, (P.D)
and in (IV)
weight practical design, the
is, generally, theship's
only displacement
value given Ship displacement weight
with the information for the marine structure to Fig. 2 Berthing velocity normal to dock
be constructed. vs. Ship displacement %-eight (after
This section includes equations, tables, and Lee).
graphs to help in selecting or computing the T. Lee presented the curves shown in Fig. 2
unknown parameters for solutions of the dynam. from which the berthing velocity may be select-
1icequations. ed for design. Under various conditions of berth.
(1) Approach Velocity, V& ing, Vasco Costas" recommended Table 1 as a

From eq. (1) the impact energy is proportion. guide for the selection of velocity.
al to the square of the approach velocity. Thus, Before proceeding to the selection of other
the energy level will increase considerably if the parameters, some relations concerning the ship
velocity is only slightly increased. In the selec. characteristics will be discussed. For example,
tion of this velocity for design, many factors a tanker of length L, draft d and beam breadth
n I
I- 'lations: should be considered, such as: B, Fig. 1, will have the following empirical re-
1) Method of docking
A ship approaching the berth under the con. W=caPLBd
trol of tugboats usually berths with less velocity c,=0.75 to 0.80-0.78
Table I Approach velocity of berthing ships
_____________________ ft/sec)
iE' iI" Ap Ic e ot the ship
Dail,,men,
Approach
Wind and swell conditions, pt 3,000 ton Up to
t,0.0on Over 30,0 ton
Strong wind and swell Dicult 2.5 2.0 1.5

Strong wind and swell Iavourable 2.0 1.5 1.0
Moderate wind and swell Moderate 1.5 1.0 0.8
Protected Difficult 1.0 0.3 0.6
Protected Favourable 0.3 0.6 0.4
II Costa)
(after V.
* B-6
.. -... . . . *-
lit S. Koxasu and A.
H.
SA1Jw
Did=total depth/draft=l.33' 5 a ----- "

L/D=23.75
M=d-o.52=o:0,3,
L/d= 18.25 ...... (18) ' ..,." ,
-'-=kwdiu, of gatioo about vertical.
axis through G=0.2L$)
k.= radius of gyration about longi. @
tudinal axis through GWnB
iijfor "i "i "N),,'I0.37 to 0.47,0.42 Fig. 5 Values
horizontal mass incoefficient
of addedmotion C,
deep water.
(2) Derivation of Added Mam Equations for
Berthing in Shallow Water for typical tankers, Fig. 4 31), are considered in
1) Added mass in horizontal motion, MA the analysis hereafter.
It is well known that when a ship moves from With the help of the curves of Fig. 5 and these
deep to shallow water, as in the case when berth. sections, the distribution of the added mass along
ing, the added virtual mass is increased due to the ship length may be obtained (step 6 in Table
the presence of restricting boundaries. Koch") 2, and curve a Fig. 7). Considering the Koch
investigated the effects of shallow water on add- results for rectangular sections, and the proce.
ed virtual weight for both vertical and horizontal dure above, the added mass of actual hull shape
vibration. The measurements were made for a sections, where the ratio of water depth T to
block having a half-beam b and a draft d. The draft d is 2.0, can be evaluated (steps 7 to 10,
results of the experiments are shown in Fig. 3. Table 2). The results are shown by curve 6 of
To apply the Koch results on hull shape sections, Fig. 7).
it is suggested that the added weight to any However, the water depth considered by Koch
section of the ship, calculated for deep water for was deeper than that required for berthinig. The
this particular section shape, should be increased experimental results obtined by Marwood and
by the ratio of the added weights in shallow and Johnson, Fig. 6 are of considerable help in this
deep water for a rectangular section of the cor- field1 s). This is bearing on the fact that the
rect beam.draft ratio and depth of water, percentage increase in C, in shallow water,
* Furthermore, on the basis that many modern where T/d=2.0, than that in deep water for the
"kers have very similar hull shapes, sections ship mid.sections (4-7), computed on the basis
* ~V.34 ,
e.1' I
C. T 4 41.
WI
I!d,,!! . ......
iiiiiii "; .. C.,.'* P"""
Fig. 3 Effect of shallow water on added mass

in horizontal vibration, Curves of Ci j "
for rectangular section (after Koch). " I.,
IWAI L_\ L
"-
Fig. 6 Effect of shallow water on added mass
Fig. 4 Actual sections of ship (after Kumai), '-(hlarwood & Johnson).
B-7
I:Ij
Dysimic Response of the Ship and the BerMisog.Fender System After Impad i17
Table 2 Evaluation of added mass in shallow water
Setio o. -0
V1 1,h , , 4,23
1T 1 T I 9 9 ,_ 1
1 4-1/ZbeamonW.L. 0.0 12.0 11.5 23.0 26.0 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 27.5 26.5 24.5 19.o 10.0 0.0
2 A-bxd Ud-20) 0.0 441 3618.5 493 546 577.5 577.5 577. 577. 577. 556. 514.5 39 210 0.0
73
3 S-Actual area 0.0 Ill 250.3 239.5 441.5 558.5 574.4 S74.4 S73.9 573. 536 S .33 365.5 195 0.0
4 ,-Area. coeff. S/A 1.0 0.2S2 0.644 0.703 o.89 0.%7 0.995o.09 0.994 0.9.4 0.963 0. 0.916 0.929 1.0
s 2/ld 0.0 1.143 1.762 2.19D 2.476 2.619 2.619 2.619 2.619 2.619 2.S24 2.333 1.810 0.952 0.0
6 CS, $Dep 0.0 0.49 0.42 0.42 0.405 0.44 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.415 0.41 0.0
Fig.
7Cg (Deep water) 0.0 o.4s 0 15I 0.46 0.46S 0.46S 0.465 0.465 0.465 0.4650.465 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.0
5 dlb 0.0 1.75 1.135 0.913 0.W6 0.764 0.764 0.764 0.764 0.764 0.79 0.857 1.105 2.10 0.0
CMo (Shallow W.)

9 T/d-2.0 *-1 0.0 0.411 0.501 0.510 0.512 0.516 0.516 0.516 0.516 0.513 0.511 o.M
o.516 0.48 0.0
s ag.
Fi 3
10 ICY.* 0.0 0.537 0.468 0.466 0.446 0.4811

0.510 0.510 0.510 0.510 0.485 0.467 0.463 0.4"7 0.0
CM_ otr M Ihlo I. I III II I
~1 MfrsalwW 0.0 0.886 0.772 0.769J 0.736 0.80 0.840 0.140 0.540o0.840 0.80 0.77J .6 .3 .
of the Koch results, showed a close agreement W=I p ...(9

with Marwood and Johnston's experimental re- 2
6, the derived values of the added mass coeffi. M,=m '. (20)
cients in step 10 are re.calculated for a water and the virtual moment of inertia Is-., in yawing
depth and draft ratio of 1.2 (step 11, Table 2 and motion will be"'."
curve c, Fig. 7). h..=M~k1 ...... (21)
By integrating along the length and substitut.
ing for d=B12.61 from Table 2, the following 2) Checking the derived formula
equation, for the added mass in horizontal vibra. Taking into account both model and prototype
tion. was derived; experiments, Vasco CostasO presented the follow.
ing equation for estimating the virtual mass of
l I. ' a berthing ship;
. .. M,=M+m,=m(,+2d1B) ...... (22)
I 1 I"- t ........ -...
Shu Tien Lil) also presented the following equa-
S. .. +/ V ' ., , , M=,JIM/(6z)
ti~n; M&=m(I+urB/(l6D))
...... (23)
(3
-, -. ,,.4 I-- The virtual mass for different tankers, using
. --- , .- -- 4- the three equations, was calculated, Table 3. It

C' .- I' ,""'.'"' can be seen that the derived equations yield re.
__ sults which are about 5A% more than the Shu
T'ien Li equation and about 5% less than the
Vasco Costa equation.
&A ,3) Added mass of inertia in rolling motion

The added mass moment of inertia coefficients
Fig, I Distribution of added mass along depend upon the sectional shapes and the ratio
length. of beam to draft; the same parameters which
Ii B-8
::1
118 S. KOMA7SU and A. H. SALMAN
Table 3
L -.
D/W I hI. .
)000
Tankers 330to .140 1o7~o
17..2
M 7.9 111 2S 5o'
tol~ 3900tof 24
70to 9.0
20 X700 7 22.4 9.5 48O00 39000 47750 99.9
300O0 40000
o 60 25.8 10.3 72000 59620 682M0 95.0
0OD 66037 11.4 114000D 103000 105700 92.5
35 ODD 113 O 260 3X.1 14.0 196000 173000 180o0D 92.0
100000 133000 285 141.2 S4.6, 223000 206700 213000 9i.0
iiVasC Costa Formula average: 95%
11 Shu T'ien Li Formula
1illThe New Formula
To apply the results shown in Fig. 9 to the

case of a fully loaded ship, the following correc.
tions are necessary; a) first, since we are inter.
. ,il?) ested in the moment of inertia (J,-1) about the
center of gravity of the ship where v,/d=0.31,
-____-_;_;____ eq. (18), the effect of shallow water on the cen-
Fig. 8 Distribution of added virtual weight I -

along length in torsional vibration T
(after Kumai). .
effect Cir. Also, these coefficients depend on the 0.4 .......
location of the center of rotation. Model experi. I
ments were carried out by Kumai on prismatic CV I = 1. V
models having sections corresponding to those of
a tanker',). Applying the experimental results I L
on the actual sections of a tanker ship, Fig. 4, - .J.
Kumai obtained the distribution of the added -UU I
mass moment of inertia along a typical tanker -- ri I '
hull in the loadeS condition, Fig. 8. By integrat.-_ I
ing along the length, Kumni derived the follow. I
ing expression; 0 i
nJe=0.00531(I+0.365ddjr)B'L (ton-ml) Fig. 9 Effect of shallow water on added
...... (24) mass moment of inertia in rolling
For a fully loaded tanker (d=dor). the above ex- (after Matsuura & Kawakami).
pression becomes;
J-=0.00725B'L (ton.m') I
...... (25) I L
Eq. (24) represents the added mass moment of 0.3
inertia in deep water, but, as was discussed pre. C7 I I I /l
viously, berthing always takes place in shallow -.-. - L I I -
waters. Therefore, the effect of shallow water I

on the inertial moment has to be considered. 1,
Matsuura and Kawakamil'O performed numeri. 01 I~ t L
cal computations, applying the finite element ""-
method, on the effect of the restricted water on 0 I
i the inertial coefficients, Cr. Rectangular sections V I ,. IV
having a ratio of half.beam to draft of 1.0 and Fig. 10 Variation of Cr with 'respect to
two locations of center of rotation, Vld=-0.0 and center of rotation for bidacl.0 (after
1.5, were investigated, Fig. 9. Matsuura & Kawakami).
R-9
Dynamic Response of the Ship and the Zerthing Fnder System After lJnpact 119
ter of rotation becomes Important. This is ob. eq. (24). Hence, for deduction, the C7 values of
tained by companiag the inertial coefficienti, Cr, ship sections in shallow water (values included
at point as where T/d-l.2, Fig. 9, with point as in Fig. 8) can be multiplied by the ratio 0.064/0.06,
in Fig. 10. That is, which denotes the Cr value in shallow water as
1 CrS=O.l210.1=I.2
Cr.* compared to deep water for sections 4 to 7. This
SFrom which the value of Cr at ij.di0.31 and will lead, finally, to multiplying eq. (25) with the
T/d=1.2, namely Cr., will approximately be above ratio for obtaining the added mass moment
equal to of inertia, as follows, in shallow water;
(1h=0.00774B'L (ton.ml) ...... (28)
Crv=.2(0056)0.07 ..... 26) The polar moment of inertia, Is, about a longi-
b) The second correction is obtained from the the par singetor ou atto
consideration of three dimensional motion. The
correction factors from 2 to 3 dimensional mc- I,=m(kr)i
tion can be obtained from Fig. 11). If L/d= and substituting from eq. (18) results
18.25, eq. (18). the correction factor correspond. J.=0.78pLBd(0.42B)3
ing to pure rolling, (n=O), is equal to 0.96. Letting d=B/2.62 from Table 2, step 5, p=1.3
Multiplying eq. (26) by this value yields; .ton/ml
Cro=0.067(0.96)=0.064 ...... (27) l,=0.0541BIL (ton.mS)
I ; I -I4,I(J,)f(O.00774B4L)/(O.OS41B'L)=0.143
J - ...... (29)
This ratio is in close agreement with the ratio

S. .of 0.15 given by Prof. Hayashi). The virtuil
.- 4 Jmoment of inertia I1-i becomes
r Fig. 11 Taylor correction factor from 2 to 1J-f=1.43m(zk)1=0.202Bim (ton'ml)
SL 3 dimensional motion. or J1 ..i,+J,=.0Ol8B'L (ton.mi) J
c) The third correction is obtained from the -. . .....(30)
fect of actual ship hull sections. A comparison 4) H1 or (-W, which denotes the vertical dis.
was made with sections 4 to 7, Fig. 8, having tance between the ship's center of gravity, G,
Cr in deep water equal to 0.06, and the rectan- and its metacentre, M, Fig. 1, can be calculated
gular.shaped sections where Cr in shallow water from the following equationW;
was derived, eq. (27). From Table 2 the area B=LIC1+CM-(dlD)C9 ...... (31)
coefficient (a) of these sections is equal to 0.996 where Ci and Cs are constants having the fol.
or about 1.0, giving a very slight effect due to
the round edges of these particular sections. lowing values for oil tankers (where K-/D=0.52);
The other sections have already been considered Ci=12.5 (U.shape)-13.2 (V.shape)
by the use of the equation derived by Kumai, C:=5.7
+45M
B-10
-' - -.- ., .'-

120 S. KONA7u and A. H. Si.LuAi
5) Effective mass, M1, of the structure

determining the value of M1 that should be 4. SOLUTIONS OF THE DYNAMIC
-or
subistituted in the motion equations. the authors EQUATIONS BY NUMERICAL IN-
investigated some existing berths in Kobe harbor. TEGRATION
One is an oil berth belonging to the Mitsubishi
Shoji Co. which consists of four dolphins of dif- The differential equations of motion of the ship
ferent sizes and a platform, Fig. 12. located back and the berthing structure are in the form of:
from the berth line The berth is provided with Stuur =m PX .)
V-type rubber lenders. The berth was designed Stuur X.fXPX X)X)
to accomodate tankers varying in size (8000 Ship1
20 000 and 47 000 DWT) under the control of i) roll O=G(0. P(X8, XC), it)
tugboats. ii) yaw 0= Gi(, P(Xs, X.). 6)
a) The 47 000 DWT berths aga-nst two dol- iii) sway le= Gs(Xv. 1. J, P(Xs. Xe),J
phins which have-an effective weight equal to
cap+effective piles weight
(CX) ...(3
=2(160+180)=680 tans. x in section (enA3)e
2.)
b) The 20000DWT should use two dolphins
which have an effective weight equal to In eq. (33) the first differential terms represent
210022rdeter 0theon. tthe damping effect which is generally neglected.
2II+10)O theoions. eSolutions of eq. (33) are quite difficult to be car.
c) The t 800 DWT should berth sed against two out analytically, especially In the case where
dolphins which have an effective weight equal to fenders (such as rubber) that have non-linear
2(60+80)=290 tons. spring constants are used.
The displacement weights of the above ships A numerical solution implies the determination
are approximately (1.3hW) or 61000. 26 000 and of the displtcement and velocity of a system a.s
10 400 tons, respectively. The virtuah masses a o mc e
(Mg)wil
qua to104
be 00,48 00 ad ~ velocities are 6btained in a step-by-step Integra-
tons, respectively, Table I and the ratio MI tion procedure, starting with given initial condi-
will be equal to 680/104 000=0.007, 440/48 ODD tions. There are many different methods of
0.009, and 28025000=0.0n1. numerical integration from which two methods,
MI/M=0.0 .....32) the Nlewmark Pimethod'O and the Runge-Kutta-
MGill method"), will be explained.
Thus for the first design approximation, we can
assume that Mvwill be as muchw asIA of the (1) Time Interval Effect on the Two Numeri-
virtual mass, Mi. of the approaching ship. If, cal Integration Methods
at the end of the calculations, the difference be- Tests have been conducted to study the effect
tween the derived value of Al3 and the assumed of the time interval on the accuracy of the two
value is great, the calculations can be repeated methods. In these tests, fenders with linear
using the derived value for MI. spring constants were used. for which the exact
6) Structure and fender resistance solution of the equation of motion is obtained
As discussed previously for the design of marine by using eq. (15). Through the comparison of
structbres, the function of the structure should results which are included in Table 4 and Fig.
be known in advance in addition to the ship dis. 13, the following conclusions could be made:
placement weight. In the selection of the resis. 1) The error involved in fender absorbed ener-
tance (.s) of the structure, the structure func. gy. 1'p. is relatively small compared to the
tions, whether rigid or flexible. should be con- energy Vs absorbed by the structure.
-B-l aidered. If the berth carries heavy l*ads
(heavy, 2) The percentage of error involved in the Vs
Sdelicate equipment carried on the deck, cranes,
power station, etc.), there is no choice; deflection
values is nearly twice that of the structure
maximum deflection, X1, i.e. iVn tialco1%.
must be limited. Tle construction should be 3) For the same time interval the error in-
It rigid and provided with elasticfenders to absorb curred using the RungeyKutta-Gill method
the ship's kinetic energy. On the other hand, is greater than that Involved in the New-
if deflection is allowed, the berth can be flexible, mark P method. The difference also in.
IA
Dy~mamic Response of the Ship and the Berthing Fender System After Impact 121
ii. ii' i0
-- 0a w so i V! O
- " "
IIIII, II ""EI a 44
KViT=I
@4. #1,
..
.1,
ii O l"I i- I - ,*- - - .,, .. -"

.3nn-
.L .I . ,
.3
- I3- ,'1 I "1
I.*B.1
!!iii : 0 00C
... . ; E I il I .E EII ~ E ~ E i
I
.. ... I.. , l
0I= I =
i- .
i i ii : _I-, I,
I i l4, , ,
-_ _:-_-' . . __"_....
'*III t. " _ _ _ _ ,__
*0 III
lII -
* *,
I I t.... . SI . . ... . . . . .
iii ii []12
iii i i i
interval variation, the berthing data, and the
error involved in the maximum deflection of the
berthing structure was developed.
The curves shown in Fig. 15 were plotted from
Fig. 14 for an error equal to 2% of the struc-
-- - -- TA..__. ture maximum deflection. This gives 2% error
-.,. . . in the structure maximum reaction (KsX,) and
nearly 4A; in the structure's stored energy. In
... ," , , this figure the x.axis represents the berthing
I 8" " 94 30 3 data, which is the factor N, and the y.axis re-
; _A -I . - 3 presents the time interval 41. The factor N is
"M
._ W 3S a function of the ship's virtual mass, the struc-
ture's effective mass, the structure and fender
spring constants, and the ship's approaching
I. Ivelocity according to the following equation;
N=(AaIMAjXIO0) (cm) ...... (34)
- .- Iwhere As is obtained from eq. (17).

i- ,..-' From Fig. 15 the relation between JV and the
time interval i1 for an error of 2A; in iXi is
- _. --_ __.-.---.--.----------. _given by:
AIM tin. i) The Newmark P method (0=1/4)
Fig. 13 Convergence of error with respect(sec). (3)
,II!
I I I to time interval. 41= 3.73
1=O.OO01SN'-.O.OO29N' .
(2) Selection of a Suitable Time Interval +o.018N-o.0313 (sec) . (36)

Through many investigations carried out by N :3.73
the authors, Fig.e4, a formula linking the time ii) The Runge-*utta.Gill method
a-NW8' Method1
lN K~TM, V I
i9i-
_II 6-Y. /- b-.
h.. Ku l
+--- -- nI+I "1 241K 30
M, 0. 0 I * ++
21 + tI
4 0,5 is I A'
.
- L_ 0.91
soo 41747
7 in 4.5 t 1 I'.
I I I I I
20
10j
a
60
W".
1, 14.7S41
ii
,+ ;"
10 _ WE2.2#u~
-. - _ - i
00 i lieI 0__-.
,i. ,..5 0.40, o.., 0.00S 0.M
. &...
T in see* &T in we*
Fig. 14 Effect of time interval on the berth structure max deflection for different cases
"of berthing.
IB
-- -- - - - ll ii' - -
:! IT
>DWamic Raponse of the Ship and the Berthing Fender System After Impact 1it
newnuk DNI
mom
- anae.Ea4&, M,.ed .. . 5. APPLICATION
(1) A Caue of General Berthing and Fenders

f &T~wo JW- WNa o Non41naear Spring Constant
7-- a) Data Given;

------. A tanker ship of displacement weight W
. -=40 000 ton
*011 r-~ Approaching velocity V,=15 Cm/aec
III II0' , l61 Ship characteristics are;
,--W4&NIg*-j* Length=200 .m Bread:h=25.8m
- '-- - -,. Draft=10.81m
S~r=80m Berthing data;

H--3.0in 7"=50" a=200
., - - - Assuming, for the first trial, the fender system
data as;
"s=15ton/cm Fender=2 pieces of type I,
S' " Fig. 17.
1I ".. " .. b) By applying the formulas included in sec.
Fig. 15 4T, vs. N for 2% error in berth tion 3, the following data was computed;
structure max deflection. . Ms=70.69 ton.sect/cm
i l=0.0018 (sec) ....... (37) 0

N=g3.73 . !
41=0.000066N'-0.00137Ns
l II. +0.oo0sN-0.0178 (sec) ...... (38)
N 3.73....
(3) Application to the Non-linear Spring Con. ,..:
start Fenders
Both rubber and retractable fenders possess -- -..
non.linear relations between the load and the C .1AA.
displacement. To apply the preceding equations
for selecting the time interval for structures
provided with these type of fenders, the load is
considered to be applied in small increments as- C.1.1&4.a4
sociated with the time interval. The procedure A
for calculation is as follows:.. , . .
1) The spring constant (Ks) of the fender corre-
sjponding to zero displacement is taken from
the given load-displacement relationship. .....
2) The factor N can be calculated and. con-
sequectly, the time interval from eqs. (35),
(36) or eqs. (37), (38):
3) Substituiing in the equations of motion,
-ie displacement of the fender at the end
of the interval can be obtained.
-- 4) The spring constant corresponding to this
displacementcan "be"calculated as indicated .
in step 1).
- 5) Repeating steps 2), 3). and 4) until the al- Fig. 26 Flow chart for design procedure by
* Ii . lowable fender displacement is reached, using newmark "s' method.
,1 iii ii
B.44
"i, 124 S. KOMATSU and A. H. SALMAN "
Table 5
r X.K Fender Effectivec,& *M

NoCaeMdI
_ _
etigT m ton/cm Fig. 17 energy so awl-se e-
-2
I General berthing:
No-rolling
I0 +0._1
3 is Type X1 _41.7_
*X
0.1112
_2.6 10-
l -2
0 is 42.09 $3.44 \
I0 T6.25e X.70 52.5
Feeer of linear
s ang coflant Kr,,O0ton/m V.60 $7.7 Tables 3 and 4
. .C refer. 4)
The fender stiffness used In these cases is chosen by trials to give Ie"C.0 at max. xway
. MaI30tonostc2/cm. V.o.l0cm/sec
.Xrthe combiund stiffness of the fender system"-K.Kj/(X,+Kj)
M=0".7ton-secf/cm " 1 ' ' "H"'

AH=M=2.27m 2
_-2=54 x 106 ton.secS.cm-
J,-a=1l3xI0?ton-secl-crn% +.2 sjI~#
c) For numerical integration, Newmark substituting 'for 6 aid their values,
method with P=2/4 was used. Besides, equations 0.nlIzx0-' and 0.151x 0-'sec1- re-
(35) and (36) were applied for selecting the time spectIvely, we obtain;" - : .. .
interval. Calculations were carried out by the ectively, weotim-
digital computer, the flow of computations is , ( i
shown by the block diagram Fig. 16. Results is Structure
included in Table 5.
iiii
ii..-: (2) Besides, for comparing the presented
L method with other investigators methods, two -2I x 0.7 x (-4.659)3/100=0.077
other examples were tried, Table 5. (ton.n)
- " -+E,=37.26+0.077=-37.3 (ton.nr)

S.... =I 6. .Total
COMMENTS ON THE RESULTS T energy at Vo=:O.O~willl'*b";"
S+.E
1 +E,=79.09 (tonlr) : .. (39)
(1) Verification of the Developed Method of
But the ship's approaching energy is;
1
7o verify the assumptions presented in estab- E,-=1x70.
69x1 /,00=79.520 (ton-m)
; ; lishing the dynamic equations included in section - ., " . .. ,-. ..' .. :..... (40)
2, conservation of energy before and after colli.
sion is checked from the deduced results. Eq. (39)-Eq. (40) which satisfied the conserva.
- -o in c n
the .. tion of kinetic energy before and collision.
1) Consenrotion of tekntcee
From Table 5 we have at V.=0.09*0 .. _: 2) Counseraion of the moment of momentum
Q Part of the ship's kinetic energy transmit. i) At time when the ship made the first con.
ted to:. ... tact, the moment of momentum is given
Fender system=Effective energy by;
F.t=41.79 (ton/m) MMi=M,.V,.rsln'. "
S_-.-.- !
I-ii) ~Part of energy ..induced by the system vi-
~~bration.:-". .sm7O.6ixI5x8O00'
: ""... 076611C00
Ship .... .' "." m649.8x01t (ton.s-,.nm).
7
I1-T -
II;.. ..
.30
" "the
Ii) At time when th4 81ip starte'd to rebound,
moment of momentum' "equal to;
(41)
. 1312+ 4111 """ M -I-- 0h+44+Ms .

at W'0.0 this eq. yields to; -=26.,OxIO'+LIsxIo'
am Ii
--
IB -15
i ll ms
Dynamic Response of the Ship and the Berhing Fender Syslem After Impac 125
I +527.80X10
=662.05x10s (ton.sec.m) 7. COMPARING THE METHOD WITH
...... (42) OTHER INVESTIGATORS METHOD
Eq. (41)=Eq. (42) which satisfied the moment i) Case 2. Table 5, in which H=O.O, is Simi.
of momentum principles. Jar to the case treated by Vasco Costa, i.e. sway.
(2) Checking of Time Interval Selection Proce- ing and yawing motions are only considered.
From the table we have; at Vc=0.690.Ocm/sec.
:: : dure--(Vat-l i"-The accuracy of the deduced results, as seen -42 Vsy+
.0+ Vfr)--(l8.40-13.42-1202)
. ......
(4)
in the previous paragraph, verified, on one hand, =42.09 (ton/r) (43)
the right procedure of developing the equations Substituting with the given data in the equation
of motion, and on the other hand, it supported given by Vasco Costa, we obtain;
the author's recommendations for the evaluation E'W 1 IMV kt2+rleosi4
of the time interval AT presented in section 4. ,sV,
Fig. 18 shows the variation of AT through the =42.15 (ton/i) .(44)
numerical integration process acoording to the
variation of the fender's stiffness shown by Fig. ii) Case 3 is similar to the case treated bv
_ _17.Any is-coice of the time interval will lead Hayashi & Shirai, i.e. fender of linear spring
to large errors, and sometime, leads to unreason. constant and T, Fig. 1. equals to 90%
_ able results as included in Table 4. From i) and ii), if we considered some error
due to numerical integration, the author's meth.
32=0o -d 4. will be in agreement with the two special
i- -- - - cases treated in references 4) and 5).
I-20s - 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
-F PD - The foregoing study describes an analytical
L 3i treatment of the ship berthing problem, based
Z aon the dynamic response of the ship and the
-o -/ ,4 - fennder system during berthing.
J0 __ The presented analysis covers almost the main
z factors involving in berthing operations. These
---- - -are comprised of;
i) The approaching mode of the ship with
_ 90 U 0W - n oI reference to the face of the berth, de.
Fig. 17 The load and energy vs. deflection ii) The location of the point of contact on
for V600H rubber fender (Tokyo the ship's hull, denoted by r and H.
Rubber Dock Fenders). iii) The structure stiffness and the fender
stiffness, whether the latter of a linear or
-I non.linear spring constant, beside to the
hull stiffness at the point of contact, if
CO available.
* - iv) The mechanical behaviour of the fender
-.. -system with respect to the variation of
ethe acting load direction. This Is very
important in case of rubber.like fenders,
- - -, as their energy absorbing capacity is a
-OW function of the load direction.
*..) Consideration of shallow water effect in
0A .swaying, yawing and rolling.
_. S.0 _-For solving the developed equations of motions,
Fig. 29 Variation of time interval AT vs. recommendations and formulas for estimation
time of berthing, and selection of the different parameters, partti
cularly the time Interval, are presented.
11
III1I
3!-16
126 S. KOus.TSU and A. H. SALx.,,
I The solution of these equations will lead io

the evaluation of the data required for design.
9) Vasco Costa: "Berthing Manoeuvres of
Large Ships", Dock and Harbour Authority,
ing the fender system; March 1968, pp. 351-358.
i) Evaluation of the energy absorbed by the 10) "The Construction of Quays and Jetties,"
fender. Dock and Harbour Authority, Vol. 42, April
ii) Evaluation of the energy absorbed by the 1962.
fender structure and its dynamic reaction, 11) Shu.t'ien Li: "'Operative Energy Concept
magnitude and direction. in Marine Fendering", ASCE Proc. Paper
REFRE E 2875, August 1961, Vol. 87, No. WW3.
REFERENCES 12) F. H. Todd: Ship Hull Vibration, Edward
1) James Michalos: "Dynamic Response and Arnold L. T. London, 1961, pp. 65-104.
Stability of Piers on Piles", ASCE Proc. 13) Y. Matsuura and H. Kawakami: "Calcula.
Paper 3221, August 1962, Vol. 87, WW2. tion of Added Virtual mass of inertia of
2) James Micbalo. and David P. Billington: ship", Journal of Zosen Kiokaf, J.S.N.A.,
"Design and Stability Consideration for November 1968. (In Japanese)
Unique Pier", ASCE Proc. Paper 2807, May 14) Y. Matsuura, H. Kawakami and H. Onogi:
. " 1961, Vol. 87, WW2. . "Study on the Coupled Torsional and Flex.
3) Lymon C. Reese: Discussion on Paper 3221, tual Vibrations of Ships," Journal of Kansal
Reference 1) ASCE Proc. Discussion, May Zosen Kiokai, September 1969. (In Japanese)
1963. WW2. 15) T. Sawvcmura: "The Determination of the
4) T. Hayashi and M. Shirai: Force of Impact Breadth of Ship Coupling GM and Did ra-
at the Moving Collision of a Ship with the tio." Journal of Zosen Kiokai, J.S.N.A., De.
Mooring Construction, Coastal Eng. in Ja. cember 1965. (!n Japanese)
pan, Vol. 6, 1963. 16) Nathan M. Newmark: A Method of Compu.
5) F. Vasco Costa: "The Berthing Ship", Dock tation for Structural Dynamics". ASCE Proc.
and Harbour Authority. Vol. 45, No. 523, Struct. Div. Paper 2094, July 1959.
May 1964, No. 524, June 1964 and No. 525, 17) Norris and Others: "Structural Design for
July 1964. Dynamic Loads", McGraw.Hill Book Co.,
6) Theodre T. Lee: "'Design Criteria Recom. 1959, pp..183-212.
mended for Marine Fender Systems", Pro. 18) H. W. Reeves: "Marine Oil Terminal for
"ceeding of Eleventh Conf. on Coastal Eng., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil". ASCE, Proc., Vol.
Vol. 1, Part 2, 1968. 87, February 1961, WWI.
7) Lymon Reese and Michael W.: "Rational 19) T. Kumai: "Some Correction Factors for
Design Concept for Berthing Dolphins", Virtual Inertia Coefficient on the Horizontal
ASCE Proc. Paper 7291, May 1970, WW2. Vibration of a Ship ", Journal of Zosen Kio-
8) B. G. Tyrrell: "Mooring Dolphins", Dock kai, J.S.N.A., Vol. 108, 1960.
and Harbour Authority, Part 1, August 1966,
pp. 115-120, Part 2, September 1966, pp. (Received Sept. 2, 1971)
261-166.
.... I _ -17
B-17

Giannotti & Associates, Inc,: Apolis, M Ar - B Erkeley, C Alifornia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Giannotti & Associates, Inc,: Apolis, M Ar - B Erkeley, C Alifornia

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

Giannotti & Associates, Inc,: Apolis, M Ar - B Erkeley, C Alifornia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-- - -- ---

GIANNOTTI & ASSOCIATES, INC,

DEVELOPMENT of ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE REFORE COMPLTN FORM

CA 31-115-001 -"x'l 111______________

RicharJ C. Janava, Chen-Wen Jiang .N00014-82-C-0018

Office of Naval Research March 1983

16 DISTRIUBUTION STATEMENT (of Chia Report)

Approved for Public Release: Distribution UMlimited.

Fender Design, Fender Performance

20 A BSTRPACT (Continue an revere. Old& Iffn.c*9*V w'E

Performance algorithms have been determined relating energy and

S-,performance data acquired from numerous manufacture sources for

REVIEW OF TASK OBJECTIVE AND ESSENTIAL TASK ELEMENTS 1

IV. DERIVED FENDER PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS 7

APPENDIX A - BIBLIOGRAPHY A-1

APPENDIX B - "DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF THE SHIP AND THE BERTHING

mmI . REVIEW OF TASK OBJECTIVE AND ESSENTIAL TASK ELEMENTS

i The proposed two-phased effort is intended to result in an analytical

procedure which is capable of predicting the response associated with a

ii fender/vessel interaction. As part of Phase I efforts, performance algorithms

--- would be determined relating energy and load/deflection characteristics for

fender which would be represented in the response vessel/fender interaction

procedure developed in Phase II.

The response analysis to be developed would be capable of estimating the

a. The maximum energy absorbed by a generic type fender represented in

The benefits of fender/vessel response capability would include:

a. The ability to simply explore a specific vessel/fender response

-IiTask 1 - Acquire, review and assess the performance characteristics of currently

llm used fendering systems in the available literature in order to estab-

lish a data base of energy absorption and load deflection data.

to the development of a rigorous analytical technique for predicting

1 )vessel/fender interaction. This technique will be fully developed in

ESSENTIAL TASK ELEMENTS - PHSE II

Task I- Formulate the generalized equations of motion for the vessel/fender

dynamic interaction problem based on the approach identified in

Phase I work. This approach will consider fender performance

algorithms, local vessel stiffness, dock mass and stiffness, vessel

and berthing characteristics.

Task 2 - Characterize vessel local hull or appendage stiffness.

Task 3 - Characterize dock stiffness and mass characteristics.

i Task 4 - Characterize hydrodynamic mass and damping for vessels considered.

Task 5 - Computer code methodology.

"-I Task 7- Validate results against proposed test program.

as a bibliography with brief abstracts in Appendix A.

The sources of information relative to fender performance data have been

designated by single asterisks (*). Similarly, those sources relative to the

vessel/fender response problem have been designated with a double asterisk(*).

A search of the available literature listed in Appendix A resulted in the

following observations relative to fender performance data.

0 Fender performance data listed within individual papers or reports

* A minimum, and in some cases negligible, amount of performance data

The result of extensive literature search relative to ships fendering

one considered commonly available, the other highly specialized. Common

mercial and naval applications. Other systems considered highly specialized

or questionable practical field application. By far the most common fender

followed by pneumatic and foam-filled fender types. Specialized torsional,

"hydropneumatic, gravity and hydraulic fenders haa little available performance

ships could not be readily determined. Generalized relationships require per-

20 A BSTRPACT (Continue an revere. Old& Iffn.c9V w'E