G9 Safe by design Workshop report: Marine transfer/access systems

G9 Safe by design

Workshop report: Marine transfer/access systems

In partnership with

G9 SAFE BY DESIGN

WORKSHOP REPORT: MARINE TRANSFER/ACCESS SYSTEMS

August 2015

Published byENERGY INSTITUTE, LONDON

The Energy Institute is a professional membership body incorporated by Royal Charter 2003

Registered charity number 1097899

The Energy Institute (EI) is the chartered professional membership body for the energy industry, supporting over 19 000 individuals working in or studying energy and 250 energy companies worldwide. The EI provides learning and networking opportunities to support professional development, as well as professional recognition and technical and scientific knowledge resources on energy in all its forms and applications.

The EI’s purpose is to develop and disseminate knowledge, skills and good practice towards a safe, secure and sustainable energy system. In fulfilling this mission, the EI addresses the depth and breadth of the energy sector, from fuels and fuels distribution to health and safety, sustainability and the environment. It also informs policy by providing a platform for debate and scientifically-sound information on energy issues.

The EI is licensed by: − the Engineering Council to award Chartered, Incorporated and Engineering Technician status; − the Science Council to award Chartered Scientist status, and − the Society for the Environment to award Chartered Environmentalist status.

It also offers its own Chartered Energy Engineer, Chartered Petroleum Engineer and Chartered Energy Manager titles.

A registered charity, the EI serves society with independence, professionalism and a wealth of expertise in all energy matters.

This publication has been produced as a result of work carried out within the Technical Team of the EI, funded by the EI’s Technical Partners. The EI’s Technical Work Programme provides industry with cost-effective, value-adding knowledge on key current and future issues affecting those operating in the energy sector, both in the UK and internationally.

For further information, please visit http://www.energyinst.org

The EI gratefully acknowledges the financial contributions towards the development of this publication from members of the G9 Offshore Wind Health and Safety Association.

CentricaDONG EnergyE. ONRWEScottish PowerSSEStatkraftStatoilVattenfall

Copyright © 2015 by the Energy Institute, London.The Energy Institute is a professional membership body incorporated by Royal Charter 2003.Registered charity number 1097899, EnglandAll rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced by any means, or transmitted or translated into a machine language without the written permission of the publisher.

ISBN 978 0 85293 744 0

Published by the Energy Institute

The information contained in this publication is provided for general information purposes only. Whilst the Energy Institute and the contributors have applied reasonable care in developing this publication, no representations or warranties, express or implied, are made by the Energy Institute or any of the contributors concerning the applicability, suitability, accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein and the Energy Institute and the contributors accept no responsibility whatsoever for the use of this information. Neither the Energy Institute nor any of the contributors shall be liable in any way for any liability, loss, cost or damage incurred as a result of the receipt or use of the information contained herein.

Hard copy and electronic access to EI and IP publications is available via our website, publishing.energyinst.org.Documents can be purchased online as downloadable pdfs or on an annual subscription for single users and companies.For more information, contact the EI Publications Team.e: [email protected]

Front cover image courtesy of ScottishPower Renewables.

G9 SAFE BY DESIGN WORKSHOP REPORT: MARINE TRANSFER/ACCESS SYSTEMS

3

CONTENTS

1 Background and introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Method, agenda and attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Method. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 Second exercise – breakout group sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5 Breakout group discussions, results and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Annexes

Annex A Workshop outputs and presentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.1 Workshop outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 A.2 Presentation introductions and slides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Annex B Abbreviations and acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

FIGURES

Figure 1: Pre-prepared crew transfer diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 2: Bow tie analysis – transfer of personnel from CTV to TP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

TABLES

Table 1: Group 1 – Boat landing/ladder design (facilitator: Glynn Fereday, SSE) . . . . . . . . . . . 10Table 2: Group 2 – Access/egress methodology (transfer process and ladder climb) (facilitator: Anne Marit Hansen, Statoil ASA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Table 3: Group 3 – CTV design/access systems (facilitator: Euan Fenelon, ScottishPower Renewables) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17


4

1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

The G9 Offshore Wind Health and Safety Association (G9) comprises nine of the world's largest offshore wind developers who came together to form a group that places health and safety at the forefront of all offshore wind activity and development. The primary aim of the G9 is to create and deliver world class health and safety performance across all of its activities in the offshore wind industry. The G9 has partnered with the Energy Institute (EI) to develop materials including good practice guidelines for the offshore wind industry in order to improve health and safety performance. Through sharing and analysis of incident data provided by G9 member companies, an evidence-based understanding of the risks encountered during the development, construction and operational phases of a wind farm project has been developed. This information has been used to identify the health and safety risk profile for the offshore wind industry.

In 2014, the Crown Estate asked the G9 to take over the running and delivery of their Safe by Design workshops. The Crown Estate had run a number of these previously covering topics such as diving operations, lifting operations, wind turbine design and installation and the safe optimisation of marine operations.

By bringing the Safe by Design workshops into the G9 work programme, the G9 aims to explore industry operations and technologies with a focus on Safe by Design principles. The G9 workshops will examine the current design controls relating to a particular topic, discuss where current design has potentially failed, identify opportunities for improvement and then seek to demonstrate the potential risk reduction to be gained from these new ways of thinking. The outputs from these workshops will be made available on the G9 website in reports to be used as a reference by the industry.

The first workshop was held on 30 September 2014 on marine transfer/access systems, and explored a number of key topics associated with the transfer of personnel (including design of the transfer connector, new designs in access systems and boat landing design). The outputs from this workshop are documented in this report.

The information contained in this publication is provided for general information purposes only. Whilst the EI and the contributors have applied reasonable care in developing this publication, no representations or warranties, express or implied, are made by the EI or any of the contributors concerning the applicability, suitability, accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein and the EI and the contributors accept no responsibility whatsoever for the use of this information. Neither the EI nor any of the contributors shall be liable in any way for any liability, loss, cost or damage incurred as a result of the receipt or use of the information contained herein.


5

2 METHOD, AGENDA AND ATTENDANCE

2.1 METHOD

A one-day workshop was held on 30 September 2014 In London, United Kingdom. After opening remarks from Frank Monaghan (Health & Safety Director, ScottishPower Renewables and G9 Focal Group member), the workshop started with the first of three presentations focusing on particular aspects relating to marine transfer.

After the first presentation, a mini hazard identification study (HAZID) using a pre-prepared crew transfer diagram (see Figure 1) was undertaken by the workshop attendees. Each attendee was asked to identify the top three hazards for each stage of the marine transfer/access process highlighted on the diagram. The results of this exercise were then assessed and used to inform the work of the breakout groups in the second part of the workshop.

After the final presentation, the breakout groups (using the information gathered from the first exercise) were tasked with looking at three different aspects of the marine transfer/access process: ladder and fender design; climbing and transfer (access and egress), and crew transfer vessel (CTV) design and equipment. Using a pre-prepared recording sheet, the breakout groups were tasked with reviewing and discussing current design control measures, the associated benefits versus hazards and whether there were alternative ideas, concepts or design controls that could be utilised to reduce the health and safety risk.

G9 Safe by design: Marine transfer

Ladder and fender design

Transfer process and ladder climb

CTV design/transfer equipment

Figure 1: Pre-prepared crew transfer diagram


6

2.2 AGENDA

Opening remarks, welcome from the G9, scene setting

Frank Monaghan, Health and Safety Director, ScottishPower Renewables and Anne Marit Hansen, Leader Safety & Sustainability, Statoil ASA

Presentation – Transfer between CTV and transfer piece (TP): introduction of Siemens transfer connector

Jesper Haaning, Siemens Wind Power

Reflect on morning session/preparation for first exercise

Euan Fenelon, Offshore Health and Safety Manager, ScottishPower Renewables

First exercise

Presentation – The Carbon Trust, Offshore Wind Accelerator access systems

Marc Costa Ros, Manager Offshore Wind – Innovations, The Carbon Trust

Presentation – IMCA Boat landing standardization project

Alan MacLeay, Engineering Director, Renewables, Seaway Heavy Lifting

Preparation for second exercise

Frank Monaghan, ScottishPower Renewables and Anne Marit Hansen, Statoil ASA

Second exercise – breakout group sessions

Group 1 – Boat landing/ladder design (facilitator: Glynn Fereday, SSE)Group 2 – Access/egress methodology (facilitator: Anne Marit Hansen, Statoil ASA)Group 3 – CTV design/access systems (facilitator: Euan Fenelon, ScottishPower Renewables)

Collect in the results of second exercise

Outputs, closing remarks

Frank Monaghan, ScottishPower Renewables


7

2.3 ATTENDANCE

Name Company

Jerry Gilmour Centrica

Ben Simpson CTruck

Bruce Clements CWind

Stuart Richardson CWind

Dominic Evans DONG Energy

Karsten Bjerre Kristensen DONG Energy

Niels Peter Olsen DONG Energy

Jody Plaister E.ON

Les Atkinson E.ON

Andrew Sykes Energy Institute

Bir Virk Energy Institute

Claire Smith Energy Institute

Owen Nutt Iceni Marine

Mark Ford IMCA

Chris Streatfeild RenewableUK

Euan Fenelon ScottishPower Renewables

Frank Monaghan ScottishPower Renewables

Graham Farrant ScottishPower Renewables

Alan MacLeay Seaway Heavy Lifting

Jesper Haaning Siemens

Glynn Fereday SSE

Kevin Smyth SSE

Mats Lund Statkraft

Thomas Eriksen Statkraft

Anne Marit Hansen Statoil

Dan Kyle Spearman The Carbon Trust

Marc Costa Ros The Carbon Trust

Philip Woodcock Workships Contractors

2.4 SECOND EXERCISE – BREAKOUT GROUP SESSIONS

After the first presentation, a mini HAZID using a pre-prepared crew transfer diagram (see Figure 1) was undertaken by the workshop attendees. Each attendee was asked to identify the top three hazards for each stage of the marine transfer/access process highlighted on the diagram. The results of this exercise were then assessed and used to inform the work of the breakout groups in the second part of the workshop.


8

The results of the mini HAZID showed that the following issues were viewed as key design considerations:

Group 1: Boat landing/ladder design

1. Ladder design.2. Boat landing design.3. Rest platform design.

Group 2: Access/egress methodology (transfer process and ladder climb)

1. Safe step over distance.2. Transfer in marginal conditions.3. Standardized transfer systems.

Group 3: CTV design/access systems

1. Standardized vessel design.2. Fender/bow design (for push on).3. Cargo transfer.4. Walk to work (W2W) systems.

2.5 BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The notes presented in Annex A capture the discussions which occurred during the breakout sessions. They have not been edited post-workshop and so capture the essence of the discussions which occurred and consequently demonstrate that there is a level of inconsistency across the industry on the subject of marine transfer/access systems, which need to be discussed further in order to improve standardization and harmonisation of working practices and designs. It is also recognised that innovation resulting in differing designs of transfer and access solutions will result in reducing the health and safety risk when transferring personnel offshore.

Following on from the breakout sessions an assessment of the information and discussions collected was used to prepare a bow tie analysis, which identified the key controls and mitigations for the transfer of personnel from CTV to the TP – this is presented in Figure 2.

Going forward, and in response to some of the comments and suggestions that have been made in these breakout sessions, the G9 will aim to:

− Work with Siemens WP to ensure that the appropriate testing and certification have been undertaken on the FROG transfer connector with a view to roll out in the industry.

− Assess the need for a standard inspection protocol for wind turbine generator (WTG) boat landings.

− Engage with other organisations e.g. The Carbon Trust and the ORE Catapult on new CTV fender designs and new access systems.

− Support IMCA in the development of their research work on WTG boat landing standardization.

− Review information and research on the combination of forces and stresses on the boat landing structure whilst under load from a CTV.

− Investigate potential new procedures and competency frameworks for personnel involved in the transfer operation.


9

Con

trol

sM

itiga

tions

Trai

ning

Mai

nten

ance

Failu

re t

o tie

on

tofa

ll ar

res t

Dro

wni

ng

Cru

shin

g

Inju

red

bypr

opul

sion

syst

em

Han

g-up

Expo

sure

Ves

sel m

ovem

ent

Fall

durin

gtr

ansf

er: C

TVto

TP

to C

TV

Failu

re o

f cl

imbi

ngpe

rson

al p

rote

ctiv

e eq

uipm

ent

(PPE

)

Yoy

opu

ll te

st

CTV

cre

wch

ecks

Failu

re e

ven

t

Thre

ats

Con

sequ

ence

s

Budd

y ch

ecks

Def

ined

proc

edur

e

Ves

sel s

taff

trai

ning

Ves

sel o

pera

tions

proc

edur

es

Ves

sel d

esig

n

W2W

syst

ems

Ves

sel M

OB

proc

edur

e

Life

jack

ets

Ves

sel m

an o

verb

oard

(MO

B) t

rain

ingSu

rviv

altr

aini

ng

Ladd

er d

esig

n

CTV

fen

der

desi

gn

TP f

ende

rde

sign

Prop

ulsi

ongu

ardi

ngO

pera

ting

proc

edur

e

Surv

ival

sui

tste

mp.

<Xº C

No

lone

wor

king

Adv

ance

dre

scue

pro

cedu

re

Ves

sel M

OB

proc

edur

e

Expo

sure

fal

l ar

rest

kit

Fall arrest training

Failu

re o

f fa

llar

rest

equ

ipm

ent

Pre-

use

chec

ks

PPE

mai

nten

ance

CTV

to

TP t

rans

fer

Bow

tie

ana

lysi

s

Ladd

er d

esig

n

LOLE

Rco

mpl

ianc

e

Ladd

erm

aint

enan

ce

Fall

arre

stde

sign

Fig

ure

2: B

ow

tie

an

alys

is –

tra

nsf

er o

f p

erso

nn

el f

rom

CTV

to

TP


10

AN

NEX

AW

OR

KSH

OP

OU

TPU

TS A

ND

PR

ESEN

TATI

ON

S

A.1

B

REA

KO

UT

GR

OU

P O

UTP

UTS

Tab

le 1

: Gro

up

1 –

Bo

at la

nd

ing

/lad

der

des

ign

(fa

cilit

ato

r: G

lyn

n F

ered

ay, S

SE)

Stan

dar

diz

ed la

dd

er d

esig

n

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Exis

ting

desi

gn s

tand

ards

G9/

ORE

Cat

apul

t fe

edin

g in

to d

esig

n pr

oces

s w

ith v

esse

l op

erat

ors

to d

eliv

er a

mor

e st

anda

rdiz

ed la

dder

des

ign

for

use

in o

ffsh

ore

win

d in

dust

ry.

Indu

stry

agr

eed

insp

ectio

n re

gim

e fo

r as

sess

ing

impa

ct

dam

age

on b

oat

land

ing/

ladd

er s

truc

ture

(e.g

. non

-de

stru

ctiv

e te

stin

g [N

DT]

).

Redu

ctio

n of

ves

sel m

ovem

ent

(and

con

sequ

ent

impa

ct

on m

ovem

ent

of p

erso

nnel

) dur

ing

tran

sfer

ope

ratio

n.

Impr

oved

dis

conn

ect

mec

hani

sm f

or f

all a

rres

t sy

stem

.

Con

side

r us

e of

sta

ircas

es a

s op

pose

d to

ladd

ers

for

acce

ss/e

gres

s?

Impr

oved

ladd

er d

esig

n/ac

cess

de

sign

.

Pres

sure

hos

esIm

prov

ed r

educ

tion

of m

arin

e gr

owth

an

d ic

e on

ladd

er/b

oat

land

ing

stru

ctur

e.


11

Stan

dar

diz

ed f

end

er/b

oat

lan

din

g d

esig

n

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Exis

ting

desi

gn s

tand

ards

BMO

Off

shor

e re

sear

ch (p

ush

on f

orce

) an

d st

ruct

ural

des

ign

code

s (e

.g. D

NV

G

L de

sign

cod

e)

Can

be

used

with

oth

er c

urre

nt r

esea

rch

stud

ies/

repo

rts

(e.g

. IM

CA

boa

t la

ndin

g st

anda

rdiz

atio

n st

udy)

to

agre

e st

anda

rdiz

ed d

esig

n lim

its f

or b

oat

land

ings

.

Des

ign

plat

es/r

einf

orce

men

t on

boa

t la

ndin

g st

ruct

ure.

Incr

ease

d st

anda

rdiz

atio

n/re

duce

d co

sts.

Incr

ease

d st

ruct

ural

inte

grity

of

boat

la

ndin

g st

eel s

truc

ture

.

Safe

ste

p ov

er d

ista

nce

Regu

lato

ry a

utho

ritie

s to

rec

omm

end/

enfo

rce

an a

gree

d sa

fe d

ista

nce,

or

indu

stry

app

ly a

n ag

reed

sta

ndar

d.

Besp

oke

coat

ings

on

fend

er t

o gi

ve b

ette

r 's

ticki

ng'.

Alte

rnat

ive

desi

gn f

or r

ope

atta

chm

ent,

to

allo

w f

or v

esse

l to

be

anch

ored

.

Redu

ced

wea

r an

d te

ar o

n bo

at

land

ing.

DN

V G

L de

sign

cod

e –

spec

ifies

impa

ct

forc

es (h

owev

er, d

esig

n co

des

are

open

to

inte

rpre

tatio

n)

Safe

ty z

one

betw

een

vess

el f

ende

r an

d bo

at la

ndin

g

Fric

tion

com

pens

ated

rol

l

Impr

oved

con

trol

of

vess

el m

ovem

ent

(res

ultin

g in

incr

ease

d fr

ictio

n an

d re

duce

d m

ovem

ent)

.

Orie

ntat

ion

of la

dder

with

res

pect

to

(wrt

) pos

ition

of

boat

land

ing

Ladd

er m

ay n

ot n

eed

to b

e pa

ralle

l to

boat

land

ing

stru

ctur

e?

Cou

ld b

e at

a 4

5°/9

0° a

ngle

?

Posi

tioni

ng o

f bo

at la

ndin

g w

rt t

o tid

al m

ovem

ent

– us

ing

oper

atio

ns a

nd

mai

nten

ance

(O&

M) o

pera

ting

expe

rienc

e to

influ

ence

bo

at la

ndin

g de

sign

s fo

r fu

ture

win

d fa

rm p

roje

cts.

Oth

er c

onsi

dera

tions

:

−C

urre

nt fl

eet

of W

TGs

vers

us n

ext

gene

ratio

n W

TGs

– op

port

unity

to

inco

rpor

ate

feed

back

on

desi

gn in

to n

ext

roun

d of

tec

hnol

ogy.

−

Mon

opile

ver

sus

jack

et t

echn

olog

y –

will

intr

oduc

e ne

w c

onsi

dera

tions

wrt

boa

t la

ndin

g an

d ve

ssel

fen

der

desi

gn.

Tab

le 1

: Gro

up

1 –

Bo

at la

nd

ing

/lad

der

des

ign

(fa

cilit

ato

r: G

lyn

n F

ered

ay, S

SE)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


12

Stan

dar

diz

ed r

est

pla

tfo

rms

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

9 m

hei

ght

for

rest

pla

tfor

m –

app

ears

to

be

acce

pted

indu

stry

sta

ndar

d

Des

ign

stan

dard

– E

N IS

O 1

4122

-1

Safe

ty o

f m

achi

nery

. Per

man

ent

mea

ns

of a

cces

s to

mac

hine

ry. C

hoic

e of

a

fixed

mea

ns o

f ac

cess

bet

wee

n tw

o le

vels

Doe

s no

t sp

ecify

/defi

ne a

set

hei

ght

for

rest

pla

tfor

ms.

Stan

dard

cou

ld b

e im

prov

ed w

ith g

uida

nce

on p

rinci

ples

/ke

y co

nsid

erat

ions

for

det

erm

inin

g a

safe

res

t pl

atfo

rm

heig

ht, r

athe

r th

an s

peci

fyin

g a

set

num

ber

of s

teps

/m

etre

s.

Tida

l mov

emen

t ca

n in

fluen

ce/c

hang

e he

ight

of

rest

pl

atfo

rm r

elat

ive

to r

efer

ence

poi

nt o

n TP

.

Dro

p do

wn

rest

pla

tfor

ms.

Tab

le 1

: Gro

up

1 –

Bo

at la

nd

ing

/lad

der

des

ign

(fa

cilit

ato

r: G

lyn

n F

ered

ay, S

SE)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


13

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Acc

ess/

egre

ss m

eth

od

olo

gy

(tra

nsf

er p

roce

ss a

nd

lad

der

clim

b)

(fac

ilita

tor:

An

ne

Mar

it H

anse

n, S

tato

il A

SA)

Safe

ste

p o

ver

dis

tan

ce

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Safe

zo

ne

for

ind

ivid

ual

on

a la

dd

erH

ave

a st

anda

rdiz

ed s

afet

y di

stan

ce w

hich

can

not

be

com

prom

ised

and

whe

re t

here

is n

o ris

k of

indi

vidu

al

bein

g sw

ept

off

the

ladd

er.

For

futu

re b

uild

, pot

entia

l to

harm

onis

e de

sign

of

boat

land

ings

with

out

com

es o

f IM

CA

boa

t la

ndin

g st

anda

rdiz

atio

n re

sear

ch. A

leve

l of

varia

bilit

y in

des

igns

cu

rren

tly.

Inco

rpor

ate

540

mm

< s

afe

dist

ance

< 6

00 m

m in

to

futu

re d

esig

ns. N

ote

the

dist

ance

cho

sen

shou

ld n

ot b

e so

fa

r it

com

prom

ises

saf

ety.

Use

exp

erie

nce

from

the

oil

and

gas

indu

stry

e.g

. des

ign

crite

ria u

sed

on o

ffsh

ore

plat

form

s an

d rig

s.

Dep

ende

nt o

n sa

fety

par

amet

ers

of

TP, v

esse

l, fe

nder

, etc

.

Des

ign

sp

ecifi

cati

on

on

TP

and

fe

nd

er

Des

ign

depe

nds

upon

:

−Sh

ape

of f

ende

r.

−Re

sist

ance

bet

wee

n fe

nder

and

TP.

Con

sens

us r

each

ed o

n ne

ed f

or

stan

dard

izat

ion,

but

diffi

cult

to a

chie

ve

Impr

oved

des

ign

of f

ende

r sa

fety

cle

aran

ce a

nd s

tepp

ing

dist

ance

. Diff

eren

t co

nfigu

ratio

ns a

ffec

t TP

des

ign

and

can

com

prom

ise

dist

ance

saf

e di

stan

ce.

Min

imum

saf

ety

clea

ranc

e of

550

mm

.

Har

mon

isat

ion

of v

esse

l fen

der

desi

gn b

y ve

ssel

ope

rato

rs

(not

e ca

re is

req

uire

d to

ens

ure

inno

vatio

n in

tec

hnol

ogy

is n

ot s

tifled

.)

Fend

er d

esig

n in

corp

orat

ing

a st

ep o

ver

plat

form

.

Safe

zon

e to

hav

e ha

rd w

earin

g an

d an

ti-sl

ip s

urfa

ce.

Fend

er s

trai

ght

surf

ace

moo

ring

boar

ds -

fric

tion

or n

ot

fric

tion?

Nip

ple

may

not

be

idea

l des

ign

of v

esse

l fen

der

whe

n co

nfigu

ring

safe

ty z

one.

Fla

t ba

lm p

refe

rabl

e?

Shar

k to

oth

fend

er c

an h

elp

guid

e th

e ve

ssel

into

pos

ition

an

d re

mov

e ob

stac

le. D

esig

n pr

ovid

es a

flat

sur

face

onc

e in

pos

ition

.

Ulti

mat

e re

spon

sibi

lity

rest

s w

ith T

P de

sign

er –

des

ign

crite

ria c

an p

rovi

de

cond

ition

s. F

or f

utur

e pr

ojec

ts it

w

ill b

e ea

sier

to

stan

dard

ize

and

mod

ular

ise

for

TP n

ew b

uild

s.


14

Safe

ste

p o

ver

dis

tan

ce (

con

tin

ued

)

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Des

ign

sp

ecifi

cati

on

on

TP

and

fe

nd

er (

on

tin

ued

)

One

CTV

ope

rato

r: 5

50 m

m n

ippl

e fe

nder

hel

ps in

terlo

ckin

g ni

b. N

ib h

elps

ho

ld in

with

out

slip

ping

and

pro

vide

s a

550

mm

crit

ical

zon

e

Onc

e lo

cked

in it

hel

ps s

tay

in

Pote

ntia

l to

have

an

agre

emen

t w

ith v

esse

l ow

ners

tha

t th

e ni

b is

the

bes

t op

tion,

but

cur

rent

ly d

iffer

ent

opin

ions

st

ill e

xist

.

Des

ign

of f

ende

r is

not

the

mos

t im

port

ant

fact

or; h

ow

the

safe

dis

tanc

e is

ach

ieve

d is

the

mos

t im

port

ant

fact

or.

Spec

ifyin

g ty

pes

of f

ende

rs m

ay b

e to

o de

man

ding

and

m

ay s

tifle

inno

vatio

n in

tec

hnol

ogy.

Exis

ting

boat

land

ing

stru

ctur

es -

lim

its n

eed

to b

e un

ders

tood

in a

ny p

ropo

sed

retr

ofit:

−

Wha

t is

cur

rent

ly in

pla

ce?

−

How

diffi

cult

will

it b

e to

ret

rofit

?

−H

ow m

uch

will

it c

ost

to g

et a

saf

e di

stan

ce?

−

Wha

t w

ill b

e th

e m

axim

um v

esse

l loa

ding

con

ditio

ns?

Do

ck o

n m

eth

od

– f

rict

ion

, slid

ing

, et

c.So

me

tech

nici

ans/

mar

itim

e cr

ew p

refe

r pu

sh o

n/fr

ictio

n gr

ip f

or t

rans

fer.

Slid

ing

met

hod

may

be

cons

ider

ed f

or t

rans

fer

of

tech

nici

ans

wor

king

on

futu

re p

roje

cts.

Dev

elop

men

t th

at n

eeds

to

be

cont

rolle

d.

Wei

gh

t ca

lcu

lati

on

Is t

he in

dust

ry c

omfo

rtab

le t

hat

the

corr

ect

wei

ght

figur

es

are

used

?

Wei

ght

figur

e ne

eds

to f

acto

r in

PPE

wei

ght.

If fa

ctor

ed in

, con

sequ

ence

s fo

r m

akin

g nu

mer

ical

de

cisi

ons

may

lead

to:

−

An

incr

ease

d st

ep o

ver

dist

ance

.

−Li

miti

ng/r

estr

ictin

g ov

erw

eigh

t w

orke

rs s

tepp

ing

over

ov

er f

rom

CTV

to

the

boat

land

ing.

Ensu

re t

hat

offs

hore

win

d PP

E an

d w

orke

rs fi

t cr

iteria

spe

cifie

d.

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Acc

ess/

egre

ss m

eth

od

olo

gy

(tra

nsf

er p

roce

ss a

nd

lad

der

clim

b)

(fac

ilita

tor:

An

ne

Mar

it H

anse

n, S

tato

il A

SA)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


15

Tran

sfer

in m

arg

inal

co

nd

itio

ns

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Des

ign

aim

: to

wid

en w

eath

er w

ind

ow

a t

ech

nic

ian

can

wo

rk in

Mar

gin

al c

on

dit

ion

defi

nit

ion

No

stan

dard

gui

danc

e on

dec

idin

g w

hat

mar

gina

l con

ditio

ns a

re.

Defi

ne w

hat

a m

argi

nal c

ondi

tion

is a

nd s

tand

ardi

ze a

s cu

rren

tly d

iffer

ent

from

ves

sel t

o ve

ssel

.

Mar

gina

l con

ditio

ns a

re c

ompl

etel

y di

ffer

ent

depe

ndin

g on

ves

sel s

ize,

typ

e, e

tc. a

nd a

Mas

ter'

s ju

dgem

ent

may

be

cal

led

into

que

stio

n.

May

red

uce

pote

ntia

l for

tec

hnic

ians

to

und

erm

ine

the

Mas

ter'

s au

thor

ity.

Gan

gw

ay s

yste

ms

Cur

rent

ly t

wo

type

s: a

ctiv

e an

d pa

ssiv

e sy

stem

sM

any

suita

ble

larg

er v

esse

ls, s

ome

suita

ble

smal

ler

vess

els.

Pote

ntia

l to

exte

nd t

he o

pera

tiona

l w

indo

w.

Gan

gway

issu

e –

is a

mec

hani

cal

com

pone

nt. W

hat

fail-

safe

s ex

ist

if a

com

pone

nt f

ails

whe

n a

tech

nici

an is

ha

lfway

acr

oss?

Spec

ify s

afet

y fa

ctor

s of

fai

lure

mod

e an

d pr

otec

tion

to

back

the

sys

tem

up.

Not

a s

ingl

e po

int

of f

ailu

re.

A r

edun

danc

y sy

stem

to

assi

st t

o 's

tay

elev

ated

'.

Esta

blis

h w

hat

is t

he c

urre

nt t

echn

olog

y.

Requ

irem

ent

for

the

scen

ario

of

tech

nici

ans

stra

nded

on

a tu

rbin

e to

be

mad

e pa

rt o

f th

e si

te e

mer

genc

y pl

an.

Vess

el m

otio

n m

onit

orin

g sy

stem

Intr

oduc

e a

mot

ion

mon

itorin

g sy

stem

– in

divi

dual

ly s

et

up f

or e

ach

vess

el.

Repe

at f

or v

esse

l by

vess

el o

r ea

ch t

urbi

ne s

ite.

Ass

ists

Mas

ter

on ju

dgem

ent/

deci

sion

-mak

ing.

Pro

ced

ure

s to

det

erm

ine

mar

gin

al

con

dit

ion

sEn

gage

men

t in

pol

icy

arra

ngem

ent

betw

een

diff

eren

t pa

rtie

s.

Set

up c

lear

line

s of

acc

ount

abili

ty.

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Acc

ess/

egre

ss m

eth

od

olo

gy

(tra

nsf

er p

roce

ss a

nd

lad

der

clim

b)

(fac

ilita

tor:

An

ne

Mar

it H

anse

n, S

tato

il A

SA)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


16

Stan

dar

diz

ed t

ran

sfer

sys

tem

s

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Fall

arre

st s

yste

m

Self-

retr

actin

g lif

elin

e (S

RL)

Oth

er o

ptio

ns:

−

Back

sup

port

.

−D

oppl

er b

acki

ng.

Mai

nten

ance

is a

n im

port

ant

fact

or in

cho

osin

g pr

efer

red

solu

tion.

Not

ed t

hat

ther

e is

con

fiden

ce in

usi

ng a

n SR

L.

Not

all

solu

tions

will

be

appr

opria

te f

or o

ffsh

ore

win

d.

Free

line

and

pu

lley

syst

emSt

anda

rd r

ecom

men

ded

desi

gn w

ay in

the

pul

ley

and

teth

er s

yste

m.

Stan

dard

req

uire

men

t on

the

qua

lity

of t

he r

etrie

val l

ine.

Ren

ewed

fo

cus

on

ho

w t

o d

esig

n o

ut

tran

sfer

.

Incr

ease

in r

elia

bilit

y of

the

tur

bine

lead

ing

to a

red

uced

nu

mbe

r of

tra

nsfe

rs.

Impr

oved

mai

nten

ance

pla

ns.

Min

imis

e re

pair

unce

rtai

nty.

Des

ign

task

s to

be:

−

Exec

uted

bet

ter.

−

Mor

e ha

rmon

ised

.

−U

sing

bet

ter

qual

ity m

ater

ials

/com

pone

nts.

Redu

ced

num

ber

of t

rans

fers

.

Tab

le 2

: Gro

up

2 –

Acc

ess/

egre

ss m

eth

od

olo

gy

(tra

nsf

er p

roce

ss a

nd

lad

der

clim

b)

(fac

ilita

tor:

An

ne

Mar

it H

anse

n, S

tato

il A

SA)

(c

on

tin

ued

)


17

Tab

le 3

: Gro

up

3 –

CTV

des

ign

/acc

ess

syst

ems

(fac

ilita

tor:

Eu

an F

enel

on

, Sco

ttis

hPo

wer

Ren

ewab

les)

Stan

dar

diz

ed v

esse

l des

ign

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Ves

sel d

esig

n c

rite

ria/

stan

dar

ds/

cod

es

−Im

prov

emen

ts in

exi

stin

g ve

ssel

des

ign

code

s to

op

timis

e de

sign

s an

d ha

ve a

per

fect

ves

sel d

esig

n?

−st

anda

rdiz

atio

n of

ves

sels

by

size

(loa

d lin

e le

ngth

) ra

ther

tha

n de

sign

, and

−

stan

dard

izat

ion

of b

oat

land

ing

heig

ht (r

elat

ive

to T

P st

ruct

ure)

to

vess

el d

esig

n pa

ram

eter

s.

−W

hen

sitt

ing,

red

uced

bod

y vi

brat

ions

due

to

impr

oved

se

atin

g de

sign

(mot

ion

com

pens

ated

).

Impr

oved

sta

ndar

diza

tion/

harm

onis

atio

n.

−

Mor

e ad

vanc

ed s

eat

tech

nolo

gy/t

empe

ratu

re c

ontr

ol/

incr

ease

d st

abili

ty o

f ve

ssel

: res

ultin

g in

red

uced

po

tent

ial f

or s

ea s

ickn

ess

−

Noi

se d

ampe

ning

tec

hnol

ogy

(dis

sipa

ting

hull

nois

e).

−

Incr

ease

d ve

ssel

sta

bilit

y.

Redu

ced

inju

ry/lo

st w

ork

pote

ntia

l.

−Im

prov

ed b

ridge

des

ign/

deck

sep

arat

ion/

com

mun

icat

ions

sy

stem

s.

−C

ould

hav

e a

third

cre

w m

embe

r fo

r co

mm

unic

atio

ns

– as

ves

sels

get

big

ger

engi

neer

s co

uld

also

tak

e on

so

me

crew

res

pons

ibili

ties

(thi

s w

ould

be

depe

nden

t on

ve

ssel

siz

e).

Mas

ter

has

abili

ty t

o st

op p

erso

nnel

fr

om e

nter

ing

brid

ge a

rea/

can

wor

k w

ithou

t di

stra

ctio

n.


18

Fen

der

/bo

w d

esig

n (

for

pu

sh o

n)

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Ves

sel f

end

er d

esig

n

− D

eepe

r ni

pple

fen

der

desi

gn w

ill s

tabi

lise

the

vess

el

whe

n pu

shed

on

to t

he t

urbi

ne a

nd a

lso

redu

ces

mov

abili

ty/in

crea

se f

rictio

n.

− Fl

at/s

quar

e fe

nder

s in

som

e ca

ses

may

cau

se m

ore

dam

age.

Fric

tion

can

crea

te t

oo m

uch

heat

in t

he

fend

er a

nd c

ause

dam

age.

−

Wei

ght

of t

he v

esse

l is

also

a f

acto

r.

− Fl

at f

ende

r ea

sier

to

'stic

k' t

o bo

at la

ndin

g (t

oo m

uch

surf

ace

area

equ

als

no r

elea

se).

−

Pref

erab

le t

o ha

ve a

hig

h bo

w f

ende

r; h

owev

er, t

his

may

cau

se a

n is

sue

with

exi

stin

g bo

at la

ndin

g de

sign

s.

−SW

ATH

des

ign

vess

els

have

jets

1.5

m u

nder

the

wat

er

(con

vers

e to

hav

ing

a hi

gh b

ow f

ende

r).

−

New

fen

der

desi

gns

'stic

k' b

ette

r to

boa

t la

ndin

gs.

−

Issu

es w

ith o

lder

ves

sels

/sof

ter

fend

er d

esig

ns w

hich

do

not

stic

k as

wel

l.

Op

erat

ion

al c

on

tro

ls

Hav

e tid

e be

hind

the

ves

sel a

s th

is a

ssis

ts w

ith e

ngag

ing

the

boat

land

ing.

Can

be

impa

cted

by

loca

tion

of s

ite a

nd

loca

l tid

al c

ondi

tions

.

Tab

le 3

: Gro

up

3 –

CTV

des

ign

/acc

ess

syst

ems

(fac

ilita

tor:

Eu

an F

enel

on

, Sco

ttis

hPo

wer

Ren

ewab

les)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


19

Car

go

tra

nsf

er

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Fuel

tra

nsf

erIm

prov

ed t

ank

desi

gns/

proc

edur

al c

ontr

ols

to r

educ

e th

e pr

obab

ility

of

loss

of

cont

ainm

ent/

spill

age.

Dec

k si

zeO

ptim

ise

deck

siz

e fo

r st

orag

e of

diff

eren

t ca

rgos

.

Lift

ing

pro

ced

ure

sLi

ftb

ags

Redu

ce s

ize

and

wei

ght

so b

ags

can

be d

isas

sem

bled

and

tr

ansf

erre

d. W

ould

hav

e to

thi

nk a

bout

how

to

get

the

com

pone

nts

in a

nd o

ut. N

eed

to h

ave

dial

ogue

with

bag

m

anuf

actu

rers

.

Insp

ecti

on

reg

imes

Stan

dard

ize

equi

pmen

t in

spec

tions

to

ever

y th

ree

mon

ths.

Tab

le 3

: Gro

up

3 –

CTV

des

ign

/acc

ess

syst

ems

(fac

ilita

tor:

Eu

an F

enel

on

, Sco

ttis

hPo

wer

Ren

ewab

les)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


20

W2W

sys

tem

s

Cu

rren

t d

esig

n c

on

tro

lsPo

ten

tial

des

ign

co

ntr

ols

Nat

ure

of

po

ten

tial

ris

k re

du

ctio

n

Tria

l sys

tem

s

−O

ptim

ise

avai

labl

e de

ck s

pace

so

appr

opria

te f

or W

2W

syst

em.

−

Som

e W

2W s

yste

ms

requ

ire a

ded

icat

ed t

echn

icia

n to

op

erat

e. In

stal

latio

n of

W2W

sys

tem

may

impa

ct o

n th

e de

sign

and

ope

ratio

n of

the

ves

sel.

−

have

to c

onsid

er c

aref

ully

the

vess

el to

ens

ure

the

syst

ems

put o

n ar

e fit

for p

urpo

se.

−

Go/

no g

o sy

stem

– t

raffi

c lig

ht s

yste

m: g

reen

for

saf

e to

go

and

red

for

sto

p. H

ard

to r

etro

fit t

hese

sys

tem

s on

to

som

e ve

ssel

s du

e to

cos

t im

plic

atio

ns.

Dyn

amic

po

siti

on

ing

(D

P) s

yste

ms

−

Nee

d to

ens

ure

that

use

of

DP

syst

em is

not

impa

cted

by

inst

alla

tion

of W

2W s

yste

m. A

lignm

ent

betw

een

the

syst

ems

is n

eede

d.

Tab

le 3

: Gro

up

3 –

CTV

des

ign

/acc

ess

syst

ems

(fac

ilita

tor:

Eu

an F

enel

on

, Sco

ttis

hPo

wer

Ren

ewab

les)

(co

nti

nu

ed)


21

ANNEX A

A.2 PRESENTATION INTRODUCTIONS AND SLIDES

Presentation 1: Jesper Haaning, Siemens Wind Power: Transfer connector

Executive summary

When analysing transfer incident notifications in a two-year span and the transfer concept in general, Siemens identified the main concerns of influence on the level of safety to be:

1. Loss of friction to a structure, causing a transfer vessel to drop uncontrolled and unexpectedly to drop in the swell.

2. The 'human factor' and the fact that the transfer operation traditionally relies heavily on the interaction between the transferee and the Deckhand.

3. The time connected to the SRL prior to the moment of transfer during access and after transfer during egress (primarily egress).

Based on the CTV and TP configurations already in service realising that vessel and structure improvements will take a long time and involve considerable resources, items one and two have not been considered in this presentation/topic. In relation to item three, the analysis determined a requirement for an immediate improvement of the transfer concept.

Based on this study, Siemens revised their transfer procedure and introduced a 'one-hand operated quick release' transfer connector to facilitate:

− minimal assistance and involvement of the Deckhand;.

− minimal time of connection to the SRL prior to access;

− instant release from the SRL in the moment of egress, and

− the option to perform a 'cut away' in the event of equipment failure.


22

Res

tric

ted

© S

iem

ens

AG

201

4 A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.A

nsw

ers

for e

nerg

y.

“TR

AN

SFER

CO

NN

ECTO

R”

G9

brie

fing

Sept

embe

r 30.

201

4

Sie

men

s in

stru

ctio

n fo

r tra

nsfe

r bet

wee

n C

TV &

TP

usi

ng a

Sel

f R

etra

ctin

g Li

felin

e (IN

S 1

7871

& IN

S 1

7871

Ap.

1.)

Age

nda:

1.W

hy re

vise

and

upd

ate

the

CTV

/ TP

tran

sfer

con

cept

?2.

Why

did

we

chos

e th

e “F

RO

G” c

onne

ctor

and

dev

elop

ed th

e Tr

ansf

er C

onne

ctor

?

3.D

etai

ls o

n th

e Tr

ansf

er C

onne

ctor

4.D

etai

ls o

n S

iem

ens

”Tra

nsfe

r ins

truct

ion”

5.Vi

deo!

6.Q

uest

ions

& a

nsw

ers

2014

-08-

26

Res

tric

ted

© S

iem

ens

AG

201

4 A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.P

age

2C

L / E

W Q

M&

EH

S E

HS

1. W

HY

(1):

PRO

CED

UR

E IM

PRO

VEM

ENT

PRE-

STU

DY

Dis

clai

mer

:Th

e st

atis

tical

mat

eria

l is

unof

ficia

l, in

tend

ed fo

r int

erna

l use

and

ser

ves

the

only

pur

pose

of i

ndic

atin

g, th

e re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n of

fsho

re tr

ansf

er “C

TV d

rop

in

swel

l” K

RIM

A n

otifi

catio

ns a

nd K

RIM

A

notif

icat

ions

rela

ted

to “f

alls

, trip

s &

slip

s on

th

e ac

cess

ladd

ers

in W

TG”.

Rem

arks

:A

ll th

e re

porte

d in

cide

nts

wer

e “n

ear

mis

ses”

or “

dang

erou

s si

tuat

ions

” –no

in

jury

has

bee

n re

porte

d.Th

e st

atis

tical

mat

eria

l mus

t be

eval

uate

d w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing

rese

rvat

ions

:

2010

KR

IMA

info

rmat

ion

is n

ot in

clud

ed a

s E

W &

E S

SR

WP

spl

it K

RIM

A re

porti

ng

data

base

s pr

imo

2011

and

the

wor

kloa

d of

re

triev

ing

info

will

be

imm

ense

!

Ves

sel d

esig

n an

d qu

ality

con

tinuo

us h

as

impr

oved

in

the

perio

d 20

11 -

2014

.

Sie

men

s K

RIM

A R

epor

ting

cultu

re h

as

impr

oved

sig

nific

antly

ove

r the

late

st tw

o ye

ars.

NO

TE:

App

roxi

mat

ely

85 %

of t

he re

port

ed

inci

dent

s oc

curr

ed d

urin

g eg

ress

!

Stat

istic

s by

2 Q

FY-

13:

latoT3102

21021102

raeY In

cide

nts

In fa

vor o

f usi

ng 1

00 %

tie-

off o

n la

dder

s0

239

32Ti

e-of

f rep

rese

nt a

haz

ard

durin

g tra

nsfe

r0

64

10A

tran

sfer

haz

ard

mat

eria

lizin

g fro

m ti

e-of

f miti

gate

d by

pro

cedu

re3

24

9

2014

-08-

26

Res

tric

ted

© S

iem

ens

AG

201

4 A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Pag

e 3

CL

/ E W

QM

&E

HS

EH

S

1. W

hy (2

):Si

emen

s co

nclu

sion

s ba

sed

on p

re-s

tudy

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t exe

cutiv

e su

mm

ary:

Asp

ects

of t

rans

fer i

n ge

nera

l: C

onsi

derin

g A

LAR

P th

e ris

k re

late

d to

all

haza

rds

of C

TV/T

P tra

nsfe

rs a

re in

ge

nera

l eva

luat

ed to

be

miti

gate

d to

an

acce

ptab

le le

vel;

EX

CE

PT

the

prim

arily

env

ironm

enta

l and

CTV

des

ign

cond

ition

ed h

azar

d of

: •

vess

els

rela

tivel

y un

pred

icta

bly

loos

ing

frict

ion

on a

TP

and

unex

pect

ed d

rop

an u

ndef

ined

dis

tanc

e in

the

swel

l.

The

prim

ary

haza

rdou

s co

nseq

uenc

e is

: Th

at tr

ansf

eree

s co

nnec

ted

to T

P m

ount

ed S

RL

will

be

unco

ntro

lled

susp

ende

d ab

ove

the

vess

el d

eck

whe

n

the

SR

L lo

cks

-ass

esse

d as

pot

entia

lly fa

tal (

5).

The

likel

ihoo

d is

ass

esse

d to

be:

Ver

y de

pend

ent o

n ”h

uman

fact

ors”

and

wea

ther

lim

itatio

ns a

s ”u

nlik

ely

/p

ossi

ble”

(3).

(C a

nd L

com

bine

d an

d un

miti

gate

d =

Ris

k: H

)

Miti

gatio

n pe

rspe

ctiv

e:1.

Ref

rain

from

CTV

/TP

trans

fer /

Sub

stitu

te w

ith d

iffer

ent v

esse

l des

ign

/ An

alte

rnat

ive

met

hod

or A

ltern

ativ

ely

limit

occu

rren

ce b

y se

tting

stri

ct w

eath

er li

mita

tions

. 2.

PP

E.

3.Tr

aini

ng,p

roce

dure

s &

Inst

ruct

ions

.

Res

ult o

f cur

rent

miti

gatio

n: M

ost e

ntre

pren

eurs

ope

rate

at a

resi

dual

risk

leve

l “in

the

high

end

of M

”

base

d on

an

acce

pted

ope

ratio

nal r

isk

to o

btai

n m

axim

um W

TG a

cces

sibi

lity!

2014

-08-

26

Res

tric

ted

© S

iem

ens

AG

201

4 A

ll ri

ghts

res

erve

d.

Pag

e 4

CL

/ E W

QM

&E

HS

EH

S

1. W

hy (3

):S

iem

ens

conc

lusi

ons

base

d on

pre

-stu

dy

(As

the

maj

ority

of o

ffsh

ore

oper

atio

ns c

urre

ntly

are

anc

hore

d in

UK

the

seto

ff h

as b

een

the

cond

ition

s ap

plic

able

in U

K!)

1.Th

ere

is n

o in

divi

dual

set

of l

egis

latio

n se

tting

requ

irem

ents

for t

he c

ombi

ned

proc

ess

of tr

ansf

errin

g O

F be

twee

n a

vess

el a

nd a

stru

ctur

e (T

P).

2.A

TP is

a s

truct

ure

plan

ted

in th

e se

a be

d –

cons

eque

ntly

WA

H is

gov

erne

d by

the

rele

vant

UK

WH

A le

gisl

atio

n &

requ

irem

ents

.

3.A

vess

el a

floa

t, an

d al

l act

ivity

on

it. is

gov

erne

d by

the

Mar

itim

e le

gisl

atio

n an

d re

quire

men

ts.

4.Tr

ansf

er b

etw

een

vess

els

and

stru

ctur

es a

re a

ddre

ssed

by

IMC

A gu

idel

ines

whi

ch u

nder

the

Mar

itim

e

legi

slat

ion

is c

onsi

dere

d “b

est p

ract

ice”

. IM

CA

refe

rs W

AH

on

stru

ctur

es to

the

loca

l WA

H re

gula

tions

.

5.S

iem

ens

stat

istic

s in

dica

tes

a cl

ear i

ncite

men

t to

app

ly e

ffect

ive

fall

arre

st w

hen

clim

bing

TP

ladd

ers

(WA

H).

6.S

iem

ens

has

not b

een

able

to id

entif

y an

y su

itabl

e al

tern

ativ

e to

the

use

of S

RL

as a

n op

erat

iona

l and

ef

fect

ive

fall

arre

st d

urin

g tra

nsfe

r bet

wee

n C

TV a

nd T

P.

7.S

iem

ens

stat

istic

s cl

early

indi

cate

that

con

nect

ing

to a

SR

L, w

hile

on

a ve

ssel

, rep

rese

nt a

sig

nific

ant

haza

rd re

quiri

ng a

dditi

onal

miti

gatio

n.


23

2014

-08-

26

Res

tric

ted

© S

iem

ens

AG

201

4 A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Pag

e 5

CL

/ E W

QM

&E

HS

EH

S

2. T

rans

fer C

onne

ctor

:B

ased

on

the

conc

lusi

on –

wha

t can

we

do?

1.R

educ

e im

pact

of “

hum

an fa

ctor

s” to

the

low

est p

ossi

ble

leve

l!

2.R

educ

e th

e tim

e co

nnec

ted

to a

SR

L de

vice

, whi

le o

n de

ck, t

o th

e sh

orte

st p

ossi

ble.

3.D

efin

e pr

oced

ures

and

impl

emen

t a s

ingl

e ha

nd o

pera

ted

”qui

ck re

leas

e” c

onne

ctor

to

faci

litat

e bu

llets

1&

2:I.

Con

nect

ion

to th

e S

RL

with

out t

he in

volv

emen

t of a

Dec

k H

and

-and

TP

acce

ss

imm

edia

tely

whe

n co

nnec

ting

to th

e S

RL

ens

urin

g th

at th

e tra

nsfe

ree

can

mai

ntai

n 3

poin

ts o

f con

tact

and

pro

ceed

rela

tivel

y fa

st u

p th

e la

dder

. II.

Dis

conn

ectio

n fro

m th

e S

RL

durin

g eg

ress

from

the

TP -

with

out t

he in

volv

emen

t of a

D

eck

Han

d.

4.E

nhan

ce c

ompe

tenc

e an

d th

e in

divi

dual

aw

aren

ess

durin

g tra

nsfe

r by

defin

ing

clea

r and

un

ambi

guou

s pr

oced

ures

toge

ther

with

cle

arly

def

ined

role

s an

d re

spon

sibi

litie

s.

Siem

ens

INS

1787

1 an

d in

trod

ucin

g th

e Tr

ansf

er C

onne

ctor

faci

litat

es th

e bu

llets

1-4

.

2014

-08-

26

Res

tric

ted

© S

iem

ens

AG

201

4 A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Pag

e 6

CL

/ E W

QM

&E

HS

EH

S

2. T

rans

fer C

onne

ctor

: Wha

t did

we

do?

1.R

each

ed o

ut to

bus

ines

s pa

rtner

s w

ith n

o pr

oduc

tive

resu

lt (2

012

/ At t

hat t

ime

we

had

an

aspi

ratio

n to

com

plet

e th

e pr

oces

s on

a v

ery

shor

t dea

dlin

e ai

min

g to

intro

duce

the

prod

uct

mid

201

3!).

2.S

cann

ed th

e m

arke

t for

PP

E s

olut

ions

in c

oope

ratio

n w

ith “I

CM

ArS

iMa”

(201

3)R

equi

rem

ents

:a.

Sin

gle

hand

ope

rate

d.b.

EN

362

app

rove

dc.

Abi

lity

to g

ive

suffi

cien

t cle

aran

ce to

life

ves

ts.

d.E

asy

to o

pera

te –

also

with

hea

vy g

love

s.e.

Com

patib

le to

Sie

men

s gl

obal

rang

e of

app

rove

d P

PE

& s

afet

y eq

uipm

ent.

1.Te

sted

var

ious

pro

duct

s –

deci

ded

on th

e co

nnec

tor “

FRO

G” f

rom

the

man

ufac

ture

r “K

ong”

. 2.

Dev

elop

ed a

nd te

sted

pro

cedu

re(2

013-

14) .

3.

Pre

form

ed fi

eld

trial

s w

ithou

t any

inci

dent

s an

d on

ly v

ery

posi

tive

feed

bac

k (2

014)

.4.

Rel

ease

d pr

oced

ure

–co

mm

unic

ated

to c

usto

mer

s, c

ontra

ctor

s an

d tra

inin

g pr

ovid

ers.

5.R

ollo

ut a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

ongo

ing

Sie

men

s w

ind

dial

ogue

2014

-08-

26

Res

tric

ted

© S

iem

ens

AG

201

4 A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Pag

e 7

CL

/ E W

QM

&E

HS

EH

S

3. T

rans

fer C

onne

ctor

:

I.S

iem

ens

pate

nted

con

nect

or to

faci

litat

e si

ngel

hand

ope

rate

d qu

ick

conn

ectio

n to

SR

L du

ring

acce

ss &

qui

ck re

leas

e fro

m S

RL

durin

g eg

ress

, in

trans

fer o

pera

tions

bet

wee

n ve

ssel

s an

d st

ruct

ures

–W

ithou

t dire

ct in

terfe

renc

e fro

m th

e D

eck

Han

d!..

II.Th

e co

nnec

tor f

acili

tate

s 10

0 %

tie-

off &

fall

arre

st d

urin

g tra

nsfe

r WA

H.

III.

Use

of t

he T

rans

fer C

onne

ctor

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith IN

S 1

7871

Ap.

1 m

itiga

tes

the

risk

of

bein

g su

spen

ded

on a

lock

ed S

RL,

if a

ves

sel u

nexp

ecte

d dr

ops

in th

e sw

ell d

urin

g th

e

trans

fer,

to a

like

lihoo

d as

sess

ed a

s ”v

ery

unlik

ely”

(L)

.IV

.Th

e Tr

ansf

er C

onne

ctor

com

bine

s th

e el

emen

ts: 1

FR

OG

con

nect

or (E

N 3

62;0

4/A

/T),

1Trip

pel A

ctio

n se

lf-lo

ckin

g ka

rabi

ner (

EN

362;

04/A

) and

1 s

tand

ard

web

bing

stra

p (E

N 3

54),

into

one

pie

ce o

f PP

E.

Spe

c:B

reak

ing

load

: >22

KN

Le

ngth

: 24

cm (9

, 45

in)

Max

. Ope

ning

: 13

mm

(0, 5

1 in

).

Pric

e ra

nge:

<50

EU

R

Tran

sfer

Con

nect

or S

teel

Kar

abin

er:

Trip

le a

ctio

n se

lf lo

ckin

g st

eel k

arab

iner

(EN

362

;4/B

) fac

ilita

te T

rans

fer C

onne

ctor

con

nect

ion

to

wor

k pi

eces

with

a d

iam

eter

> 1

3 m

m

Tota

l len

gth

of T

rans

fer C

onne

ctor

in c

ombi

natio

n w

ith S

teel

Kar

abin

er: 3

3 cm

(12,

99

in).

2014

-08-

26

Res

tric

ted

© S

iem

ens

AG

201

4 A

ll rig

hts

rese

rved

.

Pag

e 8

CL

/ E W

QM

&E

HS

EH

S

4. IN

S 17

871

& IN

S 17

871

App

endi

x 1:

I.O

utlin

es a

cle

ar a

nd u

nam

bigu

ous

step

by

step

pro

cedu

re.

II.S

trict

con

form

ance

to th

e pr

oced

ure

will

effe

ctiv

ely

redu

ce th

e ris

k of

a tr

ansf

eree

get

ting

susp

ende

d by

a lo

ckin

g S

LR if

a v

esse

l sho

uld

unex

pect

ed d

rop

in th

e sw

ell d

urin

g th

e tra

nsfe

r ope

ratio

n:a.

Whe

n S

RL

conn

ectio

n is

per

form

ed d

urin

g ac

cess

the

trans

fere

e w

ill b

e in

the

proc

ess

of s

tepp

ing

on to

the

ladd

er a

nd w

ill q

uick

ly g

ain

bala

nce

and

can

com

men

ce c

limb

to

rela

tivel

y sa

fety

imm

edia

tely

-w

hile

atta

ched

to th

e fa

ll ar

rest

.b.

Whe

n di

scon

nect

ing

from

the

SR

L du

ring

egre

ss th

e tra

nsfe

ree

will

be

in th

e pr

oces

s of

st

eppi

ng o

n to

the

vess

el –

the

trans

fere

e ca

n po

tent

ially

exp

erie

nce

a “fa

ll on

a le

vel”

onto

the

vess

el d

eck.

III.

Enh

ance

s fo

cus

and

awar

enes

s du

e to

:a.

A cl

ear a

nd u

nam

bigu

ous

com

mun

icat

ion

proc

edur

e.b.

Una

mbi

guou

s sp

lit in

role

s &

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

allo

win

g th

e Tr

ansf

eree

to fo

cus

on th

e tra

nsfe

r and

the

Dec

k H

and

to fo

cus

on th

e tra

nsfe

r con

ditio

ns.


24

Presentation 2: Marc Costa Ros, The Carbon Trust: Offshore Wind Accelerator access systems

Executive summary

The Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) is The Carbon Trust's flagship collaborative research, development and demonstration (RD&D) programme. Set up in 2008, the OWA is a joint industry project, involving nine offshore wind developers with circa three-quarters of the UK's licensed capacity, which aims to reduce the cost of offshore wind by 10 %, in order for cost savings to be realised in time for Round Three projects. Cost reduction is achieved through innovation, i.e. bringing new concepts to the market through technology de-risking. Technology challenges are identified and prioritised by the OWA members in a market pull approach, based on the likely savings and the potential for the OWA to influence the outcomes. The OWA is structured around five research areas: access; cable installation; electrical systems; foundations, and wakes and wind resource.

The focused effort on research and development (R&D) driven by the OWA has accelerated the commercialisation of many of the innovations identified and supported by the OWA, for example, the Windserver from Fjellstrand or the WaveCraft from Umoe Mandal, and many others are ready to be commercialised. However, there is still a major question to be answered which not only affects new innovations but also any access solution: how do you measure and compare access performance?

Current selection methods for vessels or transfer systems for specific sites are highly subjective and comparative measured data of their performance is largely not available. The result of this lack of information is uncertainty of wind farm accessibility in project business cases and the selected combination of vessels, fenders and transfer systems for the site will probably be less than optimal.

In order to address this, the performance metrics validation project was initiated; it aims to develop the access performance of four initial baseline vessels that are representative of the current vessels used today in the offshore wind industry. There are a wide range of factors that need to be taken into account when looking at the performance of a vessel; these include met-ocean conditions (wave direction, Hs, period), current, speed, capacity, comfort, safety, fuel economy and charter cost, among others.

The performance will be determined through a combination of numerical modelling, tank testing and full-scale sea trials to provide baseline performance plots of vessels used in the offshore wind industry. The expected outcome of the study will be a set of performance plots that will define how vessels perform in different sea states, hence providing input for better operations and maintenance modelling and fleet definition.


25

1

O�sho

reW

indAc

cele

rato

rAc

cess

Syst

ems

Mar

cCo

sta

Ros

30Se

ptem

ber2

014 G9

Safe

byDe

sign

Wor

ksho

p(S

epte

mbe

r201

4,Lo

ndon

)

2

The

Car

bon

Tru

st h

as a

ccel

erat

ed

sust

ain

able

, lo

w c

arb

on d

evel

opm

ent

for

mor

e th

an 1

2 y

ears

Advi

ceFo

otprin

ngTe

chno

logy

Wead

vise

busin

esse

s,go

vern

men

tsan

dth

epu

blic

sect

oron

oppo

rtun

ies

ina

sust

aina

ble,

low

carb

onec

onom

y

Wemea

sure

and

cer

fyth

een

viro

nmen

talf

ootp

rinto

for

gani

saon

s,pr

oduc

tsan

dse

rvic

es

Wehe

lpde

velop

and

deploy

low

carb

onte

chno

logi

esan

dso

luon

s,fr

omen

ergy

e�cien

cyto

rene

wab

lepo

wer

3

Offsh

ore

Win

d Acc

eler

ator

Off

shor

e W

ind

Acc

eler

ato

rO

bjec

tive:

Red

uce

cost

of en

ergy

by

10%

in t

ime

for

Rou

nd 3

Join

t in

du

stry

pro

ject

invo

lvin

g 9

d

evel

oper

s +

Car

bon

Tru

st

On

ly d

evel

oper

s ar

e m

emb

ers

–Com

mer

cial

ly-f

ocus

ed–

Inte

rnat

iona

l out

look

for

bes

t id

eas

>£

60

m p

rog

ram

me

–2/

3 in

dust

ry,

1/3

publ

ic (

UK’s

D

epar

tmen

t of

Ene

rgy

and

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

–D

ECC)

Set

up

20

09

, ru

ns

to b

eyon

d 2

01

5

Val

ue

to m

emb

ers

–N

ew t

echn

olog

ies,

rea

dy t

o us

e–

Insi

ghts

into

bes

t te

chno

logi

es f

or R

3–

Fund

ing

for

dem

o pr

ojec

ts¾

of

licen

sed

cap

acit

y in

UK

wat

ers

4

OW

A f

ocu

ses

on a

reas

wh

ere

it

can

hav

e th

e la

rges

t im

pac

t

Sou

rce:

Nav

igan

t (o

ffsh

ore)

LCO

E B

reak

dow

n

Type

s of

pro

ject

:–

Com

mon

R&

D p

roje

ct (

Des

k-ba

sed

stud

ies

fund

ed b

y th

e 9

OW

A p

artn

ers)

–D

iscr

etio

nary

Pro

ject

s (D

emo

type

pro

ject

s fu

nded

by

inte

rest

ed p

artn

ers

+ 3

rdPa

rtie

s)

OW

A F

ocus

es o

n ev

eryt

hing

but

the

tur

bine

, re

pres

entin

g ~

70%

of of

fsho

re

win

d co

sts,

incl

udin

g co

st o

f en

ergy

(Cap

Exan

d O

pEx)

and

(+

Cos

t of

Fin

ance

)

OW

A


26

5

Mar

ket

scre

enin

g s

ug

ges

ted

te

chn

olog

ies

un

suit

ed t

o R

3N

ew t

echn

olog

ies

requ

ired

Sou

rce:

Car

bon

Trus

t O

ffsh

ore

Win

d Acc

eler

ator

201

0

Vis

ion

:In

crea

seac

cess

ibili

ty t

o im

prov

e av

aila

bilit

y on

R3

site

s

Com

pet

itio

n•1

,500

info

pac

ks

• 450

ent

ries

• 30

coun

trie

s•1

3 fin

alis

ts

6

Ves

sels

, Tr

ansf

er s

yst.

& M

oth

ersh

ips

Des

irab

le v

esse

l ch

arac

teri

stic

s–

Ope

rate

in h

igh

sea

stat

es–

Fast

–

Sta

ble

(no

sea-

sick

ness

!)–

Fuel

effi

cien

t

Des

irab

le t

ran

sfer

sys

tem

ch

arac

teri

stic

s–

For

vess

els

with

sta

ble

plat

form

s an

d go

od

stat

ion-

keep

ing

–O

pera

te in

hig

h se

a st

ates

–F a

st t

o de

ploy

/rec

over

–Rob

ust

fail-

safe

mec

hani

sms

–O

pera

te o

n va

riet

y of

ves

sels

Des

irab

le m

oth

ersh

ip c

har

acte

rist

ics

–Cap

acity

for

mul

tiple

dau

ghte

r-cr

aft

–Com

fort

able

for

tec

hnic

ians

–L a

unch

and

rec

over

y sy

stem

: O

pera

te in

hig

h se

a st

ates

with

Fai

l-sa

fe m

echa

nism

s

7

Win

dS

erve

rs[F

jells

tran

d,

Nor

way

]

Sou

rce:

Fje

llstr

and

2013

Ad

van

tag

e-

F ast

and

effi

cien

t-

Sta

bilit

y in

sta

tion-

keep

ing

8

2 P

lay

[Nau

ti-C

raft

, A

ust

ralia

]

8

Sou

rce:

Nau

tiCra

ft,

2013

Ad

van

tag

e-

Fast

, co

mfo

rtab

le-

Hyd

raul

ic c

onne

ctio

ns

syst

em c

ompe

nsat

es h

eave

8m

Dem

o a

t S

eaW

ork

20

14


27

9

Wav

eCra

ft(S

urf

ace

Effe

ct S

hip

)[U

moe

Man

dal

, N

orw

ay]

Sou

rce:

Um

oeM

anda

l201

39

Ad

van

tag

e-

Spe

ed-

Air c

ushi

on c

ompe

nsat

es

mot

ions

1st

Wav

e C

raft

will

be

bu

ilt b

y en

d o

f 2

01

4

11

Au

tob

row

[OTS

O,

UK

]

Sou

rce:

Aut

obro

w20

1311

Ad

van

tag

e-

Sim

plic

ity-

Retr

o-fit

tabl

e

12

MO

TS[m

omac

, G

E]

Sou

rce:

NO

S /

mom

ac

Ad

van

tag

e-

Full

mot

ion

com

pens

atio

n-

Can

sta

nd-o

ff

the

foun

datio

n

10

TAS

[Hou

lder

+ B

MT-

NG

, U

K]

Sou

rce:

BM

T N

igel

Gee

and

Hou

lder

10

Ad

van

tag

e-

Hea

ve c

ompe

nsat

ion

-R e

tro-

fitta

ble

-Ro

llers

impr

ove

perf

orm

ance

Tria

ls u

nd

erta

ken

Q2

20

14


28

13

Turb

ine

Doc

kin

g D

evic

e[O

ffsh

ore

Tran

sfer

Sys

tem

s, W

ales

]

13Sou

rce:

Offsh

ore

Tran

sfer

Dev

ices

Ad

van

tag

es-

Sim

ple

-Re

tro-

fitta

ble

14

Z P

ort

[Z T

ech

nol

ogie

s, N

E]

Sou

rce:

Z T

echn

olog

ies,

201

3

Ad

van

tag

e-

Allo

ws

mul

tiple

cre

w

tran

sfer

ves

sels

-Sim

ple

laun

ch a

nd

reco

very

15

Lau

nch

An

d R

ecov

ery

Sys

tem

(LA

RS

) [D

ivex

, S

cotl

and

]

Sou

rce:

Div

ex, 20

1315

Ad

van

tag

e-

Ada

ptab

le t

o da

ught

er c

raft

-Re

trofi

ttab

le

16

OW

A P

erfo

rman

ce M

etri

csN

ew p

rop

osal

to

asse

ss p

erfo

rman

ce

Cu

rren

t m

eth

ods

of a

sses

sing

acc

ess

syst

em b

ased

onl

y in

Hs

–

Lim

ited

and

not

fully

rel

iabl

e–

Diffi

cult

to d

efine

an

accu

rate

O&

M s

trat

egy

Per

form

ance

Met

rics

–Ass

ess

vess

el p

erfo

rman

ce c

onsi

dering

key

env

iron

men

tal p

aram

eter

s:–

Wav

e D

irec

tion

–W

ave

Hei

ght

(Hs)

–W

ave

Period

–Cur

rent

…–

But

als

o sp

eed,

cap

acity

, co

mfo

rt,

safe

ty,

fuel

eco

nom

y, c

hart

er c

osts

Mai

n B

enefi

ts–

Eval

uate

& B

ench

mar

k Ves

sels

& T

rans

fer

Sys

tem

s–

Opt

imis

e an

d In

crea

se r

elia

bilit

y of

O&

M m

odel

ling

Sou

rce:

OW

A T

rial

Pro

cedu

res


29

17

Per

form

ance

Eva

luat

ion

Pos

sib

le s

ourc

es

Nu

mer

ical

Mod

ellin

gTa

nk

Test

ing

Full

Sca

le S

ea T

rial

s

(Con

ditio

n de

pend

ent)

Easy

to

run

hig

h

nu

mb

er o

f sc

enar

ios

Lim

ited

nu

mb

er o

f tr

ials

Sig

nifi

can

t n

um

ber

of

scen

ario

s

Flex

ibili

ty &

# D

ata

Res

olu

tion

Sta

tist

ical

ly li

mit

ed confidence

Tim

e or

Cos

t /

Dat

a R

esol

uti

on

Cer

tain

ty

O&

M M

odel

Sca

led

mod

el

Test

ing

in

open

sea

s

18

OW

A P

rop

osed

Met

ho

d

Acc

essi

bili

ty d

ivid

ed in

:–

Tran

sit:

Port

/Saf

e he

aven

to

turb

ine

surr

ound

ings

–A

pp

roac

h:

Turb

ine

surr

ound

ings

to

enga

gem

ent

with

tur

bine

–Tr

ansf

er:

Ves

sel t

otal

ly e

ngag

ed

Per

form

ance

ass

esse

d t

hro

ug

h N

um

eric

al m

odel

ling

and

Tan

k Te

stin

g

–M

ore

scen

ario

s /

met

ocea

nco

nditi

ons

coul

d be

mod

elle

d–

Num

eric

al M

odel

ling

mat

ure

for

free

run

ning

, bu

t un

der

deve

lopm

ent

for

alon

gsid

e tu

rbin

e co

nditi

on–

Tank

Tes

ting

Ch

alle

ng

es:

–O

verc

ome

unce

rtai

ntie

s–

Defi

ne F

ende

r be

havi

our

Ver

ify

in f

ull

scal

e tr

ials

–Val

idat

e al

read

y ob

tain

ed P

erfo

rman

ce D

ata

–L e

ss t

ime

(and

cos

t) n

eces

sary

–D

ata

colle

ctio

n –

Dat

a an

alys

is

19

Wh

at w

e m

easu

re:

Tran

sit :

Goa

l: T

echn

icia

ns m

ust

arrive

at

the

turb

ine

fit t

o w

ork

as fas

t as

pos

sibl

eM

easu

re–

Max

imum

spe

ed a

CTV

can

ach

ieve

in a

giv

en s

ea s

tate

–Pa

ram

eter

s: D

iffer

ent

Wav

e he

ight

s, W

ave

dire

ctio

ns a

nd 2

diff

eren

t W

ave

spec

tra

(for

nea

r of

fsho

re a

nd far

offsh

ore

site

s)–

Lim

it: A

giv

en M

otio

n Sic

knes

s va

lue

Ap

pro

ach

Goa

l: A

bilit

y of

the

ves

sel t

o re

ach

the

turb

ine

Mea

sure

s in

dev

elop

men

t

Tran

sit:

Goa

l: S

afel

y tr

ansf

er t

o th

e tu

rbin

eM

easu

re–

Max

imum

Wav

e he

ight

s a

CTV

tha

t gu

aran

tee

a sa

fe t

rans

fer

in a

giv

en s

ea s

tate

–P a

ram

eter

s: D

iffer

ent

Wav

e di

rect

ions

, Cur

rent

direc

tions

and

2 d

iffer

ent

Wav

e

spec

tra

(for

nea

r of

fsho

re a

nd far

offsh

ore

site

s)–

Lim

it: A

giv

en “

slip

fre

quen

cy”

/ “c

onfid

ence

val

ue”

for

non-

slip

con

ditio

n.

20

Som

e (i

llust

rati

ve)

Exam

ple

s:

Transit Transfer


30

21

P-P

lots

Vis

ion

: A

n I

nd

ust

ry s

tan

dar

d

One

-pag

er v

esse

ls s

peci

ficat

ions

with

:

P-P

lots

(2

Tra

nsi

t +

2 T

ran

sfer

)

Ves

sel G

eom

etry

:–

Leng

th o

ver

all (

LOA)

–N

orm

al O

pera

tiona

l Dis

plac

emen

t [l

ight

ship

di

spla

cem

ent

+ 1

0t]

Ad

dit

ion

al V

esse

l Fea

ture

s–

Num

ber

of p

asse

nger

s–

Car

go C

apac

ity /

Pay

load

–Ty

pe o

f Th

rust

and

Ins

talle

d po

wer

–Fu

el c

onsu

mpt

ion

and

tank

cap

acity

–N

oise

leve

ls

Oth

er in

form

atio

n:

–Com

pany

det

ails

–Cla

ss /

Fla

g–

…

Sou

rce:

Fje

llstr

and

/ O

WA T

rial

Pro

cedu

res

22

Per

form

ance

Eva

luat

ion

Met

hod

P-PL

OT

Ben

chm

arki

ng

Cos

t-Ben

efit

Ves

sel

Per

form

ance

Gra

ph

sas

an

To

ol

Fig

ure

sas

an

In

pu

t

Site

Spe

cific

W

eath

er D

ata

LCO

E Re

duct

ion

from

Bas

e Cas

e sc

enar

io

Initi

al s

cree

ning

too

l to

asse

ss s

uita

ble

vess

els

Ves

sel

Sel

ecti

onFo

cuss

ed in

N

um

eric

al M

odel

ling

+ T

ank

Test

ing

Bas

ed o

n B

ase-

line

OW

F an

d v

esse

lsFl

exib

le t

ool

Des

ign

Bes

t m

atch

Acc

ess

Sys

tem

-O

WF

Tran

sit

Tran

sfer

Dee

pW

ater

Sh

allo

wW

ater

Dee

pW

ater

Sh

allo

wW

ater

23

Nex

t S

tep

s

Upd

ate

of t

he O

WA

Tri

al p

roce

du

res

New

Sea

Tri

als

with

in O

WA t

o ch

eck

appr

oach

Exte

nsiv

e d

ata

colle

ctio

n t

o de

fine

prop

erly

: –

Tran

sit

limits

(m

otio

n si

ckne

ss d

ose

valu

e)–

T ran

sfer

lim

its (

slip

)

Pu

blic

atio

n for

ext

ensi

ve in

dust

ry u

sage

.

24

Key

tak

e-aw

ay p

oin

ts

As

we

mov

e fu

rthe

r fr

om s

hore

, w

e ne

ed n

ew in

-fiel

d c

rew

tran

sfer

ves

sels

, m

ore

capa

ble

tran

sfer

sys

tem

s, a

ndm

oth

ersh

ips,

with

hig

h po

tent

ial o

f in

crea

sin

g a

vaila

bili

ty,

whi

chw

ill r

educ

e co

st o

f en

ergy

Ther

e a

num

ber

of i

nn

ovat

ive

con

cep

ts o

n th

e dr

awin

g bo

ard,

and

man

y of

the

m a

re n

ow c

lose

to

reac

hin

g t

he

mar

ket

and

will

als

oim

prov

e pe

rfor

man

ce in

clo

se-t

o-sh

ore

site

s

We

need

to

mov

e b

eyon

d w

ave

hei

gh

t as

a m

easu

re o

fpe

rfor

man

ce.

This

will

hel

p us

to

impr

ove

–

Ves

sel s

elec

tion

–O

&M

mod

ellin

g

We

aim

tha

t m

ore

quan

titat

ive

and

obje

ctiv

e pe

rfor

man

ce e

valu

atio

nw

ill b

e ad

opte

d by

in

du

stry

as

a st

and

ard


31

Presentation 3: Alan MacLeay, Seaway Heavy Lifting: Boat landing standardization

Executive Summary

Workboat operators have been keen to see a standardized boat landing arrangement on wind turbine foundations for some time. This was perceived as desirable to improve safety and minimise costs of modifying boat fenders. At the end of 2013, Alan MacLeay, chairman of the Renewable Workgroup at IMCA took up the challenge to see if it was possible to develop a standardized arrangement.

An enquiry was sent out to wind farm developers, designers, CTV operators and other interested parties across Europe. All G9 members contributed information. A database was then compiled summarising key parameters related to the boat landing designs. Interpretation of this data showed that de facto standards exist for several key parameters and it should be possible to come up with a broadly acceptable arrangement.

The work also identified a number of interesting areas where further research is required. Perhaps the most important of these areas is the boat impact loading. Out of the 24 projects where data were collected, only two were able to provide this figure. There are two concerns here.

Firstly, the owners' operations and procurement teams need to know the limits of the boat landing system when hiring CTVs. This could be a growing issue as the trend is towards larger CTVs operating in worse sea conditions and therefore impact loads tend to be increasing.

Secondly, there is a factor of more than four difference between the two numbers provided. This suggests that there is an immaturity to the design approach. On closer investigation of the design rules it can be seen that there is an inconsistency between different design codes and a number of important variables are missing. At the same time, there is now feedback from developers that where loads and decelerations have been measured they are higher than expected.

The conclusions of this work are currently being written up and are expected to be circulated for comment in the near future.


32

Boa

t Lan

ding

Sta

ndar

disa

tion

IMC

A U

pdat

e 30

Sep

tem

ber 2

014

Alan

Mac

Leay

, Eng

inee

ring

Dire

ctor

, Ren

ewab

les,

Sea

way

Hea

vy L

iftin

g

18 J

une

2014

Intr

oduc

tion

-B

oat l

andi

ngs

look

pre

tty s

imila

r acr

oss

offs

hore

win

d pr

ojec

ts.

-Th

ere

are

now

hun

dred

s of

wor

kboa

ts

acro

ss E

urop

e.-

Ther

e w

ould

be

safe

ty a

nd c

ost

impr

ovem

ents

if th

e in

dust

ry c

ould

ag

ree

a co

mm

on a

rran

gem

ent f

or fu

ture

pr

ojec

ts.

-C

onsu

lt in

dust

ry to

see

wha

t has

bee

n do

ne, g

athe

r fee

dbac

k an

d ex

plor

e th

e fe

asib

ility

of e

stab

lishi

ng a

com

mon

ap

proa

ch.

Con

sulta

tion

Fend

er S

paci

ng

Run

g Le

ngth

Fend

erD

iam

eter

Str

inge

rD

iam

eter

Foun

datio

n Pr

imar

y Str

uctu

re

Ste

p O

ver

Dis

tanc

e

Ladd

er S

tand

off

PLA

N O

N F

END

ERN

ot t

o sc

ale

Saf

e D

ista

nce

Bow

Fen

der

Res

pons

es: 2

4 Pr

ojec

ts =

135

5 Fo

unda

tions


33

Fend

ers

(26%

hav

e tw

o, 7

4% o

ne a

cces

s po

int)

Fen

der

Sp

acin

g

Fen

der

Dia

met

er

Ave

rage

1.7

3, M

inim

um 1

.15m

, M

axim

um 1

.80m

(17/

24 P

roje

cts

Use

d 1.

80m

)Rec

omm

enda

tion

1.80

m

Ave

rage

0.3

65,

Min

imum

0.3

24,

Max

imum

0.4

10m

(11/

24

Use

d 0.

356m

)(a

ll re

cent

pro

ject

s0.

356m

or

larg

er)

Rec

omm

enda

tion

>0.

356m

1.8m

spa

cing

reco

mm

enda

tion

12 J

une

2015

Title

Pre

sent

atio

n6

Ladd

er D

etai

ls

Run

g Le

ngth

Str

inge

rD

iam

eter

Foun

datio

n Pr

imar

y Str

uctu

re

Bow

Fen

der

Run

g Le

ngth

: Av

. 0.

524m

, M

in.

0.40

0m,

Max

. 0.

686m

Run

g Spa

cing

: Av

. 0.

270m

, M

in.

0.24

5m,

Max

. 0.

300m

La

dder

Bot

tom

(LA

T):

Av.

-1.5

1m.

Min

. 1.

42m

, M

ax.

-4.0

0m

Feed

back

from

CTV

Ope

rato

rs

-Le

ss th

an 1

4” d

iam

eter

fend

ers

caus

e hi

gh w

ear r

ates

.-

Dis

cont

inui

ties

in th

e fe

nder

s ca

use

high

wea

r rat

es.

-H

avin

g fe

nder

retu

rns

at to

p an

d bo

ttom

is w

elco

med

.-

Wat

ch c

lash

ing

with

land

ings

at

the

top

of th

e la

dder

.-

Hav

ing

off v

ertic

al fe

nder

s do

esn’

t see

m to

affe

ct

inst

alla

tion

sea

stat

e.

12 J

une

2015

Title

Pre

sent

atio

n7


34

Cle

aran

ces

Foun

datio

n Pr

imar

y Str

uctu

re

Ste

p O

ver

Dis

tanc

e

Ladd

er S

tand

off

Saf

e D

ista

nce

Bow

Fen

der

Ste

p O

ver

Dis

tanc

e:

Av.

0.70

9m,

Min

. 0.

500m

, M

ax.

0.79

3mSaf

e D

ista

nce:

O

nly

one

num

ber

prov

ided

!!!!

!La

dder

Sta

ndof

f:

Av.

0.49

3m.

Min

. 0.

184m

, M

ax.

1.20

4m

Flex

ibili

ty in

bow

fend

er p

rofil

e is

a c

halle

nge

So

is fe

nder

stif

fnes

s &

app

lied

forc

e.

Saf

ety

Zone

12 J

une

2015

Title

Pre

sent

atio

n12


35

12 J

une

2015

Title

Pre

sent

atio

n13

12 J

une

2015

Title

Pre

sent

atio

n14

12 J

une

2015

Title

Pre

sent

atio

n15

12 J

une

2015

Title

Pre

sent

atio

n16


36

12 J

une

2015

Title

Pre

sent

atio

n17

12 J

une

2015

Title

Pre

sent

atio

n18

G9:

Dra

ft O

ffsh

ore

Win

d W

orki

ng A

t H

eigh

tRe

gula

tions

CTV

Fen

der

Stif

fnes

s >500

mm

<650

mm


37

How

to w

ork

out d

esig

n fo

rces

?

In t

he d

ata

prov

ided

onl

y 2

proj

ects

gav

e lim

iting

for

ces.

Th

ese

wer

e 20

0 an

d 82

3kN

?Ve

ry s

urpr

ised

thi

s in

form

atio

n is

n’t

mor

e re

adily

ava

ilabl

e!

The

scie

ntifi

c ba

sis

behi

nd D

nVgu

idan

ce is

n’t

clea

r!H

ow r

ealis

tic is

a d

ecel

erat

ion

of 0

.25g

?

Sho

uldn

’t t

his

be li

nked

to

appr

oach

spe

ed,

envi

ronm

enta

l con

ditio

ns a

nd f

ende

r st

iffne

ss /

des

ign?

Boa

t La

nd

ing

Im

pac

t D

amag

e

Nee

d to

thi

nk a

bout

mor

e th

an jus

t m

onop

iles

& jac

kets

Con

clus

ions

So

far

-D

esig

ners

wra

pped

up

in N

DA

.-

App

aren

t lac

k of

kno

wle

dge

of lo

ad

limits

with

ope

ratio

ns te

ams.

-B

asis

of c

odes

isn’

t obv

ious

.-

Look

s lik

e he

adin

g to

war

ds c

onse

nsus

on

mai

n di

men

sion

s.-

Goo

d un

ders

tand

ing

of e

xcep

tions

.-

Diff

icul

t to

stan

dard

ise

for b

oth

ship

sh

aped

and

cat

amar

an b

ows.

-S

ome

inte

rest

ing

idea

s co

min

g th

roug

h.-

Som

e re

sear

ch a

reas

iden

tifie

d.-

Fini

sh w

ritin

g up

sum

mar

y re

port

incl

udin

g a

sugg

este

d st

anda

rdis

ed

arra

ngem

ent.


38

ANNEX BABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CTV crew transfer vesselDP dynamic positioningEI Energy InstituteG9 G9 Offshore Wind Health and Safety AssociationHAZID hazard identification studyHSE Health and Safety ExecutiveIMCA International Marine Contractors AssociationLARS launch and recovery systemLOLER Lifting operations lifting equipment regulationsMOB man overboardNDT non-destructive testingO&M operations and maintenaceORE offshore renewable energyOWA Offshore Wind AcceleratorPPE personal protective equipmentR&D research and developmentRD&D research, development and demonstrationSRL self-retracting lifelineSWATH small water plane area twin hullTP transition pieceWAH work at heightW2W walk to workwrt with respect toWTG wind turbine generator

ISBN 978 0 85293 744 0Registered Charity Number: 1097899

Energy Institute61 New Cavendish StreetLondon W1G 7AR, UK

t: +44 (0) 20 7467 7100f: +44 (0) 20 7255 1472e: [email protected]

9780852937440

G9 Safe by design Workshop report: Marine transfer/access systems

Documents

Transcript of G9 Safe by design Workshop report: Marine transfer/access systems