2024.03.18 MarCom WG 211 PIANC Fender Guidelines 2024
2024.03.18 MarCom WG 211 PIANC Fender Guidelines 2024
2024.03.18 MarCom WG 211 PIANC Fender Guidelines 2024
1
PIANC REPORT N° 211
MARITIME NAVIGATION COMMISSION
2
PIANC has Technical Commissions concerned with inland waterways and ports (InCom),
coastal and ocean waterways (including ports and harbours) (MarCom), environmental
aspects (EnviCom) and sport and pleasure navigation (RecCom).
This report has been produced by an international Working Group convened by the
Maritime Commission (MarCom). Members of the Working Group represent several
countries and are acknowledged experts in their profession.
PIANC HQ
Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20 B. 3
1000 Brussels | Belgium
http://www.pianc.org
VAT BE 408-287-945
ISBN 978-2-87223-036-5
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ASPECTS .................................................................................................. 12
1.1 WG 211, A Completely New Guideline........................................................................................... 12
1.2 Function of Guideline........................................................................................................................ 12
1.3 Scope of Guideline ........................................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................... 13
1.5 PIANC Certified Fenders and PIANC Type Approval ..................................................................... 14
1.6 Members of Working Group 211 ...................................................................................................... 14
1.7 Meetings............................................................................................................................................. 15
1.8 Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................... 15
1.9 Use of the Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 16
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF FENDERING ................................................................................. 17
2.1 General Design Approach ............................................................................................................... 17
2.2 Fender Types and Systems ............................................................................................................... 17
2.3 Fender Efficiency ............................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.1 Types of Buckling Fenders ........................................................................................................ 19
2.3.2 Types of Sideloaded Fender .................................................................................................... 20
2.4 Fender Selection and Fender System Design ................................................................................. 20
2.4.1 Buckling Fender Systems .......................................................................................................... 21
2.4.2 Side Loaded Fender Systems .................................................................................................. 23
2.4.3 Side Loaded Floating Fenders ................................................................................................. 24
2.4.4 Special Applications................................................................................................................. 25
2.5 Ship-to-Ship Fendering ...................................................................................................................... 26
2.6 Fenders and Structures ..................................................................................................................... 27
3 PARTICULAR ASPECTS REGARDING DESIGN VESSELS ............................................................................... 28
3.1 Vessel Characteristics ....................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.2 Container Vessels ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.3 Dry Bulk & Ore Carriers ............................................................................................................. 29
3.1.4 Cruise Vessels ............................................................................................................................ 30
3.1.5 RoRo, RoPax & Vehicle (Car) Carriers .................................................................................... 30
3.1.6 Tankers ....................................................................................................................................... 31
3.1.7 Gas Carriers (LPG and LNG) .................................................................................................... 31
3.1.8 General Cargo, Refrigerated Cargo and Livestock Carriers ............................................... 31
3.1.9 Passenger Ferries....................................................................................................................... 32
3.1.10 Fishing Vessels ........................................................................................................................... 32
3.1.11 Offshore Supply Vessels & Harbour Tugs................................................................................. 33
3.1.12 Other Vessels ............................................................................................................................. 33
3.2 Displacement .................................................................................................................................... 33
3.3 Influence of Vessel Hull Characteristics on Fender Design ........................................................... 34
4 BASIS OF DESIGN ........................................................................................................................................ 36
4.1 Functional Requirements .................................................................................................................. 37
4.2 Operational Requirements ............................................................................................................... 37
4.3 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 38
4.4 Design Criteria, Return Period and Design Life ............................................................................... 38
4.5 Operation and Maintenance .......................................................................................................... 39
4
4.6 Reliability Requirements .................................................................................................................... 40
5 BERTHING ENERGY ...................................................................................................................................... 42
5.1 Berthing Manoeuvres and Navigation Conditions ........................................................................ 42
5.1.1 Alongside Berthing (Parallel or Angular) ................................................................................ 42
5.1.2 End Berthing (Longitudinal) ..................................................................................................... 42
5.1.3 Ship-to-Ship Berthing................................................................................................................. 43
5.1.4 Navigation Conditions ............................................................................................................. 43
5.2 Kinetic Energy of a Berthing Vessel.................................................................................................. 44
5.2.1 Fundamentals of Kinetic Energy Method............................................................................... 44
5.2.2 Design Berthing Energy ............................................................................................................ 46
5.2.3 Characteristic Berthing Energy................................................................................................ 46
5.3 Displacement of Vessel .................................................................................................................... 47
5.4 Berthing Velocity ............................................................................................................................... 47
5.4.1 Berthing Velocity Based on Local Knowledge, Data and Experience ............................... 48
5.4.2 Transverse Velocity ................................................................................................................... 48
5.4.3 Longitudinal Velocity................................................................................................................ 50
5.5 Berthing Angle ................................................................................................................................... 50
5.6 Eccentricity Factor ............................................................................................................................ 52
5.6.1 Distance 𝒓𝑭 and Berthing Impact Point ................................................................................. 53
5.6.2 Radius of Gyration .................................................................................................................... 56
5.6.3 Vessel Centre of Mass .............................................................................................................. 56
5.6.4 Eccentricity Factor for End Berthing ....................................................................................... 57
5.7 Added Mass Factor........................................................................................................................... 57
5.7.1 Alongside Berthing ................................................................................................................... 57
5.7.2 End Berthing .............................................................................................................................. 58
5.8 Partial Energy Factor ......................................................................................................................... 58
5.9 Ship-to-Ship Berthing ......................................................................................................................... 63
5.9.1 Berthing Manoeuvres ............................................................................................................... 63
5.9.2 Ship-to-Ship Berthing Energy .................................................................................................... 64
5.9.3 Characteristic Berthing Velocity ............................................................................................. 65
5.9.4 Eccentricity Factor ................................................................................................................... 66
6 FENDER SYSTEM SELECTION ........................................................................................................................ 67
6.1 Fender Selection Process and Role of the Designer ...................................................................... 67
6.2 Fender Selection Overview .............................................................................................................. 67
6.2.1 Fender Selection Using Project Specific Design Criteria ....................................................... 67
6.2.2 Fender Selection Using Pre-Set Design Criteria ...................................................................... 70
6.3 Fender System Selection................................................................................................................... 70
6.4 Factors Influencing Fender System Selection ................................................................................. 72
6.4.1 Bow Radius ................................................................................................................................ 73
6.4.2 Bow Flare ................................................................................................................................... 73
6.4.3 Fender System Pitch ................................................................................................................. 75
6.4.4 Single Fender System Contact ................................................................................................ 77
6.4.5 Multiple Fender System Contact............................................................................................. 77
6.4.6 Vessel Hull Structure .................................................................................................................. 79
6.4.7 Vessel Belting............................................................................................................................. 79
6.4.8 Double Hull Contact................................................................................................................. 81
6.4.9 Type of Supporting Structure ................................................................................................... 82
6.4.10 Flexible Dolphins ....................................................................................................................... 82
6.4.11 Fender System Elevation .......................................................................................................... 84
5
6.4.12 Pneumatic and Foam Fenders................................................................................................ 84
6.4.13 Number and Size of Fenders ................................................................................................... 85
6.4.14 Shear of Fenders ....................................................................................................................... 85
6.4.15 Submerged Fenders ................................................................................................................. 86
6.4.16 Fender Orientation ................................................................................................................... 86
6.4.17 Ageing Effects on Fenders ....................................................................................................... 87
6.4.18 Non-Marking Fenders ............................................................................................................... 88
6.4.19 Mooring Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 88
6.4.20 Permanent Mooring ................................................................................................................. 89
6.5 Base Fender Performance................................................................................................................ 90
6.6 Correction Factors............................................................................................................................. 91
6.6.1 Application of Correction Factors .......................................................................................... 91
6.6.2 Velocity Factor.......................................................................................................................... 92
6.6.3 Temperature Factor ................................................................................................................. 93
6.6.4 Angular Factor .......................................................................................................................... 94
6.6.5 Multiple Fender Contact Factor ............................................................................................. 95
6.7 Determining Fender Design Performance ...................................................................................... 96
6.7.1 Application of Partial Resistance Factors............................................................................... 97
6.7.2 Fender Performance Partial Resistance Factor ................................................................... 100
6.7.3 Multiple Fender Contact Partial Resistance Factor ............................................................ 101
6.7.4 Load Partial Resistance Factor .............................................................................................. 102
6.8 Hull Pressure...................................................................................................................................... 102
6.8.1 Factors Affecting Induced Hull Pressure ............................................................................... 103
6.8.2 Hull Structure ........................................................................................................................... 103
6.8.3 Recent Hull Pressure Research .............................................................................................. 105
6.8.4 Fender Reaction Force Distribution ...................................................................................... 107
6.8.5 Hull Pressure for Fender Panels .............................................................................................. 108
6.8.6 Hull Pressure for Cylindrical Fenders ...................................................................................... 109
6.8.7 Hull Pressure for Foam and Pneumatic Fenders .................................................................. 109
6.8.8 Typical Hull Pressure Capacities ............................................................................................ 109
6.9 Ship-to-Ship Fendering .................................................................................................................... 111
6.9.1 Ship-to-Ship Fender Selection ................................................................................................ 111
6.9.2 Vessel Stand-off and Number of Fenders ............................................................................ 112
6.9.3 Ship-to-Ship Operational Considerations ............................................................................. 113
7 FENDER SELECTION UNDER MOORED CONDITIONS................................................................................ 114
7.1 Fender Design for Moored Vessels ................................................................................................ 114
7.2 Characterisation of Vessel and Berth Configuration ................................................................... 116
7.3 Mooring Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 117
7.4 Creep and Fatigue Assessment for Dynamic Mooring Situations .............................................. 117
7.4.1 Creep and Cyclic Loading Limits for DMA .......................................................................... 121
8 FENDER SYSTEM COMPONENT DESIGN.................................................................................................... 122
8.1 Fender Panel Design ....................................................................................................................... 122
8.1.1 Load Cases and Structural Analysis ...................................................................................... 122
8.1.2 Fender Panel Internal Structure ............................................................................................. 123
8.1.3 Edge Chamfers ....................................................................................................................... 124
8.1.4 Panel Size and Position ........................................................................................................... 125
8.2 Chains and Fixings Design .............................................................................................................. 126
8.2.1 Chain Types and Positions ..................................................................................................... 126
8.2.2 Support Chains for Side Loaded Fenders ............................................................................. 130
6
8.2.3 Bracket Design ........................................................................................................................ 131
8.2.4 Fixing Anchor Design .............................................................................................................. 131
8.3 Low Friction Facing Design ............................................................................................................. 133
8.3.1 Low Friction Resin Facings...................................................................................................... 134
8.3.2 Steel Facing ............................................................................................................................. 134
8.3.3 Fastenings ................................................................................................................................ 135
8.4 Parallel Motion Fender Systems...................................................................................................... 135
8.5 Fender Interfaces with Mooring Lines ............................................................................................ 136
8.6 Whole-Life Considerations .............................................................................................................. 137
8.7 Corrosion of Fender Components ................................................................................................. 137
8.8 Marine Growth................................................................................................................................. 138
8.9 Design of Fender Components in Icy Conditions ........................................................................ 138
9 MANUFACTURING OF FENDER SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 139
9.1 Manufacturer Qualifications .......................................................................................................... 139
9.1.1 Quality Control by Manufacturer .......................................................................................... 139
9.1.2 Workforce Qualification ......................................................................................................... 139
9.1.3 Storage of Produced Fender Elements ................................................................................ 140
9.2 Rubber Fender Compound ............................................................................................................ 140
9.2.1 Natural Rubber ....................................................................................................................... 140
9.2.2 Synthetic Rubber .................................................................................................................... 141
9.2.3 Recycled Rubber .................................................................................................................... 141
9.2.4 Fillers ......................................................................................................................................... 141
9.2.5 Anti-Ageing Agents ................................................................................................................ 142
9.2.6 Oil (Processing Aids) ............................................................................................................... 142
9.2.7 Accelerators and Sulphur ...................................................................................................... 142
9.2.8 Other Ingredients .................................................................................................................... 142
9.3 Manufacturing Process or Rubber Fenders .................................................................................. 142
9.3.1 Mixing of the Compound ...................................................................................................... 143
9.3.2 Moulding, Extruding and Wrapping...................................................................................... 143
9.3.3 Curing/Vulcanising of the Rubber Element ......................................................................... 144
9.4 Fabrication of Steel Fender Panels ................................................................................................ 144
9.4.1 Panel Internal Structure .......................................................................................................... 145
9.4.2 Material.................................................................................................................................... 146
9.4.3 Protection Against Corrosion for Steel Panels ...................................................................... 146
9.5 Fabrication of UHMW-PE Low Friction Facing ............................................................................... 147
9.6 Fabrication of Accessories ............................................................................................................. 147
9.6.1 Chains ...................................................................................................................................... 148
9.6.2 Anchors and Accessories ...................................................................................................... 148
9.6.3 Protection Against Corrosion for Accessories ...................................................................... 148
9.7 Pneumatic Fenders ......................................................................................................................... 149
9.8 Foam Fenders .................................................................................................................................. 149
10 TEST PROCEDURES OF MARINE FENDERS.................................................................................................. 150
10.1 Classification of Rubber Fender Testing ........................................................................................ 150
10.2 Determination of Fender Base Performance ............................................................................... 153
10.2.1 Constant Velocity (CV) .......................................................................................................... 153
10.2.2 Standard compression and Base performance .................................................................. 153
10.2.3 Standard condition ................................................................................................................ 153
10.3 Test Apparatus for Compression Test ............................................................................................ 153
10.4 Supporting Protocols ....................................................................................................................... 154
7
10.4.1 Break-In Compression Cycle ................................................................................................. 154
10.4.2 Stabilising Compression Cycles ............................................................................................. 154
10.4.3 Thermal Stabilisation ............................................................................................................... 154
10.5 Performance Testing Protocol for Standard Compression .......................................................... 155
10.6 Protocol for Durability Test .............................................................................................................. 158
10.7 Material Tests ................................................................................................................................... 160
10.7.1 Rubber Compound: Physical Properties .............................................................................. 160
10.7.2 TGA (Thermogravimetric Analysis) ........................................................................................ 163
10.7.3 Test Protocol for Creation of Velocity Factors ..................................................................... 163
10.7.4 Test Protocol for Creation of Temperature Factors (Ct) ...................................................... 165
10.7.5 Test Protocol for Angle Factor ............................................................................................... 166
10.8 Rubber Compounds for Pneumatic Fenders................................................................................ 167
10.9 Performance Tests of Pneumatic Fenders .................................................................................... 167
10.10 Classification of Foam Fender Testing ........................................................................................... 168
10.11 Material Tests for Foam Fenders ..................................................................................................... 169
10.11.1 Foam Core .............................................................................................................................. 169
10.11.2 Polyurethane (Solvent Free) Outer Layer Elastomer or Similar Material ............................ 169
10.11.3 Reinforcement Layer .............................................................................................................. 170
10.12 Performance Tests of Foam Fenders ............................................................................................. 170
10.12.1 Fundamental and Type Approval Tests for Foam Fenders ................................................. 170
10.12.2 Velocity, Angular and Temperature Factor for Foam Fenders .......................................... 171
10.12.3 Durability Tests ......................................................................................................................... 172
10.12.4 Skin Thickness and Foam Density Verification Testing ......................................................... 172
10.12.5 Fender Pull-Through Test......................................................................................................... 173
10.13 Tests for Accessories ........................................................................................................................ 174
10.13.1 Fabricated Steel Structures Air-Leakage/Pressure Test Procedure .................................... 174
10.13.2 NDT (Non- Destructive Testing – All Fabricated Steel Parts) ............................................... 174
UHMW-PE Resin and Pads ....................................................................................................................... 175
11 INSTALLATION, INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE .................................................................................. 176
11.1 Installation ........................................................................................................................................ 176
11.1.1 Handling and Installation ....................................................................................................... 176
11.1.2 Safety and Accessibility ......................................................................................................... 176
11.2 Spares and Storage ........................................................................................................................ 177
11.2.1 Spares ...................................................................................................................................... 177
11.2.2 Storage .................................................................................................................................... 177
11.3 Inspection and Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 177
11.3.1 Inspection ................................................................................................................................ 178
11.3.2 Maintenance .......................................................................................................................... 179
11.3.3 Emerging Technology ............................................................................................................ 181
12 SUSTAINABILITY OF FENDERS .................................................................................................................... 182
12.1 Circular Economy with Rubber Fenders........................................................................................ 182
12.2 Carbon Footprint ............................................................................................................................. 182
12.3 Rubber Sourcing .............................................................................................................................. 183
12.4 Fabrication ....................................................................................................................................... 183
12.5 Fender Design and Materials Selection ........................................................................................ 184
12.6 Recycling ......................................................................................................................................... 184
12.6.1 Current Practice of Fender Recycling .................................................................................. 185
12.6.2 Rubber Recycling ................................................................................................................... 185
12.6.3 Foam Fender Recycling ......................................................................................................... 186
8
12.6.4 Steel Recycling ....................................................................................................................... 186
12.6.5 UHMW-PE Recycling ............................................................................................................... 187
12.7 Recommendations for Fender Sustainability ................................................................................ 187
13 SPECIFICATION WRITING .......................................................................................................................... 188
13.1 Responsibility for Providing Information ......................................................................................... 188
13.2 General ............................................................................................................................................ 189
13.2.1 Qualification of Supplier ........................................................................................................ 189
13.2.2 Standards and Codes of Practice ........................................................................................ 189
13.2.3 Quality Control ........................................................................................................................ 189
13.2.4 Submittal Requirements ......................................................................................................... 189
13.2.5 Records .................................................................................................................................... 190
13.2.6 Warranty, Product Liability and Compliance ...................................................................... 191
13.3 Vessel, Berthing and Quay Structure Considerations .................................................................. 191
13.4 Manufacturing, Testing and Quality Requirements for Fender Units .......................................... 192
13.5 Delivery, Installation and Storage .................................................................................................. 193
13.6 Sustainability .................................................................................................................................... 193
14 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................... 194
APPENDIX A: RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR FENDERS ................................................................................. 198
APPENDIX B: THERMAL CONDUCTION OF RUBBER FENDERS ........................................................................... 203
APPENDIX C MULTI-FENDER CONTACT, GEOMETRY FOR FENDER COMPRESSION CALCULATIONS ............. 206
APPENDIX D: ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS AND UNITS ....................................................................................... 208
14.1 D.1 ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 208
14.2 D.2 SYMBOLS .................................................................................................................................... 209
APPENDIX E: TERMS OF REFERENCE WG 211 .................................................................................................... 214
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Flowchart WG 211 guideline ........................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2.1: Typical buckling fender deflection curve ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.2: Sideloaded fender deflection curve .............................................................................................. 20
Figure 3.1: Parallel mid-body of a typical container vessel hull ..................................................................... 29
Figure 3.2: Fender contact zones on vessel hull at low berthing angles ....................................................... 35
Figure 5.1: Berthing motion and corresponding reference angles ................................................................ 42
Figure 5.2: End berthing mode .......................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 5.3: Degrees of motion of a vessel ......................................................................................................... 45
Figure 5.4: Nomenclature for calculating Ce factor (single fender contact) ............................................... 52
Figure 5.5: Nomenclature for calculating Ce factor (multiple fender contact) ........................................... 53
Figure 5.6: Vessel centre of mass and under keel clearance ........................................................................ 56
Figure 5.7: Added Mass Factor .......................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 5.8: Under keel clearance of a vessel ................................................................................................... 58
Figure 5.9: Ship-to-ship berthing for free floating vessels ................................................................................ 64
Figure 6.1: Overview of fender selection process............................................................................................ 69
Figure 6.2: Bow radius (RB) and length of bow flare (LBow) ........................................................................... 73
Figure 6.3: Bow flare (βf) and clearance to supporting structure (ceff) ......................................................... 74
Figure 6.4: Estimate of maximum fender pitch and minimum clearance to the supporting structure ...... 76
Figure 6.5: Single fender contact ...................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 6.6: Contacted fenders at larger berthing angles (with contact on bow flare) .............................. 78
Figure 6.7: Contacted fenders at smaller berthing angles (almost parallel to the berth) .......................... 78
Figure 6.8: Arch fenders with maximum deflection smaller than belting height .......................................... 80
Figure 6.9: Arch fenders with maximum deflection greater than belting height ......................................... 80
9
Figure 6.10: Belting causing vessel hull double contact and line loads ........................................................ 81
Figure 6.11: Application of correction factors and partial safety factors ..................................................... 90
Figure 6.12: Calculation of Cmult, c for multiple fender contact .................................................................... 96
Figure 6.13: Identification of Rf, c and calculation of Rf, d for linear force-deflection curves ..................... 97
Figure 6.14: Identification of Rf, c and calculation of Rf, d for non-linear force-deflection curves.............. 98
Figure 6.15: Typical vessel hull side structures (TNO, 2019) ............................................................................ 104
Figure 6.16: Equivalent hull pressure limits (Berendsen et al., 2024) ............................................................. 106
Figure 6.17: Maximum fender reaction force (Berendsen et al., 2024) ....................................................... 106
Figure 6.18: Contact area of a flat fender panel .......................................................................................... 108
Figure 7.1: Fender design flow chart for moored conditions ........................................................................ 115
Figure 7.2: Example of fender deflection time series showing average value and different cycles ....... 120
Figure 7.3: Energy distribution as a function of frequency............................................................................ 121
Figure 8.1: Typical design cases of fender contact with vessel hull profile ................................................. 123
Figure 8.2: Recommended minimum thicknesses for steel in fender panels .............................................. 124
Figure 8.3: Typical fender system chain layout (viewed from rear of fender panel) ................................. 127
Figure 8.4: Typical tension chain arrangement ............................................................................................. 128
Figure 8.5: Recommendations for angles and chain arrangement for non-compressed fenders .......... 130
Figure 8.6: Double and 4-chain arrangements for foam and pneumatic fenders .................................... 130
Figure 8.7: Typical examples of fender system bracket assemblies ............................................................ 131
Figure 8.8: Typical examples of fender system anchors................................................................................ 132
Figure 8.9: Typical facing connection details ................................................................................................ 135
Figure 9.1: Manufacturing of rubber fender................................................................................................... 143
Figure 9.2: Typical fender panel cross section samples (U profile on left, T-profiles on right side ............. 145
Figure 9.3: Typical fender frontal, back and internal panel structure views ............................................... 145
Figure B-1: heat conduction (Nakamura et al., 2020) .................................................................................. 203
Figure B-2: relation rubber thickness and temperature adaptation of fender (Nakamura et al., 2020) . 204
Figure B-3: Time history of inner temperature and ambient temperature (Nakamura, Nakamura,
Miyata, Yoneyama, & Kashima, 2020) ........................................................................................................... 205
Figure C-1: Fender contact at hull tangent line impacts at fender centreline .......................................... 206
Figure C-2: Fender contact at hull tangent line centrally between fenders .............................................. 207
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Typical Cone Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B).................................................... 21
Table 2-2: Typical Cell Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B) ....................................................... 21
Table 2-3: Typical Element/Leg Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B) ....................................... 22
Table 2-4: Typical Special Element Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B) .................................. 22
Table 2-5: Typical Arch/Trapezoidal Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B) ................................ 23
Table 2-6: Typical Cylindrical Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B) ........................................... 23
Table 2-7: Typical Foam Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B) ................................................... 24
Table 2-8: Typical Pneumatic Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B) .......................................... 25
Table 2-9: Typical Parallel Motion Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B) .................................... 25
Table 2-10: Typical Pile/Pivot Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)............................................ 26
Table 2-11: Typical Rolling Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B) ................................................ 26
Table 3-1: Approximate displacement v capacity relationships for various vessel types (WG 235) .......... 34
Table 4-1: Consequence classes and description of failure consequence ................................................. 41
Table 5-1: Description of navigation conditions at berth ............................................................................... 44
Table 5-2: Recommended characteristic values of design variables ........................................................... 47
Table 5-3: Characteristic berthing velocity in the absence of site-specific information ............................. 49
Table 5-4: Characteristic longitudinal berthing velocity in the absence of site-specific information ........ 50
10
Table 5-5: Berthing angle [degrees] at the moment of contact, no site-specific information available . 51
Table 5-6: Typical 𝐶𝑒 factors for different impact point along the vessel ..................................................... 55
Table 5-7: Coefficient of variation in displacement ........................................................................................ 60
Table 5-8: Reference partial energy factor[ 𝛾𝐸𝑟𝑒𝑓] for 100 berthings per year – single fender contact... 61
Table 5-9: Reference partial energy factor[ 𝛾𝐸𝑟𝑒𝑓] for 100 berthings per year – multiple fender
contact ................................................................................................................................................................ 61
Table 5-10: Reference partial energy Factor [𝛾𝐸𝑟𝑒𝑓] for 100 berthings per year – for Monitored
Berthings .............................................................................................................................................................. 61
Table 5-11: Correction factor for an alternative annual berthing frequency (𝛾𝑛) for n ≤ 100 .................... 62
Table 5-12: Correction factor for an alternative annual berthing frequency (𝛾𝑛) for n > 100 .................... 62
Table 5-13: Closing velocity for ship-to-ship operations .................................................................................. 66
Table 6-1: Application of fender systems for various vessel types ................................................................. 71
Table 6-2: Application of fender systems to various marine applications .................................................... 72
Table 6-3: Partial resistance factor 𝛾𝑓 related to the performance of a single fender ............................. 101
Table 6-4: Partial resistance factor 𝛾𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 related to single and multiple fender contacts ...................... 101
Table 6-5: Partial factor 𝛾𝑅 for reaction forces to be used in fender system design ................................. 102
Table 6-6: Typical values of hull pressure capacity ....................................................................................... 110
Table 6-7: STS recommended stand-off distance, number of fenders and typical sizes for calm
conditions .......................................................................................................................................................... 113
Table 7-1: Description of creep damage in fenders depending on their type and material .................. 118
Table 7-2: Description of fatigue damage in fenders depending on their type and material................. 119
Table 8-1: Types of chains ................................................................................................................................ 127
Table 8-2: Typical design values of coefficients of friction ........................................................................... 133
Table 10-1: Rubber fender testing scheme .................................................................................................... 152
Table 10-2: Standard conditions where correction factors are 1.0 ............................................................. 153
Table 10-3: Additional Information for standard compression test .............................................................. 157
Table 10-4: Additional Information for durability test .................................................................................... 159
Table 10-5: Physical properties table .............................................................................................................. 162
Table 10-6: Foam fender testing scheme ....................................................................................................... 168
Table 10-7: Foam core physical properties .................................................................................................... 169
Table 10-8: Polyurethane properties ............................................................................................................... 170
Table 10-9: Nylon reinforcement filaments properties .................................................................................. 170
Table 10-10: Verification tests for foam fenders ............................................................................................. 171
Table 10-11: NDT test of all fabricated steel parts ......................................................................................... 174
Table 10-12: Physical Properties of UHMW-PE resin and pads ...................................................................... 175
Table 11-1: Common failure modes for typical fender components .......................................................... 179
Table 13-1: Required fender system design information ............................................................................... 188
Table A-0-1: Probability of failure and associated reliability target for different consequence classes .. 199
Table A-0-2: Description of failure consequences in literature .................................................................... 202
11
1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL ASPECTS
1.1 WG 211, A Completely New Guideline
Working Group 211 report began as an update of PIANC MarCom WG 33: ‘Guidelines for the
Design of Fenders Systems: 2002’. However, this final report is essentially a new guideline rather
than an update. This guideline completely supersedes the previous WG 33 guideline (PIANC,
2002) and also all fender design and berthing related guidance in other PIANC MarCom
reports referring to WG 33.
Users cannot simply change WG 33 into WG 211 in their own fender specifications. That will
lead to significant cost increases due to a different design approach that has been adopted
in WG 211. User specifications will require a full update for the following reasons:
• WG 211 describes the physical process of berthing better than WG 33 resulting in higher
velocities, lower berthing angles and multiple fender contact.
• Berthing velocity, due to its uncertainty, is the dominant factor over all other factors for
fender design.
• WG 211 puts the safety more in the rubber than in the supporting structure. One has to
integrally design the total marine structure, not just the fender system.
• WG 211 strongly recommends the use of site-specific information. Only use the velocities in
Table 5-3 when no knowledge on, or data of the site is available. Always talk to pilots,
harbourmasters and tug masters if present.
• When site-specific information is used, fenders will be slightly smaller than those determined
using WG 33 (Roubos, et al., 2023). If local knowledge is ignored, fenders might be over
designed.
Since the changes are quite substantial, there is a transition period between WG 33 and WG
211 to reorganise fender suppliers’ catalogues according to the new guidelines, which is
expected to require a significant amount of type approval testing. This period ends 1-5-2026
(two years after the WG 211 guideline publication). Designers can start using the new guideline
but should be aware of what they are specifying for deliveries before this date.
Normal reference to this guideline should be made as: ‘PIANC Fender Guidelines 2024’,
abbreviated as (PIANC) WG 211. The formal reference shall be: ‘PIANC MarCom WG 211
report Guidelines for the Design, Manufacturing and Testing of Fender Systems 2024’.
This report provides guidance on designing, manufacturing and testing of fender systems to
ensure these fender systems are sufficiently safe for both vessel and berth, reliable, durable
and have an optimal total cost of ownership.
In addition, this guideline aims to enhance the knowledge level surrounding fenders (Chapters
2, 4, 8 & 9) and to guide the reader through the steps from initial design (Chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 &
8) up to a tested (Chapter 10) and installed (Chapter 11) fender system. The guideline includes
best practice recommendations and takes into account the latest knowledge. However, WG
211 is not intended to be a tender/contractual document.
12
1.3 Scope of Guideline
This guideline focusses on fender systems for seagoing vessels, primarily tug assisted or
equipped with thrusters, often supervised by a pilot and in all cases executing controlled
berthing manoeuvres. It is not taking account of collisions, e.g. vessels crashing into structures
(this will be covered by MarCom WG 215) and the design of protection structures (e.g. bridge
piers), or guidance like on lock chambers (this will be covered by MarCom WG 206 Design of
Navigation Locks to be published in 2024).
The guideline covers energy absorbing (mostly) rubber fenders in all shapes and designs, such
as buckling and non-buckling, pneumatic and foam fenders. Recommendations primarily
come from global experts in the field applying lessons learnt and sharing best practices.
In this guideline the term 'fender’ or ‘fender unit’ is used to describe the energy absorbing
element of a fender system. The term ‘fender system’ is used to describe a single ‘fender
system’, including fender unit, chains, anchors, shackles, panels, etc. Fender system is also used
as plural for a group of fender systems.
The guideline can be applied to small seagoing vessels that are not tug assisted or supervised
by a pilot. This guideline does not provide design guidance for inland vessels and barges, since
these types of vessels often moor against wood or even plain concrete walls (lock chambers)
(Broos, van Schaik, & Huitema, 2013). This guideline does not deal with (inland) barges and
their operations, however when these vessels berth on energy absorbing fenders, this should
be considered. Typically, hull pressures are not an issue for inland barges, however the design
should take account of the low freeboard at low tide, together with the typical square bow
structure and need for safe access to shore. This guideline should be used with great care if
the berth under consideration is only used by inland vessels and small barges. Some of the
formulae used in the guideline may not be valid.
The design approach and the associated partial factors of safety proposed in WG 211 are
developed for new structures. For assessing existing structures, the partial safety factors in this
guideline are generally too conservative. Most codes and standards define three different
reliability targets. I) For new structures; II) For upgrades/renovation; and III) For maintaining an
asset in service.
The paper of (Roubos, Groenewegen, Ollero, Hein, & Wal, 2018) provides a practical method
to adjust the berthing energy for assessing existing structures.
Climate change is a key issue influencing berthing conditions like wind and waves and
subsequently fender system design. Suitable fenders increase the safety of a berth and can
improve the resilience of existing port infrastructure. A good knowledge of berthing operations
and navigation conditions in a specific port (Chapter 5) may offer the designer the chance to
allow bigger vessels to use existing infrastructure (Roubos, et al., 2023), or enhance the
operational window, instead of building new infrastructure.
Two of the key challenges with rubber are the carbon footprint and the as yet relatively limited
possibility of recycling rubber material (Chapter 12). It is considered of utmost importance to
design suitable fender systems with a long lifetime to reduce the carbon footprint of the berth.
13
1.5 PIANC Certified Fenders and PIANC Type Approval
Type approval is a certificate issued by an independent body that verifies that a specific
fender fulfils the recommendations of this guideline. The responsibility for stating this type
approval lies completely with this third party. It does not rest with PIANC (Chapter 10).
It is common practice for fender suppliers to claim they have ‘PIANC certified’ fenders. That
cannot be the case since PIANC is not a certifying body. Any PIANC logo or stamp on a
certificate is illegal. Fender suppliers can claim that fenders are designed (Chapter 6),
produced (Chapter 9) and tested (Chapter 10) according to the recommendations set out in
this guideline. However, fenders are never certified by PIANC.
Whether or not a fender system supplier is the manufacturer of the fenders does not matter
from the perspective of responsibility. The supplier of the fender (system) is always responsible
for all manufacturing quality issues.
14
1.7 Meetings
WG 211 held four physical meetings before the COVID-19 pandemic interrupted the
development process. Thereafter, seven online meetings were held, with three further
physical/hybrid meetings held to finalise the guideline. All meetings were well attended, the
full group has really contributed to the guideline.
1.8 Acknowledgements
The writing of this guideline was not possible without the support of the mother companies of
the members, national PIANC committees and input and critical review of external experts
amongst them:
DSME, Samsung Heavy Industries, Delft University of Technology, Royal Institution of Naval
Architects, TNO, Lloyd’s Register, Port of Dover, Port of Melbourne, Port of Rotterdam, Port of
Valencia, Port of Wilhelmshaven, Port of Bremerhaven, national subgroups of WG 211 (UK,
Japan, US, the Netherlands), Coastal Development Institute of Technology. Knowledge Centre
for Manoeuvring in Shallow and Confined Water (MASHCON) – cooperation Ghent University
and Flanders Hydraulics, Arcadis, SBE, Witteveen+Bos, BS6349-4 committee.
Jaap Havinga from KIWA, Dr. Alan Muhr of Tun Abdul Razak Research Centre, Ben Bullock and
Hari Panchumarthi from Jacobs, Elizabeth Eldridge from AECOM, Perry Groenewegen from
Royal HaskoningDHV, Peter Hunter from HR Wallingford. Grard Blankers, Leon Groenewegen,
Master graduating students from Delft University: Felix (Orlin), Emma Berendsen, Lucie Roussel,
Thomas IJzerman & Iris Heemskerk.
15
1.9 Use of the Guidelines
The flowchart below presents an overview of how this guideline is structured and can be used.
16
2 INTRODUCTION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF FENDERING
This chapter provides an overview of the typical characteristics of a range of fenders and
fender systems currently in use around the world. It also provides an overview of the general
fender selection and design approach.
This overview covers many commonly applied fender types and fender systems in operation
at a wide variety of ports and marine facilities however is not considered to be exhaustive.
Fender systems in general are part of marine structures, providing an interface between
berthing vessels and the supporting structure.
The principal function of a fender system is to absorb the vessel berthing energy and dissipate
the associated reaction forces into the supporting structure. A correctly designed fender
system will bring the berthing vessel to a complete and safe stop without damaging the vessel
hull, the supporting structure or the fender unit. Once the vessel is moored, the fender system
should also be able to protect the vessel and the supporting structure from additional loads
induced by wind loads and by vessel motions caused by wind, waves, currents, tidal variations,
passing vessels and the loading or unloading of cargo. Special consideration is required for
the accommodation of cyclic loading (especially on permanently moored vessels) and should
be considered separately.
Shear forces resulting from the movement or warping of vessels along a berth, and rotating
onto and off the berth, must also be allowed for in the fender system design.
The design of fender systems shall also consider the uncertainties during berthing.
Consideration should be given to the consequences of fender failures, frequency of use, type
of cargo and a range of other factors as discussed in Chapter 4.
Fenders can be categorised according to the mode by which they absorb or dissipate the
kinetic energy of berthing and/or moored vessels.
Rubber is used as the fender energy absorbing element in most cases because it is viscoelastic
with a loading unloading curve hysteresis and full strain recovery. The area between the
loading and unloading curve is the strain energy converted into heat. When fenders are tested
the energy absorption is obtained by measuring this area. If a linear elastic material was used
as a fender (e.g. steel below its yield stress), the vessel would bounce off the berth due to the
vessel’s kinetic energy being converted into steel elastic energy and back into vessel’s kinetic
energy with no losses. If a plastic material was used (e.g. steel past its yield), then the
conversion of vessel’s kinetic energy into steel plastic strain energy will convert most of the
kinetic energy into heat, which is desirable, however there will be incomplete strain recovery,
i.e. the only deformation recovered will be the elastic range, which is inconvenient as the
fender system will then have a permanent set back. Rubber is not the only viscoelastic material
that is used for fendering. Others include polymer foams, bitumen, oil, wood and soil, however
rubber is the most efficient. For example, isolated timber fender piles use the energy absorption
properties of the soil plus wood. Another example is the shock absorbers in motor vehicles
which use the turbulent flow of oil to convert kinetic energy to heat energy.
17
Fender systems are designed as a combination of different fender elements, steel panels and
accessories including chains and anchors. The designer is required to consider a wide range
of variables, options and alternatives, operational constraints and design criteria when
selecting the appropriate fender and designing the required fender system.
Fender selection depends on a variety of factors and is not limited to fender performance
alone. The selection of the correct fender is a significant element of developing the correct
fender system design.
Table 2-1 provides an overview of common fender types currently used in the industry. Typical
values of the fender size, energy absorption and reaction force are provided for information
and relative comparison only and should not be used for fender selection or design purposes.
Further details on these fender units and other types are provided in Section 2.4. The various
energy absorption and reaction force values and ranges are based on a variety of hardness
grades that high performance fenders are available in. Hardness grades will be discussed later
in this document, however it should be noted that the stiffer a fender, the higher the energy
absorption and reaction force for a given deflection.
The properties listed in Table 2-1 and Section 2.4 are based on data published by fender
suppliers relating to berthing impacts perpendicular to the berthing line. This data is current at
the time of publication.
Fender systems can also have bespoke, limited applications. These fenders may not have
been widely adopted or are customised for one specific project, e.g. fully submerged fenders,
temporary fenders or fenders for specific shipyard applications.
There is no single solution to all fendering challenges. Designers should be aware that simplified
fender selection tools may lead to generic designs. Combinations of vessels, navigational limits,
types of supporting structure, end user preferences and particular berthing conditions present
a range of different operational requirements and constraints. Vessels at highly automated
container terminals will have very different demands on the fender systems than those at ferry
terminals with a high frequency of berthing.
18
Arch Fenders Foam Fenders Pneumatic Fenders
All sizes are in mm | EA in kNm | RF in kN | Shapes might differ from manufacturer to manufacturer
Fender selection also depends on the properties of the supporting structure. The design of a
fendering system has to be integrated with that of the berth structure as not all types of fenders
are compatible with all types of structures.
All fender types are characterised by their energy conversion capacities. Fender
manufacturers are constantly conducting research and development into improvements to
rubber fenders, compounds and components. Designers are therefore recommended to
consult fender suppliers to adopt a holistic approach and to consider the entire fender system
in the fender selection process.
Designers should also allow for variations in the range of energy absorption and reaction forces
of the selected fenders, as performance characteristics for similar fender types and sizes can
vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. This is particularly important when considering load-
sensitive structures.
Force transmission: Solid fenders such as D-Shape and extruded rubber profiles that primarily
transmit forces directly to the supporting structure, with small energy absorption capability. It is
acknowledged that other materials, such as tyres and timber, are used as fenders in certain
circumstances. In the context of these guidelines, such solutions are considered as force
transmission fenders. Consequently, these solutions are generally not covered by this WG 211
guideline. If it is only for very small vessels, D-fenders can be designed as energy absorbing
fenders as well. Suppliers provide the necessary data.
Energy absorbing: This class of fenders is covered by this guideline and are sub-divided into
two main categories, buckling and side-loaded fenders.
Buckling fenders typically consist of cone, cell, element or leg fenders. The typical indicative
load deflection curve of these types of fenders is as indicated in Figure 2.1. The illustrated
deflection behaviour provides substantially greater energy absorption capacities, when
compared to a sideloaded fender.
19
A buckling fender typically has an energy capacity in the region of 70 to 80% of the theoretical
maximum characteristic energy absorption. The characteristic energy absorption is calculated
based on assuming the maximum reaction is maintained throughout the compression. A
consequence of this greater overall efficiency is that the maximum reaction force is reached
early on in the compression cycle at about half the design deflection, when compared to a
side loaded fender.
Sideloaded fenders include cylindrical, pneumatic and foam fenders. The typical indicative
load deflection curve of these types of fenders is shown in Figure 2.2. These fenders are
characterised by a constant, almost linear, increase in fender compression and reaction force.
This deflection behaviour is often beneficial for accommodating smaller vessels and other
specialist applications, due to lower resultant reaction forces for smaller deflections.
The efficiency of these fender types is limited to approximately 50-60 % of the theoretical
maximum energy absorption, calculated based on the area under the curve.
When comparing both types of fenders, designers should be aware of their respective
limitations, stand-off requirements and the relative performance of each fender type. The most
suitable fender, be it buckling or sideloaded fender, should be selected based on the required
project specific design criteria.
Fender selection and fender system design should be based on the operational and
environmental conditions specified for the project site. An overview of the typical
characteristics of a range of different fender types is included below.
20
2.4.1 Buckling Fender Systems
A) B)
The cone fender is an efficient fender that is used in a wide variety of applications. It has a conical body
with the larger diameter end of the fender mounted on the supporting berth structure and rubber-
encased steel mounting flanges. The typical design deflection is approximately 70 % of the height of the
cone fender. The cone fender offers good energy absorption to reaction force ratio (E/R) and high shear
stability, with no loss of performance up to a 10° contact angle.
Typical applications include container and bulk terminals, oil and gas terminals, general cargo terminals,
cruise terminals, ferry and RoRo terminals, and naval berths.
Table 2-1: Typical Cone Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
A) B)
The cell fender is a well-established fender type, with a hollow cylindrical body and rubber-encased
steel mounting flanges. The cell fender is designed to deflect in an axial direction up to 52.5 % of its
original height. The cell fender is a robust and durable fender which is typically easy to assemble and
install and has a good resistance to shearing.
Typical applications include container and bulk terminals, oil and gas terminals, general cargo terminals,
cruise terminals, ferry and RoRo terminals and naval berths.
Table 2-2: Typical Cell Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
21
A) B)
Element or leg fenders are modular rubber units with embedded mounting plates combined with steel
fender panels. They are based on V-Type Fenders however each leg is separate. The modularity of the
fender provides good flexibility and options for the arrangement of the fenders when installed with
closed box steel panels or where mounting space is limited. Element fenders can deflect up to 57.5 % in
the axial direction.
The element or leg fenders are considered to have a good energy absorption to reaction force ratio
(E/R) and have a modular and compact design with a small footprint. These fenders can be vertically
and/or horizontally mounted as part of a combined fender system. Single element or leg fender units
can also be used in combination with fender pile designs, for easy maintenance and replacement.
Typical applications include container and bulk terminals, general cargo terminals, RoRo terminals, navy
berths and barge berths.
*Performance values for single unit of 1,000 mm length
Table 2-3: Typical Element/Leg Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
A) B)
Size (H): 250 – 1250 mm Energy: ~ 10 – 730* kNm Reaction: ~80 – 1270* kN
Special element fenders combine rubber Element/Leg Fenders with low friction frontal shields directly
fixed to the fenders and belting deflector if it is necessary. They are also designed to deflect about 57.5
% in an axial direction.
The special element fenders are available in different sizes / widths and with different colour options of
UHMW-PE plates which makes them a flexible system; they offer low friction facing and are considered
an alternative to steel panels.
Typical applications include container and bulk terminals, jetties and berths for small to medium size
vessels, general cargo terminals and naval berths.
*Performance values for single unit of 1,000 mm length
Table 2-4: Typical Special Element Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
22
A) B)
Arch fenders are a rigid, moulded one piece type of fender. They are available in different cross sections
and lengths. The main difference in the cross sections is the width of the fender head and the resulting
vessel contact surface area. Arch fenders can be equipped with an additional embedded steel plate
in the fender head that allows for the installation of low friction frontal plate, a steel fender panel, or the
mounting of the fender unit behind a fender pile installation. Arch fenders are designed to deflect about
50 % in an axial direction.
Arch fenders are considered to be very robust, durable and require minimal maintenance. These
fenders have a high shear resistance in the longitudinal direction and can be installed both vertically
and horizontally onto the supporting structure. They are ideally suitable for turning dolphins and pivot
points. The main disadvantage is the relatively small contact area, resulting in high hull pressure values.
Typical applications include general cargo terminals, multi-purpose-terminals, RoRo ramps, passenger
vessel terminals, and berths for barges and tugs.
*Performance values for single unit of 1,000 mm length
Table 2-5: Typical Arch/Trapezoidal Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
A) B)
Cylindrical fenders were the first fender type to be produced with a defined performance. Installation
is simple using chains, bars, ropes or specially designed ladder brackets, depending on the fender size
and supporting structure. As the cylindrical fender is compressed, the energy absorption and associated
reaction force increase proportionately up to the characteristic deflection of 100 % of the inner
diameter. This can be advantageous in providing lower reaction forces, resulting in a comparatively
‘softer’ berthing.
The cylindrical fender is very robust, simple and easy to install and has a high abrasion resistance. The
main disadvantage is the relatively small contact area, resulting in theoretically high hull pressure values.
Typical applications include multiple usage at different berths, container and bulk terminals, general
cargo terminals, RoRo terminals, and berths for tugs and barges.
*Performance values for single unit of 1,000 mm length
Table 2-6: Typical Cylindrical Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
23
2.4.3 Side Loaded Floating Fenders
A) B)
Foam fenders are best suited to applications with large variations in water level. They are also
considered to be good solutions for cruise terminals, due to the non-marking surface and the ability to
adapt to different hull shapes. Foam fenders are fabricated using a resilient, energy absorbing, closed
cell foam. A skin covering the foam core is constructed from a continuously wound fabric cord of
reinforced polyurethane elastomer. Foam fenders can be fitted with or without a protective chain and
tyre net. Typically, these fenders are mounted against a smooth substructure to reduce wear and
uneven deflections. Foam fenders are designed to deflect about 60% of their outside diameter.
As well as the traditional foam fender, there are other foam fender types, such as ‘Donut’ fenders, small
foam fenders with thru-ropes or plastic pipes to suit a variety of applications. Foam fenders also provide
a constant relationship between increasing compression and increasing of reaction force. Foam
fenders typically exert low hull pressures and can provide submerged contact area (submarine type
foam fenders only) and can be made available in various grades of foam.
Typical applications include navy vessel berths, cruise terminals and ship-to-ship operations, locks and
dry dock entrance.
Table 2-7: Typical Foam Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
A) B)
Pneumatic fenders are suited to applications with large variations in water level. They are also
considered to be good solutions for ship-to-ship operations. The pneumatic fender has a cylindrical
shape with hemispherical ends. The fender body consists of several rubber layers with fabric tyre cord
reinforcement layers. The fender is fully vulcanised and filled with air. Pneumatic fenders are available
with and without a protective chain and tyre net. For submerged applications, hydro-pneumatic
fenders are available, which are partly filled with air and water and positioned with a counterweight.
The governing standard for these fenders is ISO17357 and they are typically mounted against a smooth
substructure to reduce wear and uneven deflections. Pneumatic fenders are designed to deflect about
60 % of their diameter.
24
Pneumatic fenders provide a constant relationship between increasing compression and increasing of
reaction force. Pneumatic fenders typically exert low hull pressures and can provide submerged
contact area (hydro-pneumatic fenders only) and can be provided with different initial air pressures.
Typical application includes ports with extreme tidal variations, ship-to-ship operations in oil and gas
(typically FSRU, floating storage and regasification unit), temporary berthing, submarine jetties (hydro-
pneumatic fenders only).
Table 2-8: Typical Pneumatic Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
A) B)
Parallel motion fender systems (PMFs) are individually engineered systems and can be designed to utilise
several different fenders. Typically, cone, cell or element fenders are used. To maintain a vertical panel
face at all levels of compressions, turning lever arms (torsion arms) are mounted between the support
structure (concrete or steel) and the frontal steel panel. The arms restrain the panel movement during
the entire fender compression, allowing it to move only parallel to the support structure, irrespective of
impact level and berthing angle. The main advantages of PMFs are the avoidance of a second contact
on the vessel’s hull, as well as a substantially increased energy absorbing capacity. For designs that
focus on the hull impact only, singe fender units could be used. In cases where an increased energy
absorption is required, back-to-back cone fender configurations could be used as these substantially
increase the energy absorption of the fender system, while keeping the reaction force low. PMFs should
only be used for controlled berthing environments as the system is generally more prone to damage if
used incorrectly.
Typical applications include bulk terminals, oil and gas terminals, ferry and RoRo terminals, mono-piles
and load-sensitive structures.
Table 2-9: Typical Parallel Motion Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
A) B)
25
Pile or pivot fender systems are a common alternative to parallel motion fenders and can be designed
to utilise a variety of different fenders. Typically, cone, cell or element fenders are used with a pile or
pivot fender system.
Pile/pivot fender systems rotate at a level well below the water level where the lower tip of the fender
frame is fixed either into a shoe on the seabed or by welding a support bracket to the support structure.
Pile/pivot fender systems can provide a single point contact between the vessel and fender system at
any water level.
The energy absorbing fender is typically positioned as close as possible to mean sea level to provide
the optimum energy absorption at a range of water levels. The panel is typically inclined to the vertical
to accommodate vessel belting and differences in vessel draught between unladen and fully laden
conditions.
Typical applications include bulk terminals, oil and gas terminals, ferry & RoRo terminals, terminals with
sheet pile walls or pile structures with concrete capping beam.
Table 2-10: Typical Pile/Pivot Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
A) B)
Rolling fenders and wheel fenders are particularly suited for providing vessel guidance in narrow
channels and berth structures, rather than withstanding berthing impacts. A wide range of types and
performances are available to suit almost all project requirements and each rolling fender is designed
for the specific projects. Typically, these fenders use commercially available aircraft, truck or
earthmover tyres that come with a defined load capacity.
Typical applications include locks, floating/dry docks and canals.
Table 2-11: Typical Rolling Fender system (A) and Performance Curves (B)
Fendering is also required for operations that are performed directly between vessels or other
floating structures. These are known as ship-to-ship (STS) operations and require ship-to-ship
fendering. STS operations can include berthed, sailing or anchored vessels to enable
operations such as cargo, supplies or personnel transfer. Vessels can be berthed one against
another in some special ports or under special conditions (e.g. naval facilities, oil and gas
terminals, offshore industry).
There are some special vessels designed to perform STS operations, such as floating storage
and regasification/ liquefaction units (FSU, FSRU, FSLU), bunkering vessels and shuttle tankers.
These vessels require specialist fender systems to be designed to separate the vessels and
prevent hull and vessel contact damage.
For additional detail on STS fender selection, refer to Section 6.9.1 in these guidelines.
26
2.6 Fenders and Structures
Flexible dolphins (typically mono-piles) have very different design requirements compared to
closed quay walls or bulkhead wall retaining (semi-closed) structures. These differences in
requirements influence the design, selection and type of fenders that are adopted for flexible
dolphins. So a flexible dolphin is actually part of the fender system, a quay wall is not.
Fenders mounted on flexible dolphins are designed to absorb a portion of the berthing energy.
The remainder of the berthing energy is absorbed by the deflection of the structure. The
proportion of energy absorbed by the fender and structure can vary and this is determined as
part of the detailed design process and is a function of the operational requirements of the
flexible dolphin. For additional detail on fender selection for flexible structures, refer to Section
6.4.12 in these guidelines.
Fenders can also be installed on floating structures (‘spacer barges’), between the berthing
vessel and the berth structure. These ‘spacer barges’ or ‘camels’ might have fenders installed
on both sides to allow contact with the hull of the vessel and with the berth structure. For more
information refer to UFC 4-152-01 DESIGN: PIERS AND WHARVES (2017).
Special consideration should be given to fenders installed at lock entrances, dry docks and
ship lifts. For these applications, a variety of fenders could be used, however typically donut or
wheel fenders or guide-walls made of steel fender panels with different rubber units are used.
For further information refer to WG 206 – ‘Design of Navigation Locks’ (in preparation).
27
3 PARTICULAR ASPECTS REGARDING DESIGN VESSELS
This chapter provides information on vessel types and hull shapes relevant to the design of
fender systems and should be read in conjunction with WG 235 – ‘Ship Dimensions and Data
for Design of Marine Infrastructure’ (PIANC WG235, 2022).
3.1.1 Overview
Vessels are designed for specific purposes and thus their designs vary with their function, cargo,
economic market, etc. Key parameters in vessel design can be driven by different objectives
such as:
Vessel sizes are not a smooth linear change with increasing size. Sizes distributions are driven
by industry demands that are constantly changing. This results in step changes and gaps in the
size distribution.
Container vessels are designed for a high transit speed and rapid loading/unloading. This
results in a sleek hull shape with a substantial proportion of the containers stacked above the
top deck. Overall vessel dimensions are driven by the standard container dimension and the
number of containers to be transported.
Since container vessel beams are a multiple of container widths there is a larger variation in
vessel dimensions for the same gross tonnage (GT). At smaller sizes, the variation is larger and
significant. Hence the envelope of maximum dimensions can look odd when compared with
an individual vessel in that size range. The block coefficient is also variable due to the range
of different beams.
The design of fenders for container vessels requires special consideration to be given to the
hull flare and the relatively short parallel body length (the flat side) for fenders to support the
vessel’s hull. The shorter contact length can have consequences on:
• Eccentricity factor Ce that may be higher than other vessels with impact closer to the vessel
centre of mass, especially at modest berthing angles.
• Larger fender loads from vessel yawing motion when moored alongside the quay.
28
• Projection of the ships deck over the quay line due to both horizontal and vertical hull flare
when berthing at higher angles. It is recommended this be discussed with pilots and port
operators to establish safe set-backs for quay cranes or safe stand-off distances for fenders.
The relatively short parallel mid-body of a typical container vessel is shown in Figure 3.1.
If a vessel has a modest horizontal berthing angle of less than around 5 degrees, its initial fender
contact point will be close to the bow tangent line. Depending on the berthing angle,
compression and spacing of the fenders and the size of the vessel this may be on the parallel
or flared bow side of the tangent line. Contact in the bow area has both a vertical flare angle
and a horizontal curvature on the plane of contact point that can lead to a reduced energy
absorption capacity of the fender system (refer to Chapter 0).
The elevation of fenders relative to the vessels deck will influence the hull contact point.
Consideration needs to be given to quay/ fender levels relative to water level at all tides and
the range of different vessel deck heights at arrival.
Some smaller container vessels may have hull belting (possibly non-continuous). This should be
considered in selecting and designing the system.
Dry bulk and ore carrying vessels are designed primarily to maximise the cargo load to reduce
the transport cost/tonne and speed is less important. The result is a much more prismatic hull
shape with long parallel hull sides and lower cruising speeds of around 14 knots.
Dry Bulk terminals typically service large vessels and thus can have large fenders and larger
fender reaction forces. This requires fenders to be fitted with fender facing panels to ensure
loads on the hull are sufficiently distributed to meet the hull pressure and line force limits set out
in Section 6.8.
There is a large difference between the draught in ballast and laden conditions. Fenders
should be able to cater for laden vessels at low tide through to ballast condition at high tide.
This difference in draft is much greater for bulk carriers than for other vessels.
29
3.1.4 Cruise Vessels
Cruise vessel design is driven almost entirely by function however also the need for speed and
stability.
Most larger cruise vessels have bow thrusters and some have Azimuth drive propellers that
enable great manoeuvrability and control over lateral berthing speed. It is not unusual for
these vessels to berth at small ports with one tug or no tugs in good conditions. The draught of
cruise vessels does not vary much with loading.
The bows of cruise vessels have large vertical and horizontal flare angles. The parallel hull
length for cruise vessels varies with design; typically the bow shape will be similar to container
vessels however the stern shape will be less tapered than container vessels.
Cruise vessels can also have hull features hazardous to fenders such as belting (that may be
discontinuous and/or may be angled along the vessel hull), shell doors that need to open for
provisioning and pilot doors that may be recessed in the hull. These features can hook the
edges of fenders causing damage and even destruction of the fenders.
Additional information on cruise vessels and fendering for these vessels can be found in
WG 152 (PIANC, 2016).
RoRo and car carrier vessels primarily carry mobile ‘drive on and drive off’ cargo. This includes
cars, trucks, and other motorised vehicles and equipment. The parking decks on these vessels
are enclosed and the vessel will typically have its own vehicle ramps at the stern (there are a
small number of exceptions).
Some RoRo vessels are a mix of enclosed deck and cargo deck (usually containers) and as a
result they have a lower GT. There is also significant variation in beam and length for similar
displacement vessels.
The values for displacement in the PIANC WG 235 Ship Data Tables are estimated P90 values
at the full summer draught. For any given capacity, the values for displacement can vary with
vessel design. Lower displacement values may be applicable as typical draughts can be 10
to 15 % lower than the permitted summer draught. It is recommended that data should be
obtained from the applicable Port Authority to determine design values for draught and
displacement of RoRo and Car Carrier vessels.
Hull belting is present on the majority of RoRo ferries and also some other RoRo vessels.
Additional information on belting on RoRo and RoPax vessels and fendering for these vessels
can be found in Section 3.1.9 of this guideline and in WG 167 – ‘The Design of Terminals for
RoRo and RoPax Vessels’ (2023).
30
3.1.6 Tankers
Tanker vessels include crude oil tankers, product tankers, chemical tankers and specialist
tankers used for specific products.
Generally, the length and beam of all tanker types for a given deadweight (DWT) does not
vary much, however, some special tankers may have different draughts where the product
densities vary from the major liquid products.
As noted for bulk carriers, tankers have quite prismatic shapes and their hull capacity should
be considered in the design of the fender system. There is similar to bulkers a significant
difference between the draught in ballast and laden conditions. Fenders should be able to
cater for laden vessels at low tide through to ballast condition at high tide.
There are two main types of gas carriers, LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) that carry gas as a
cryogenic liquid and LPG (Liquified Petroleum Gas) that may be carried as a cryogenic liquid
or pressurised liquid and gas. Gas carrier sizes are based on their cubic metre gas capacity.
LNG Carriers
There are two primary designs for LNG vessels based around the tank design:
LPG Carriers
LPG carriers are often smaller than LNG vessels and look more like oil tankers.
Safety considerations around explosion, fire and spills dictate design of gas terminals that are
standalone berths with exclusion zones. The berth arrangement is typically similar to oil terminal
arrangements with breasting dolphins protecting the loading/unloading platform and mooring
dolphins set back behind the berth line.
The change in the draught of gas carriers between loaded and ballast condition is small
because of the low density of the cargo.
Softer fenders are preferable for gas terminals and should be designed to keep contact hull
pressures within the guidelines outlined in Section 6.8.
General cargo vessels are smaller vessels that carry a mixed variety of cargoes. Some cargoes
are containerised and others, not suited to containerisation either because of the nature of
the cargo or the volume of the local trade, are loose. In many cases, the vessels are
multipurpose cargo carriers and often the vessels are ‘geared’ self-loading and unloading
vessels.
Some smaller general cargo vessels may have side belting on the hull. Where belting is present
the design needs to take into consideration the small contact area and the potential line
loads, as for some fender types, this will not engage the full capacity of the fender.
Refrigerated cargo carriers and livestock carriers also fit into the size range of general cargo
vessels however typically will have a greater wind area.
31
Many smaller general cargo vessels may include side hull belting and that should be
considered in fender design.
Pure passenger ferry designs vary considerably as there are a considerable number of different
requirements such as:
• Number of passengers
• Speed
• Route travel distance
• Time of travel and impacts on passenger amenities required (e.g. overnight cabins,
restaurants)
• Associated need for cargo and vehicles
• Environment – ocean, lake, river, etc.
• Operating sea state associated with the route, including ice risk
Hull designs include monohulls, catamarans/ SWATHs (Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull) and
some trimarans. Large ferries are usually steel monohull designs. Many high-speed ferries are
constructed in aluminium and some smaller ferries can be fiberglass (reinforced plastic) or
wooden hulls. It is quite common for ferries to have belting on the side of the hull.
Reliable data on the hull configuration of ferries is difficult to obtain so when designing ferry
terminals and fenders for such berths, it is essential to obtain specific vessel information from
the facility operator.
Many ferries are fitted with belting and the design needs to take the small contact area into
consideration as for some fender types this will not engage the full capacity of the fender.
Generally, where ferries berth side-on, it is better to arrange fenders in a vertical configuration
to cover the potential variation on the impact height due to tide, sea state and variable ferry
size/ types. Vertical fender piles can be placed in front of the fender to protect the fenders
from belting and manage variations of the impact height.
Parallel motion fenders are often used for high frequency terminals and those with large tidal
ranges. Manufacturers of parallel motion fenders provide guidelines for the design, installation
and maintenance of these fender types.
Where a ferry terminal is designed for end-on (bow or stern) berthing it is essential to have
details of all vessels berthing at the terminal to ensure the arrangement is suitable for all of
those vessels.
There are many thousands of fishing vessels of all types working the world’s oceans. These also
include fish carriers, fish factory vessels, research and patrol vessels and special purpose fishing
vessels.
Designers should obtain clear directions from owner/ operators on the range and details of
fishing vessels to be accommodated at port fishing facilities.
In designing fenders for fishing vessels consideration should be given to hull belting that is
common on some smaller vessels.
32
3.1.11 Offshore Supply Vessels & Harbour Tugs
Virtually all offshore supply vessels have side belting that may be vertical, inclined or horizontal
depending on the location along the hull. They also have a large, flared freeboard forward
reducing to a relatively low freeboard at the rear loading deck. Where these vessels have
dedicated berths the use of tall fender piles is often the best fendering solution. Some facilities
use large tractor tyres hung over fender panels to protect the panels from the belting.
The hulls of harbour tugs typically have a low freeboard and continuous belting along the hull
and cushion protection (beard) at the bow for pushing vessels. Rubber rubbing strips are usual
either side of the beard. Sides are often fitted with chain hung tyres. Modern harbour tugs
(tractor tugs) have azimuth drives and particularly good manoeuvrability. Tugs can berth
against port facilities where the port operator is satisfied this can be done safely without
damage to the berth fenders.
Many ports have dedicated tug berths or harbours for their tug fleets. These can be floating or
fixed structures depending on tide range, cost and local preference. Some tug pens are
designed for four point mooring, so the tug does not have, in theory, to come alongside a jetty
and is held in the centre of the pen. Nevertheless, some fendering provision should be made.
Where tugs are berthing against fendered jetties the principles applied to small ferry fendering
are applicable.
There are numerous other vessel types such as naval vessels, offshore vessels, construction
vessels, sea planes and yachts that have specific characteristics and fender requirements.
When dealing with facilities dedicated to special vessels, designers should seek specific vessel
data from the owner/ operators of the facility.
3.2 Displacement
The fully laden displacement is listed for various vessel types and sizes in MarCom WG 235 – ‘Ship
Dimensions and Data for Design of Marine Infrastructure’ (2022).
The values are notionally intended to be a P90 value however that is a judgement assessment
based on the data available which does not permit a precise statistical evaluation.
Designers can also calculate displacement using the formula below or the relationships in Table
3-1.
𝑀 = 𝐿𝐵𝑃 . 𝐵. 𝐷. 𝜌𝑤 . 𝐶𝑏 (3-1)
Where:
33
Ballast displacement, where relevant, is also included in the WG 235 tables. It is calculated
using the formulae above and the estimated ballast draught at midships.
The relationship between displacement and capacity (DWT or GT) is surprisingly linear,
however with some exceptions. A median value for displacement for various ship types can
be estimated from the formulae below. The accuracy value represents the difference
between the mean value and likely maximum value.
Table 3-1: Approximate displacement v capacity relationships for various vessel types (WG 235)
Vessel hull shape and strength are important considerations when designing fenders and
checking clearances between the vessel and shore-based equipment and also the clearance
between the vessel and structure itself (e.g. bow flare to quay edge, bulbous bow to
underwater quay structure). They vary considerably with the type of vessel, size and individual
designs. Ferries, fishing vessels, yachts and other small vessel types may be single or multiple
hulls and have a wide range of design features and providing general guidelines is not
practical and design data will need to be obtained on a case-by-case basis.
Larger monohull vessels will have similar overall characteristics for each type of vessel however
can still have significant variation in hull shape from one design to another. In principle, the key
parameters of interest will be:
• Flat (parallel) hull length at the level of the fenders.
• Location of the hull tangent line (TL) between the parallel side hull and the start of the bow
curve (or stern curve if stern impact with fenders is a consideration) at the level of the
fenders.
• Hull curvature in the horizontal plane at the bow (or stern if near stern impact with fenders
is a consideration) at the level of the fenders for various tide levels and vessel draughts.
34
• Hull flare angle in the vertical plane at the level of the fenders.
1. Stern impact is typically avoided because the hull flares rapidly increases near the water
line and can cause the vessel to “ride over the fender(s)” or even over the quay if the
vessel is in ballast condition and the water level is near the quay deck level.
2. The bow curve to the tangent line is usually longer than the stern curve to the tangent line.
Figure 3.2 defines key zones of a vessel hull with respect to fender contact.
LOA
𝑋𝑏𝑜𝑤;𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑤𝑙
Tangent line between flat hull 𝑋𝑏𝑜𝑤,𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑘
& bow curve
Figure 3.2: Fender contact zones on vessel hull at low berthing angles
For most vessels at very low berthing angles contact will occur with multiple fenders on the
parallel part of the hull. With a small increase in the berthing angle further contact can also
occur on the bow. As the angle increases the bow fender closest to the tangent line may
become the first contact point and contact can occur with other fenders on the bow.
The extent of contact with ‘bow fenders’ is a function of the berthing angle, vessel length,
vessel bow radius, fender pitch and the compression of the first fender contacted.
Vessels with higher sailing service speed will have a sleeker hull shape with less parallel hull
length and when berthing at an angle are more likely to impact fenders on curved sections of
the hull. Dry and liquid bulk carriers have slower sailing service speed and are designed to
maximise the cargo capacity. This results in longer parallel hull length and shorter curved hull
at the bow and stern.
Determining the interaction of the curved and flat hull section that will engage with multiple
fenders during berthing is a complex geometric exercise that should also take into
consideration factors that are independent of the hull shape such as berthing angle, vessel
position relative to the fenders, fender pitch, compression of the first fender contacted and
height of the fender relative to the vessel deck (varies with draught, tide and fender level). The
effect of multiple fender contact on fender design is covered in Chapter 6.
It is recommended that a range of hull drawings should be obtained from the terminal
operator for the planning and design of new fenders or replacement of existing fenders, taking
also into consideration the possibility of different vessels in the future.
35
4 BASIS OF DESIGN
This chapter establishes the parameters that should be taken into consideration in the design
of a fender system. The chapter can be used as a roadmap for the design process or as a
template to develop a basis of design document to record the various parameters that will
affect the design. Details of the various steps in the design process can be found in the
subsequent sections of this document.
A fender system should be designed to serve the primary functions established in Chapter 2
and to meet both the functional and operational requirements for the marine terminal. The
design of a fender system deserves as much attention as the design of any other element of
the structure of which it is a part. For a new design, the selection of the type and capacity of
the fender system and the berth structure should be interactive, especially with dolphins. For
an existing structure the fender system should be selected and designed to fit the type and
capacity of the structure. The fender should be designed considering the following
requirements:
• Functional requirements including purpose of the berth and what the specific functions of
the fender system will be.
• Operational requirements including design vessel(s), design life limitations for operation of
the berth, both during berthing and mooring conditions.
• Assessment of the site conditions including bathymetry, wind and current conditions, wave
climate, passing vessels and manoeuvrability.
• Assessment of the design criteria which can include national and international standards,
local codes, and company requirements and standards to be used for the design.
• Assessment of acceptable reliability levels for the fender system, including considerations
regarding potential for loss of life, dangers to the environment and economic impacts to
both the terminal and the surrounding area.
These items can be used to produce a basis of design document. This document should
include all relevant factors that will feed into the design. Subsequently the design of the fender
system is developed, including these steps:
The above process may have to be repeated several times to select the optimal fender for
the specific situation. There are numerous fender brands and each of those brands offers
various types of fenders and most often several standard dimensions for each fender type. It is
the task of the design engineer to select the fender of which the specified characteristics meet
(or come closest to) the design requirements. Where possible the designer should avoid
specifications that can be met by only a single supplier. Keep in mind that same energy
absorption might result in different reaction force from fenders supplied by different suppliers.
36
4.1 Functional Requirements
During the service life of the fender system, it should be able to perform its design functions
within the limitations stated in the basis of design. Functional requirements describe the specific
functions of the fender system, which may include the following:
• Will the fender system be used for energy absorption purposes or just protection to prevent
contact between the vessel hull and steel or concrete? An example of fender systems
used for protection can be UHMW-PE directly on concrete (Broos, et.al., 2018) . Note that
this document is focused on energy absorbing fender systems only.
• Are there special requirements for non-marking of the hull of the vessels that will call at the
terminal. This could often be the case for cruise vessels.
• Is the fender system used for regular contact by arriving vessels or is it a safeguard for
accidents?
• Will the fender system be expected to absorb energy in compression, shear or both?
• Is the fender system considered sacrificial, so it is expected to fail during a design event?
This might be a case for fenders protecting bridge piers.
• Is the fender system expected to absorb all of the energy from the berthing vessel by itself
or will the energy absorption be shared between the fenders and the supporting
structures?
The operational considerations can have a significant influence on the selection and design
of fender systems. The port or facility operations manual or guidance will inform the design
together with investigation and assessment by the designer in consultation with the operator.
Operational aspects that may need to be considered include:
37
4.3 Site Conditions
Sufficient data regarding the configuration and location of the berth should be obtained to
establish the factors that impact the fender system design. Such factors may impact fender
system loading, durability, material selection, etc. The likelihood of several extreme site
conditions occurring at the same time shall be considered.
Apart from this data, site conditions can also be described by local experience, for instance
by pilots, harbour masters, or local captains.
Following the assessment of the functional and operational requirements and based on the
site conditions, the design criteria that will be used in the calculation of the berthing energy
and the selection of the fender system can be determined. The design criteria document will
include:
• The codes, standards and guidelines to be used.
• The design vessel(s) and their characteristics.
• The approach velocity under normal conditions and extreme conditions.
• Frequency of berthing (fatigue).
• Berthing angle.
• The vessel’s allowable hull pressure.
• The desired design life.
• The safety factors to be used.
• Whole life cycle considerations.
• Maintenance periods.
• Site conditions during berthing operations and whilst moored at the berth.
38
• The friction coefficient.
• The minimum or maximum fender pitch.
It is common practice around the world to use 50-year return period loads as characteristic, or
nominal, loads for design of structures using Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) or
Partial Load Factor design. A 50-year return period is therefore used for the characteristic
berthing velocities in this guideline, as well as for calculations including berthing energy and
energy factor. This choice of load return period is not necessarily tied to the design life of the
structure being designed.
BS6349-1-1 defines design life as “assumed period for which a structure or part of it is to be used
for its intended purpose with anticipated maintenance but without major repair being
necessary”.
Service life is the practical result of the design life taking into consideration operation of the
fender system within its design limits and maintenance of the fender system according to
maintenance manuals.
Fenders, and hardware used for mounting and securing fenders to a berth structure, typically
have an expected design life of 20 years. Compared to a structure with a 50-year design life,
a fender will therefore appear to have a lower probability of failure, and lower probability of
exceeding the design load during its design life. However, a fender itself is not only there to
function as an independent structural element, however to function as an interface between
berthing vessels and the structure supporting the fender. Since berthing energy ultimately is
converted to a reaction force onto the supporting structure, a properly designed and selected
fender is important to properly characterise that reaction force. An under-designed fender will
influence the magnitude of this reaction force and will have a high probability of being
overloaded, reaching a point where it will stop absorbing energy and instead just transfer a
reaction force directly to the supporting structure. At this point the fender has stopped
performing its primary function. A fender system is therefore considered to fail when it does not
fulfil its function (Chapter 2.1), resulting in a high probability of exceeding the design value of
the fender reaction force and/or the design value of the associated berthing impact force.
Fender system failure can happen even if the fender still appears intact and undamaged for
future use. Other causes of failure can be damage due to degradation or mechanical failure
of the fender itself.
The structure supporting the fender will typically be designed for a 50-year load, and to get an
appropriate characterisation of that load, the fender itself therefore needs to be designed to
a load with the same 50-year return period, even if it is expected to be replaced within a 20-
year period. This is reflected below and in the following chapters.
The design life of a fender system is likely to be less than that of the marine structures it is
installed on and interacts with. To ensure the fender system remains functional during the
entirety of its service life, a regular maintenance and inspection plan should be implemented.
Visual inspections should typically be carried out on an annual basis. General guidance on
types and intervals of inspections can be found in WG 103 (PIANC, 2008), ASCE101 (Childs,
2001) and the associated references. These give seven inspection types:
39
• Repair design inspection*
• Special inspection*
• Repair construction inspection*
• Post-event inspection
How a fender system can be repaired or replaced needs to be considered during the design
stage. Consideration should be given to allow fenders (as much as possible) to be easily
maintained/ repaired during all states of the tidal range. This will help to minimise downtime if
a repair is required.
The assumptions and design choices made by the designer in the design of the fender system
need to be passed onto the operator. This will help in the safe operation of the berth and aid
in future fender repair, replacement, upgrades or other changes. This information should be
properly documented in the basis of design.
An important step in the design basis for a fender system is deciding on the appropriate
reliability level for the design. Many factors can influence this reliability level, however the most
important one is the consequence class for the fender system. This is not explicitly considered
in WG 33 (which is superseded by this guideline) although it is mentioned that consequence
of fender system failure should be considered in the selection of the abnormal berthing factor.
Understanding the consequences of failure of a fender system is of great importance. In
general, when failure consequences are high the required reliability level increases. In some
circumstances, failure of a single fender will not result in economic repercussions, whereas in
other situations major accidents may occur. When national recommendations regarding
reliability targets are lacking, presents typical examples of fender systems for different
consequence classes.
The vast majority of the fender systems installed on marine structures correspond to class A or
class B. The reader is referred to Appendix A for further background information regarding the
consequence classes. The consequence class should be selected by the asset owner (e.g.
port authorities or terminals) using appropriate input (refer to Chapter 13). In Section 5.8, the
partial energy factor will be determined for all consequence classes, whereas in Section 6.7
the material factors (or partial resistance factors) are presented.
40
Class Description of failure Explanation Example of fender systems
consequences
A Negligible/ low Failure of a single fender Fenders installed on a marine structure that is part of a terminal or port with functional redundancy a and
consequences for risk of predominantly results in limited number of people at risk.
loss of human life AND insignificant to no structural Failure of a single fender is not likely to result in the unavailability of the berth or widespread damage to the
environmental damage damage. marine facility assuming there is sufficient redundancy with additional berths. An example can be a
AND economic continuous earth retaining quay wall or a dolphin berth with more than two/ redundant berthing (breasting)
damage. dolphins or marine facilities with multiple berths having similar capabilities.
B Some consequences for Material damage and Fenders installed on a marine structure without functional redundancy a.
risk of loss of human life functionality losses of Failureb of the fender system is likely to result in the unavailability of the berth with no other alternatives. An
OR environmental significance for owners and example can be a single berth with two berthing (breasting) dolphins.
damage OR economic operators and low or no social
damage. impact.
C Considerable Material losses and Fenders installed on marine structures, positioned at locations for which failure of the fender system is likely
consequences for risk of functionality losses of societal to put public lives at risk.
loss of human life OR significance, causing regional Fenders installed on a marine structure for which failure b of the fender system is likely to close the berth and
environmental damage disruptions and delays in cause considerable consequential economic loss.
OR economic damage. important societal services over Examples can be essential floating powerplants or floating storage regassification units that are prevented
several weeks. from operating after fender failureb and sufficient backup measures are available to resume operations.
D High risk of loss of human Disastrous events causing Fenders installed on marine structures for which failure b of the fender system is likely to lead to significant
life OR environmental severe losses of societal socio-economic disruptions.
damage OR economic services and disruptions and Examples are progressive damage or cascading effects of other types of structures, e.g. critical installations
damage. delays at national scale over such as essential powerplants or floating storage regassification units that are prevented from operating
periods in the order of months. after fender damage with no backup measures available to resume operation.
E Very high risk for loss of Catastrophic events causing Beyond the scope of this guideline.
human life OR losses of societal services and In some cases, owners may choose, for practical reasons, to add an additional berthing criterion to cover
environmental damage disruptions and delays beyond ‘Extreme Events’ where additional energy is absorbed by partial collapse of secondary structural elements
OR economic damage. national scale over periods in to protect critical wharf assets.
the order of years.
a) If a structural component is part of a series system (a configuration such that, if any one of the system components fails, the entire system fails) or if progression of failure is not mitigated, a higher
consequence class should be considered.
b) A fender system is therefore considered to fail when it does not fulfil its function (Chapter 2.1), resulting in a high probability of exceeding the design value of the fender reaction force and/or
the design value of the associated berthing impact force. Fender system failure can happen even if fender units still appear intact and undamaged for future use. Other causes of failure can
be damage due to degradation or mechanical failure of the fender system itself.
41
5 BERTHING ENERGY
This chapter provides guidance on calculating the berthing energy of a vessel that the fender
system should absorb.
For parallel berthing manoeuvres, the vessel is slowed or brought to a stop off the berth and
then manoeuvred transversely to the supporting structure (e.g. a jetty, a quay or berthing
dolphins) with pilot and tug assistance. The berthing approach angle is typically very low.
Illustrations like Figure 5.1 are exaggerated for clarity.
Vessels that may use one tug and have little or no transverse thruster capacity, such as coasters
and feeder vessels, typically perform an angular berthing manoeuvre, i.e. landing a spring
forward and pushing the stern in with the main engine and rudder, possibly resulting in larger
approach angles. High berthing angles can risk impact between an overhanging vessel deck
and any quay equipment close to the edge of the shore structure or with the quay edge itself.
This must be considered in establishing port berthing procedures.
In some cases, pilots may use an angular approach for vessels with a small under keel
clearance or vessels berthing in currents. This berthing manoeuvre is performed to maintain
control over the vessel, during which masters and pilots, preferably assisted by tugs, use
currents and wind conditions to their advantage during the berthing process.
In some situations, with ferries, coastal passenger boats/ catamarans and for some RoRo
vessels, end berthing is the most common mode of berthing. The vessel approaches directly
towards the end fenders and is generally held in position with forward propulsion after the
impact continuously pushing towards the fenders, without mooring the vessel.
42
RoRo vessels with side ramps typically berth with alongside berthing procedures. RoRo vessels
can berth bow or stern first perpendicular to the quay in an end berthing manoeuvre. This is
covered in Section 5.4.3.
Where the facility has a side quay or dolphin structure the vessels may initially berth alongside
this structure while reversing to the unloading berth and stopping short of the unloading berth
fenders. In this case, fenders are installed only to take incidental stern impact into account.
Common design safety considerations for accidental situations are normally recommended
for these situations.
A vessel berthing against a vessel (i.e. ship-to-ship berthing), is a special berthing procedure
and further guidance is given in Section 5.9.
Guidance on navigation conditions is given in Table 5-1. The navigation conditions are
classified favourable when all the descriptions of the corresponding ‘favourable’ column are
true, whereas the conditions will be classified as unfavourable when one of the conditions in
the corresponding ‘unfavourable’ column is true. A navigation condition that is neither
favourable nor unfavourable can be considered moderate. Allocating the navigation
condition requires active discussion and must be performed and agreed upon with the asset
owner prior to commencement of fender design.
If a berthing operation meets two or more of the unfavourable factors, a more detailed study
is required to confirm control of the vessel throughout the maneuver and establish
environmental thresholds for safe berthing operations. As the unfavourable conditions will also
negatively affect other activities such as safe mooring and loading operations.
43
Navigation Conditions
The kinetic energy method is based on Newton’s second law of motion. The six degrees of
vessel motions (Figure 5.3), associated with velocity and rotation in horizontal and vertical
44
directions, are simplified to sway, surge and yaw. Heaving, rolling and pitching of the vessel
are normally ignored in fender design due to their negligible influence on berthing.
Figure 5.1 illustrates a berthing vessel with approach velocity combined with initial rotation at
the time of initial fender impact. The kinetic energy of a vessel in motion may, in berthing
situations, be calculated as in Equation (5-1) below. The vessel’s initial motion and velocity at
the time of first contact with the fender should be the input for berthing energy calculations.
1 1
𝐸𝑣 = 𝑀𝑉 2 + 𝑀𝐾 2 𝜔02 (5-1)
2 2
Where:
𝑉 Berthing velocity of vessel at the time of impact [m/s]; see Section 5.4
When the berthing velocity component parallel to the berthing line (𝑉𝐿 ) and 𝜔0 are small the
vessel berthing energy can be simplified in calculation to consider only 𝑉𝐵 , i.e. the berthing
velocity component transverse to the berth (see Figure 5.1). Subsequent to the first impact, the
fender will deflect and will continue to absorb energy until the vessel is brought to a stop.
Concurrently, some of the translational energy of the vessel will be transformed into rotational
energy. The reduction in translational energy due to conversion of part into rotational energy
of the vessel is accounted for by an eccentricity factor.
Furthermore, the energy to be absorbed by the fender system is also adjusted to account for
the inertia of the mass of water pushing on the vessel at the point of fender contact using the
added mass factor. Therefore, the berthing energy that is to be absorbed by the fenders and
the supporting structure can be calculated as below:
45
1
𝐸𝑘 = ( 𝑀𝑉𝐵2 ) 𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑚 (5-2)
2
Where
𝐸𝑘 Kinetic energy to be absorbed by fenders and structure during the impact [kNm]
Notes:
The berthing energy formula above differs from PIANC WG 33 (and others), for the following reasons:
Softness factor (Cs) has been removed by the Working Group based on (Berendsen E. A., 2022) that shows that the
elastic contribution of the vessel hull is below 1 %. When the designer provides justification, e.g. by performing a
detailed analysis showing that there is a significant effect of the energy absorption capacity by the vessel, this effect
can be taken into consideration in fender design. This requires professional naval architecture review, cannot be
carried out by the infrastructure responsible.
Berth configuration factor (Cc) has been removed as this effect is already included in the berthing velocity
recordings used to determine the characteristic berthing velocities and partial energy factors.
The design berthing energy accounts for variations in displacement, effect of vessel berthing
frequency and other uncertainties in energy calculation via a partial energy factor. This safety
factor covers uncertainties given the characteristic berthing event:
Where:
𝐸𝑘,𝑑 Design energy to be absorbed by fenders in contact during the impact [kNm]
𝐸𝑘,𝑐 Characteristic energy to be absorbed by the fenders in contact (and the
supporting structure where applicable) during the impact [kNm]
𝛾𝐸 Partial energy factor; see Section 5.8
A supporting structure equipped with a fender system must provide sufficient load-transferring
resistance to absorb the total energy exerted by the berthing vessel whilst also accounting for
uncertainties associated with the fender system. See further guidance in Chapter 0.
The uncertainty in the berthing velocity significantly influences the uncertainty in the
calculated kinetic energy (Ueda, 2010) and therefore berthing velocity is the most dominant
design variable when calculating vessel berthing energy. The other two important, but less-
dominant variables are the displacement of the vessel (𝑀) and the berthing angle (𝛼).
When the largest displacement, highest berthing velocity and extreme berthing angle are
simultaneously considered in the fender selection process, this may lead to a significant
overdesign of the fender system. When sufficient data is available, the characteristic values
can be derived (Table 5-2) to determine the characteristic berthing energy. When no data or
46
site-specific information is available the respective sections of this chapter provide design
guidance.
Berthing velocity (𝑉𝑐 ) 0.02 % of probability being exceeded per berthing manoeuvre
1
𝐸𝑘,𝑐 = ( 𝑀𝑐 𝑉𝑐2 ) 𝐶𝑒,𝑐 𝐶𝑚,𝑐 (5-4)
2
Where:
The berthing energy calculation takes account of the displacement of a vessel ( 𝑀 ). see
Chapter 0 for further guidance.
The characteristic displacement (𝑀𝑐 ) is defined as the largest operational displacement of the
design vessel resulting in the highest characteristic berthing energy. When berths are used by
a wide range of berthing vessels the designer needs to evaluate the kinetic energy of each of
the design vessels taking into account corresponding differences in berthing velocity and
vessel mass (fully laden or ballast conditions).
It is recommended that displacement of berthing vessels is determined based of site specific
information. When site-specific information is not available, the recommendations in PIANC
WG 235 can be used.
The effect of variation in displacement can be accounted for by applying a partial energy
factor when the variation in displacement is moderate or high, see Section 5.8 – Step 3.
The berthing velocity (𝑉, Figure 5.1) is defined as the vessel’s approach velocity at the first
moment of contact with the fender system. The berthing velocity should be provided by the
asset owner (e.g. port authorities or terminals) using appropriate input (refer to Chapter 13). If
site specific information is not available then the recommendations in the following sections of
this chapter can be used.
47
The mean berthing velocity of all berthing manoeuvres at a particular location is generally
quite low. However, velocities much greater than the mean value will occur during the design
life of a fender and need to be taken into account in the design of a fender system. These
higher velocities are considered by distinguishing a ‘characteristic’ berthing velocity (𝑉𝑐 ) which
is largely influenced by the local navigation conditions. Recommendation in Table 5-2 is to be
considered in berthing energy calculations.
It is recommended that site-specific information and experience are used where available
when defining the characteristic berthing velocity, e.g. berthing records, field observations,
global company records, speed limits, operational limits, past service performance (what
worked satisfactory in the past should not necessarily be upgraded), input of pilots and
harbour master. When berthing records are available the characteristic velocity can be
estimated and should be equal to a 0.02% probability of being exceeded. Characteristic
velocities less than 0.10 m/s are not recommended unless it can be demonstrated using site-
specific information and experience or when berthing aid systems are installed.
Navigation simulations to evaluate berthing velocities and berthing angles can also be
considered. However, a high number of such simulations will be required to arrive at the
characteristic design berthing event and typically the actual berthing is not part of those
simulations.
Using local knowledge is the essence of this guideline. The velocities presented in Section 5.4.3
and 5.4.3 should only be used if local data, information, and experience is lacking. These
velocities are considered to be safe and based on a global dataset therefore have a
tendency to be conservative.
For alongside berthing manoeuvres the rotational velocity (𝜔0 ) and the longitudinal berthing
velocity of the vessel (i.e. velocity parallel to the berthing line, 𝑉𝐿 ) at the time of impact (Figure
5.3) are assumed to be insignificant and hence not taken into account in the berthing energy
calculation.
For an angular berthing manoeuvre, both the parallel and perpendicular velocity components
(transverse velocity, 𝑉𝐵 ), combined with rotational velocity should be accounted for in the
berthing energy calculation. However, typically for larger vessels and to a certain extent
smaller vessels, it is common practice to simplify and consider only the transverse velocity
when calculating the berthing energy.
When site-specific information is not available for a new design, Table 5-3 can be used to
determine characteristic berthing velocities perpendicular to the berthing line at the moment
of contact with a fender system.
When port operational limits are present, the characteristic velocities listed in Table 5-3 may
be over-conservative. There may also be local restrictions, limitations and specific operational
windows which can be used to determine a more appropriate characteristic berthing velocity.
For example, for berths with an actively managed berthing velocity monitoring system or when
a prescribed berthing velocity limit is embedded in the berthing policy. The velocities in Table
5-3 can therefore be reduced based on a comprehensive review of the port operations and
berthing velocity limits.
48
Any adopted berthing velocity limit should meet the following criteria:
1. A documented formal assessment of the berthing velocity limit prepared by a port or
terminal operator who should consult a harbour master, port pilots and a maritime civil
engineer familiar with the fendering system and its design.
2. An ‘Approach Velocity Measurement System’ calibrated to measure velocity to an
accuracy of ± 5 %. There should be sufficient points measured to provide a continuous
readout of the approach velocity at the centre of mass of the vessel. The velocity data
should be displayed in a manner that can be readily read by the pilots while they are
engaged in berthing the vessel.
3. Without evaluating the local navigation conditions the berthing velocity limit should not be
smaller than 80 % of the characteristic velocity given in Table 5-3. However the adopted
berthing velocity limit for new or recently constructed berths is recommended to be not
less than 0.10 m/s.
a. Typical vessel dimensions: Coaster (5,000-15,000 DWT), Feeder, Handysize (15,000-42,000 DWT); Panamax,
Handymax (42,000-85,000 DWT); Post Panamax, Capesize, Aframax (85,000-115,000 DWT); New Panamax,
Capesize, Suezmax (115,000-170,000 DWT); ULCV, VLBC, VLCC, ULCC (>170,000 DWT). For vessels not listed
in the table (e.g. LNG) use equivalent size. Although most gas tanker owners have their own global data
set.
b. These recommended berthing velocities are largely based on field measurements in Rotterdam and
Wilhelmshaven, (PIANC WG145, 2022), (Roubos, Gaal, Hein, Iversen, & Williams, 2022).
c. These recommended berthing velocities are largely based on the normal navigation conditions
distinguished by PIANC WG 145 (PIANC WG145, 2022) and verified by WG 211 against new data sets from
Poland, Korea, US and India.
d. These recommended berthing velocities are largely based on the measurements conducted in
Bremerhaven, (PIANC WG145, 2022), (Roubos, Gaal, Hein, Iversen, & Williams, 2022).
e. These recommended berthing velocities are based on interviews with masters, pilots, harbour masters and
experienced port engineers. The values are based on comparison with similar vessel sizes.
f. These recommended berthing velocities are based on EAU 2012 and ROM 2.0-11 (2012).
g. Some unpublished berthing records, of berths claiming to be moderate, include slightly higher velocities.
BS6349 and WG 211 consider this value to be sufficient for the majority of berths.
In circumstances that there are concerns about the validity of the values in Table 5-3, e.g. the
berthing velocity is considered to be excessively high it is recommended to rely on local
information and other relevant experience to determine an appropriate characteristic
berthing velocity instead of using the values from table 5-3.
49
5.4.3 Longitudinal Velocity
For end berthing, the berthing energy should be calculated the same way as when calculating
for parallel or angular berthing approaches. However, the factors applied in Equation (5-2)
and in Equation (5-4) should be specific to end berthing where recommendations are given in
sections of this chapter. Longitudinal berthing velocity (𝑉𝐿 ) will be the governing velocity.
Transverse velocity and rotation become insignificant.
The vessel manoeuvring procedure will influence the characteristic value of the longitudinal
velocity for use in fender design. A limited number of published data on end berthing velocities
are available (BS6349, 2014), (EAU, 2020), (ROM, 2012). It is recommended that characteristic
longitudinal velocities are determined using statistical data specific to the berth or factual
data obtained from a similar berth. In the absence of specific information, Table 5-4 provides
guidance on characteristic velocity ( 𝑉𝐿,𝑐 ) to be used in fender design, based on design
specifications from ferry berths connecting Germany and Sweden.
Table 5-4: Characteristic longitudinal berthing velocity in the absence of site-specific information
For ferry berths increased approach velocities up to 1.0 m/s can occur and are relevant for
side fender design as a sliding velocity. Vessels may slide along the side fenders before utilising
end fenders. Sliding velocity is different from approach velocity (Chapter 8).
The berthing angle (𝜶) is defined as the angle between the heading of the vessel and the
berthing line, measured at the time of its initial point of contact with a fender, as illustrated in
Figure 5.2 and defined in Table 5-2. It is not the approach angle, which can be a higher value.
Berthing angle depends on the type of berthing manoeuvre, tug assistance and thruster
capacity. When bow flare angles are high and cranes are located close to the edge of a
berth, the berthing angle should be small. When site-specific information is available the
characteristic berthing angle (𝛼𝑐 ) should represent an angle with a probability of 5 % being
exceeded per berthing manoeuvre. When site-specific information is not available Table 5-5
can be used to determine the characteristic berthing angle. These values are based on the
data of WG 145 and expert judgement by master mariner.
50
Alongside berthing Tugs Thrustersa cb ic Explanation
Parallel, (Section 5.1.1) Yes Yes 2 3 Vessels positioned off the berth and approach parallel. Vessels have sufficient thruster
capacity.
If under keel clearance is very low and therefore it negatively influences manoeuvrability
(local input needed),consider this as a ‘no thrusters scenario’.
No 3 5 Vessels positioned off the berth and approach parallel. Vessels do not have thrusters or
very low under keel clearance negatively influences manoeuvrability.
No Yes 2 3 Vessels positioned off the berth and approach parallel. Vessels have sufficient
thruster/pod capacity on bow and stern (like cruise vessels).
No X X This manoeuvre can only be done using a current or strong wind. To be discussed with
pilots and vessel masters.
Angular (Section 5.1.1) Yes Yes 3 5 Vessels have a large angle during the approach. Local current or wind is used to berth
the vessel. However, at the moment of fender contact the berthing angle is low. Vessels
have sufficient thruster capacity.
No 4 7 Vessels have a large angle during the approach. Local current or wind is used to berth
the vessel. However, at the moment of fender contact the berthing angle is low. Vessels
do not have thrusters or under keel clearance is very low and therefore negatively
influences manoeuvrability.
No Yes 8 15 Smaller coastal vessels perform an angular approach, landing using spring lines and
pushing the bow or stern in with engine and rudder. Vessels have some thruster capacity.
No 10 20 Smaller coastal vessels preform an angular approach, landing using spring lines and
pushing the bow or stern in with engine and rudder. Vessels have little or no thruster
capacity.
a. Manoeuvrers with thrusters are more controlled and directly in the hand of the master.
b. Characteristic berthing angle to be used in the design
c. Upper limit of the berthing angle to ensure that the fender pitch is adequate (see Chapter 0)
Table 5-5: Berthing angle [degrees] at the moment of contact, no site-specific information available
51
The characteristic berthing angle (αc) is used both in berthing energy calculations and in fender
selection.
The incidental berthing angle (𝛼𝑖 ) is generally used to verify whether there is bow (flare) or side
contact for the smallest design vessel to determine the minimum fender pitch in order to
prevent damage to the supporting structure or berthing facility (Chapter 0). The combination
of the incidental angle and a high velocity is not likely to occur simultaneously so that the
partial energy factor can be 1.0 when assessing fender spacing.
When a vessel berths with the first point of contact with fenders eccentric to the centre of mass
of the vessel (e.g. near its bow or stern during side berthing), the reaction to the impact will
make the vessel yaw. This will dissipate its berthing energy due to part of its energy transforming
into rotational kinetic energy. After initial contact the frictional resistance at the vessel to
fender interface will influence the amount of berthing energy that will be absorbed by the
fender system. Higher friction between the vessel and the fender results in greater transfer of
energy to the fender and less transfer of energy into rotation of the vessel.. The eccentricity
factor (𝐶𝑒 and 𝐶𝑒,𝑐 ) accounts for the above in the berthing energy calculation.
In instances of insignificant friction or infinite friction (i.e. no sliding) analytical formulae can be
used to calculate 𝐶𝑒 (and 𝐶𝑒,𝑐 with corresponding characteristic vessel data) and computer
simulations can be used to estimate cases with moderate friction. In general, the differences
in the formulae are relatively small, and it is sufficiently accurate for most fender designs to
apply the following formulae:
Where:
𝑟𝐹 Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to the resultant fender reaction force [m];
see Section 5.6.1
52
Angle between velocity vector and the line between the hull contact point of the
∅ resultant fender reaction force and the centre of mass of vessel [degrees]; see
Figure 5.4.
𝑟𝑆
sin(∅) = (5-6)
𝑟𝐹
𝑟𝑠 Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to the hull contact point of resultant
fender reaction force parallel to the berthing line [m]; see Figure 5.4.
The value of 𝐶𝑒 normally varies between 0.3 and 1.0 depending on the berthing manoeuvre
and berthing angle. When the berthing impact point is close to the centre of mass of the vessel
𝐶𝑒 will be closer to 1.0. Such instances are e.g. when multiple fenders are installed at a
continuous quay and that the berthing angle is quite small (i.e. less than one degree) or when
a vessel is end berthing and in both cases yawing of the vessel becomes insignificant.
However, calculating 𝐶𝑒 can be complex when yawing is significant and further guidance is
given in the subsequent section.
For single fender contact the berthing impact point exactly aligns with the first point of contact
between the hull of the vessel and the fender system (Figure 5.4). For multiple fender contact
and low berthing angles, however, the first point of contact might result in a too optimistic
value for Ce, since the resultant reaction force from all fenders in contact with the vessel can
be much closer to the centre of mass of the vessel. Consequently, for multiple fender contact
the berthing impact point does not necessarily align with the first point of contact with the hull.
Then the berthing impact point can be determined by estimating the position of this resultant
fender reaction force as shown Figure 5.5, which acts on the vessel hull at a distance 𝑟𝐹 from
the centre of mass of vessel.
In theory, the type of fender, fender pitch, fender height, berthing angle and geometry of the
vessel such as the bow radius and parallel body length can largely influence 𝑟𝐹 and hence Ce.
To determine 𝑟𝐹 , the probable worst outcome for the position of the vessel and the hull contact
53
point of the resultant fender reaction force should be determined based on the fender system
and vessel geometry. It is therefore important to allow an ‘out of position’ of the vessel along
the quay from the planned point of impact. This tolerance can typically range between 2 %
to 5 % of the length overall of the vessel. For different vessel hull shapes and varying fender
system configurations the value of 𝑟𝐹 will differ.
When there is sufficient information about the geometry of the fender system and vessel the
following formulae can be used to estimate or verify early design assumptions regarding 𝑟𝐹 :
And,
𝑛𝑓
∑𝑖=1 𝑅𝑓𝑖 𝑟𝑠𝑖 𝑅𝑓1 𝑟𝑠1 +𝑅𝑓2 𝑟𝑠2 + ⋯ + 𝑅𝑓𝑛 𝑟𝑠𝑛
𝑟𝑠 = = (5-8)
𝑅𝐹 𝑅𝑓1 +𝑅𝑓2 + ⋯ + 𝑅𝑓𝑛
𝑓 𝑛
∑𝑖=1 𝑅𝑓 𝑟𝐿𝑖
𝑖
𝑅𝑓 𝑟𝐿1 +𝑅𝑓 𝑟𝐿2 + ⋯ + 𝑅𝑓 𝑟𝐿𝑛
1 𝐿2 𝑛
𝑟𝐿 = = (5-9)
𝑅𝐹 𝑅𝑓 +𝑅𝑓 + ⋯ + 𝑅𝑓
1 2 𝑛
Where:
𝑟𝑠𝑖 Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to compressed ith fender parallel to the
berthing line [m]
𝑟𝑠𝑛 Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to compressed nth fender parallel to the
berthing line [m]
𝑟𝐿 Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to the hull contact point of resultant
fender reaction force perpendicular to the berthing line [m]; see Figure 5.5
𝑟𝐿𝑖 Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to compressed ith fender perpendicular
to the berthing line [m]
𝑟𝐿𝑛 Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to compressed nth fender perpendicular
to the berthing line [m]
𝑛𝑓 Number of compressed fenders
In the early design stage, however, it is more practical to estimate 𝑟𝐹 by assuming a reasonable
value for the berthing impact point 𝑥𝐹 , since the final dimensions of the fender unit might be
unknown. Given a reasonable estimate for 𝑥𝐹 , sufficient information about the geometry of the
vessels hull and assuming that the centre of mass is close to midship (≈ 0.5 LBP) the distance 𝑟𝐹
can be calculated as follows:
2
𝐿𝐵𝑃
𝑟𝐹 = √( − 𝑥𝐹 ) + (𝑦𝐹 )2 (5-10)
2
54
𝐿𝐵𝑃 (5-11)
− 𝑥𝐹
∅ = 90° − 𝛼 − 𝑎𝑐𝑜𝑠 ( 2 )
𝑟𝐹
Where:
When detailed information about the vessel geometry is not available a conservative estimate
would be to assume that 𝑦𝐹 equals half the beam of the vessel (i.e. B/2). Then distance 𝑟𝐹 and
𝑟𝑆 can be calculated as follows
2
𝐿𝐵𝑃 𝐵 2
𝑟𝐹 ≈ √( − 𝑥𝐹 ) + ( ) (5-12)
2 2
𝐿𝐵𝑃 1
𝑟𝑆 ≈ ( − 𝑥𝐹 ) 𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝛼) − 𝐵 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝛼) (5-13)
2 2
In the absence of accurate information or where a high level assessment of the berthing
energy is sufficient, following values for Ce may be used:
𝒙𝑭
𝑪𝒃 = 0.55 𝑪𝒃 = 0.65
Impact point 𝑳𝑩𝑷
α=2˚ α=3˚ α=4˚ α=8˚ α=10˚ α=2˚ α=3˚ α=4˚ α=8˚ α=10˚
Fifth point 20% 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.45 0.47
Quarter point 25% 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.52 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.54 0.55
Third point 33% 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.70 0.71 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.73 0.74
Mid ship 50% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
𝒙𝑭 𝑪𝒃 = 0.75 𝑪𝒃 = 0.85
Impact point
𝑳𝑩𝑷 α=2˚ α=3˚ α=4˚ α=8˚ α=10˚ α=2˚ α=3˚ α=4˚ α=8˚ α=10˚
5th point 20% 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.48
4th point 25% 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.53
3th point 33% 0.54 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61
Mid ship 50% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Table 5-6: Typical 𝐶𝑒 factors for different impact point along the vessel
Then Equation (5-10) and Equation. (5-14) give 𝑟𝐹 =57.3 m and K= 51.37 m, respectively.
Substituting this in Equation (5-5) returns 𝐶𝑒 =0.50.
55
5.6.2 Radius of Gyration
The radius of gyration (𝐾) of a vessel can be calculated using the formulae below (ref: WG 33):
𝑀
𝐶𝑏 = (5-15)
𝐿𝐵𝑃 . 𝐵. 𝐷. 𝜌𝑤
Where:
Further information is available in PIANC WG 235. Where a range is given in WG 235 the mean
value can be used in the absence of other information.
For most vessels, the draught is approximately constant along the length and the centre of
mass can be taken as the midpoint (≈0.5 LBP). For vessels in ballast (berthing at export facilities),
where the draught at the stern is greater than the draught at the bow, the centre of mass will
be closer to the stern. The location of the centre of mass from the stern can be estimated as
follows:
1
[𝐷𝐹 + (𝐷𝐴 − 𝐷𝐹 )]
𝐿𝑐 = 𝐿𝐵𝑃 3 (5-16)
[𝐷𝐴 + 𝐷𝐹 ]
Where:
𝐿𝑐 Distance between centre of mass and the stern [m]; see Figure 5.6
56
Some unusual-shaped hulls or small vessels may have larger offsets between the centre of mass
and the midpoint. In these circumstances, it is likely that vessel geometry can largely influence
the fender design, and hence specific information should be sought from the vessel owners.
The Eccentricity Factor 𝐶𝑒 (and 𝐶𝑒,𝑐 ) should be taken as 1.0 for end berthing situations.
A vessel in motion is subject to a range of hydrodynamic forces, such as drag forces due to
viscous effects, which act to resist velocity and slow the vessel down, and inertial forces due
to the mass of water surrounding the vessel that ‘moves’ with the vessel and resists changes in
velocity. This inertial force is known as ‘added mass’ and is accounted for in the berthing
energy calculation by multiplying the vessel mass by an Added Mass Factor (𝐶𝑚 ). There are
numerous references for calculating 𝐶𝑚 that have been tested by modelling to various
degrees. There is no clear definitive method since the number of variables in the estimation of
𝐶𝑚 is considerable. The most important variable, however, is the under keel clearance.
For parallel and angular berthing manoeuvres it is recommended that 𝐶𝑚 be estimated from
the graph below:
2,00
1,90
1,80
Added Mass Factor (Cm)
1,70
1,60
1,50
1,40
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
1,00
The above graph is largely based on the work by PIANC WG 33. In addition at an under keel
clearance (𝑈𝑐 ) lower than 10 % of the draught of the vessel the 𝐶𝑚 (𝐶𝑚,𝑐 when characteristic
vessel data are used) value is assumed to be constant (i.e. 1.8) based on research carried out
57
by Delft University (Heemskerk, 2020). This research indicated that vessels with low under keel
clearance in free basin conditions stop earlier than same vessels with larger under keel
clearance. Therefore, large under keel clearance implies higher berthing speed. These findings
have been confirmed during discussions held with experts of Gent University. There is neglected
friction from the boundaries i.e. the bottom and if present solid quay wall or slope. The
measurement of under keel clearance is shown in Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.8. For 𝑈𝑐 /𝐷 ratio
greater than 1.0, an added mass factor of 1.5 can be used.
Due to the shape of the hull, the influence of water moving with the vessel when it approaches
the berth longitudinally is less significant compared to alongside berthing. For bow-first berthing
the additional hydrodynamic mass can be ignored and therefore a 𝐶𝑚 of 1.0 can be used in
the design. For vessels (e.g. ferries) designed for stern-first berthing a 𝐶𝑚 of 1.0 can also be used.
For stern-first berthing of vessels not specifically designed for stern-first berthing the 𝐶𝑚 can be
taken as 1.1.
The partial energy factor (𝛾𝐸 ) accounts for the uncertainty in the berthing energy calculation
and is applied to the characteristic berthing energy Ek,c in order to determine the design value
of the berthing energy Ek,d (see Equation (5-3). The partial energy factor is derived as follows:
𝛾𝐸 = 𝛾𝐸,𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝛾𝑛 𝛾𝑝 𝛾𝑐 (5-17)
Where:
𝛾𝐸,𝑟𝑒𝑓 Reference partial energy factor for 100 berthings per year
𝛾𝑛 Correction factor for alternative annual berthing frequencies; see Step 6
𝛾𝑝 Correction factor for berthings without pilot assistance; see Step 7
𝛾𝑐 Correction factor for correlations between design variables; see Step 8
The partial energy factor (𝛾𝐸 ) can be derived using the following steps:
58
4. Determine whether a single fender or multiple fenders contribute to berthing energy
absorption.
5. Select reference partial energy factor.
6. Adjust reference partial energy factor for alternative annual berthing frequencies.
7. Adjust reference partial energy factor for berthings without pilot assistance.
8. Activate positive effects of correlations between design variables where relevant.
For the purpose of reliability differentiation, table 4-1 presents consequence classes
considering the consequences of failure or malfunction of a fender system that may occur at
a specific site. The required level of performance and hence the target reliability level of a
fender system vary for each consequence class. Therefore, a higher consequence class would
require a higher partial energy factor.
Another method to control uncertainty in berthing energy is to monitor the berthing velocity.
When masters and pilots are aware of realistic berthing speed limits AND when berthing aid
systems are used, such as portable pilot units or fixed shore-based docking systems, this is
defined as monitored berthing and lower partial energy factors can be taken into account.
Since the influence of the navigation conditions is already taken into account in the
determination of the characteristic berthing velocity (e.g. in the berthing speed limit), the
partial energy factor for monitored conditions is not further influenced by the navigation
conditions. Refer to Table 5-10 for the reference partial energy factor for monitored conditions.
Step 3: Effects of variations in displacement
In many projects, the characteristic mass equals the maximum displacement of the largest
design vessel. For berths facilitating vessels with small variations in displacement this seems a
reasonable assumption. However, for berths that accommodate a wider envelope of design
vessels the above assumption might be over conservative. In order to prevent overdesigning
the fender system, the reference partial energy factor can be determined using the coefficient
of variation of the displacement 𝐶𝑜𝑉𝑀 of the berthing vessels.
When the characteristic mass does not equal the maximum displacement of the largest design
vessel, for instance when a smaller vessel results in the highest characteristic energy, the
designer should use the partial energy factor corresponding to low value of 𝐶𝑜𝑉𝑀 .
When site-specific information is available the coefficient of variation can be estimated using
the following equation:
59
𝜎𝑀
𝐶𝑜𝑉𝑀 = (5-18)
µ𝑀
Where:
𝜎𝑀 Standard deviation of the displacement of approaching vessels [tonnes]
µ𝑀 Mean displacement of approaching vessels [tonnes]
A low value of 𝐶𝑜𝑉𝑀 means that variations in water displacement of the approaching vessels
are fairly small and only marginally influence the probability of failure of the fender system.
When no site-specific information is available the qualitative explanation in Table 5-7 can be
used for guidance.
Coefficient of variation Explanation
Low 𝐶𝑜𝑉𝑀 < 15 % Variations in displacement of the approaching vessels are small
and marginally influence the berthing energy. Berths facilitate
predominantly the same vessel type and class. Furthermore,
variations in draught of the vessels is minimal.
Step 4: Determine whether a single fender or multiple fenders absorb the berthing energy
This step has a relation with the partial material factor 𝛾𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 , which will be further discussed in
Chapter 6. When the berthing angle and fender pitch are fairly small, multiple (two or more)
fenders may contribute in absorbing the berthing energy. For multiple fender contact the
amount of energy that can be absorbed by the fender system is largely influenced by the
berthing angle and geometry of the vessel (bow radius and parallel body length), whereas for
single fender contact the influence of the berthing angle is much lower. Since the probability
that the characteristic berthing velocity and characteristic berthing angle occur
simultaneously is quite low, a lower partial energy factor can be taken into account for multiple
fender contact Table 5-9) compared to single fender contact (Table 5-8) in order to prevent
overdesigning the fender system.
The reference partial energy factor can be selected using Table 5-8 and Table 5-9 that
correspond to the relevant consequence class (table 4-1) and the method of fender contact.
Reference partial energy factors were derived for a frequency of 100 berthings per year in
accordance with (Brolsma, Hirs, & Langeveld, 1977). If berthing will always be supported with
a monitoring system, the values in Table 5-10 can be used (see also step 2).
60
Reference partial energy factor for consequence classes [𝜸𝑬 𝒓𝒆𝒇 ]
Navigation
CoVM
Condition A B C D
Favourable High 1.30 1.50 1.60 1.70
Moderate 1.35 1.55 1.65 1.80
Low 1.50 1.70 1.80 1.95
Moderate High 1.35 1.60 1.70 1.85
Moderate 1.45 1.65 1.75 1.90
Low 1.60 1.80 1.90 2.10
Unfavourable High 1.50 1.85 2.00 2.20
Moderate 1.60 1.95 2.05 2.30
Low 1.80 2.15 2.30 2.55
Table 5-8: Reference partial energy factor[ 𝛾𝐸 𝑟𝑒𝑓 ] for 100 berthings per year – single fender contact
Table 5-9: Reference partial energy factor[ 𝛾𝐸 𝑟𝑒𝑓 ] for 100 berthings per year – multiple fender contact
Table 5-10: Reference partial energy Factor [𝛾𝐸 𝑟𝑒𝑓 ] for 100 berthings per year – for Monitored Berthings
61
Step 6: Adjust the partial energy factor for alternative berthing frequency
The actual annual berthing frequency can be much higher or lower than the 100 per year
assumed in 𝛾𝐸 𝑟𝑒𝑓 , which can significantly influence the reliability of the fender system. For
instance, fender systems that are installed at ferry berths may be subject to a berthing impact
every 15 minutes, whereas other berths may have only one berthing per month . The correction
factor 𝛾𝑛 adjusts the partial energy factor and can be estimated using the following equation
(Roubos, Iversen, & Oskamp, 2024):
𝛾𝑛 = 𝑎 𝑙𝑛(𝑛) + 𝑏 (5-19)
Where:
𝑎 Logarithmic regression coefficient; see Table 5-11 and Table 5-12
𝑏 Constant; see Table 5-11 and Table 5-12
𝑛 Annual berthing frequency
Table 5-11: Correction factor for an alternative annual berthing frequency (𝛾𝑛 ) for n ≤ 100
Table 5-12: Correction factor for an alternative annual berthing frequency (𝛾𝑛 ) for n > 100
Step 7: Adjust the partial energy factor for berthings without pilot assistance
Reference partial energy factors, presented in Table 5-8 andTable 5-9 , were derived based
on field observations where berthing manoeuvres were assisted by pilots and tugs. Pilots are
familiar with the local navigation and environmental conditions and therefore no adjustments
to the values in Table 5-8 and Table 5-9 are required, i.e. 𝛾𝑝 equals 1.0. For berthing manoeuvres
that are assisted by tugs alone, tug skippers are generally guided by the captain or the master
who may not be completely familiar with the local navigation conditions. This can lead to
higher vessel berthing velocities/ energies and therefore it is recommended that a higher
partial energy factor is used. In the absence of field measurements or site-specific information
a correction factor 𝛾𝑝 of 1.25 is recommended to be used following the guidelines of the
Spanish ROM 2.0-11 (2012).
62
Step 8: Activate positive effects of correlations between vessel size and berthing velocity, if
any
Majority of the vessel berthing records (approach velocity and berthing angle) collected by the
PIANC WG 145 do not show a strong relation between vessel size and berthing velocity.
Therefore, 𝛾𝐸𝑟𝑒𝑓 was derived assuming that both these design variables are independent. When
there is no correlation between vessel size, berthing velocity and berthing angle, 𝛾𝑐 equals 1.0.
However, when vessel size, berthing velocity and berthing angle are to some extent dependent,
this might lead to over-conservatism in the calculated berthing energy. For instance when a
large vessel, having a larger water displacement, has a much lower berthing velocity compared
to a small vessel, then a high value of the kinetic energy is less likely to occur during the design
life of the fender system. Hence the probability of fender system failure is also low. Where site-
specific information is available, for example if a port or terminal has a comprehensive data set,
showing that large vessels berth with much lower berthing velocity compared to small vessels, it
is recommended to quantify the effect of correlations between design variables. For an
example, (Roubos, Iversen, & Oskamp, 2024) found that 𝛾𝑐 is close to 0.6 for a container terminal
with favourable navigation conditions in Rotterdam, which indicates that correlations between
berthing velocity and vessel size can significantly influence the reliability of a fender system. On
the basis of the berthing records that are available, it is not yet possible to provide
recommendations for 𝛾𝑐 that are generally applicable. Therefore, in the absence of site-specific
information or data it is recommended that 𝛾𝑐 to be taken as 1.0.
This section provides guidelines for designing fenders for in-port or near shore Ship-to-Ship
applications not covered by OCIMF STS transfer guidelines (OCIMF, 2013). This section excludes
all offshore STS activities.
A. Double banking transfer – STS operation that is conducted while one ship (usually the larger
of the two) is alongside a berth, dolphins or moored to buoys within port limits.
B. Transfer at anchor – STS operation that is carried out between ships when they are moored
alongside each other and where one of the ships is at anchor (or in a flexible mooring
system such as MBM).
C. Underway transfer – STS operation that is conducted between two ships that are underway.
For ship-to-ship transfer operations in category A, the berthing energy calculation should
proceed using the equations outlined above in the previous sections of this chapter.
For ship-to-ship transfer operations where both vessels are free-floating (categories B and C),
the berthing energy calculation must account for the mass of both vessels. For categories B
and C, the berthing energy calculation must be modified to account for two free-floating
bodies; this involves similar principles to a vessel berthing against a fixed structure. However, in
the case of ship-to-ship operations, both vessels are either in motion prior to berthing or can
be set in motion due to the berthing operation. Categories B and C are illustrated in Figure 5.9.
For categories B and C the mass (real + added mass) of both vessels is relevant, along with the
relative velocity between the vessels prior to fender contact.
63
Figure 5.9: Ship-to-ship berthing for free floating vessels
1 2
𝐸𝑘,𝑐 = 𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑐 = ( . 𝑀𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑐 𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑐 ) . 𝐶𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑒 (5-20)
2
Where:
The generally accepted design practice is that each fender in the system should have
sufficient energy absorbing capacity to absorb the largest anticipated berthing energy. Each
64
fender should be capable of absorbing the full impact load since vessels almost always
contact a single fender on initial impact. A safety factor (𝛾𝐸 ) should be included to account
for conditions (particularly velocities) that exceed the characteristic values. Although no study
of partial energy factors was available for STS berthing when preparing this document, a
reasonable energy factor can be identified using the methods outlined in Section 5.8.
The characteristic berthing velocity (𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑐 ), also called the ‘relative approach velocity’ or the
‘closing’ velocity, is defined relative to the virtual berthing line illustrated in Figure 5.9. This is the
final alignment of the two vessels together and (although not known prior to the calculation)
represents the reference frame for calculating the closing velocity. In other words, the closing
velocity is equal to the sum of the velocities VB1 and VB2 in Figure 5.9. In practice, the closing
velocity can be thought of as the speed at which the two vessel centres of gravity are
approaching each other. It is influenced by the wind and sea conditions, skill of the pilot(s),
the size and loading condition of the vessels and the type of propulsion. An additional
consideration for ship-to-ship applications is whether both vessels are underway or if one is
stationary. Because the berthing energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, ‘𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑐 ′ is
the single most important factor in calculating the berthing energy.
The characteristic berthing velocities for ship-to-ship transfers are generally higher than those
assumed for vessels berthing at fixed marine structures. Typical characteristic closing velocities
for ship-to-ship transfers are summarised in Table 5-13. The full documentation behind how
these velocities were developed was not available for review in preparation of this document.
However, these velocities are used extensively in the industry and are referenced in peer
reviewed publications (e.g. Sakakibara & Yamada (2008). A few clarifications are helpful for
interpreting these velocities:
• In many locations, ship-to-ship berthing may not be considered safe under the conditions
listed for the Moderate and Rough (sea state) categories as mentioned in Table 5-13. Many
other factors (which are beyond the scope of this guidance) govern the safety of ship-to-
ship berthing operations. The velocities reported in this table indicate a reasonable starting
point for estimating the closing velocity; however, local data (when available) and the
judgement of the designer are paramount for ensuring that the design closing velocity will
reasonably reflect the conditions experienced in the field.
• These velocities are referenced to deadweight tonnage, which may be different for the
two vessels mooring together. The deadweight tonnage of the smaller vessel can be used
in selecting the berthing velocity.
• These velocities were developed for tankers, which comprise the majority of ship-to-ship
transfer operations, globally; however, these velocities can be used for other types of
vessels with similar mass and propulsion characteristics (e.g. bulkers).
Sea state categories are as defined by the World Meteorological Organisation.
65
Characteristic Berthing Velocity [m/s]
Deadweight
Tonnage Calm Moderate Rough
[tonnes] Sea State: 0 to 3 Sea State: 4 Sea State: 5
Wave Height: < 1.25 m Wave Height: 1.25 - 2.5 m Wave Height: 2.5 - 4.0 m
The effect of eccentricity is often neglected for ship-to-ship berthing calculations (i.e. 𝐶𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑒 =
1.0 ), which is conservative. However, the principle of trade-off between translation and
rotational energy that leads to the eccentricity coefficient for berthing against fixed fenders
can be applicable for ship-to-ship berthing and can be included when appropriate. For ship-
to-ship berthings in Category C (both vessels underway), there can be significant
hydrodynamic effects that develop between the two vessels that may modify the rotational
characteristics of the vessels, making the eccentricity coefficient very difficult to accurately
specify. Thus, it is recommended that an eccentricity factor less than 1.0 should only be
considered for Category A and Category B ship-to-ship berthings. If an eccentricity coefficient
is calculated, it should be calculated using the same approach as for fixed terminal berthing
however with the point of contact specified based on the position of the fenders relative to
the centre of gravity of each vessel.
66
6 FENDER SYSTEM SELECTION
6.1 Fender Selection Process and Role of the Designer
This chapter outlines the fender selection process, providing background information on the
issues that should be considered when selecting a fender system. The selection of a fender
system deserves as much attention as the design of any other element of the structure of which
it is a part. The selection of the fender, the type of fender system and the supporting structure
are therefore interlinked.
The selection of a fender system should take a common-sense approach and follow the
general process as outlined below:
The above process may have to be repeated several times to select the most optimal fender
and/or fender system for a specific situation.
There are numerous fender system variations available, and it is the task of the designer to
pragmatically select the most suitable and economical fender system which satisfies the
design requirements or specified characteristics.
The fender should be selected based on the calculated design berthing energy of the design
vessel(s), vessel type and berth use, as outlined in Chapter 5 or based on the permanent
mooring / ’lean-on’ load(s) as outlined in Chapter 7, whichever is greater.
Every type and size of fender has different performance properties. Whatever type of fender
is selected, the fendering system should have sufficient capacity to absorb the energy of the
berthing vessel. When selecting fenders, the designer should consider many factors, including
(but not limited to):
• Differences in vessel size and shape
• Approach velocity at moment of fender contact
• Single or multiple fender contact
67
• Berthing angle at moment of fender contact
• Angular compression of the fender
• Temperature range
• Berthing frequency
• Fender efficiency
• Asset manager / owner preference
• Tidal range
The selection of a suitable fender relies, in part, on carrying out calculations to confirm that the
energy absorption capacity of the fender is greater than the berthing energy of the vessel(s).
In addition, the associated compressed fender contact pressure should be less than the
allowable vessel hull pressure and the capacity of the supporting structure.
Fender selection relies on the experience and judgement of the designer to make reasoned
and pragmatic decisions as to which fender and fender systems may function best in the
circumstances unique to each project. In conjunction with this experience, the designer is also
recommended to seek advice from fender suppliers in identifying suitable fender solutions.
Having determined the characteristic berthing velocity of the governing design vessel(s) and
calculated the design berthing energy, as outlined in Chapter 5, the designer should first
identify the types of fenders that are most likely to satisfy the primary design criteria for the
project. It is possible that several different types of fenders may be considered suitable. The
initial fender type selection process is outlined in Figure 6.1. Guidance on the selection and
suitability of fenders for certain applications, is included within Section 6.3.
Using the calculated design berthing energy, the designer should then refer to the fender
performance data for each type, size and possible rubber grade of the fender, as published
in the fender supplier’s catalogues, to identify the Base Performance (previously known as CV
performance in WG 33) properties for each type, size and rubber grade of the fender, (refer
to point 2 in Figure 6.1).
To determine the Characteristic Performance of the selected fender, the designer needs to
determine the applicable correction factors, using the project specific design criteria. The
base performance of the fender is then multiplied by these correction factors, to determine
the fender characteristic performance, refer to point 3 in Figure 6.1 and to Section 6.5.
The Design Performance of the selected fender requires the designer to determine the
applicable partial resistance factors and apply these to the fender characteristic berthing
energy and reaction force. Refer to point 4 in Figure 6.1 and to Section 6.7.
At the project outset, specific site-based design criteria may not be available or may need to
be estimated. The designer may need to undertake a sensitivity analysis to determine the
effect of changes to the assumed design criteria on the required size and performance
properties of the selected fender. The designer may also need to iteratively assess a range of
different fender types and sizes. The design process is likely to identify several different fender
types and sizes that could accommodate the required range of vessels and conditions.
This design process is repeated until the designer has assessed all possible fender solutions
and/or identified the optimum solution. It is highlighted that the most effective efficient energy
absorbing fender may not be the most suitable fender for the required application.
68
Figure 6.1: Overview of fender selection process
69
6.2.2 Fender Selection Using Pre-Set Design Criteria
To quickly assess and compare numerous different types and sizes of fenders, fender suppliers
publish fender characteristic performance information ( 𝐸𝑓;𝑐 and 𝑅𝑓;𝑐 ) that utilise ‘pre-set’
design criteria for each type and rubber grade of fender. Using this approach, designers can
select fenders ‘at a glance’, as the appropriate correction factors will have already been
applied, such as the following. (Refer to Section 6.6 for more information on correction factors.)
When using pre-set design criteria, the designer must be aware that this methodology is
intended for preliminary fender selection only. The final fender selection may change due to
differences between the project design criteria and the pre-set design criteria.
These pre-set design criteria are used to provide the designer with a quick reference
comparison, and ‘look-up’ tool for fender selection and may well differ from the final project
specific design criteria. The designer will need to check the suitability of the selected fender
prior to finalising the selection.
The partial resistance factors will also need to be applied to complete the fender selection
using this pre-set criteria method. If the project design criteria are significantly different to the
pre-set criteria, the designer is recommended to revert to the methodology outlined in Figure
6.1.
The selection of a suitable fender system may need to consider a wide range of potentially
limiting conditions or restrictions. These may include, but are not limited to, specific types of
vessels, matching replacement fender systems to an existing fender system, large vessel stand-
off distances, accommodating vessel gangways, vessels with belting, etc.
The range of vessel sizes using the berth will also need to be carefully considered as this may
influence the fender type, spacing (pitch) and the size(s) (heights) of the fenders selected.
Sometimes there may be one primary overriding criterion which may govern the whole fender
system selection process. Refer to Chapter 2 for a summary of fender types and systems and
the preliminary considerations linked to their selection.
As part of the fender selection and design process, the designer is recommended to consider
all fender system options that may be considered suitable. Each potential solution should then
be assessed against the project specific criteria to determine the most efficient, robust and
cost-effective design solution.
Table 6-1 provides an overview of which types of fender system may be suitable for use with a
range of different vessel types. Further advice on which fender types may be most suitable to
a particular situation, location or vessel, can be obtained from fender manufacturers.
70
Table 6-1: Application of fender systems for various vessel types
In addition to differing vessel types and as an additional starting point for fender system
selection, Table 6-2 provides an indication as to which fender types may be suitable for use in
a range of general marine applications.
The designer should not consider Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 to be prescriptive or definitive and
the final fender selection should be verified using the calculation methods included in this
guidance. The designer is also recommended to consider all permanent and temporary
conditions associated with the operation of the berth (e.g. crane offload), to ensure that the
most suitable fender type and fender system is selected.
71
Table 6-2: Application of fender systems to various marine applications
Fender systems can be designed to function as single stand-alone fender systems (e.g.
berthing dolphins) or they can function as part of a combined multiple fender system
arrangement (e.g. on a continuous berth). A wide range of factors and variables should be
considered by the designer when selecting a suitable fender system. These factors are outlined
in the following sections.
72
6.4.1 Bow Radius
A vessel’s bow radius (RB) at the level of the contact with the fender system, is an integral part
of determining the pitch of the fender system. In the absence of vessel specific information,
the bow radius may be estimated using equation (6-1). For more detailed information on hull
shape to assist with the estimation of the bow radius refer to Chapter 0.
𝐵 𝐿𝑏𝑜𝑤,𝐹 2
𝑅𝐵,𝐹 ≈ ( + ) (6-1)
4 𝐵
Where:
𝑅𝐵,𝐹 : Bow radius at the elevation of the fender [m]
𝐵 : Beam of the vessel [m]
𝐿𝐵𝑃 : Vessel length between the perpendiculars [m]
𝐿𝑂𝐴 : Vessel length over all [m]
𝐿𝑏𝑜𝑤,𝐹 : Distance from the bow tangent point to the bow at the elevation of the fender [m]
Figure 6.2: Bow radius (𝑅𝐵 ) and length of bow flare (𝐿𝐵𝑜𝑤 )
It should be noted that the accuracy of the formulae for 𝑅𝐵,𝐹 in Equation (6-1) is less reliable for
the calculation of bow radius below the fully laden water line. For part laden vessels and vessels
in ballast at a draught of less than 80 % of the fully laden draught, it is recommended that
designers should use measured data from the design vessel(s) hull plans. For guidance on
𝐿𝐵𝑜𝑤.𝐹 (the distance from the bow tangent point to the bow at the elevation of the fender),
refer to WG 235 Appendix A.
The vertical angle of a vessel’s bow is known as the bow flare. Many vessels have considerable
amounts of topside ‘flare’ forward and aft, below the main deck level. When a vessel is
approaching at an angle to a berth, the fender system will need to accommodate the
73
differences and changes in this vertical angle of the vessel hull profile at the fender contact
locations. High tidal ranges will exacerbate this consideration.
The bow flare angle ( 𝛽𝑓 ) at the contact
point with each fender system can vary
considerably, depending on the water
level in relation to the berth (i.e. tidal water
level) and the berthing vessel type, size
and draught.
Where:
𝑐𝑒𝑓𝑓 : Effective clearance between supporting structure and vessel hull due to bow flare
[m].
c' : Horizontal distance between the fender centreline and the support structure due to
the bow radius and fender compression [m]. Refer to WG 145 2022 Appendix F for
more information.
𝑑𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 : Vertical elevation from fender centreline to the vessel deck or to the top of the
supporting structure, whichever is the lower [m]
𝛽𝑓 : Bow flare angle
The projection of the vessel hull profile over the compressed fender line must be considered in
assessing clearances to quayside furniture and equipment. Clearances should account for
the minimum separation distances required to the quayside equipment, its placement during
vessel berthing, the berthing angle and vessel hull shape geometry.
The designer may elect to complete a geometric assessment of the minimum vessel freeboard,
draught and the lowest tidal water level to ensure that the vessel bow flare does not contact
the upper surface or edge of the supporting structure during berthing, at the incidental
berthing angle (𝛼𝑖 ).
In such cases, the effective clearance to all components of the fender system, including the
fender panel, brackets, chains, etc. may need to be checked. In extreme cases, the bow or
stern flare can overhang the supporting structure.
74
In addition, geometric checks should be carried out to confirm that the lowest part of the
fender system will be positioned at a sufficiently low level to prevent the fender system
catching on low freeboard vessels at low tidal states. The level of the upper part of the fender
system will also need to be configured to accommodate contact with vessels with
considerable amounts of flare angle.
The designer should consider the combined angle of compression of the fender, taking
account of the angular compression due to the bow radius and the bow flare, or similar stern
geometry if stern impact is dictated by vessel manoeuvres. This combined effect may reduce
the overall energy absorption capacity of the selected fender.
The fender system pitch (𝑝𝑓 ) refers to the horizontal distance or spacing between each fender
system. Various factors should be considered when determining the fender pitch. These
include, but are not limited to, the following:
• the range of design vessels. Larger and heavier vessels typically can accommodate a
greater fender pitch with the optimum pitch varying with differences in the vessel bow
radius.
• different types of fenders have different properties and performance characteristics that
affect the required pitch between fenders.
• the primary dimensions of the fenders can affect the required pitch (e.g. the stand-off
distance of the berthing line from the supporting structure). Larger fenders typically can
accommodate a wider spacing and can also influence the design of a new or
replacement supporting structure (i.e. headstock separation distance).
• the absorption of larger berthing energies can require a reduced fender system pitch to
ensure sufficient energy absorption capacity.
• specific operational requirements or limitations of the marine facility (e.g. allowable vessel
movements or maximum berthing forces) can affect the fender system pitch.
• the existing port infrastructure geometry (e.g. required dolphin separation, quay wall
structural arrangement, pile spacing, the level of the fender system above the water line,
etc.) can all influence or limit the pitch of a fender system.
• environmental factors (e.g. the requirement to accommodate a certain range of wave
heights, currents or water levels) may require a reduced fender pitch.
Determining the optimal pitch is therefore an involved process, typically requiring an iterative
approach and the consideration of a wide range of factors.
Often (but not necessarily always), the smallest design vessel determines the maximum fender
pitch. However, small(er) vessels result in smaller berthing energy absorption requirements
which consequently results in smaller fender compressions. Having considered the maximum
pitch for the whole range of design vessels, and provided that it does not govern the selected
fender size, the designer can take this possibility of smaller fender compression into account
when determining the appropriate pitch.
For continuous berthing structures, an estimate of the maximum pitch should be calculated as
part of the fender selection and design process. The maximum pitch (𝑝𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) between two
fender systems, for bow contact only, can be calculated as follows:
75
𝑝𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ≤ 2 √ R B 2 - (R B - ℎ𝑓,𝑎𝑐𝑡 + 𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 + (𝑑𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛽𝑓 ))2 (6-3)
Where:
𝑝𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 : Maximum fender system pitch [m]
𝑅𝐵 : Bow radius [m]
ℎ𝑓,𝑎𝑐𝑡 : Horizontal distance from face of fender system to supporting structure, at actual
fender compression, measured on the centreline of the fender for 50 % of the
design energy (i.e. fenders each side of the critical location take 50 % of the
design energy) [m]
𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 : Minimum clearance to support structure [m]
𝑑𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 : Vertical distance from fender centreline to the vessel deck or to the top of the
supporting structure, whichever is the lower [m]
𝛽𝑓 : Hull flare angle at the critical location [°]
A minimum clearance (𝑐𝑚𝑖𝑛 ), between the vessel hull and the supporting structure should be
maintained, refer to Figure 6.4. This minimum clearance distance is recommended to be taken
as 10 % of the uncompressed fender height (ℎ𝑓 ), with a minimum of 250 mm.
If the berthing angle is such that bow or stern impact is possible and 𝑑𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 is greater than 2 H,
particular care should be taken to consider the effect of (𝛽𝑓 ), as impact with the support
structure can occur in these circumstances. This can be overcome by ensuring the fender level
is close to the deck level.
In the absence of a detailed assessment, as is often the case at the concept design stage, an
estimate of the maximum pitch can be taken as 0.15 x the smallest design vessel length (𝐿𝑂𝐴𝑠 ).
Refer to Figure 6.4.
Whilst a large pitch may be preferable, this may allow some vessels, especially smaller ones, to
contact the supporting structure in between the fenders. The pitch should be small enough to
prevent a vessel hull contacting the supporting structure. The designer may elect to include
smaller, intermediate fenders between the larger, primary fender systems to prevent smaller
vessels contacting the supporting structure, refer to Section 6.4.5.
Figure 6.4: Estimate of maximum fender pitch and minimum clearance to the supporting structure
For small vessels (e.g. fishing vessels), the spacing of the fenders will need to be in the order of
a few metres to avoid contact with the quay or supporting structure. Small vessels are
sometimes berthed stern-on to the quay, also necessitating a close fender pitch.
For vessels approaching at small berthing angles, typically multiple fender systems will be
compressed sequentially and by varying amounts. Should the adjustment of the fender pitch
76
to suit the design vessel geometry not be possible, (e.g. when designing replacement fenders
for an existing berth), the designer may need to consider adjustments to the stand-off distance
of the berthing line from the supporting structure. This can be done by using larger fenders or
mounting fenders on quay line ‘out-stands’.
For a single fender system, (e.g. a berthing dolphin), irrespective of the vessel approach angle
and bow radius, the selected fender should be capable of absorbing all the design berthing
energy of the approaching vessel, refer to Figure 6.5. Therefore, the worst-case design scenario
will be the single fender system contact.
Whilst vessels may attempt to approach parallel to a berth, in practice, given the number of
variables influencing the vessel approach and the vessel hull geometry, true parallel berthing
is difficult to achieve. Nonetheless, multiple fender system contacts can and does occur at
small berthing angles.
For continuous berths, depending on the approach angle of the vessel, the bow radius and
the fender system pitch, vessels may contact multiple fender systems sequentially and by
varying amounts when berthing.
Multiple fender contacts will provide the greatest berthing energy absorption capacity. This
will consequently induce multiple reaction forces on the supporting structure. The supporting
structure should therefore be capable of resisting the cumulative sum of these multiple
reaction forces from multiple fender system contacts.
The total berthing energy absorption capacity of multiple fender system contacts equates to
the sum of the energy absorbed by all the compressed fenders. If one fender system is initially
contacted, closely followed by the adjacent fender systems, the energy will be absorbed by
all the fenders that are contacted by the vessel. The energy absorbed by each individual
fender system will vary depending on the degree to which each fender system is compressed.
The fender at the initial point of contact will have the largest deflection and the largest
associated reaction force, refer to Figure 6.6.
77
Figure 6.6: Contacted fenders at larger berthing angles (with contact on bow flare)
For vessels with approach angles that are almost parallel to the berth, this can result in many
more fenders being contacted, with each contacted fender being compressed by varying
amounts, refer to Figure 6.7.
For all cases of multiple fender contact, the cumulative energy absorption capacity of the
multiple fenders that are compressed is therefore greater than that for a single fender contact.
For multiple fender contacts with buckling fenders, the nonlinear force deflection
characteristics of the fender will result in larger overall reaction forces on the structure
compared with single fender contact.
Figure 6.7: Contacted fenders at smaller berthing angles (almost parallel to the berth)
The designer should also consider the range of design berthing velocities associated with the
range of design vessels. The associated differences in berthing velocity, considered in
combination with the vessel approach angle and vessel geometry, will result in numerous
berthing scenarios that may all need to be considered to identify the optimum solution.
Changes in the selected fender pitch, fender type and fender height will also influence the
number of fenders that are compressed for a multiple fender contact scenario. The smaller the
pitch, the more fenders are likely to be contacted.
78
If the range of design vessel sizes is large, it is often not economical or practical to arrange the
fender systems for the largest vessels, using the pitch calculated for the bow radius of the
smallest vessels. In such cases, smaller alternative fenders can be considered between the
primary fender systems that are provided to accommodate the largest vessels.
The designer is recommended to consider both single and multiple fender system contact
scenarios, for a range of vessel approach angles. Contact with multiple fender systems during
berthing increases the potential berthing energy absorption capacity, potentially enabling a
smaller fender to be selected or larger vessels to be accommodated on the berth.
Should the initial berthing contact be made by the stern quarter of a vessel and, as the hull
radius is typically considerably much smaller at this location, the designer should consider
whether single fender contact is also a possibility.
The structural capacity of the vessel hull in resisting berthing forces (and thus the allowable hull
pressures) needs to be assessed early in the fender system selection process. Guidance on
vessel hull structure load capacities is included in Section 6.8.
Limitations on the structural capacity of the vessel hull and belting (if present) may influence
the size and number of fender panels required to distribute the fender reaction force into the
berthing vessel. The designer should assess all applicable berthing impact loads, the structural
capacity of the vessel hull and the belting, and the area over which these loads are to be
distributed, to ensure that the selected fenders can absorb the design energy.
To accommodate vessels that are equipped with belting, the designer should consider how
the belting will interact with the selected fender system. Beltings are often considered to be
sacrificial vessel bound protection. A certain amount of damage to beltings is possible and
inevitable as this is the primary point of contact between the vessel and the installed fender
system. Damage to vessel belting is not expected to occur under normal berthing operations.
Vessels that have damaged belting also have the potential to cause damage to the fender
during berthing and the designer may wish to consider selecting fenders that are less likely to
be affected by damaged belting. Certain fenders can be damaged or perform inefficiently
when contacted by vessel belting.
To assist with this process, the designer is recommended to obtain details of the belting profile,
structure and load capacity, so that the interactions with the selected fender can be assessed
in detail. Friction between the belting and the fender should also be considered, particularly
as the belting faces are often heavily worn, with minimal paint system coating as it will have
been worn away. Refer to Section 8.3 for more information on applicable coefficients of
friction.
Where fender panels have been selected, the potential for double hull contact and high
horizontal line loads within the fender panel should be assessed, refer to Section 6.4.8.
79
ℎ𝑓 = Fender height Gap between
∆ℎ𝑓 = Max. fender deflection vessel hull and
ℎ𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑡 = Belting height fender facing
Supporting
structure
Vessel
belting
Arch
fender
Figure 6.8: Arch fenders with maximum deflection smaller than belting height
Where arch type rubber fenders without fender panels have been selected and are mounted
vertically on a supporting structure, the maximum energy absorption capability of the arch
fender is limited to the actual contributing length of the fender. The remaining uncompressed
lengths of the arch fender will therefore not contribute to the absorption of the berthing
energy, refer Figure 6.8.
If the maximum fender compression is greater than the belting height, direct hull contact may
also occur on sections of the hull plating adjacent to the belting. This will provide some increase
in energy absorption however also result in a significantly larger reaction force on the vessel
hull, refer Figure 6.9.
The sizing and selection of the arch fender is dependent on the belting geometry and a larger
section arch fender may be required to accommodate the design berthing energy. An
incorrectly sized fender could result in damage to the supporting structure or to the vessel hull
due to high, locally concentrated reactions forces.
Vessel
belting
Arch
fender
Figure 6.9: Arch fenders with maximum deflection greater than belting height
When considering the selection of other panel-free fender systems, e.g. foam, pneumatic or
cylindrical fenders, the designer should consider the interaction of the fender with the vessel
belting. This is of particular significance if the fender is mounted horizontally resulting in an
increased risk of the fender becoming caught under the vessel belting as it moves up and
down against the berth.
80
The designer should also take account of variations in the shape of the ends of the belting,
changes in the belting cross sectional profile and/or discontinuities in the belting line (e.g. pilot
door openings). An angular shaped belting end has the potential to cause damage to the
fender. Consideration should be given to the use of fender chamfers and sloping fender
profiles to prevent the belting becoming ‘snagged’ on the fender.
Multiple beltings at various heights on the vessel, and at differing positions along the vessel hull,
also should be assessed in relation to the position of the vessel when berthing and when
moored, potentially requiring the selected fender system to extend above the deck of the
supporting structure.
Double hull contact by a fender system typically occurs with vessels that are equipped with
belting, refer to Figure 6.10. Double hull contact is of particular significance when a fender
panel is included. This issue will be exacerbated where a large tidal range exists requiring
longer fender panels.
Double hull contact for fender systems without fender panels, (e.g. foam or cylindrical fenders),
is less likely to occur; however the designer should consider how this type of fendering will
interact with the vessel belting during vessel berthing.
The designer may consider undertaking a geometric assessment of the vessel and fender
system interaction at extreme water levels, to develop the fender and fender panel geometry
and to check that no part of the vessel may be damaged during berthing (e.g. low level
windows and doors on cruise vessels).
Double hull contact will result in loads being imposed on the vessel belting, as well as on the
vessel hull plating both above or below the belting line, as illustrated in Figure 6.10. The type of
facing of the fender panel (e.g. steel plating or low friction panels) will also affect how the
fender panel interacts with the vessel hull plating, with these concentrated loads potentially
cause buckling and deformation of the vessel hull plating.
Fender panel
leans onto and Fender panel
contacts the leans onto and
vessel hull plating contacts the
above the belting vessel hull plating
causing a line below the belting
load in the vessel causing a line
hull plating. load in the vessel
hull plating.
Figure 6.10: Belting causing vessel hull double contact and line loads
For long fender panels, multiple fenders may be required to support the fender panel and
efficiently absorb the berthing energy.
81
6.4.9 Type of Supporting Structure
The type of supporting structure to which the fender system is to be attached is a primary
consideration when selecting a suitable fender system. A supporting structure consisting of a
gravity or retaining wall is generally stable against external forces such as the vessel berthing
or wave forces. The reaction force imposed by the fender system is also relatively small when
compared with the earth forces on the retaining wall and the effect of the characteristic
correction factors on the berthing energy and reaction forces may not be critical.
However, in the case of jetties, open piled wharf structures, guiding structures and dolphins,
the influence of the reaction force from the fenders may be a defining load case for the design
of the overall structure. In such cases, all characteristic correction factors are significant and
should be assessed in detail.
Based on the design of the proposed or existing supporting structure, limitations associated
with the area upon which the fender can be mounted, the required stand-off distance,
minimum anchor edge distances, etc., will also need to be considered by the designer.
The age of the supporting structure will also need to be considered in detail, (i.e. ‘new-build’
design or an existing structure) to ensure that the residual capacity of the existing structure can
with stand the reaction forces imposed by the selected fender system.
The geometry of an existing structure may preclude the use of certain fender systems that may
necessitate significant modifications to the supporting structure. Maintaining a straight
berthing line and/or working within a set stand-off distance may also limit the options for fender
and fender system selection.
Flexible dolphins (typically mono-piles) are vertical or near vertical piles cantilevered from the
sea, harbour or river bed. These load-sensitive structures absorb the vessel berthing energy by
the combined deflection of the mono-pile and the compression of the associated fender
system.
They are commonly used at berths where unloading takes place at dedicated facilities, e.g.
at liquid bulk (oil, gas) jetties, where the berthing structures can be separated from the
operational (loading) platform.
Flexible dolphin piles are generally of circular shape and consist of several sections welded
together, each with different wall thicknesses to satisfy the changes in bending moments at
various levels. The upper sections of the flexible dolphin mono-pile should be fabricated to be
easily connected (i.e. bolting) to facilitate onsite connection of the upper section, deck,
fender system mounting or other fixtures and fittings, e.g. access ladder.
The energy absorption capacity of a flexible dolphin is proportional to the square of the steel
stress and linear to the selected pile wall thickness. Hence, the use of a higher-grade tensile
steel and a large wall thickness is effective for providing high energy absorption characteristics.
The energy absorption capacity can be increased by using a larger pile diameter and/or wall
thickness.
The designer should consider all relevant design codes while designing large diameter mono-
piles and considering the effects of local buckling. The mono-pile can also be filled with a
mixture of sand and gravel to assist with preventing local buckling.
82
Consideration should also be given to the corrosion of the steel pile and the associated welds.
If corrosion, combined with fatigue effects, are considered significant, the designer should
consider a lower steel grade strength.
However, flexible dolphins are not suited to all geological conditions and their capacity is
dependent on the properties of the ground conditions. The ground conditions should be
capable of resisting the horizontal loads exerted by the embedded length of the pile caused
by the design berthing impact of the vessel. The ground conditions should also be capable of
returning the pile to its original position when berthing or other applied forces have ceased to
act, including for a nominal allowance for ‘post-holing’.
The designer should also consider the design bed level and make an allowance for potential
scour and changes in the bed level which may affect the level of fixity of the pile and
potentially reducing the energy absorption capacity of the structure.
The selection of a suitable flexible dolphin and fender system should also consider the
following:
• The maximum reaction forces generated by the selected fender system (𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ) must be able
to be resisted by the structural capacity of the selected mono-pile.
• The mono-pile should also have sufficient residual structural capacity to absorb the
proportion of the vessel berthing energy to be resisted by the mono-pile.
• Mounting of the selected fender system onto the mono-pile may be difficult due to the
comparable limited size of the mono-pile.
• The distance between the face of the fender panel (fender line) and the mono-pile
structure should be sufficient to ensure that contact between the vessel (e.g. hull plating,
heel, belting, etc.) and the mono-pile (or its potentially larger platform on top) cannot
occur when the design berthing load is applied.
• The flexible dolphin structure may have potential restricted access that requires the
selection of a low maintenance fender system.
• For berths subject to numerous berthing events, it is recommended that the designer
considers the impact of fatigue on the design of the flexible dolphin pile, (e.g. a permanent
FSRU in exposed conditions).
• The designer should consider appropriate load factors to determine the design berthing
energy and to ensure that the permissible elastic deflection of the flexible dolphin is not
exceeded for the selected range of berthing energies and associated reactions forces.
83
6.4.11 Fender System Elevation
The selection of a fender system located in tidal waters should be able to accommodate the
full range of design vessels, for the full range of water levels expected to be experienced at
the berth.
The selected fender system should also be capable of accommodating the vessel load
condition (laden or in ballast) and to accommodate the vessel’s response to sea state
conditions (e.g. waves) and other design environmental or meteorological effects (e.g. storm
surge), whilst the vessel is alongside the berth. Designers should also consider the position of
the top of the fender system in relation to the top of the supporting structure as mooring ropes,
cables, or loading platforms from vessels using the berth could become snagged if parts of the
fender system protrude above the top of the supporting structure.
The selection of pneumatic and foam fenders requires the consideration of several additional
factors. From a design perspective, both these types of fenders should generally be fully
supported by a smooth surface (e.g. concrete, steel, etc.) or backing structure. Full flat
contact and support between the footprint of the fender and the supporting structure is
required to support the fully compressed surface area of the fender and to provide the full
design performance of the fender at 60 % compression.
The elevation of the backing structure and the compression of the fender relative to the
waterline should also consider the potential for vertical movement of the fender caused by
variations in water level due to tides and waves and variations in the vessel’s draught as it is
loaded or unloaded. This may require the vertical height of the backing structure to be
increased to accommodate potential vertical movement of the fender.
When the backing structure surface edges are close to the edges of the compressed fender
footprint, the backing surface should have a smooth radius or chamfer to prevent potential
incidental damage to the fender skin.
In circumstances where full backing to the foam fender cannot be provided, the performance
capabilities of the fender will be reduced as the compression of the fenders will be limited by
the extent of the backing surface. For reduced backing structure surface areas, the diameter
of the fender should be reduced to accommodate the available extent of contact surface
area. Alternatively, the selected fender should be designed for the required performance at
a partial compression of the fender to match with the available contact footprint related to
the backing structure surface height.
A full backing structure is not always necessary for pneumatic fenders as the energy absorption
mechanism differs for pneumatic fenders compared to that of foam fenders. Pneumatic
fenders can remain fully functional even at a compressed angles of up to 20 degrees. The
provision of a backing structure for pneumatic fenders is primarily required to enhance the
84
overall durability of the fender as compression against uneven surfaces will induce additional
stresses on the internal fender body.
Changes to the fender selection may be accomplished by adopting the same diameter with
a higher performance capacity, or with a reduced diameter and increased length of fender.
The fender should not be compressed beyond the available backing surface limits.
Pneumatic and foam fenders also have the capability to accommodate many different
belting profiles whilst maintaining the stated design performance. Specific belting profiles
should be evaluated based on the relative fender diameter and performance. In such cases,
the maximum design compression distance is measured from the face of the belting (not the
vessel hull) to the backing structure and the maximum energy absorption capacity will be
reduced accordingly.
When considering the selection of pneumatic or foam fenders for a particular berth, designers
should be aware of the potential for damage to occur to vessel beltings. This damage could
rip or puncture pneumatic or foam filled fenders.. Consideration should also be given to the
potential for fenders to get caught under larger vessel beltings, forcing the fender downwards
on a falling tide, creating abnormal loading to the support restraints and the ends of the foam
fenders.
For foam fenders, horizontally or vertically mounted strips of low friction facing material (e.g.
UHMW-PE) can be installed on the face of the backing structure or concrete surface. These
low friction strips can help reduce the wear to the skin of the foam fender caused by the
constant rubbing against the backing structure. The low friction strips also provide a locking
function, helping to keep the fender in place when compressed and subjected to lateral
vessel movements. The potential for localised permanent compression and creep of the
fender associated with longer term or permanent mooring conditions should be considered.
Further information on the use of pneumatic and foam fenders for permanent moorings is
provided in Chapter 0.
The performance of a fender system can be modified by using multiple fenders attached to
one fender panel. Whilst doubling the number of fenders above or next to each other, will in
theory double the energy absorption capacity, the reaction force will also double, potentially
having a significant effect on the supporting structure.
If a larger but softer fender is selected, the energy absorption capacity will be increased. For
the selected design vessel, the associated reaction force may therefore be lower. However,
the opportunity to utilise a larger fender might be limited by the required stand-off distance of
the vessel from the supporting structure or certain cargo handling requirements.
In addition, if the vessel berthing velocity increases or a vessel larger than the design vessel
calls at the berth, the designer should be aware that the potential maximum reaction force
could be significantly greater and may detrimentally affect the supporting structure.
When a fender is subjected to a lateral force, (e.g. a vessel movement parallel to the berthing
line), shear forces can be induced within the fender system. These shear forces can cause
85
deformation and stress concentrations within the fender and in the worst case, result in the
failure of the fender.
Excessive deformation of a fender through shear can impair the fender's ability to absorb vessel
impacts effectively and limit the fender’s ability to protect the vessel and the supporting
structure. Shear forces can also create areas of localised stress concentration within the fender
material, potentially weakening the fender and making it more susceptible to damage or
failure. The designer should therefore be aware of the effect that shear has on a fender and
on the energy absorption capacity.
Specific design information related to the compression characteristics and shear capacity of
different fender types is typically not included within fender suppliers published catalogues. It
is recommended that designers seek further information from the fender suppliers on the
maximum shear force that the selected fender can withstand and the maximum displacement
of the fender when subject to the design shear force.
When a fender system incorporates a fender panel, to resist excessive shear forces being
imposed on a fender, it is common for shear restraint chains to be provided. Refer to Section
8.2 for further information on the design of shear chains. However, the designer should be
aware of the importance of correctly positioning the shear chains and the angle of the chains
to the berthing line to ensure that these chains function correctly and as intended.
When fenders are submerged, the voids in some fenders can fill with water. This issue typically
occurs with cone and cell type fenders. When a fender of this type is compressed during a
vessel berthing, the water may be unable to escape quickly enough, resulting in significantly
increased reaction forces.
To cater for this, adequate venting should be provided within the fender system to allow the
water to escape within the time that the fender is compressed. Designers are recommended
to request additional fender performance data from the fender suppliers for fully submerged
fenders.
The possibility of marine growth obstructing any vent holes should also be considered when
establishing the size of the vents and future maintenance provisions.
For some types of fenders (i.e. cone and element fenders), the fender orientation needs to be
determined by the designer. The standard orientation of these fenders is for the wider footprint
to be connected to the supporting structure and the narrower footprint to be connected to
the back of the fender panel. For some berths, the designer may consider it beneficial to install
the fender in a non-standard arrangement (i.e. ‘inverted’, with the smaller footprint attached
to the supporting structure). This orientation requires less space on the supporting structure for
the mounting bolts and thus could reduce/optimise the capping beam (or dolphin cap block)
height and therewith result in concrete savings.
The energy absorption capacity of the fender is unchanged in the non-standard orientation,
therefore in principle it is possible to use an inverted fender. However, inverting a fender can
result in a different distribution of stresses, with potential additional stresses induced in certain
parts of the fender.
86
Regardless of the fender orientation, care should be taken when designing the chain support
system to ensure that the weight of the fender panel and shear forces from the vessel contact
do not exceed the permissible stresses of the fender. As the geometry and wall thickness of
fenders is not the same across all suppliers, the designer should be aware of the potential
differences with this arrangement if considering the inverted orientation of a fender and is
recommended to consult with the fender supplier in such cases.
To accommodate for the vertical movement of vessels on a berth. e.g. due to a large tidal
range, the designer may consider selecting certain fender types that can be mounted in a
vertical orientation, e.g. arch fenders. Alternatively, multiple fenders supporting a fender panel
can be mounted one above the other, enabling taller fender panels to be utilised.
The impact of ageing on the long-term performance of a fender within the design life of the
selected fender can be considered by the designer. Ageing effects appear in the later stages
of fender life, typically after more than 25 years of operation and use. As a result of the ageing
effects on rubber, an increase in the fender reaction force can occur. The ageing effects are
influenced by a range of factors, including:
The effects of ageing on fenders are difficult to measure. The effect of sunlight, oxygen and
ozone will largely occur within the surface zone of the fender leading to a hardening of the
fender surface. However, the ageing effects of heat will penetrate deeper into the fender
body and could cause further fender degradation over time.
Advances in technology have enabled sensor-based mechanisms to be installed on some
newly manufactured fenders to measure the deflection of a fender over time and to provide
a comparison of fender deflection for similar vessels and similar berthing velocities. Eventually,
fender hardening can lead to increases in the fender reaction force generated by the fender
for the same or reduced fender compression. There are (2024) no results currently available of
these sensor-based technologies.
In addition, the ageing of rubber fenders has been studied for cell fenders which have a long
operational history, (Akiyama, Shiomi, Omura, Yamamoto, & Ueda, 2017). This research has
indicated that the associated fender reaction forces can be increased by up to 20 %.
Currently, there remains insufficient information on the ageing effects for cone fenders.
As part of the studies of cell fenders, the increase in reaction force due to ageing was found
to be smaller for used fenders returned from the operational site situations than for fenders
artificially aged in laboratory conditions.
This research also proves that if fatigue from repeated compression or deep surface cracks
occurs due to the ageing and degradation of the fender, the loss of performance and
reaction force can be far greater. The designer should therefore be aware of the implications
of the potential for changing fender reaction forces in the later stages of the service life of a
fender.
87
Whilst the reaction force of fenders used for long periods of time increases, there are also other
factors that reduce the reaction force, such as fatigue from repeated compression and
surface cracking. Accounting for only ageing effects within the fender selection process,
without considering these additional factors, can lead to uneconomical and conservative
fenders system designs.
Table 6-5 provides recommended Partial Load Resistance factors (𝛾𝑅 ) of 1.30 to 1.50 to
account for potential increases in reaction force e.g. by ageing which is considered sufficient
for the purposes of design, so a dedicated ageing factor is not introduced by WG 211.
The designer should also provide recommendations for periodic inspection and a maximum
fender operational lifetime.
In certain circumstances, vessel owners and operators may request cylindrical or floating fenders,
to be ‘non-marking’, (e.g. for cruise vessels). Non-marking fenders are designed to leave no visible
residue on the vessel hull surface following contact, berthing and whilst moored.
Rubber materials, both natural and synthetic, and the majority of the chemicals and ingredients
used in the manufacture of fenders are typically white, light in colour or colourless. These
substances, once mixed and formed into a fender, would not leave any marks on the hull of the
vessel when contacted. The non-marking properties of a fender are therefore not necessarily
determined by the colour (e.g. white or grey). The addition of carbon black, providing a fender
with its characteristic black colour, serves to enhance the physical properties of the rubber. When
a fender is rubbed against the hull of the vessel, this black rubber material is rubbed off the fender
due to friction and has the potential to leave black markings.
Grey or white fenders are potentially more prone to cracking and discoloration, primarily due to
the comparatively weaker reinforcing fillers. In addition, the UV resistance of grey or white fenders
is not as effective as that of black fenders, as the latter’s UV resistance properties are provided
primarily by the presence of carbon black. Further information is provided in Chapter 0.
An effective mooring analysis, conducted as part of the fender system selection process, can
assist in identifying optimised fender system solutions. The location and orientation of certain
berths may require the designer to consider the effect of vessel motions whilst moored at the
berth, and thus the so-called ‘lean-on’ loads during mooring. Typical examples of such
conditions are:
88
In such cases, the design fender energy absorption capacity (𝐸𝑓,𝑑 ), and design reaction force
(𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ) may, on occasion, be exceeded due to mooring conditions and the resulting lean-on
loads at the berth.
The designer should be aware of the potential effects of vessel movements whilst moored at
the berth, and the potential demands that this could place on the requirements of the
selected fender system. The forces associated with the warping of vessels along a berth when
‘leaning on’ can drag against and laterally load fenders significantly. The loads imposed by a
moored vessel may therefore, in certain circumstances (e.g. permanently moored and
exposed FSRUs), could be more critical for fender selection and design than the berthing
energy.
To account for these potentially adverse conditions, it is recommended that the designer
considers undertaking mooring simulations to assess the moored vessel motions and resulting
(fender) loads on the berth. Refer to section 7.3 for more information on mooring analyses.
In a permanently moored vessel situation, the fender deflection and magnitude of the cyclic
loading are the most important considerations when assessing the fender durability and long-
term performance. In these situations, rubber fenders are subject to visco-elastic
characteristics such as hysteresis loss and creep that are difficult to represent in numerical
simulations.
The selection of a suitable fender depends on the mooring arrangement, location and the
predominant environmental conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction, wave height and
period). To adequately accommodate cyclic loading, fenders should be selected to ensure
that the maximum deflection is limited so that the fenders do not buckle and/or that the
fenders are not subjected to repetitive motions of the vessel at deflections which exceed the
peak of the reaction force. The fender selection should also account for the potential for creep
in the fender following prolonged static loads by continuous wind or currents. Refer to Chapter
0 for more information on permanent mooring of vessels.
The fatigue life of the fender should also be assessed with reference to the expected number
of compression cycles and the fender durability tests. This assessment will help determine the
fender design life and the recommended maintenance and inspection requirements
throughout the operational life of the fender.
Pre-tensioned mooring lines and sustained wind loading (constant loads) can induce
permanent deflections in a fender, which can increase over time. This type of fender
deflection is known as ‘creep’. Fenders should be carefully selected so that they do not buckle
due to creep after prolonged static loads by continuous wind or currents. Further information
on the recommended deflection limits is outlined in Chapter 7 and advice on the selection of
suitable fenders for specific situations can be obtained from fender suppliers.
When selecting fenders for permanent mooring situations, consideration should be given to
alternative fender rubber grades and fender heights which may be more efficient or suitable.
A larger fender compression may be considered more appropriate instead of a harder grade
of rubber. Pneumatic or foam fenders often provide different characteristics which may be
operationally preferrable.
89
6.5 Base Fender Performance
90
To determine whether a selected fender is suitable, the designer should first determine the
base fender performance for the selected fenders from the fender supplier’s catalogues. Refer
to Figure 6.11 for further information on how to identify the fender base performance
properties, the application of the correction factors and the partial safety factors as part of
the fender selection process.
The performance of a fender depends predominantly on its type and size and the material
grade. Several other factors, including the amount of angular compression, ambient
temperature, speed of compression and the number of fenders contacted during berthing,
also influence the performance of the fender.
The base fender performance represents the mean value of fender performance and is used
for testing of the fender.
To determine the base fender performance properties, fender suppliers undertake slow
Constant Velocity (CV) compression testing for each fender type and rubber grade of fender.
These CV fender compression tests typically determine the base energy absorption (𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 ) and
base reaction force (𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 ) properties. Further details of CV testing for all fender types is outlined
in Chapter 0.
The 𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 and 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 performance properties are published by fender suppliers for use in the first
stage of the fender selection process.
Fender selection and the design of buckling rubber type fender systems requires the 𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 and
𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 to be adjusted by correction factors that are directly applicable and relate to the project
specific conditions and design criteria. These correction factors consist of the following:
• Velocity factor (𝐶𝑣 ), refer to Section 6.6.2
• Temperature factor (𝐶𝑡 ), refer to Section 6.6.3
• Angular factor (𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔 ), refer to Section 6.6.4
• Multiple fender contact factor (𝐶𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 ), refer to Section 6.6.5
Correction factors are not applicable to pneumatic fenders. Designers should seek further
clarification from fender suppliers regarding the application of correction factors for cylindrical
and foam fenders. If applicable, these correction factors will be provided by the fender
suppliers.
The characteristic values of the vessel berthing velocity, ambient temperatures at the project
site, and vessel approach angle are used to determine the correction factors. The significance
of the dominant and non-dominant design variables is outlined in Chapter 5.
The correction factors are applied to the 𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 and the 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 of the selected fender to
determine the characteristic fender energy absorption capacity ( 𝐸𝑓;𝑐 ) and characteristic
fender reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑐 ), refer also to Figure 6.11.
The following formulae are used to calculate the characteristic fender energy absorption
capacity (𝐸𝑓;𝑐 ) and characteristic fender reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑐 ).
91
𝐸𝑓,𝑐 = 𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝐶𝑣,𝑐 𝐶𝑡,𝑐 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔,𝑐 𝐶𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡,𝑐 (6-5)
The methodology for the selection of 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 , depending on the selected fender type, is outlined
in Section 6.2. It should be noted that different characteristic values for temperature are used
to calculate 𝐸𝑓,𝑐 and 𝑅𝑓,𝑐 ; refer to Section 6.6.3.
Typically, the initial berthing velocity of vessels ranges from between 20 mm/s to 300 mm/s and
decreases as the energy is absorbed by the fendering system as it deflects. Ideally, fender suppliers
would test fenders starting at the initial design berthing velocity to determine the required
performance of the fenders and to enable fender selection. However, in practice this is very
difficult to achieve, given the size and complexity of the testing equipment required and the range
of fenders to be tested. Hence in practice fender suppliers either test the fenders with a slower
velocity using either a Constant Velocity (CV) or Decreasing Velocity (DV) profile.
For CV testing, fender suppliers can determine the base fender performance properties using slow
compression tests on full sized fenders or on scale models at velocities of between 0.33 to 1.33
mm/s. Refer to Section 10.7.3 for further information on the test protocols for velocity factors.
To account for the difference in the velocity between the base performance tests and the in-
service design berthing velocity profile, fender suppliers determine, and should publish in their
catalogue, velocity factors (𝐶𝑣 ) for a range of compression velocities using either the CV or DV
method. If the supplier wishes to test the fenders using a constant velocity profile, then CV/DV
factor(s) should be established to convert the results to an in-service condition. This should be
published by the supplier in their catalogue.
Note, in the WG33 Report, the DV performance for a berthing velocity of 15 cm/s was known as
the RPD fender performance, which is no longer applicable as the berthing velocity is now
selected on a case-by-case basis.
The 𝐶𝑣 factors depend on the type and rubber grade of the fender and are determined from the
strain rate or the compression time. The designer should use the velocity factors provided in the
supplier’s catalogue to correct the fender’s performance. Failure to apply 𝐶𝑣 factors could lead to
the wrong choice of fender and an underestimation of the forces acting on the fender system and
supporting structure.
To determine the characteristic value for the velocity factor ( 𝐶𝑣,𝑐 ) the designer should first
determine either the strain rate (which is a non-dimensional compression velocity) or the fender
compression time (by dividing the design deflection by the average compression velocity), as
identified in Chapter 5 to calculate 𝐸𝑓,𝑐 .
The strain rate or average compression time is then identified in the supplier’s published data and
used to identify the associated value of 𝐶𝑣,𝑐 . Refer to Section 10.7.3 for further information.
Fender suppliers may also publish 𝐶𝑣,𝑐 factors for a range of different rubber compounds. A natural
rubber fender is less prone to high velocity effects when compared to a synthetic rubber fender,
when tested at the same compression velocity. For more details on rubber blends and
compounds, refer to Chapter 0.
92
6.6.3 Temperature Factor
Elastic materials, including rubber, typically get softer when warm and stiffer when cold. A fender’s
minimum energy absorption will occur at the highest operating temperature, whereas the
maximum reaction force will occur at the lowest operating temperature.
The ambient temperature to which a fender is exposed to during its design life influences the
overall rigidity of the compound. This effect should therefore be taken into consideration when
undertaking calculations to determine the characteristic berthing energy and characteristic
reaction forces of a fender. The effect of partial or permanent submerged fenders should also be
considered. Failure to do so could lead to an underestimation of the forces acting on the fender
system and supporting structure.
To enable the selection of a fender that is suitable for the design temperature range, fender
suppliers typically provide temperature factors (𝐶𝑡 ), for a range of fender types and grade. The
datum for 𝐶𝑡 , (where 𝐶𝑡 is equal to 1), is defined as 23°C. For more details on the effects of
temperature on fender performance, fender testing and fender stabilisation, refer to Chapter 0.
The 𝐶𝑡 factor is dependent upon the type and blend of rubber used in the manufacture of the
fender. Therefore, 𝐶𝑡 varies with the type and grade of rubber used in each fender and
between different fender suppliers. Typically, this factor is close to 1, except for very cold
regions.
Ideally, the temperature considered in the design should be as recorded from the project site
where the fender is to be installed. Practically, and in the absence of such records,
meteorological records in the general regional vicinity of the project site can also be used.
To determine the Characteristic Fender Energy absorption (𝐸𝑓,𝑐 ), designers should determine
the high characteristic temperature ( 𝑇𝑐,ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ ) from the average monthly ambient air
temperature of the hottest month ( 𝑇𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛,ℎ𝑜𝑡 ) for the project site. The average monthly
temperature is recommended as a characteristic value, as temperature is not the ‘dominant’
design variable when evaluating the energy absorption capacity of a fender system and the
effect on fender energy absorption in milder climates is negligible. The designer should then
select the relevant characteristic temperature factor 𝐶𝑡,𝑐 from the suppliers published data.
In contrast, to determine the Characteristic Fender Reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑐 ), designers should
determine the average ambient air temperature (𝑇𝑐,𝑙𝑜𝑤 ) of the coldest day of the year with a
return period of five years, for the project site. In the absence of site-specific data, 𝑇𝑐,𝑙𝑜𝑤 can
be estimated using the formula given in Equation (6-7), where the average daily temperature
of the coldest month (𝑇𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛,𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 ) and the average daily minimum temperature of the coldest
month (𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 ) are established from publicly available climate normal weather records:
The designer should then select the relevant 𝐶𝑡,𝑐 using the suppliers published data. The
average daily temperature is used to determine the characteristic low temperature
(compared with the monthly average used to determine the characteristic high temperature),
as the effect of variations in temperature in colder climates can significantly influence the
fender reaction force.
It is recommended that the fender suppliers are consulted for fenders located where extreme
high and low temperatures are expected to be encountered.
93
6.6.4 Angular Factor
The fender compression angle is defined as the angle that the vessel’s hull creates against the
berthing structure, at the point of contact. This angle is associated with the horizontal angle of
approach of the vessel onto the berth and a combination of both the horizontal and vertical
angles of the hull profile at the bow or stern of the vessel.
Larger vessels generally approach a berth at a small angle, typically between 0 and 3 degrees
to the berthing line. Ultra-large vessels tend to approach parallel to the berth, as far as
practically possible. Guidance on vessel approach angles is provided in Section 5.5. If the
berthing angle and fender spacing are low, such that contact with the fender is on the flat
side of the hull, the hull shape can be ignored.
Where it is applicable, the hull shape should be determined from the vessel type and size.
Information on typical hull flare angles and bow radius may be obtained from the port
operator or vessel plans, where available. Some guidance on bow radius is also provided in
WG 235 Report. Designers should be careful to adopt reasonable geometric parameters to
avoid applying a low probability, design event coupling maximum velocity with an
unlikely/rare hull impact geometry.
In the case of dolphins and mono-pile berths for large vessels, the effect of angular
compression has paramount importance. Geometric checks are required to verify that the
fender panel or the vessel does not contact the support structure during compression of the
fender.
The angular factor (𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔 ) accounts for the loss of energy absorption capability of a fender, due
to the non-uniform deflection of the fender. Failure to account for this reduction in energy
absorption capability could lead to an underestimation of the forces acting on the fender
system and supporting structure. Once the compression angle is determined from the berthing
geometry, 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔 can be obtained from the supplier’s published data.
The angle of compression of the fender can particularly affect some fender systems due to the
varying degrees of compression of different parts of the fender. Fender suppliers typically
publish angular factors to allow for this effect on the fender performance. It should be noted
that angular factors differ between fender suppliers even for similar types of fenders. Designers
should carefully consider this when selecting and comparing fenders from different suppliers.
The energy absorption of a fender reduces with larger compression angles. Therefore 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔
reduces as the compression angle increases. Thus, the fender should be selected based on
the angular compression case. However, the largest fender reaction forces will occur at the
smallest compression angles, when the energy absorption is at a maximum and the angular
factor is at or close to 1. The datum for the 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔 (where the horizontal and vertical 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔 factor
is equal to 1.0), is defined as 0°, parallel to the berthing line.
Designers can use the characteristic berthing angle (as identified in Chapter 5) combined with
the horizontal/vertical, bow or stern flare angles, to determine 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔,𝑐 from the supplier’s
published data along with other potential (geometric) aspects.
Whilst the angular factor varies for each fender type and compression angle, the 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔,𝑐 for
calculating 𝐸𝑓,𝑐 is not taken larger than 1.0 and is typically 0.7 to 0.8 for compression angles of
up to 20°. Cone fenders can have a 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔 factor greater than 1.0 for compression angles
between 0° and 10°, however this is often ignored for safety/conservative fender selection
reasons. Some fender types have a 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔,𝑐 of as low as 0.5 for compression angles of 20°.
94
For calculating 𝑅𝑓,𝑐 , the angular factor is typically taken as 1.0. However, a 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔,𝑐 of 0.8 or 0.9
can be applied for certain fender types for compression angles of up to 20°.
The designer selects the compression angle from the characteristic berthing angle or hull
profile angle for the calculation of 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔,𝑐 for axis-symmetrical fenders. Non-axis-symmetrical
fenders and their proposed orientation will require the calculation of 𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔,𝑐 in both orientations.
Designers should also consider the influence of fender panels and restraint chains on the
design of the fender system as they will perform differently to a single fender, e.g. tension loads
during angular compression.
A berthing approach that is almost parallel to the berthing line, (i.e. a characteristic berthing
angle of 2° or less), will typically result in the vessel contacting multiple fenders. Refer to
Chapter 5 for further information related to the characteristic berthing angle of the vessel.
Refer also to Appendix C for geometric formulae for the compression of multiple fenders.
The characteristic berthing angle of the vessel determines the number of fender systems that
contribute to absorbing the berthing energy. The proportion of the energy absorbed by each
contacted fender depends on the amount that each fender deflects. The cumulative energy
absorption capacity of the multiple contacted fender systems is therefore greater than that
for a single fender system contact. Contact with multiple fender systems at smaller berthing
angles is also influenced by the fender pitch, refer also to Section 6.4.
For larger berthing angles (i.e. with a characteristic berthing angle of greater than 2°), the
number of contacted fenders is primarily influenced by the geometry of the vessel’s bow, refer
to Section 6.4 for further information.
To account for the influence of contacting several fenders in the design and selection of the
fender, the multiple fender contact correction factor (𝐶𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 ) has been introduced.
Depending on the length of the design vessel, and the number of fenders contacted (based
on the characteristic berthing angle), the characteristic value of 𝐶𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡,𝑐 can be in the region
of 1.5 to 3.0. This corresponding increase in the total energy absorption capacity enables the
designer to potentially select a smaller fender, generating lower reactions forces to be
accommodated by the support structure.
Consequently, multiple compressed fenders can also simultaneously create a much greater
total reaction force on the structure. Whether this is a critical load case should also be
considered by the designer.
An iterative approach is always required when considering multiple fender contacts to identify
the optimum fender solution. Variations in fender pitch and the fender size will change the
overall energy absorption characteristics of the berth. The parameters of several different
design vessels may also require a comparative geometrical assessment to determine the
critical design case.
The calculation of 𝐶𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡,𝑐 can also be undertaken using simulations to replicate the berthing
approach. This enables the efficient assessment of numerous variations in vessel dimensions,
berthing approaches and berth configurations.
The characteristic multiple fender contact correction factor (𝐶𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡,𝑐 ) can be calculated by the
designer, using the following methodology.
95
• Using the dimensions of the design vessel and the proposed fender arrangement, carry out
a geometric analysis of the vessel alongside the berth, at the characteristic berthing angle;
refer to Figure 6.12.
• The geometric analysis should identify the number of contacted fenders based on the
maximum design deflection of the first fender at the initial point of contact, assuming this
first fender takes its maximum permissible load (i.e. single fender contact).
• For each contacted fender, calculate the fender deflection using the fender pitch and
characteristic berthing angle.
• Using the base energy absorption of a single fender (𝐸𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 ) and the generic performance
curves for the selected fender type (as published by the fender suppliers), identify the
energy absorbed for the calculated deflection of each contacted fender.
• Calculate 𝐶𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡,𝑐 using the following formula:
Where:
𝐸𝑓,𝑐,𝑛 Characteristic berthing energy absorbed by 𝑛𝑡ℎ fender of the partially
compressed fenders [kNm]
The fender design performance is derived by applying partial resistance factors of safety to
the characteristic performance values, determined in Section 6.6. The design fender
performance largely depends on the project reliability requirements for the fender system.
To determine the fender design performance, partial resistance factors related to the energy
absorption of a single fender (𝛾𝑓 ) (see Section 6.7.2) (which includes the variable effects of the
manufacturing process), the effect of a single or multiple fender contact (𝛾𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 ) (see Section
6.7.3) and a partial load factor (𝛾𝑅 ) (see Section 6.7.4
and their application to the characteristic energy absorption (𝐸𝑓,𝑐 ) and characteristic reaction
force (𝑅𝑓,𝑐 ) is outlined in the following sections and illustrated in Figure 6.11.
96
6.7.1 Application of Partial Resistance Factors
The design energy absorption capacity (𝐸𝑓,𝑑 ) is determined by dividing the characteristic
energy absorption capacity (𝐸𝑓,𝑐 ) by the partial material factor (𝛾𝑚 ). 𝛾𝑚 can be calculated
from the partial resistance single fender performance factor (𝛾𝑓 ) and the partial resistance
multiple fender contact factor (𝛾𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 ), refer to Equation (6-9). The product of these partial
factors is applied to the 𝐸𝑓;𝑐 to determine 𝐸𝑓,𝑑 , as presented in Equation (6-10). Recommended
factors for 𝛾𝑓 and 𝛾𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 are included in Sections 6.7.2 and 0 respectively.
𝛾𝑚 = 𝛾𝑓 𝛾𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 (6-9)
The design reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ) is used to design the other components of the fender system
and to conduct the hull pressure check.
To determine 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 , the performance curves for the selected fender type(s) are used to identify
the applicable values of the reaction force (𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒,𝑐 or 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ), as the value of 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 may be
different for linear and non-linear fender compression. Refer to Figure 6.13 and Figure 6.14,
where 𝑅𝑓,𝑑1 applies to 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 and 𝑅𝑓,𝑑2 applies to 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒,𝑚𝑎𝑥 . The maximum value of either 𝑅𝑓,𝑑1
and 𝑅𝑓,𝑑2 is used as the design reaction force, 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 .
Figure 6.13: Identification of 𝑅𝑓,𝑐 and calculation of 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 for linear force-deflection curves
97
Figure 6.14: Identification of 𝑅𝑓,𝑐 and calculation of 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 for non-linear force-deflection curves
To determine 𝑅𝑓,𝑑1 , the deflection of the selected fender (∆ℎ𝑓,𝑐 ) at the characteristic energy
absorption capacity ( 𝐸𝑓,𝑐 ) must first be determined. The maximum value of 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒,𝑐 is then
identified within the characteristic fender deflection range, refer to Equation (6-11), Figure 6.13
and Figure 6.14.
For linear fenders, 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒,𝑚𝑎𝑥 is defined as the maximum reaction force generated by the fender
at the fender’s maximum compression.
The applicable values of 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒,𝑐 and 𝑅𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒,𝑚𝑎𝑥 should then be multiplied by the appropriate
correction factor values to determine 𝑅𝑓,𝑐 and 𝑅𝑓,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , refer to Equations (6-12) and (6-13).
For berthing events that involve multiple fender contacts, the cumulative sum of the fender
reaction forces acting on the supporting structure may be greater than the design reaction
force 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 for one or two fender systems. This should be carefully considered in the design of a
fender supporting structure with multiple fender systems.
As the characteristic energy absorption and reaction force of a fender represents a
conservative estimate of the mean fender performance properties, the partial resistance
factors are applied to determine the design fender performance. These partial resistance
98
factors account for the rarest, extreme design events that may occur based on the assessed
consequence class, as outlined in Chapter 0.
Uncontrolled, accidental berthing events or collisions are not accounted for within the fender
design performance properties, as these are extreme design conditions and are defined as
accidental limit state events. The requirement to design for accidental berthing events is a
unique client requirement and should be based on a residual assessment of the capacity of
the selected fender system, with all partial factors of safety set to 1.0.
To verify that the selected fender is suitable, in conjunction with the associated fender
selection considerations, the designer should check that the fender has a design energy
absorption capacity (𝐸𝑓,𝑑 ) greater than or equal to the vessel’s Design Kinetic Energy (𝐸𝑘,𝑑 ).
Refer also step 8 of Figure 6.11.
The design reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ) of the selected fender, (as determined in Equation (6-14) and
Equation (6-15) is used to determine the structural design of the fender panel, chains, and
components of the fender system.
𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ≤ Structural capacity of the fender panel, chains, and components. (6-17)
The design reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ) of the selected fender and the fender panel contact area is
also used to determine the applicable load acting on the hull structure of the berthing vessel
and to verify that the allowable hull pressure limit is not exceeded.
𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ≤ Load capacity of vessel hull structure, e.g. the hull plating, stiffeners, and
web frames (refer to section 6.8).
(6-18)
The design of the supporting structure, to which the fender system(s) are to be attached,
should consider the characteristic berthing impact force (𝐹𝑐 ) , which is equal to the
characteristic reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑐 ).
As the fender induced berthing impact force is typically considered to be a variable load,
national standards usually require the application of a partial load factor of between 1.3 and
1.7 to the characteristic berthing impact force (𝐹𝑐 ). 𝐹𝑐 should be modified by the applicable
partial load factor from the relevant national code or annex to determine the determine the
design berthing impact load (𝐹𝑑 ). This is the design load to be resisted by the supporting
structure, refer to Equation (6-19).
𝐹𝑐 is generally defined as a live load having a return period of 50 years. For further information
on return periods, refer to Chapter 0. The characteristic reaction force (𝑅𝑓;𝑐 ) , provides a
conservative estimate of 𝐹𝑐 and can be used in the design of the supporting structure to
determine the associated design berthing impact force (𝐹𝑑 ).
99
𝐹𝑑 = 𝐹𝑐 𝛾𝑄 𝜑𝑄 = 𝑅𝑓,𝑐 𝛾𝑄 𝜑𝑄 ≤ Structural capacity of support structure. (6-19)
Where:
𝛾𝑄 : Partial load factor in accordance with international or national code, standard or
annex
𝜑𝑄 : Combination factor in accordance with international or national code, standard or
annex
On some occasions, the calculation of 𝐹𝑑 , may be considered conservative (i.e. if an oversized
fender has been selected). As many national codes consider 𝑅𝑓,𝑐 to represent a load with a
return period of 50 years, the designer may decide to conduct a statistical analysis,
accounting for all the applicable variables, to determine the maximum characteristic berthing
impact force.
The designer should be aware that in certain circumstances, the fender reaction force from
the berthing contact is the governing load for the design of the supporting structure, e.g. a
berthing dolphin equipped with a buckling-type fender system.
For a supporting structure such as a suspended deck or quay wall equipped with a fender
system consisting of multiple fenders, the fender reaction forces are generally not considered
to be the dominant design loads. A load combination factor, determined by national design
codes, can often be adopted.
The type of fender selected influences the frequency of the occurrence of the maximum
reaction force and also influences the distribution of the berthing impact force into the
supporting structure. For berthing events that involve multiple fender contacts simultaneously,
the sum of the fender reaction forces acting on the supporting structure needs to be taken
into consideration in the design.
Differences in the variety of the components and processes that are part of the manufacturing
of fenders can lead to variations in the properties of a fender. Such components include:
• Raw materials and rubber compounds
• Manufacturing process of the rubber or fender element
• Moulds
• Curing process
• Storage temperature and humidity
• Testing equipment
Partial resistance factors (𝛾𝑓 ), related to the fender performance are included in Table 6-3. This
factor replaces the manufacturing tolerance factor in PIANC WG 33 (2002) that was applied
to take account of variances in fender production. The 𝛾𝑓 factors are based on the mean
performance of the fender, as typically published by the fender supplier.
If the minimum or lower bound performance parameters of a fender are provided by the
supplier, and are proposed for use by the designer to determine the fender design
performance 𝛾𝑓 , independent third-party testing of the fenders would need to demonstrate
that the actual achieved manufacturing tolerances are consistently lower than those
tolerances presented in Table 6-3.
100
It should be noted that the factors presented in Table 6-3 are only valid when the fender
production tolerances are in line with the recommended values stated by the fender supplier.
Also, this partial factor does not prevent fender failure caused by ‘low-quality’ fenders or other
production issues. Such failures should be prevented by performing adequate quality control
procedures and fender testing. Refer to fender testing in Chapter 0.
+/- 10% 1.10 Cone, cell, arch, element and cylindrical (wrapped) fenders
Table 6-3: Partial resistance factor 𝛾𝑓 related to the performance of a single fender
For scenarios involving multiple fender system contacts, the energy absorption capacity is
affected by variations in the berthing angle of the approaching vessel, as noted in Section
6.6.5. A particularly low characteristic berthing angle (𝛼𝑐 of 2° or less) may result in a high value
of 𝐶𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡,𝑐 , increasing the overall berthing energy absorption capacity of the berth.
To manage uncertainties arising from small berthing angles, based on local information,
coupled with multiple fender system contacts, a partial resistance factor for multiple fender
contacts (𝛾𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 ) is introduced to ensure compliance with reliability requirements and to prevent
the over-estimation of the capacity of the selected fender system. The recommended 𝛾𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡
factors for single and multiple fender contact are presented in Table 6-4. The principles of
multiple fender contact are also outlined in Section 6.4.5.
Multiple 𝛼𝑐 ≥ 2° 1.0
Table 6-4: Partial resistance factor 𝛾𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡 related to single and multiple fender contacts
101
6.7.4 Load Partial Resistance Factor
For some types of fender, a comparatively small fender deflection results in the maximum
reaction force of the fender (e.g. cell or cone fender). For other fender types, this occurs only
at the maximum deflection of the fender (e.g. cylindrical, foam or pneumatic fenders).
When a fender exceeds its maximum design deflection, the associated reaction force typically
increases rapidly. In addition, some fender types demonstrate linear hardening effects over
time, whereas others indicate nonlinear softening. This can result in significantly greater forces
being imparted onto the supporting structure and being transferred to the vessel hull structure.
The type of fender selected therefore influences the frequency of the occurrence of the
maximum reaction force. The designer is recommended to investigate the potential frequency
of the occurrence of the characteristic fender reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑐 ) , to ensure that the
appropriate reaction force is applied to the design of the fender system, refer to Chapter 2 for
indicative performance graphs for different types of fenders.
The use of a Partial Load Resistance factor (𝛾𝑅 ) should not be considered when assessing
fender induced berthing impact loads acting on the support structures, since
recommendations for load factors and combination factors are generally prescribed within
national codes and standards; refer to section 6.7.1.4 for further information.
𝛾𝑅 is applied to the characteristic reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑐 ) to determine the design reaction force
(𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ) for component design. The recommended partial load factors 𝛾𝑅 are presented in Table
6-5.
Factor 𝜸𝑹 for each Consequence Class
Partial Load factor
A B C D
𝛾𝑅 1.30 1.40 1.45 1.50
Table 6-5: Partial factor 𝛾𝑅 for reaction forces to be used in fender system design
The 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 of the selected fender is used to design all the components of the fender systems (e.g.
the fender panel, restraint chains, anchor bolts, etc.). Refer to Section 8.2 for
recommendations on the applicable factors of safety for the design of the restraint chains and
determining the loads on the brackets. 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 is also used to assess the load distribution on the
vessel hull structure, refer to Section 6.8. 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 is not to be used for the design of the support
structure. 𝐹𝑑 is to be used for the design of the support structure, see Equation ((6-19).
While absorbing the berthing energy of a vessel, the fender will exert a reaction force on both
the vessel and supporting structure. Under normal berthing conditions, no plastic deformation
of the vessel’s hull structure is accepted.
Coordination between fender designers and naval architects remains limited. Forces induced
by wave impacts during vessel voyages continue to be the governing criteria for hull design.
The vessel Class provision for minimum hull plate thickness in the fender contact zone is also
limited. Typically, vessel designers and builders will only consider additional reinforcement to
the fender contact area if required by the vessel owners and/or to fulfil specific port
requirements.
With vessel sizes continuing to increase, hull plate thicknesses are relatively reduced. The
spacing between web frames is also increasing, driven primarily by the requirement to reduce
102
the costs of vessel construction. Consequently, it appears that in some cases the permissible
loads on the vessel hull structure stated by vessel owners are decreasing, although factual
evidence to confirm this is unavailable.
Where possible, and depending on the range of applicable design vessels (i.e. a purpose built
new build vessel), designers are recommended to seek further advice, information and
clarification on the maximum permissible distributed and point loads from the vessel owners,
designers and/or builders in relation to the capacity of the vessel hull structure.
Several factors influence the magnitude of the hull pressure induced by fenders on a vessel
hull. These are outlined as follows and the designer should be aware of the significance of
each item:
1. Vessel approach velocity
2. Vessel approach angle
3. Vessel hull profile (e.g. bow flare)
4. Fender pitch
5. Fender contact area
6. Multiple simultaneous fender contact
7. Fender panel facing shape and orientation
Arguably, the most significant of these is the vessel approach velocity. There may also be other
port or vessel specific influencing factors and the designer should consider their significance
when establishing the fender design criteria and assessing the operational parameters of the
port.
Vessel hull structures can typically be constructed from a wide variety of materials, including
steel, aluminium, wood and composite materials. Most vessels are constructed using steel and
this document provides guidance on fenders only for steel hulls. Typical examples of vessel hull
structures are outlined in Figure 6.15.
The vessel’s hull structure is generally comprised of four components. A typical steel hull consists
of steel plating welded to longitudinal (horizontal) stiffeners that are welded to the web frames
connected by one or more decks. These stiffeners are designed to provide the necessary hull
strength to resist the loads, forces, bending moments and stresses imposed by cargo and
environmental loads.
Certain parts of the vessel hull may be locally strengthened to accommodate the additional
forces of tugs pushing against the side-shell plating. Alternatively, as is more common, the
positions along the hull in line with the transverse bulkheads (which are more resistant to
transverse loading in a small area) may be marked for tug contact points.
The stiffeners are generally of sufficient size and strength to accommodate the loads from
fenders and span between the transverse frames. By implication of the tug push markers, the
shell plating between them is likely to tolerate less concentrated pressures than can be applied
from a tug. On vessels with large displacements this could occur on berthing impact by
contacting a single or small number of fenders. General descriptions and typical sizes of vessel
hull components are summarised below.
103
1. Side-shell plating. Typical thickness ranges between 15 mm and 20 mm. The thickness is
very dependent on the overall size of the vessel. Smaller general cargo vessels can have
side-shell plating of about 8 mm to 10 mm. On container vessels, the sheer strake
(uppermost section of side-shell plating) is typically significantly thicker. For very large
vessels, side-shell plating thickness can be greater than 15mm. Most ocean-going vessels
are double skinned (incorporating an inner hull) with the exception of the majority of larger
bulk carriers, which are generally single skinned in way of the transversely framed hold
sides.
2. Longitudinal stiffeners. Typically spaced at between 0.8 m and 0.9 m and dependent on
the overall size of the vessel. Smaller vessels will have a smaller spacing, within the limits of
what can be practically welded and vice versa. Where the vessel is longitudinally stiffened,
web frames are typically spaced approximately 1.8 m to 4.0 m apart. This geometry is also
dependent on overall vessel size, however the very large container vessels can have even
larger spacings. For container vessels, the frame spacing can also vary along the length of
the vessel.
3. Decks. Besides the main deck, one or more decks can be found in the double hull. The
most well-known is the engineers passageway as found on all container vessels. These
decks provide, together with the frames, a strong boundary of the grillage of stiffeners that
supports the hull plates. Decks normally also support the belting of a vessel if present.
4. Transverse frames. Typically spaced at between 0.6 m to 1.0 m for the sides of holds in bulk
carriers. However, these vessels are typically of a composite construction with longitudinal
framing in the topside and double bottom structures where the convention for
longitudinally framed vessels is followed, with web frames positioned every three or four
transverse frames.
(a) Typical container, tanker and general cargo b) Typical dry bulk cargo vessel (Handymax/
vessel side structures. Note some older and Panamax sizes) side structure also applies to
smaller general cargo vessels have only single large cape size bulk carriers.
skin side structures.
The dimensions of all four components vary with the size, type and age of vessel, classification
society rules, designer and the vessel builder.
104
The names of typical structural members used within vessel hull design are included in Figure
6.15 which shows transverse slices of a typical vessel side structure. These are typically repeated
longitudinally along the vessel, usually with a fixed web frame spacing. A web frame spacing
is subdivided into intermediate frame spacings as indicated.
Except for bulk cargo vessels (Handymax/ Panamax and Capesize), a vessel’s side structure
general arrangement looks very similar, albeit that the structural dimensions (scantlings) vary
significantly.
With advances in vessel design, the following tendencies have been identified:
1. The use of steel with higher yield strength. Whilst this increases the hull plating’s resistance
to fracture, the thickness tends to be reduced and the plating is more susceptible to
deformation. On larger hulls, such as Panamax and particularly Capesize bulk carriers,
deformation due to impacts can require Class supervised repair necessitating an extended
port stay.
2. Increasing the distance between transverse frames, (e.g. 3 m for early generation
container vessels increasing to up to 6 m for later generation vessels).
Car carriers typically have single skin side shell structures and vehicle decks that span the full
breadth and length of the vessel. There may be some ballast tanks at the outboard side of the
lower decks which have similar looking construction to a typical container/ tanker, however
they do not extend all the way to the upper deck.
Similarly, RoRo vessels tend to have a single skin side shell above the main cargo/ vehicle deck.
This will typically be longitudinally stiffened, with transverse web frames every three to four
frame spaces, although it is possible that they can be transversely stiffened, similar to the side
shell of a bulk carrier. Depending on the arrangement and if the RoRo vessels have a lower
deck below the main deck, then a similar side tank arrangement, as indicated in Figure 6.15,
may be seen up to the level of the main deck level.
Very Large Ore Carriers (VLOC) also differ as they have very large ballast tanks situated either
side of the central holds. Side-shell plating to accommodate fender contacts will be
constructed similarly to tankers with longitudinal stiffening and web frames.
Historically, fenders were dimensioned using a maximum allowable hull pressure to spread the
design reaction force in a safe way over the hull of the vessel. Theoretically this means that
cylindrical fenders cannot be used as these typically generate a high hull pressure. However,
based on recent observations and experience it is acknowledged that vessels of all sizes can
and do berth safely on cylindrical fenders. The Port of Rotterdam has undertaken research that
demonstrates the safe use of cylindrical fenders for container vessels (Lloyd's, 1989), oil and
LNG vessels (Broos, Rhijnsburger, Vredeveldt, & Hoebee, 2018) and on all general classes of
vessels (TNO, 2019).
As part of the work undertaken by WG 211, additional research was undertaken (Berendsen E.
A., 2022). The FEM analyses of the fender (allowing for buckling with various panel sizes) and
hull structure interaction indicated that when using large panels or contact areas, the load
capacity of the vessel hull can be exceeded (refer to Figure 6.16). In addition, very small
fenders (e.g. cylindrical and arch fenders) have hull pressures significantly greater than the
recommended hull pressures stated in WG 33.
105
Figure 6.16: Equivalent hull pressure limits (Berendsen et al., 2024)
For fenders that utilise fender panels, increasing the size of the fender panel makes it possible to
increase the reaction force from the fender onto the vessel hull. However, it was identified that there is
a maximum point that represents the upper limit of the capacity of the hull. In such cases, the stress
concentration in either the web frame or deck becomes critical. Therefore, simply increasing the
contact area of the fender panel does not necessarily ensure that these larger reaction forces can be
accommodated by the vessel hull, as can be seen in
Figure 6.17.
It was concluded by (Berendsen, Roubos, Williams, Walters, & Broos, 2024) that:
106
• The structural layout of the vessel, dimensions of the fender panel and location of the
berthing impact largely influence the stress distribution of fender impact in the vessel’s hull.
The fender impact resulting in the critical stress is defined as the onset of plasticity in the
structural members, such as the hull plates, web frames and stiffeners.
• When a fender panel subject to a berthing impact load activates a web frame or deck
structure, the critical stress is reached by applying larger fender impact loads.
• For larger vessels, typically wide fender panels are considered to be more efficient when
compared to taller fender panels. However, in tidal ports fender panels are likely to already
be comparatively tall (to accommodate the variance in water levels) and it may therefore
be more efficient to engage with a vessel’s deck structure.
• Design codes used to assess the pressure on the parallel hull of the vessel assume a
constant hull pressure criterion. The results of this study showed that constant hull pressure
can over-estimate the structural capacities of the vessel hull. Consequently, it is
recommended that a limiting value for the total fender-induced reaction force is included
for the design of fender systems.
The berthing impact force concentrates in large structural members, i.e. web frames, in
contact between large fender panels and vessels during berthing. Increasing the fender panel
size beyond these structural elements does not generate additional capacity to withstand
berthing loads. This results in the limiting value fender reaction force 𝑅𝑓,𝑙𝑖𝑚 .
The prevailing failure mode largely depends on the dimensions of the fender panel. For
example, relatively wide fender panels that activate a web frame, or high panels that activate
a deck, results in critical stress concentrations within the web frames. For small and narrow
panels, the plate and stiffener induced failure appears to be the governing failure mode,
whereas high and slim panels result in the buckling of the vessel hull stiffeners.
Vessels can resist forces acting upon on their hull up to a defined limit. It is therefore important
to define the correct fender panel size or fender contact area to ensure that the imposed
force and resulting hull pressure is less than the permissible limits.
For buckling fenders, typically fitted with fender panels, the fender panel size is defined
according to the vessel hull maximum structural capacity, the selected fender reaction force,
the vessel freeboard and tidal range. These criteria are used to ensure that the contact area
of the panel, excluding chamfers, distributes the hull pressure below the allowable limits.
Where fenders are located adjacent to each other (e.g. a vertical or horizontal separation
that causes each fender to act in combination with the adjacent fender) and are considered
to share the absorption of the vessel berthing energy, the designer may need to consider the
forces acting on the hull from these fenders as a group to ensure that the maximum equivalent
permissible hull pressure or maximum allowable fender reaction force capacity is not
exceeded.
With reference to recent investigations (Berendsen, Roubos, Williams, Walters, & Broos, 2024),
contact pressures between the fender panel and vessel are not uniformly distributed. Elastic
deformation of the vessel hull will result in comparatively small, direct contact areas close to the
edges of the fender panel with the vessel hull, often referred to as ‘line loads’. During the initial
contact with the fender panel, the hull pressure may be close to a uniform distribution. However,
when the fender is fully compressed, the contact pressure at the edges of the fender panel is much
higher than that at the middle of the fender panel if the panel is sufficiently stiff.
107
When the fender panel contact area is small, the generated hull pressures can result in the
maximum stress in the hull plate being reached. However, as the vessel hull plate redistributes the
fender panel forces into the stiffeners and web frames, these loads are generally not critical for
small fender contact areas. For larger fender panel contact areas, the fender forces are
distributed over a great number of stiffeners and/or web frames with the vessel hull structure.
For non-buckling fenders (e.g. pneumatic, foam or cylindrical fenders), the contact area of the
fender on the vessel hull increases as the fender is compressed and does not initiate local force
concentrations on the hull. For each stated energy absorption capacity, the hull pressure of the
selected fender is provided by the fender supplier and should be checked to ensure that the hull
pressure is below the allowable limits.
The average hull pressure (𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑎𝑣 ) for a fender panel is calculated as follows:
𝑅𝑓,𝑑
𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑎𝑣 = (6-20)
𝐴𝑐
Where:
𝑅𝑓,𝑑 : Design fender reaction force (kN). Refer to Section 6.7.1.3.
𝐴𝑐 : Area of contact, excluding chamfers (m²)
𝑤𝑝𝑎𝑛
The Contact Area (𝐴𝑐 ) of the flat panel which is in
contact with vessel hull is calculated as the product
of the width of the panel, excluding lateral chamfers
(𝑤𝑝𝑎𝑛 ) and height of the panel (ℎ𝑝𝑎𝑛 ), excluding top
and bottom chamfers. Refer to Figure 6.18 and
Equation (6-21).
ℎ𝑝𝑎𝑛
The calculation of 𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑎𝑣 assumes that the forces in
the vessel hull are fully distributed and is based on a
non-linear empirical analysis.
As it is rare for the whole surface of the fender panel
to be in uniform contact with the surface of the vessel
hull, (as there is not always a flat hull surface for the
fender panels contact), the calculation of 𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑎𝑣 is
limited to certain situations. Therefore, the Figure 6.18: Contact area
calculation of 𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑎𝑣 is an estimate of the hull of a flat fender panel
pressure based on the true distribution and the
developed contact area, which is not linear.
Calculated hull pressure values should be based on the worst case of full or partial contact
with the fender face allowing for tides, loading conditions and vessel freeboard when berthing.
108
6.8.6 Hull Pressure for Cylindrical Fenders
Cylindrical fenders rarely induce their maximum reaction force ( (Lloyd's, 1989), (Lloyd's, 1993),
(Sijberden, Smedes, & de Gijt , 1996), (TNO, 2019); (Berendsen E. A., 2022) due to the linear
force-deflection curve. Refer to Chapter 2 for more information.
In general, the maximum allowable pressure generated by cylindrical fenders should be
limited to 500 kN/m2. The maximum outer diameter is recommended to be 1,400 mm with a
maximum length of 2,000 mm. The outer/inner diameter ratio is generally equal to 1.75. Multiple
fenders (mounted in the horizontal and/or vertical plane) may be required to absorb the
berthing energy of the design vessel and the cumulative reaction forces considered.
Larger or stiffer cylindrical fenders can also be used, however specialist advice from a naval
architect regarding the vessel hull capacity is recommended.
Foam and pneumatic fenders tend to have much larger diameters and lengths compared to
rubber cylindrical fenders. Foam fenders can be assessed in a similar way to cylindrical fenders,
however there are important differences to be considered due to the larger length in contact
with the vessel hull structure. It is therefore important to limit the maximum reaction force on
the vessel structure.
The general recommendation is to limit the hull pressure imposed by foam and pneumatic
fenders to follow the maximum forces recommended in Table 6-6, however typical reaction
pressures for foam and pneumatic fenders are in the order of 170 kN/m².
Some vessels may require the use of very low hull pressure fenders. To solve this, some
manufacturers offer extra-soft foam fenders that are characterised by a low hull pressure limit,
as low as 110 kN/m².
For some vessels (e.g. naval ships or cruise ships, which also often require non marking fenders),
hull pressures limits may be even lower than the values given in Table 6-6. For specific
applications such as this, it is recommended that fender manufacturers are consulted.
Ideally, designers of a fender system would be able to obtain, or be provided with, the
permissible hull pressure limits of the design vessel(s) that the fender system is required to
accommodate. In practice, permissible hull pressure limits are difficult to obtain and as such,
the designer should make some reasonable assumptions to size the fender panel or contact
area correctly. There is a trend in the industry to lower allowable hull pressures. If a value is
provided the fender designer should always ask for the substantiation of the value as it is
sometimes anecdotal and the corresponding maximum allowable fender reaction force.
It is acknowledged that most berths are required to be designed to accommodate a wide
range of vessels and to provide the operator of the facility with the greatest degree of
operational flexibility. Calculation of the maximum equivalent permissible hull pressure for
every vessel type is not practical or cost-effective and the use of general guidance is
considered to be sufficient.
Table 6-6 can be used as a general guide for a range of applicable hull pressures in the
absence of vessel specific information. These values include the factors of safety normally used
by Classification Societies. The design reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ) of the selected fender and the
109
fender panel contact area is used to determine the applicable load acting on the hull
structure of the berthing vessel and to verify that the ultimate hull pressure limit is not exceeded.
Refer to Section 6.7.1.3.
Maximum ultimate
Maximum ultimate hull pressure
Type of vessel fender reaction force
(𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑑 ) (1) (kN/m²)
(𝑹𝒇,𝒍𝒊𝒎 ) (kN)
General Cargo
≤ 20,000 DWT 500 NK (6)
> 20,000 DWT 400 NK (6)
Bulk Carriers
≤ 60,000 DWT 200 2,200 (7)
> 60,000 DWT 320 3,800 (7)
Container
Panamax and smaller 400 1,500 (7)
Neo/post Panamax and larger 200 5,600 (7)
Tankers (see WG 153)
≤ 60,000 DWT 300 1,800 (7)
> 60,000 DWT 200 NK (6)
Gas carriers (LPG & LNG) 200 NK (6)
Cruise
≤ 20,000 DWT 400 NK (6)
< 60,000 DWT 300 NK (6)
100,000 DWT 200 NK (6)
Passenger Ferries and RoRo
RoRo (belting) Refer Notes 3, 4 and 5 below NK (6)
RoRo (no belting) Refer to equivalent size of Cruise Vessel NK (6)
Passenger (belting) Refer Notes 3, 4 and 5 below NK (6)
Passenger (no belting) Refer to equivalent size of Cruise Vessel NK (6)
SWATH (double hull vessels) Refer Note 5 below NK (6)
NOTES:
1. The maximum hull pressure values above include for the deduction of factors often used by Classification Societies and can be considered as
calculated pressures for semi-probabilistic analysis, associated with non-failure conditions. These values can be considered to act
independently to each contact area, with the exceptions as noted in points 2, 3 and 4 below.
2. Where fenders are located adjacent to each other (e.g. a vertical or horizontal separation that causes each fender to act in combination
with the adjacent fender) and are considered to share the absorption of the vessel berthing energy, the designer may need to consider the
forces acting on the hull from these fenders as a group to ensure that the maximum ultimate hull pressure or maximum ultimate fender reaction
force capacity is not exceeded.
3. Car carriers, RoRo, ferries, cruise, fishing boats, barges and some auxiliary vessels with small displacements, often include one or more belting
lines located at different levels on the vessel hull. Refer to section 6.4.8 for more information. These beltings are typically rectangular, trapezoidal
or circular in section, protruding approximately 20 to 40 cm from the vessel hull. The designer should check that the magnitude, position and
direction of all loads generated by the presence of the belting can be accommodated by the vessel hull structure/plating/belting and the
fender system itself. The geometric profiles of the fender panel may need to be refined to accommodate and prevent double hull contact at
various states of the tide.
4. The typical maximum permitted loads on beltings for vessels with steel hulls is usually between 2,500 and 5,000 kN/m. However, it is
recommended that specific information on the structural capacity of the belting is obtained to verify that the forces generated by the fender
system can be accommodated. For line loads not on beltings 1000-1500 kN/m is often used. These are empirical numbers that have not been
verified.
5. Some fast ferries, as well as catamarans, especially if they have aluminium hulls, are not capable of accommodating any kind of direct impact
load onto the bottom sections of the hull. In such cases, unless they have special designed belting, the designer will need to ensure that the
berthing load impact area is located at a strengthened area of the vessel, independent of the water level.
6. ‘NK’ (not known) means that these values have not been calculated by (Berendsen E. A., 2022)or WG 211.
7. The numbers are based on (Berendsen E. A., 2022) and are derived from specific vessels. The designer should verify if design vessel and
calculated vessel indeed match.
110
The equivalent maximum ultimate hull pressure (𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑑 ) should therefore be greater than the
average hull pressure (𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑎𝑣 ) or the maximum ultimate hull pressure (𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ).
Since the equivalent maximum ultimate hull pressure 𝑃ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑙,𝑑 is non-linear, the values listed in
Table 6-6 can only be used when 𝑅𝑓,𝑑 ≤ 𝑅𝑓,𝑙𝑖𝑚 .
Where hull pressures may be critical to the design of the fender system (i.e. naval/military
vessels), a naval architect or vessel owner should be consulted for the provision of specific
requirements.
Certain operators may require a berth and associated fender system to accommodate a
specific, unique vessel type. In such cases, if details of the vessel side plating, longitudinal
stiffeners and side transverse frame separation information is provided, the ultimate hull
pressure can be calculated, providing the designer with greater confidence in the fender
system design.
The requirements for the provision of offshore fendering for ship-to-ship transfers are covered in
detail in the MEG4 (OCIMF, 2018), the OCIMF STS Guideline (OCIMF, 2013), (IMO, 2011) and the
particular Class requirements for offshore cargo transfers.
The design considerations included within WG 211 are related to nearshore transfers, the use
of Floating Storage Regasification Units (FSRUs), etc. where the preferred fenders for ship-to-
ship berthing are somewhat different to those for vessel-to-dock berthing. For ship-to-ship
situations, the most important parameters to consider are stand-off distance, relative
approach velocity in different weather conditions and fender type.
The fender reaction against the vessel hull structure is also an important design consideration.
However, most fenders suitable for the use as ship-to-ship fenders are designed to exert
reaction forces substantially lower than the ultimate vessel hull structure limits.
It is rare that vessels carrying out ship-to-ship berthing manoeuvres make a parallel approach.
They almost always contact only one fender at the point of the initial impact. Each individual
fender should therefore have sufficient energy absorption capacity to accommodate the
largest anticipated individual design berthing load. A proportion of the berthing energy is
absorbed by the vessel pivoting about the fender. In the event of parallel contact, the berthing
energy will be distributed across all contacted fenders.
To select a suitable fender for ship-to-ship berthing, the designer should calculate the ship-to-
ship berthing energy (𝐸𝑘,𝑑 ) at the point of contact. The berthing energy calculation for ship-to-
ship berthing is outlined in Chapter 5.
The relative approach velocity of the berthing vessel can have a significant effect on the
berthing energy absorption requirements of the fenders. The selected relative approach
velocity should consider the effects of local weather, sea and swell conditions, vessel tug or
thruster capability and the overall size of the vessels involved. Smaller vessels tend to have
higher approach velocities. Recommended characteristic approach velocities for a range of
conditions, are also included in Chapter 5.
111
The selected fender should have a Design Energy absorption performance (𝐸𝑓,𝑑 ) greater than
the ship-to-ship berthing energy (𝐸𝑘,𝑑 ).
The selected fender is also assessed to ensure that it provides the required stand-off distance
between the vessels and that an adequate number of fenders is provided.
Many ship-to-ship operations use large foam-filled or pneumatic fenders. The fenders used in
ship-to-ship transfer operations offshore are typically divided into two categories.
• Primary fenders, which are positioned along the flat sided parallel body of the vessel to
afford the maximum possible protection while alongside.
• Secondary fenders may be used to protect bow and stern plating from inadvertent
contact during berthing and unberthing.
The required stand-off distance for ship-to-ship operations is often the primary consideration in
the selection of the appropriate fender diameter or type.
The roll angle of the vessel (which is a function of sea conditions, vessel dynamics, vessel
forward speed and orientation, relative to the prevailing wind and sea conditions) needs to
be assessed to determine the minimum required stand-off distance. The stand-off distance
should be large enough to keep the vessel hulls and superstructures from contacting as the
vessels move independently of one and other.
Product transfer equipment (i.e. hoses, manifolds, booms, etc.) may also need to be
considered in the required stand-off distance. The stand-off distance should also include a
sufficient margin of safety.
The approximate stand-off distances, the recommended minimum number of fenders and the
typical fender sizes are provided in Table 6-7, for high pressure pneumatic fenders in calm
weather conditions. These parameters are related to the displacements of both vessels
involved in the ship-to-ship berthing, defined by the Combined Vessel Mass Coefficient (𝑀𝑐𝑣 ).
The method for calculating the 𝑀𝑐𝑣 is calculated as follows.
2 𝑀1 𝑀2
𝑀𝑐𝑣 = (6-24)
𝑀1 + 𝑀2
Where,
𝑀𝑐𝑣 Combined vessel mass coefficient (tonnes) (without added mass factor)
The final required stand-off distance is likely to be greater if more onerous sea and weather
conditions are to be accommodated (e.g. large wave heights, strong winds, etc.) or special
operational limitations on vessel movement are required.
It is recommended that fender suppliers and operators experienced with ship-to-ship berthing
are consulted prior to confirming the selected fender size and required number of fenders.
112
Combined Vessel Typical High
Minimum Stand-Off Minimum Pressure Pneumatic
Mass Coefficient
Distance Number of Fender
(𝑴𝒄𝒗 )
(metres) Fenders (a) (50 kPa) size (a)
(tonnes) (metres)
(OCIMF, Ship to Ship Transfer Guide for Petroleum, Chemicals and Liquefied Gases, Section 9.1.2 and
(a)
Table 6-7: STS recommended stand-off distance, number of fenders and typical sizes for calm
conditions
Ship-to-ship operational considerations are highly dependent upon the specific type of the
operation, including any operational limitations on permissible sea states. It is recommended
that the vessel operators are consulted before the final fender system is selected and that the
mooring arrangement for the ship-to-ship berthing should be considered by the designer. The
mooring arrangement should be compatible with quick departure manoeuvres under
emergency conditions.
For light/ballasted or other similar cargo transfer operations, one vessel is initially fully laden and
the other light/ballasted. The berthing energy for a given approach velocity would therefore
be less than two fully laden vessels. Allowance for this can be made by adjusting both the
displacement tonnage and the added mass of the light vessel.
As a light vessel is likely to have a greater windage area, the berthing approach manoeuvre
may be difficult. The effect of waves may also be greater on the light vessel. Both factors may
contribute to higher approach velocities than normally anticipated.
After the two vessels are located alongside one another, operational considerations will
dictate whether the actual transfer operation can occur while the vessels are underway and
maintaining steerage or whether the vessels must stay in one position. For a moored vessel with
a second vessel alongside, the upper limit of sea conditions under which the operations can
continue must be considered.
113
7 FENDER SELECTION UNDER MOORED CONDITIONS
This chapter outlines the design considerations that are applicable for fender systems that are
required to accommodate moored vessels. The moored condition can be the governing
condition for either the fender, the supporting structure or both.
For fender systems designed specifically for berthing conditions, it is necessary to check the
suitability of the selected fender system for moored vessels, in particular the 'lean-on' mooring
loads (pushing the moored vessel onto the fenders. Mooring conditions are important when
considering the dynamic external actions acting on the vessel. These actions include, but are
not limited to, waves, wind, current and passing vessel loads. The potential for extreme events
such as hurricanes, squalls, etc. should also be investigated and included within the assessment
if the vessel stays moored (mention in the basis of design). Whilst berthing manoeuvres can be
controlled, the mooring conditions may transmit higher loads into the fender system.
Where berths are located close to navigation channels and other vessel manoeuvring areas,
the effect of the passing vessel close to the moored vessel at the location of the fenders should
be considered in a fender selection process. Passing vessel suction forces and wake wash can
lead to a significant response on the moored vessel and, consequently, on the fenders.
Pre-tensioned mooring lines, e.g. with constant-tension winches, and sustained wind loading
(constant loads) can induce permanent deflections in a fender, which can increase over time.
In all cases, mooring conditions and loads should be assessed.
A wide variety of conditions can affect the dynamic response of a vessel. These conditions
can induce the movement of a moored vessel, indicated by the cyclic movements in the six
degrees of freedom. These movements can subsequently induce cyclic loading within the
different elements of the mooring and fender system. As mooring arrangements are dynamic,
a careful assessment should be undertaken to establish the effects on the moored vessel.
The typical fender system design approach is to calculate the vessel berthing energy and then
select an appropriate fender system, refer to chapters 5 and 6. However, berthing energy is
not always the only design condition to be considered for the selection of a fender system.
The fender system should also be capable of accommodating the range of conditions that
will be experienced by the vessel while moored for prolonged periods of time. For example,
certain environmental conditions that may occur while the vessel is moored may result in
higher loads on the fender system (both normal reaction and friction forces) than would be
typically experienced during berthing.
Figure 7.1 illustrates how a mooring analysis often fits with the fender system design process. A
mooring analysis can be performed at the early stage of a design project to assist with
optimising the fender configuration and design. Initiating the mooring analysis early is
particularly important if the designer expects that the moored conditions may be the limiting
factor in the fender system design or that the fenders may be the limiting factor in determining
the operational conditions for the berth. The design of the fender system may therefore have
a direct impact on the berth operation and downtime performance.
The designer should define or select a set of limiting scenarios for mooring analysis, including
the design vessels or fleet, mooring arrangement of the vessel, mooring equipment on the
berth, weather conditions (wind, waves, current, water level, etc.) and other excitation forces,
depending on the project.
114
Figure 7.1: Fender design flow chart for moored conditions
Once the mooring analysis has been carried out, the results are compared with the project
design applied to both the fender system and to the mooring system. If the criteria are satisfied,
the mooring analysis is completed. If it is not satisfied, it is necessary to improve the fender or
mooring systems and repeat the analysis. In some cases, the solution may consist of setting up
a set of operational measures.
The differences in fender performance between different types, sizes, and grades of fenders
may lead to significant differences in the dynamic response of the moored vessel. If the design
of the fender system is controlled by the outputs of the mooring analysis, it is recommended
that a sensitivity analysis is undertaken to compare the different fender performance
characteristics to determine whether a particular fender is more suitable. This is particularly
beneficial at the project tender stage as the fender supplier is not usually known.
In some design situations, the fenders are not the only flexible part of the structure. When the
fender is fixed to a flexible structure (e.g. flexible dolphins), the response characteristics of the
support structure should also be considered as to accurately simulate the dynamic response
of the mooring system.
The vessel hull response is not included in a mooring analysis due to the high stiffness of vessel
hulls compared to the fender stiffness. Hull pressure, resulting from the peak fender reaction,
should be checked against the hull pressure criteria as noted in Section 6.8.
Although the mooring analysis is often performed using the average performance curves for
the selected fender, designers should also be aware of the non-elastic characteristics of the
fender performance. In certain mooring conditions, the non-linear characteristics of the fender
element can be important.
Safety factors and manufacturing tolerances are not usually included in the fender
characteristics for mooring analysis, these factors and tolerances are applied, as defined by
the manufacturers, in the postprocessing to check the limits. The average reaction-deflection
performance curve is the most common choice to describe the moored vessel behaviour.
115
Depending on the objective of the study, performance curves different from the average may
be selected.
The non-elastic effects occur in the form of hysteresis in the fender performance curves. The
rate at which the fender rebounds is not simply a function of the instantaneous position on the
performance curve, however is also a function of how the fender has been worked up to that
point in time. Usually, this information is not available and cannot be included in the analysis.
In a permanent mooring situation and considering cyclic loading, the fender element can
dissipate a significant amount of energy (in the form of heat), which affects the fender
performance.
Under high constant loading of the fender, creep in the fender element can lead to
deformation or buckling in a rubber fender at a load significantly less than the design reaction
force. A mooring analysis allows a check on the fender deflections (or compressions) under
constant load conditions to be conducted, using the creep criteria; refer to Section 7.4.7.
The parameters for fender contact with a moored vessel can vary based on the specific
project. The main parameters to be considered include the size/position of the vessel parallel
mid-body, the presence (or absence) of vessel belting, and the strength/structure of the hull.
The location of the vessel fairleads is also often relevant, both in support of the mooring analysis
and for checking for geometric interferences between mooring lines and the fenders.
An accurate layout of the terminal geometry, including the number, size and location of
fender systems, is important for evaluating the fender-vessel interface under moored
conditions. The designer should ensure that adequate fender-vessel contact is maintained
throughout the range of anticipated water levels and vessel loading conditions.
All possible mooring positions and configurations should be considered by the designer to
ensure that the fender system can support vessels for all service conditions. For example, an oil
tanker berth may always moor a vessel in the same orientation and approximately the same
location (+/- several metres). However, a bulk terminal may require the vessel to moor at
various positions and both orientations to fill all holds of the vessel systematically.
Mooring configurations can vary greatly from jetty or quay wall moorings to unique layouts
involving combinations of fixed structures with mooring buoys and/or use of the vessel’s
anchor. A mooring assessment is also required for ship-to-ship moorings to assess the mooring
arrangement and the behaviour of the moored vessel including the relative motions between
both vessels.
All elements of the interface between the fender system, the vessel and the berth should be
checked for interferences that are likely to occur during vessel loading/unloading operations.
All vessel positions should consider, as a minimum, the following interferences:
Interferences between the fender systems, mooring lines and mooring points on the front side
of the berth.
116
Interferences between the fenders and ladders, gangways, etc. and access to the vessel.
Interferences between the fenders with loading arms or flexible hoses, cranes or another
loading system.
If possible, interferences must be avoided or minimized during design process, if not feasible,
suitable protection is required for the elements involved (mooring lines, fenders, fender panels,
ladders, other equipment onboard).
A mooring analysis is the design process assessing the response of the moored vessel to
imposed environmental loads such as winds and waves, when moored at a berth. A defined
mooring layout and fender system is considered and assessed against the effect of a set of
defined met-ocean conditions or other external forces. Refer to PIANC WG 186 for guidance
on how to select the analysis method, how to perform a mooring analysis, for determining what
conditions should be simulated and what design criteria should be applied.
A mooring assessment can be a particularly important part of the fender design process for
marine terminals subject to cyclical loading from swell waves, infra-gravity waves, high forces
from passing vessels, extreme high wind events and/or tsunamis.
Mooring analysis results can provide an estimate of the maximum fender loads under the
design or operational environmental conditions, as well as the distribution of mooring loads
between multiple fenders. Additionally, a mooring analysis can illustrate how the vessel will
move while at berth and assist with optimising the fender placement to ensure contact of the
fenders with the vessel’s hull.
The decision to improve the fender system is usually based on the performance of the fenders
under the design conditions (maximum forces or deflections). However, different criteria
(operational and safe mooring limits, downtime, fatigue, etc.) may also indicate that changes
or refinements are required to the fender system design. In the same way, the results of the
fender system assessment may suggest the improvement of the mooring layout or changes in
the berth configuration or mooring equipment in the terminal.
Static Mooring Analysis (SMA) can be used in the first assessment of a project. The dynamic
effects can induce higher forces than the typical static forces plus safety margin in SMA. The
designer should assess the necessity of performing a dynamic mooring analysis (DMA) for each
project, as SMA may lead to underestimated maximum forces on the fenders.
Fender fatigue analysis is typically not required in protected ports. However, in exposed
locations, the effects of constant swells or frequent and strong gusty wind should be carefully
considered. In the same way, extreme conditions may reduce the resisting capacity of the
fenders. Since fenders can perform substantially differently than the published catalogue data
under cyclic load conditions, the fender supplier should be consulted for design assistance in
these situations.
Both high constant fender loads (e.g. high pretension or sustained winds) and cyclic fender
loads (e.g. under swell waves) are substantially different from the testing conditions
represented by catalogue fender performance data.
117
The effect of fatigue and creep on fenders should be assessed. When identified that the local
conditions at the berth may be of relevance for fatigue fenders, an assessment should be
performed.
Fatigue in fenders is a process of progressive (internal) damage occurring in the fender body
material that is subjected to cyclic loading and which may lead to the failure of the fender in
satisfying the purpose it was designed for.
Fatigue life is defined as the maximum number of loading cycles that an element can sustain
before failure occurs. The fatigue life depends on the nature of the fender and of the nature
of the loading cycles, being the shape of the loading cycles, for which the most important
parameters are the shape and the period.
All fender types suffer fatigue of a certain nature and there are important differences
depending on:
Fatigue effects can affect all the installed fenders, however it is especially important and
should be assessed in the design process for:
• Permanent mooring solutions.
• ‘Important’ cyclic loading due to local conditions.
Besides the rubber element of a fender system, the steel structures should also be checked for
fatigue loading e.g. torsion arms and chain fixings.
Creep is the permanent deflection of fenders after loading (CDIT; Design, 2019). Creep in
rubber and foam filled fenders is caused by different phenomena. Foam filled fenders require
a longer time to recover after each load cycle as some inner foam cells release the entrapped
air, and a reduced number of these cells do not recover the original status, leading to creep.
For all type of fenders, there is an important relationship between creep and fatigue damage
as creep increases the effect of cyclic loading.
Constant loading does not create important permanent deflection on the rubber
Rubber fender
fenders but affects the way cyclic load damage the fender.
Under long term static loading from a moored vessel, e.g. with pre-tensioned mooring
lines, the deflection can be permanent (creep) Constant loading induces important
Foam filled fender
permanent deflection on the foam fenders, this effect is additional to the permanent
deflection caused by cyclic loading.
This fender type does not typically show creep in their behaviour and permanent
Pneumatic fender
deflection is not found.
Table 7-1: Description of creep damage in fenders depending on their type and material
The effect of fatigue depends on the fender type and construction material. For rubber
fenders, the heat generated inside the fender material due to the load cycles increases the
working temperature of the fender. This occurs when the periods are small (especially
118
compared to the berthing period). The shorter the time available to a fender to cool down,
the higher the temperature rise will be. In the same way, the higher the load in the load cycle,
the greater the amount of energy to be dissipated, and the effect on fatigue will be greater.
The main measure to prevent fatigue damage is selection of the right fender type and rubber
compound to prevent the fender from continuous buckling and rubber compound with as less
heat build-up as possible.
Table 7-2: Description of fatigue damage in fenders depending on their type and material
Within current guidelines, there is insufficient published data to provide sound limits for fatigue
and creep. Specialists’ advice from manufacturers for fatigue and creep assessment is
required, for those cases, where permanent deflections or cyclic loading is expected.
Operational conditions should be described in the specification and during the purchasing
process in order to assess the nature and characteristics of the cyclic loading.
Designers are responsible for considering these effects and looking for manufacturer’s advice
when assessing fatigue. Manufacturers are responsible for defining the fatigue limits when
there is no data published in support of these limits.
If fatigue may be an issue due to the berth conditions, fatigue testing results should be
performed and compared with the expected number of cycles during the lifetime of the
fender from dynamic mooring analysis (DMA).
Different limits may be required for creep and fatigue when assessing fatigue. When accurate
data for fatigue fender design limits is available, only fatigue should be assessed, however due
to a lack of data, both creep and fatigue limits should be applied.
Due to the potential permanent deflection that may be found within foam filled fenders, the
selection of this type of fender should be carefully assessed for locations where permanent
loads or significant cyclic loads are expected.
119
In order to assess the constant fender loads, the constant deflection of the fenders should be
considered. It is important to note that static or quasi-static calculations are not a valid method
to assess creep except in fully static situations where loads are due only to pre-tensioned
mooring lines with no significant cyclic loading.
Constant deflection can be estimated from a dynamic mooring analysis as the average of the
deflection time series during three hours under the design conditions. The design conditions
are taken as extreme conditions for permanent mooring and maximum safe mooring
conditions for temporary stays of the vessel at the berth. The longer the fender is exposed to
this load, higher the risk of suffering from creep.
The following picture shows the time series of fender deflection for an extreme gusty wind,
pushing the vessel against the fenders. The average of the time series is the parameter to assess
creep.
Figure 7.2: Example of fender deflection time series showing average value and different cycles
Durability test data for fenders (refer to Section 10.6) typically considers repeated
compressions with a cycle duration of 150 s. However, environmental loading can cause
compressions at a much shorter cycle period, resulting in a much higher rate of heat transfer
in the fender. This can lead to softening of the rubber and larger deflections, limiting the ability
of the fender to rebound between cycles.
Loading with a longer cycle period results in slower heat transfer to the fender elements and
allows more time for the fender to rebound between compressions.
Fender fatigue analysis is typically not required in protected ports. However, in exposed
locations, the effects of constant swells or frequent and strong gusty wind should be carefully
considered. In the same way, extreme conditions may reduce the capacity of the fenders.
Since fenders can perform substantially differently from the published catalogue data under
cyclic load conditions, the fender manufacturer should be consulted for design assistance in
these situations. The analysis should consider not only the maximum load or deflection, but the
distribution of loads as a function of frequency.
When specific data from the manufacturer is not available and cyclical loads are expected,
engineering judgement is required in determining a reasonable limiting cyclic load condition
for the fenders.
The following picture shows the energy power spectrum for a single fender under certain
conditions. The peaks of the spectrum show the frequencies where energy is concentrated. In
that case two peaks can be clearly identified. The effect of these two peaks of energy on the
fender is different, depending on the capacity of the fender to dissipate the heat generated
by the deflection and on the frequency (higher frequency, less time to dissipate the heat).
120
Figure 7.3: Energy distribution as a function of frequency
The reference from Japan (CDIT; Design, 2019) provides references for creep and fatigue limits
that can be extended to buckling fenders. In absence of project specific limits provided by
the manufacturers or other reliable source, the following limits can be used for buckling fenders
(cone, cell, leg and arch fenders):
• Buckling fenders should be carefully selected so that they will not buckle due to creep after
prolonged static loads by continuous wind or currents, or not to be subjected to repetitive
motions of vessel at the deflections which exceed the buckling peak of the reaction force.
• Creep limit: Continuous load under design conditions will not exceed 40% to 50% 𝑅𝑓,𝑐 ,
typically equivalent to 5 % - 10% deflection.
• Fatigue limit: Maximum cyclic deflections under design conditions will not exceed the
buckling limit (peak of the performance curve)
At present, there is not enough data to provide general creep and cyclic loading limits. We
include some general guidelines for all type of fenders that may help designers:
• Fenders should be carefully selected so that they will not creep under prolonged static
loads by continuous wind or currents and not be subjected to repetitive motions of the
vessel that lead to a fast deterioration of the fender.
• Using design deflections as the limit for fenders under significant cyclic loading is not a
conservative approach and may lead to non-conservative results when assessing mooring
conditions.
• Some studies suggest for some specific fenders the change in the behaviour of the fender
(I.e. start of buckling, change in fender shape,) may be considered a limit for cyclic
loading. Unfortunately, these results cannot be generally extended to all fender types.
• Foam fenders, due to creep, might be more sensitive to effects of cyclic loading or
prolonged static loading than other fender types.
The application of these limits for buckling fenders and comments does not discharge the
designer from the responsibility of researching for specific data and to consult with the
suppliers.
121
8 FENDER SYSTEM COMPONENT DESIGN
Careful consideration should be given to the design of the fender panel, chains, UHMW-PE
pads and fixing details to ensure an efficient, yet robust design of fender systems, and should
be part of the integral berth design, since it is necessary that berth structure configuration can
accommodate the required fender system and all its components (chains, anchors, etc.). It
should be noted that there is a serious risk of failure or reduction of durability of the fender
systems if the design of the components is not correct or if the berth design does not match
the fender system requirements for the structure.
This chapter outlines the design process for fender system components, providing background
information on the issues that should be considered when designing these key elements of the
fender system.
The fender panels are an integral part of several fender systems (refer to Chapter 2). The fender
panel should provide a suitable contact surface positioned at a suitable level. The designer
should consider variations in tide, weather, operations, etc. Variations in vessel hull profile and
structure should be accounted for in the panel design to distribute the fender reaction forces
into the vessel’s hull structure. Fender panels may be subject to a combination of uniformly
distributed loads, line loads and point loads according to the hull profiles of the vessels using
the berth.
During berthing and mooring, vessels contact the fender panels, inducing bending moments
and shear forces into the panel structure which must be accounted for in the panel design.
The designer should also be aware of the effects of asymmetric load cases and consider where
stress concentrations may exist, such as at bolted fender system connections and chain
brackets connections.
Fender panel design should determine the overall panel dimensions, edge chamfers and
pressure distributions within the panel. The design should also determine the internal structure
of the panel, including the location and thickness of all plates, stiffeners and the associated
weld sizes. Limit state design codes should be used to determine the construction of the steel
panels and frames. Input loads from the fender reactions, the vessel hull profile and chain
connections should all be considered.
Vessels typically contact fender panels either as a flat hull contact or, if beltings are present,
as several line loads or point loads. The exact geometry of the vessel contact is dependent on
the type of vessel and the angle of approach of the vessel to the berth.
The designer should consider each design case as being unique and should carry out a
detailed assessment of all fender design criteria to determine the specific panel design load
122
cases. Typical vessel contacts with fender panels and example load cases are indicated in
Figure 8.1.
The range of different load cases identified will create varying demands on the fender panel
structure. A durable fender panel design is highly dependent on correctly identifying and
defining all applicable load cases that can reasonably be expected to occur during the life
cycle of the fender system.
Design calculations should consider bending, shear, local buckling and crushing effects in the
steel panels and fender frames. Local buckling should be checked as inadequately supported
webs in the panel grillage may be prone to collapse under line load or point load conditions.
Vessels with belting can be particularly damaging to panel structures and facings, leading to
line or point load cases. A careful determination of load cases and structural analysis can assist
in providing sufficiently robust structures. Consideration as to whether vessels with belting are
berthed frequently or if the belting on the vessels is poorly maintained can also be of benefit
in the design process.
Berthing frequency should be considered in the design of the fender system if exposed to
fatigue conditions (see chapter 7), fatigue analysis should be undertaken as part of the design
process. Special care is needed where stresses are concentrated, such as chains, brackets
and bolted connections.
Figure 8.1: Typical design cases of fender contact with vessel hull profile
Fender panel design calculations should, as a minimum, consider static principles to determine
shear forces and moments. More detailed analyses, i.e. finite element analysis methods, should
be considered to study the more complicated effects of asymmetric load cases and the
distribution of stresses induced within the steel structure. Partial load factors according to
Section 6.7.4 unless local codes should be applied for the design of the fender panels when
considering the characteristic and design impact cases. With reference to the application of
partial safety factors related to the applied impact loads, these should be considered as non-
permanent loads.
The overall weight of a fender panel provides a preliminary estimate and general ‘rule of
thumb’ of the panel capacity to support particular load combinations. A typical range of
panel weights and intended uses is as follows (these values are only indicative):
123
• Standard duty panels: approximately 250 to 300 kg/m². Normally designed for flat hull
contact.
• Heavy duty panels: approximately 300 to 400 kg/m². Normally designed for belting and line
loads.
• Extreme heavy-duty panels: over 400 kg/m². Normally designed for point loads or special
cases.
The typical panel weight can be defined in the project design criteria and can be considered
when comparing different alternatives to validate the likely robustness of the steel fender
panel design.
Generally, two types of fender panel structural forms of construction are available, the ‘closed’
and ‘open’ box. The ‘closed box’ form of fender panel is considered to have a higher strength-
to-weight ratio and creates a simple exterior shape which is easier to paint and maintain. The
inside of the ‘box panel’ is protected against corrosion as it should be fully sealed, and pressure
tested. It is therefore recommended that quality control of the internal panel construction is
verified before the box is closed and sealed.
Recommended minimum thicknesses for the steel sections in fender panels are as follows:
A panel is a construction of welded steel plates forming one single piece. Construction of a
single fender panel should not be made one or more pieces bolted to each other. It is possible
to link together two separate fender panels by panel hinges built in the side of the panels.
Chains are connected to brackets welded to the internal structure of the panel; therefore,
chain position and loads are considered as part of the panel structure design.
The grade of steel used for the fabrication of the fender panel should be clearly specified
considering the design temperature range (as low temperatures require special steel grades
which do not become brittle), fender panel loading and the availability of certain steel grades.
The fender panel design should consider the potential for the direct application of vertical or
horizontal loads to the perimeter of the panel. Such forces could result from:
• vessel belting contacting the top of the panel during vessel movement whilst at berth.
• vessel belting contacting the top of the panel on a falling tide and/or when being loaded.
• a low freeboard vessel or vessel belting becoming hooked underneath the fender panel.
• vessels with discontinuous and multi-level beltings.
• direct horizontal loads to the fender panel side due to small manoeuvring mistakes.
124
These types of impacts can seriously affect the durability of the fender system, introducing
potentially destructive shear forces into the rubber unit, which it is not designed to resist. Fender
panel design should consider options to minimise potential damage to the fender system by
including edge chamfers or bevels around of the edges of panels.
The minimum recommended width and angle of a chamfer is dependent on the size of
beltings.
The fender panel size, position and fender unit orientation, in relation to the berth structure,
should be carefully considered by the designer. Failure to undertake this part of the design
process may result in reduced energy absorption capabilities of the fender and a reduced
operational life of the fender system.
The height of the panel should be determined based on a combination of the following:
• In combination with the panel width, sufficient height is needed to provide sufficient
contact area to keep the hull contact pressure below the maximum limit permitted for the
design vessel.
• Consider the full range of vessels likely to use the berth and account for any unique vessel
design features.
• Cater for the full tidal range.
• Provide an allowance for variations in water level.
• Accommodate variations in vessel operational draught and trim during (un)loading of
cargo.
Based on the above considerations, the level of the top of the fender panel will largely be
determined by the minimum draught of an unladen vessel at the mean high water spring
(MHWS) , with reference to the top level of the berthing structure. To define the level of the
bottom of the fender panel, the minimum freeboard of the design laden vessel, required panel
contact area and mean low water spring (MLWS) will apply.
Fender panels can extend above the supporting structure deck level; however, the position of
the mooring lines should be checked to ensure that the vessel can be correctly moored and
that the mooring lines do not clash with the fender panels and/or do not become snagged.
The extension of fender panels above the deck of the berth structure can also cause problems
125
where vessels with side or quarter ramps are to be accommodated and where the berth is
used for other types of cargo vessels.
To accommodate vessels with belting, the fender panel should be high enough to
accommodate the full range of the moored vessel movement at the berth. The panel height
should be sufficient to minimise the risk of the vessel belting riding over the top of, or being
caught underneath, the fender panel whilst the vessel is at berth. An allowance may also need
to be given for the effects of wave height at the berth during adverse weather conditions.
The fender panel maximum height should be proportional to the size of the fender rubber unit
height and elevation on the supporting structure. For cases that require long fender panels in
combination with relatively small sized rubber unit fenders, consideration should be given to
installing double or even triple rubber unit fenders arranged one above the other, to provide
adequate support and load transfer from the fender panels to the support structure. This
means the supporting structure will need to be high enough to allow for placing multiple rubber
unit fenders above each other. There is a certain amount of engineering judgement required
for a proportional design.
The panel height should be designed considering the relationship between the fender
centreline level and its location relative to the panel to keep peak hull pressures below the
required limits.
Fender panel thickness is closely related to the panel internal structure. The designer should
consider the stand-off distance between the structure cope line and berthing line when
determining the fender panel thickness.
Cone fender systems require a spacer (or mount/ flange) located between the top of the
fender (small base) and the rear of the panel or the supporting structure to enable additional
fender compression. Sometimes the spacer is also needed for construction (tightening bolts).
This will increase the stand-off distance of the fender system.
For cone , cell, element or equivalent fender systems, the centre of the fender should be
positioned on or above the horizontal centreline of the fender panel and below the upper
third of the panel height. Locating the fender below the horizontal centreline of the fender
panel should be avoided. The optimum fender panel design is likely to require additional
restraint and support chains.
Locating the fender unit too close to the panel edges can lead to rotation of the panel without
compressing the fender when loaded. This action induces moments and forces in the fender
that may cause damage and reduce the energy absorption capability. Eccentric positioning
of the fender relative to the panel centreline will also lead to increases in induced loads on
hull structures.
Chains are used to control the position of the fender panel and have the following functions:
126
• Prevent excessive panel horizontal and/or vertical movements and/or rotations during
berthing
• Assist in supporting the weight of large panels, to prevent dropping/sagging
• Increase fender compression and energy absorption capacity in low-level impact cases
• Counteract horizontal (shear) loads e.g. due to vessel warping
Figure 8.3: Typical fender system chain layout (viewed from rear of fender panel)
The following types of chains are generally used within fender systems, the positions of which
are indicated in Figure 8.3.
Weight chains support the fender system and prevent excessive drooping of the system
caused by self-weight forces. They may also resist vertical downwards shear
forces caused by vessel movements or changing draught.
Tension chains Restrict tension forces in on the fender rubber. Correct location can
optimise the deflection geometry.
Shear chains Resist horizontal forces caused during longitudinal approaches or warping
operations.
Uplift chains Prevent vertical shear uplift forces in conjunction with the weight chains.
These are often specified for exposed offshore berths with large wave
(not indicated in
induced vessel movements. This type of chain is however typically used in
Figure 8-3) special cases and is not very common. The use of this type of chain should
be verified with the fender supplier.
If uplift is expected, this chain can be used on side loaded fenders as well
to limit lift movement.
Rope guard chains Prevent mooring lines from getting caught behind fender panels,
particularly on panels with no top tension chains.
Keep chains Used to moor floating or to prevent loss of fixed fenders in the event of
accidents.
Supporting chains Floating fenders (i.e. foam, pneumatic) and cylindrical fenders require
supporting chains, see below Section 8.2.2.
127
The inclusion of weight and tension chains is always recommended for all fender system
installations to support the fender panel and ensure the longevity of the system. The governing
criteria for the design of tension chains is often the panel rotation angle resulting from low level
vessel impacts or vessel rolling. In the case of larger berthing angles, rotation of the panel
about the vertical axis can provide the governing load case on the tension chains.
Typically, shear chains are required on berths where substantial longitudinal shear forces from
vessel movements are anticipated. This includes berths where vessels slide along the berthing
face during vessel manoeuvres (e.g. ferry or RoRo berths) or where vessels are warped along
the berth during loading or discharge operations. The correct position for shear chains is as
shown on Figure 8.5 below, attached to the side of the panel. Therefore, when this type of
chain is required the design of the concrete structure need to consider required space for
shear chain at the required position and angle on the sides of the fender system.
Certain fender system designs and installation locations cannot accommodate shear chains
and the berth structure should be sized accordingly to provide connections at the required
locations. The designer is recommended to consider how the vessel is expected to interact
with the fender system by determining the movement of the panel and chains as a whole
system to establish when the chains are in tension, to select the most appropriate combination
of restraint chains and if shear chains are required the structure design should provide sufficient
space to allow its installation.
The crossing of shear chains should also be carefully considered to ensure that the chains are
installed with the required angle, are separated and prevented from rubbing. If crossed shear
chains are used, both upper and lower shear chain sets may be required to prevent the
rotation of the fender panel.
The provision of uplift, rope guard and keep chains is also closely linked to the design
requirements and geometry of the fender system. The requirements for each chain type should
therefore take account of specific design considerations.
Chain systems work in combination with the shackles, chain tensioners, connection brackets
and anchors, the general position of which is indicated in Figure 8.4.
Adjustments in chain length can be accommodated with the inclusion of chain tensioners. For
tension, weight and shear chains a tensioner can be added to periodically re-tension the
chain as needed. It is sometimes not possible to add a tensioner to a tension chain due to the
overall chain length being too short. In the case that a tensioner is not possible to be included
(e.g. for relatively short tension chains), advise should be taken from the fender supplier on the
128
tension chain design considering the maximum allowable sag of the tension chain. . Typically,
all other chains are long enough to include a chain tensioner, if required.
A ‘weak link’ in the chain system, typically one shackle, is desirable to prevent damage to the
other more costly components. Chains should be hot dip galvanised to protect against
corrosion.
On one end chains are attached to the berth structure by brackets or U-anchor connections.
On the other end the chains are connected to brackets welded to the internal structure of the
panel.
The chain size will be fabricated according to the required minimum breaking load (MBL) of
the chain. MBL determines the different dimensions of the chain: diameter, inside link length,
inside link width and outside link width, as well as chain link length (typically 4D or 5D will be
used) and chain capacity.
The total number of links determines the overall chain length and that is determined by the
fender system design and dimensions, including rubber unit size, panel geometry, chain
anchor position.
Chains typically work in combination with shackles, which are typically of two types: D-type or
Bow-type.
Fender system accessories (chains, anchors, brackets, etc.) should be designed by a suitably
qualified design engineer familiar with the design of fender accessories and customised for
each specific project application. They should also be designed to be compliant with the
specific requirements of the project.
The static angle and the overall length of the chain are used when determining the required
chain design load capacity, refer to Figure 8.5. It is important however that the designer
assesses the chain tension, and hence load on the fixings, at all stages of the fender system
compression, as well as for the static case.
The designer should be aware that the largest chain loads will not necessarily occur when the
maximum fender reaction force occurs. The point at which the largest chain loads occur must
be determined by the designer as part of the geometric assessment of the fender system
compression cycle. The total weight of the fender panel is not applicable when considering
the tensile capacity of the shear chains.
The recommended minimum factor of safety applied to the characteristic reaction force (𝑅𝑓,𝑐 )
in chain design should be taken according to local code. If no code exists, a minimum of 3.0
is recommended. So the WLL ≥ 𝑅𝑓,𝑐 and WLL is ≤ 33% MBL (OCIMF, 2018). These
recommendations do also apply for floating fenders (i.e. foam, pneumatic) in which chains
are under permanent movement and wear. Such chains can rapidly loose cross sectional
profile, regular inspections are recommended to identify any potential areas of excessive wear
enabling replacement at an early stage, selecting a higher initial factor of safety can be a
choice to reduce the frequency of chain replacement.
As the shackles, chains and tensioners are suffering constant and substantial wear due to the
movement and corrosion of the fender system due to the direct exposure to marine
environment, the factors of safety applied to shackles, chains and tensioners are different and
independent from the safety factor applied to brackets and anchors, which are based on the
general structural design codes and standards.
129
Refer to Chapter 0 for details on chain fabrication. Recommendations on maximum chain
angles are shown in Figure 8.5, however should always be checked per individual project, as
the chain should be tensioned before the shear capacity of the fender element is reached.
Figure 8.5: Recommendations for angles and chain arrangement for non-compressed fenders
Cylindrical, foam and pneumatic fenders use support chains attached to the supporting
structure. One end of each chain is attached to the supporting structure, typically via a
shackle and bracket. The other end is connected to a swivel connection to allow the fender
to rotate, or bar for cylindrical. Different chain layouts can be used depending on whether the
fender is fully supported or floating. A 4-chain arrangement can be used to prevent changes
in the level of the fender.
Figure 8.6: Double and 4-chain arrangements for foam and pneumatic fenders
The supporting chains should minimally be designed to accommodate the frictional forces
between the vessel and the fender and between the fender and the supporting structure, the
potential uplift forces, the self-weight of the fender and to fit within the general arrangement
of the supporting structure.
130
8.2.3 Bracket Design
Brackets are typically required to connect the chain assembly to the support structure and
can be designed to suit new or existing structures. The design should allow the chain to freely
rotate through its full arc and the position and geometry should not interfere with other
brackets, the fender panel or the rubber fender body during compression.
The brackets typically experience large, concentrated forces transferred from the connected
chain assemblies. The brackets should be sufficiently thick or include spacer plates to support
the correct size and type of shackle. Induced localised stresses in and around the brackets
should be carefully checked and stiffeners provided to resist these stresses.
The weld size holding the bracket to the base plate is critical and should be considered
carefully in conjunction with the manufacture of the brackets. The design of the brackets
should therefore comply with the relevant codes and standards for steel fabrication and weld
design.
The position and orientation of the brackets on the fender panel and support structure should
be assessed to ensure that the chains are always straight and that the force induced in the
bracket acts along the long axis of the bracket.
Fixing anchors are required to attach fender systems, including the bracket and chain
assemblies to the supporting structure. The design of the fixing anchors should determine the
anchor diameter, required embedment or bond length, type and material.
Fender anchors are subject to both shear and to a lesser extent, tension forces. Bracket and
chain assembly anchors are subject to both tension and shear forces. The proportion of each
of these forces is dependent on the angle of the chain and the geometry of the bracket. These
forces should be determined based on the characteristic load of the selected chain assembly
multiplied by the appropriate factor of safety and by assessing each specific load case and
design load chain arrangement. Cast-in U-anchors should consider an additional thickness
allowance to accommodate for wear due to chain shackle friction.
131
Guidance on the required diameter and minimum embedment of the anchors for each fender
type are often provided by the fender supplier. However, the design of the supporting structure
is the responsibility of the structural designer, and they should check that the proposed anchors
comply with the appropriate standards. As such, the designer of the supporting structure is
responsible for the design of the anchors.
Anchor capacity is dependent on the concrete strength, the bonded length of the anchor,
the size of the bracket bearing plate and the concrete reinforcement details. For all anchor
applications into concrete (individual and groups of anchors), the designer should consider
the potential modes of anchor failure, including pull-out, concrete splitting, crushing and cone
breakout, all of which can affect the anchor design and performance.
The minimum edge distances should be assessed which should also be incorporated within the
design of the support structure. In the absence of specific design information, the designer
should consider a minimum edge distance of 5 times the anchor diameter (a value of 8 to 10
times the diameter is preferable) or the overall length of the anchor, whichever is the longer.
However, the required minimum edge distance could be reduced due to the presence of
reinforcement within the concrete. The design and integration of anchors into the concrete
supporting structure is recommended to be carried out in conjunction with the design of the
supporting structure.
Cast-in anchors sockets (into which anchor bolts can be secured) are recommended to be
specified for all new concrete structures. Drilling and chemical resin anchor fixing should only
be considered for existing concrete structures. In such circumstances, the designer may need
to assess the residual concrete strength and integrity to determine the required anchor
diameter, drill hole size and bonded length. The use of threaded bars with chemical anchors
should be used with caution if used for anchoring fenders to support structures as (opposed to
brackets) the protruding threaded bar can impact upon the body of the fender when fully
compressed, potentially causing damage to the fender.
The factors of safety applied to brackets and anchors are based on the general structural
design codes and standards used for the supporting structure which typically are 1.5
(according to Eurocode) or 1.67 (according to ASTM) over the maximum chain force
characteristic value.
All fixings should be protected against corrosion using stainless steel. If galvanised anchors are
utilised, designers should be aware of the potential for the galvanizing to wear off over time,
e.g. U bolt anchors, potentially necessitating the need for replacement.
132
8.3 Low Friction Facing Design
Friction has a large influence on the design of a fender system, particularly for the restraint
chains. Low friction facing materials are often used on fender panels to reduce friction. Vessels
moving longitudinally or vertically on a berth induce friction forces at the contact surface
between the fender system and the vessel hull.
These forces induce shear deformations in the fender and should be kept within the fender
design limits. Large shear deflections should be limited by chains connecting appropriate parts
of the fender to the supporting structure. Shear forces should be calculated using the relevant
coefficient of friction, multiplied by the design reaction force at the fender face.
Facings can be manufactured from several different materials including Ultra-High Molecular
Weight Polyethylene (UHMW-PE), steel, timber and rubber. The use of UHMW-PE on fender
panels is common due to its inherently low coefficient of friction. Other materials, such as
polyurethanes that are typically used for the skin of foam fenders, also have lower friction
coefficients than rubber against steel or concrete.
The designer should select the correct material considering the vessel hull material (e.g. steel),
the vessel geometry, potential berthing impact and wear allowance, vessel movement on the
berth and frequency of use. The low friction facing should be durable, replaceable and be
designed to prevent damage to the vessel hull and paintwork.
The coefficient of friction for each facing material varies considerably. In the absence of
specific design information, the coefficients of friction provided in Table 8-2 may be used. A
higher design value is recommended to be adopted in the design of other fender components
and the supporting structure to account for factors such as surface roughness, temperature,
wet or dry conditions and the contact pressure which can affect the friction coefficient. A
lower friction coefficient can also be considered in the case of dynamic mooring analyses,
where less fender friction can result in the larger moored vessel motions and mooring line loads.
Friction Coefficient
Materials
(fender system facing against vessel hull) Typical
Design
Range
Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW-PE) (wet) Steel (wet) 0.1 - 0.15 0.3
Ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW-PE) (dry) Steel (dry) 0.15 - 0.2 0.3
133
8.3.1 Low Friction Resin Facings
One of the more commonly adopted facing systems is low friction facing panels,
manufactured using UHMW-PE. Large UHMW-PE sheets are cut to size, drilled and chamfered
to create individual sections which are fixed to the fender panel. These can be attached to
steel fender panels using welded studs, bolts or low-profile fixings.
The design of the low friction facing should take into consideration the type and size of fixing
and include a wear allowance. The following should be considered for low friction facing
design:
• The minimum UHMW-PE thickness should consider the wear allowance, the nut thickness
and the countersunk UHMW-PE residual thickness to stop the bolt from pulling through the
UHMW-PE sheet. The thickness requirements should be assessed on a case-by-case basis
accounting for the level of expected use.
• Low friction facings should be designed to facilitate easy replacement.
• If access to enable facing replacement is difficult, then an extra wear allowance may be
useful to reduce maintenance and replacement intervals.
• Vessels with belting can be particularly damaging to low friction facing panels and may
not be the optimum solution in such cases.
• Typically, the coefficient of friction between a vessel and the low friction facing is between
0.15 and 0.2. However, for the purposes of design of other fender components and the
supporting structure, it is not recommended to use a coefficient of friction less than 0.3 to
account for contact pressure, facing deterioration and temperature variations and to
allow for wear during the design life.
Typically UHMW-PE- facings are supplied as virgin and regenerated material. Virgin is made
from new resin material and has the best durability properties (higher wear resistance and
better charpy impact strength). Regenerated material is typically made from re-used
production material or can be made from recycled material and is a more cost efficient and
potentially a more sustainable solution (see Section 12.6.5). For fenders where durability is a
key consideration (i.e. frequently used ferry berths, belted vessels, remote locations, etc.) virgin
material is best considered. For fenders under more mild operational conditions regenerated
material can be considered as alternative to virgin. See section 0 for suggested material
properties for both virgin and regenerated.
Where a high frequency of berthing takes place, such as RoRo ferry ports, steel can be
adopted as a robust and durable fender facing. Higher friction forces can occur between the
vessel's hull and the fender face, which can be beneficial when vessels are berthing in
reducing vessel approach velocity. However, these forces should be accommodated within
the fender system design and supporting structure(s).
Consideration should be given to the potential effects of bimetallic corrosion when using a
steel facing in combination with the fender system. Consideration should also be given to the
possibility of sparks arising from steel-to-steel contact when designing crude oil, chemical
products and gas terminals with steel facings.
134
8.3.3 Fastenings
Low friction facing pads are attached in various ways according to the type and structure of
the fender panel. Studs or bolts with blind nuts are commonly used for closed box panels.
Standard nuts are used for open panels and structures. Flange nut fixings can provide a greater
wear allowance.
Larger washers, typically 2.2 and 2.5 times the bolt diameter, are required to spread the loads
due to friction and prevent pull through. The minimum thickness of the low friction facing under
the head of the washer is recommended to be 30% of the overall low friction pad thickness.
To provide greater wear allowance, the heads of the fastenings should be set as low as
possible from the surface of the facing. The top face of the studs or bolts should be minimum
10 mm to 20 mm below the surface of the facing. Typical fixing arrangement is shown in Figure
8.8.
When fender panels are fabricated as closed box structures, the bolts should be secured with
a watertight threaded blind boss. If the threaded stainless steel bolt shaft to the blind boss
fixture is used, anti-galling compounds should be used. To prevent contact with dissimilar
metals, proprietary PTFE washers can also be considered.
Extreme shear forces or protrusions in the vessel hull have the potential to displace the UHMW-
PE pads. For those cases, adding a shear key in the panel design will help to prevent this
problem.
A parallel motion fender system (as illustrated in Section 2.4.4) is a specialist fender system. The
selection and design of such fender systems should be carried out in consultation with fender
manufacturers experienced in their design and manufacture and managed by an
experienced port engineer.
Parallel motion fender systems are typically considered for selection when the supporting
structure is load sensitive. They can reduce berthing reaction forces by up to 60 %, when
compared with conventional buckling fender system designs. However, a wide range of
factors must also be considered in the fender selection process; refer to Section 6.
The parallel motion fender system geometry and function ensures that the panel always
remains vertical, enabling a range of different vessels and water levels to be accommodated.
A vertical berthing face also avoids the potential risk of double contact of the fender panel
with the vessel hull. Parallel motion fender systems can also accommodate large berthing
approach angles, with minimal loss in the energy absorption capacity.
The energy absorption capability of a parallel motion fender system can be increased by
utilising conical back-to-back fenders. This results in an increase in the available compression
135
distance and energy absorption, whilst also reducing the corresponding reaction forces. A
reduction in the imposed reaction forces can result in lower forces needing to be
accommodated by the supporting structure.
The design of a parallel motion fender system should consider the effects of fatigue on the
various structural components resulting from the continuous and repetitive movement of the
bespoke system. Depending on the frequency of vessel berthing, fatigue can be a particular
issue for parallel motion fender systems and a detailed assessment should be undertaken as
part of the design process.
A parallel motion fender system typically consists of the following components; however, this
may vary depending on the project requirements.
• Rubber fender units – can also be mounted in pairs in a back-to-back configuration.
• Closed box panel (frame) – typically fully sealed and pressure tested and including
chamfered or bevelled edges to prevent snagging of mooring lines or vessel protrusions.
• Torsion tube and arm assembly – also typically consisting of a closed-box construction. The
tube and arms keep the panel vertical at whatever level the berthing load is applied.
• Hinge units – these typically consist of stainless-steel pins and bearings allowing free rotation
to accommodate berthing angles and allowing compression of the fender system.
• Low friction facing – typically provided to reduce large friction forces being induced into
the system.
The design may also need to consider the provision of ‘check chains’ to act as rope deflectors
to prevent ropes from becoming snagged around the parallel motion system.
When not considered, mooring lines can damage fender systems in various ways and vice
versa. The following principles should be considered by the designer when designing fender
systems:
1. A line should never get stuck under a fender. If that risk is unavoidable during berthing, a
quick release hook should be used instead of a bollard. The hook can then be opened to
prevent damage to the fender. This especially can occur with sinking steel wires or large
tidal ranges.
2. During vessel departure, lines that are released should not be caught or snagged by the
fender panel or restraint chains. There is the increased risk of damage occurring to the
fender system if this happens.
3. Mooring lines should not be able to get stuck between the fender panel and the vessel
hull. This contact will damage the mooring line and can lead to mooring line failure.
The designer should carry out geometric investigative studies to model the position of mooring
lines in relation to fender positions at all tidal heights and vessel ballast conditions.
136
8.6 Whole-Life Considerations
Whole-life consideration in the design of fender systems is very important. Designers and
operators should consider the whole life of a fender system prior to committing to the chosen
system.
By its very nature, any fender system will sustain impact from vessels, and thus the general
philosophy of fender system design is to ensure that the fender system is good for purpose,
robust and can be repaired or replaced easily.
A reasonable life expectancy of a fender system is defined in Section 4.4 if planned
maintenance, in accordance with the supplier's requirements, is undertaken. For more
information about maintenance refer to Section 11.3.
Fender system components design should consider, where possible, advances in vessel design.
In recent years, advances in naval architecture have produced various hull shapes that differ
from the classic vessel shape.
The provision of spares for fender systems should be considered when procuring new or
replacement fender systems, to enable quick replacement in the event of damage or
deterioration. For more information about spares for fender systems, refer to Section 0.
All metals suffer from some form of corrosion in a marine environment. This is mainly due to the
following:
• Formation of galvanic cells
• Microbial action inducing galvanic cells
• Erosion of products of corrosion
• Inadequate preventative maintenance.
Consideration should be given to the influence of corrosion on the design of fenders and their
accessories. Unprotected steel will begin to reduce in thickness immediately after it is installed.
The onset of corrosion may be delayed by an appropriate paint system, suitably maintained.
A sacrificial steel thickness can also be included within the design to accommodate expected
rate of corrosion.
Corrosion rates will vary according to local conditions and the position of the fender relative
to the inter-tidal zone. Corrosion rates may also be significantly higher in hotter climates.
The effect of corrosion on fender integrity and the inclusion of safety factors will also depend
upon whether the steel is exposed on both faces or just one face.
In the case of restraint chains and bolts, loss of diameter affects the sectional area with very
rapid loss of strength capacity occurring once corrosion begins. This type of corrosion often
requires periodic inspection and replacement, which is often considered more economical,
rather than using excessively large chain link sizes to maintain minimum safety factors
throughout the full fender system life.
Corrosion protection methods are different for each fender component, the options are as
follows:
• Steel fender panel - coating system
• Chains - Hot dip galvanization
• Anchors and hardware (bolts, washers, nuts) - Stainless steel or hot dip galvanization
137
8.8 Marine Growth
Marine growth can hide defects or even cause maintenance issues. In areas prone to heavy
marine growth and strong currents or tides, marine growth can increase drag forces or
substantially increase the weight and or prevent rotation of the fender system. Inspection and
removal of marine growth should be part of a maintenance program.
Special attention should be given to reducing the number of bolts below water as far as
possible since when covered by marine growth they could be difficult to find and replaced if
necessary.
The potential for ice accumulation and the effects of ice on the berthing and mooring of
vessels should be considered when designing new or replacement fender systems.
In regions prone to the formation of ice, there is the potential for fenders to become frozen
within the ice, and for any water trapped in the rubber fender to become frozen. Subsequent
changes in water level can add additional loads to the fender system, including the supporting
chains and anchors. Special consideration should be given to floating fenders which have a
fixed lower position in relation to the tide.
The accumulation of ice on and around the fender system can also increase the ‘self-weight’
of the fender, leading to additional vertical forces that must be accommodated by the fender
and support chains.
Strong currents and/or wind combined with ice formation presents a significant issue for fender
design in the form of drifting ice. The fender panel can be exposed to excessive wear and
tear. The low friction facing panels may need more frequent replacement to maintain the
design coefficient of friction.
The longitudinal forces from the ice can be significant and greater than the potential
longitudinal friction forces from a berthing vessel. These forces need to be considered in the
design of the fender system and subsequently the supporting structure.
Drifting ice flows can also induce large forces on the fender system fixings, which can result in
the breaking of chains and, in worst cases, the removal of the fender from the support
structure. The risk of damage caused by drifting ice is increased with the use of larger fender
panels.
In areas subject to drifting ice, a closed box panel is recommended to reduce the possibility
of ice accumulation. Consideration should be given to the paint system applied to the steel
panel as it should be suitable for use in ice conditions.
138
9 MANUFACTURING OF FENDER SYSTEMS
Fender systems typically include the following components:
• Rubber (or foam) element to absorb energy.
• Steel frontal panel to distribute loads and hull pressure (if applicable).
• Low friction facing pads to reduce friction and abrasion effects.
• Accessories like chains, required to improve the performance of the system working under
forces coming from different sources and directions; and
• Anchors, to fix the fenders and the chain brackets and transfer the loads into the structure.
This chapter covers the general manufacturing process of a fender system as a whole which
will give designers basic understanding of each element.
Manufacturer shall have an Inspection Test Plan (ITP) in place to ensure that fenders are
produced within reasonable, and industry accepted limits.
The following verification shall be included as part of the ITP and must be carried out on every
project to make sure they are manufactured with an acceptable quality. Within the ITP the
following items shall be addressed as a minimum requirement:
• Materials
• Manufacturing
• Process control
• Dimensional control
• Finishing
• Final inspection
• Testing
Manufacturers must provide test results or certificates, or any additional information related to
the fender production when requested (Refer to Chapter 10: Testing of fenders).
The fabrication unit must be ISO 9001 certified. The workmanship must be of the highest quality
during all phases of the work, skilled workforce shall be deployed and must be qualified
enough to tackle relevant standards and type of work. The welding procedures must be
conducted as per relevant standards and only qualified welders must be deployed on work.
139
The fabricator should adopt good practices and procedures to minimise the repair works and
proper standard operating procedures (SOPs) should be followed. Only calibrated measuring
instruments must be used, and certificates must be readily available for verification purposes.
The final product should be stored in a shaded area and must be covered using packing
material to avoid any sort of damage. The storage area must be free of hazards and unwanted
vehicle movements. All threaded parts should be protected in order to avoid thread damage
while handling.
Rubber fender compounds consist of a set of ingredients which form the compound
composition of the material. In this section, effects and influence of each key mixture which
forms the compound composition is provided. Manufacturers may choose to adjust their
mixture as they see fit and add any other necessary ingredients which may enhance the
fender performance and/or durability.
The addition of various ingredients to the polymer (natural or/and synthetic rubber) in order to
impart desirable properties is known as rubber compounding. Typical ingredients include
reinforcing fillers, antioxidants and antiozonants, process aids, vulcanising agents and many
special additives in a small quantity. The ratio of these ingredients varies between fender
manufacturers, and it depends on the fender size, shape and required performance.
Therefore, it is important for a designer to understand the basics of fender manufacturing and
use of materials for manufacturing.
The energy absorption and reaction force characteristics of a marine rubber fender is
governed by the geometry, size and hardness grade.
Elastic polymers (natural and synthetic rubber), to which various ingredients are added to
create a mixture known as a rubber compound, they set the basic boundaries for properties
of the rubber fenders.
After vulcanisation, rubber compounds become elastic, they also dissipate energy because
of their viscoelastic nature. Their strength is high even when the fender is under shear and
compressive deformations.
Manufacturers are continuously innovating their compounds by introducing new materials in
their compounds for better performance, processability and durability.
The following sub-sections describes key ingredients of rubber compound used in the
manufacturing of rubber fenders.
Raw natural rubber (NR) is found in the extract of many plants (shrubs, vines and trees), the
principal of which is the Hevea Brasiliensis tree, native to Brazil. Typically, natural rubber is
cultivated in an area of 15° North and South of the equator, with Southeast Asia being the
main producer worldwide. After the latex is processed, natural rubber becomes an elastomer
with excellent mechanical properties. The weak points are weather resistance and ageing
compared to some synthetic rubbers. NR builds up heat slower than synthetic rubber.
140
Compounds with natural rubber have a typical service temperature range between -55°C
and 70°C.
Synthetic rubber is any artificial elastomer which are polymers synthesised from petroleum by
products. Synthetic rubber commonly used by manufactures are styrene-butadiene rubber
and butadiene rubber.
Synthetic rubber is frequently used for rubber compounds. Styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) is a
type of synthetic rubber commonly used in the fender industry. SBR has an ageing resistance
similar to NR and tear resistance (little less than NR) however, general mechanical properties
are not as good as natural rubber. SBR has a typical service temperature range between -
45°C and 100°C. Abrasion resistance is much higher than NR.
Manufacturers can also use Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM), an alternative type
of synthetic rubber. This elastomer is characterised by a wide range of high-temperature
applications. EPDM rubber has much better resistance to ageing, weathering, ozone, oxygen
and many chemicals. The weak points are poor adhesiveness and tear resistance.
Recycled rubber used in the fender industry consists mainly of crumbed and reclaimed
(devulcanized) rubber. Crumb rubber is produced by grinding waste rubber using standard
grinding, cryogenic grinding (typically used) and wet grinding processes.
The manufacturing of reclaimed rubber is an aggressive, energy-intensive process in which
rubber powder is cooked under pressure with certain corrosive chemicals. This process breaks
the long rubber molecules into shorter lengths resulting in a soft, rubber-like material.
Designers should understand that recycled materials do not have the same mechanical
properties as virgin rubber. Ground rubber cannot be considered more than a filler. Reclaimed
rubber may potentially be used to replace virgin rubber material in the future. The use of
recycled/reclaimed material at present (2023) is possible however requires specialist
knowledge not yet present everywhere in the fender industry. Unskilled manufacturing with
recycled rubber will result in the production of low-quality fenders.
Recycled rubber, incorrectly blended with virgin rubber, has various performance
disadvantages. These disadvantages can include higher hysteresis and heat build-up, poorer
flex and weather resistance, greater risk of cracking and a poor compression set as well as a
reduced durability and life cycle of the fender.
There is no straightforward way to identify the quantity and quality of the recycled rubber used
in a rubber compound. Recycled rubber in a rubber compound usually reduces the physical
properties refer to (Akiyama H. S., 2017), (Akiyama H. , Study on aging of circular hollow rubber
fender in long term usage. Doctoral Thesis (in Japanese), 2018), (Shimizu, Yasui, & Yamase,
2015) especially after ageing.
9.2.4 Fillers
Fillers are used as reinforcement to improve properties of all rubbers. They are used not only to
enhance the physical properties of rubber compounds, but to improve the processing
properties and to impart UV resistance. The level of reinforcement of fillers is defined by particle
141
size, structure and surface activity. The smaller the particle size, the higher surface area is
achieved which potentially makes the fender much harder.
The most common filler in the fender industry is carbon black, which strengthens the
compound (needed for SBR) and makes it UV resistant, however there are also other active
and non-active mineral fillers, that are used to produce marine rubber fenders. The activity
grade of mineral fillers is determined by the surface area (the higher, the more active the filler).
For coloured compounds, white active fillers like silica are used in the mix for white or navy grey
compounds. These fenders shall comply with the same rigorous testing standards as black
fenders.
Antioxidants help to protect the compound from thermal ageing while in use and while the
compound is being mixed and processed. These ingredients absorb free radicals that can
break the polymers’ bonds and reduce the service life of a fender.
The most common antiozonant is wax, used to bloom out on the surface after moulding to
protect the rubber from ozone attack.
Oil is included in a formula to help incorporate all the dry ingredients with the rubber blend
while mixing in a rubber mixer. They also help to reduce the viscosity of the overall compound
to help with the moulding process.
It is important to understand that fillers and oil ratio controls the stiffness and hardness of the
rubber compounds which influences the different energy absorption grades of rubber fenders.
Vulcanisation of rubber involves heating it in the presence of sulphur. This results in cross-linking
of the chains of rubber and sulphur to form a stable polymer which is stronger and more stable.
Many other ingredients including plasticisers are used in a small quantity to impart different
properties, colour and facilitate the mixing and manufacturing processes. These ingredients
often influence the rubber fender properties and sometimes are used to drive the cost of
manufacturing down.
The manufacturing process of a marine fender starts with a rubber formulation, in which
ingredients suitable for the intended application and its percentage expressed in PHR (parts
per hundred parts of rubber) are selected.
142
The final product is produced and supplied following the various steps described below which
follow after the compounding process (mixing of ingredients with polymer):
Finishing
Preparation of inserted steel plates
(applicable to moulding only)
Dimensional check
1. The building of the fender body
(mould filling)
• Compression moulding
• Injection moulding Testing/quality assurance
2. Wrapping
Break-in cycle
3. Extruding
The mixing of ingredients is done in several stages in internal mixers and or mills. Special
attention must be given to the sequence of ingredient addition and the subsequent mixing
times.
In a first stage, masticated natural rubber (NR) is mixed with synthetic rubbers to create a
uniform rubber blend. In a second stage, reinforcing fillers (carbon black and others) and other
ingredients are added to the rubber blend for the next mixing sequence. Filler dispersion
commonly measured by a carbon black dispersion in the final compound has a large impact
on the quality and fender performance. A high dispersion rating is preferred for a good rubber
compound. Poor dispersion can result in reduction of fatigue life, poor performance and
product appearance. On the other hand, over-mixing at high temperature degrades the
rubber quality by destroying polymer chains. Manufacturers sometimes combine several
ingredients to create optimum performance.
Compounds with different elastic modulus or stiffness values (slope of stress vs. strain curve) are
used to manufacture fenders with different energy absorption grades. Soft grade fenders need
compounds with lower modulus compounds, whereas hard grade fenders need high modulus
compounds.
Rubber fenders are produced by a process called vulcanisation using heat and pressure. The
main difference in this production process is the method of building of fender body.
Traditionally, steel moulds are used and filled manually with un-vulcanised rubber sheets or
blocks. This is still practiced today by some fender and manufacturers. The advantage of this
method is that the different materials can be included into the mould, such as locating the
anti-ageing material at the surface of product and high modulus material at the centre of
143
body. The disadvantage is that some manufacturers could end up using a high-quality rubber
on the fender surface just to demonstrate compliance with their TGA (thermogravimetric
analysis, refer to Section 10.6.2) testing and various other tests however could potentially end
up with lower quality rubber on the inside with the intention to reduce cost. After filling the
moulds, the final shape is completed using a compression press at a high temperature or by
putting the moulds into autoclave (heat oven with pressure) for vulcanisation.
The other method is high pressure injection moulding, where soft rubber is pumped into the
mould. The advantage of this method is that the rubber is already heated when it is injected
in moulds therefore the curing time can be significantly reduced, however manufacturers
cannot utilise different quality rubber compound inside the fender due to the manufacturing
method. This method however requires high skill labour as there are stringent control in
temperature requirements, pressure and proper pumping speed to ensure a good quality
product is produced. The mould filled with injected rubber is compressed by a heating press
or by putting into an autoclave or heated by itself with hot steam passage or electric heater
equipped located inside the mould casing itself which are called jacket moulds.
Fenders such as D-fenders and other small longitudinal fenders, are typically produced by
extrusion. Rubber compound is fed into an extruder, after heating up and being softened, then
pushed by an internal screw through the mouthpiece of the extruder, the die, which forms the
section profile in the corresponding shape. This is followed by the vulcanising process in an
autoclave. Extruding is an effective production method which does not require a steel mould.
Generally extruded products do not have steel plates embedded in their flanges.
Straight axisymmetric shapes can be made by a wrapping method. Mandrel wrapping is the
process by which uncured rubber sheets are wrapped on a pipe mandrel until the required
outer diameter and desired shape is reached. Cylindrical fenders and the main body of cell
fender are often produced using the wrapping process.
The combination of above methods is also possible. For instance, wrapping the hot extruded
rubber around mandrel is a good improvement to reduce vulcanisation time. Thus, note that
manufacturers are always trying to improve the quality and productivity, so manufacturing
method is changing over time.
Steel Panels are critical to the performance of most fender systems. The following key points
summarise the purpose of the steel panel, and should be considered when designing,
specifying, and manufacturing steel fender panels:
144
• Withstand the load combination transmitted by the vessels during the berthing approach
and mooring;
• Provide a suitable supporting surface, located at the correct levels, considering tide
variations, weather variations, operational variations, vessel dimensions, load conditions
and fender level, able to efficiently transmit the loads into the deflecting rubber unit,
allowing vessel energy absorption;
• Distribute the reaction force into the hull of the vessel, below the maximum allowed
pressure limit;
• Protect the rubber fender from damage due to abrasion or tearing
• Give a service life of a minimum of 20 years assuming adequate and planned
maintenance, provided there is no damage caused by accidental situations.
A typical fender panel cross-section includes several vertical and horizontal stiffeners, usually
U-profiles or T-profiles fabricated from steel plates. The external plate thickness, size and type
of stiffeners will depend on many factors.
Figure 9.2: Typical fender panel cross section samples (U profile on left, T-profiles on right side
Figure 9.3: Typical fender frontal, back and internal panel structure views
145
There are many demands on the fender panel which causes bending, shear, torsion, crushing
and fatigue. Section 8.1 of these guidelines provides a good insight into panel structural design.
Panel structural design should be carried out by manufacturer/suppliers' team of experts in
advanced structural analysis in compliance with international, national and local design
codes, in order to justify the design of the external plate number, thicknesses, size, type of
stiffeners and welding connections.
In general steel panel structures are closed-box type construction, which has a high strength
to weight ratio and creates a simple exterior shape that is easier to paint and maintain. The
inside of the panel is protected against corrosion since it is fully sealed, and pressure tested.
9.4.2 Material
Fender panels are made from weldable structural steel. The grade should be selected
depending on design, local conditions, and availability.
The steel used shall be structural and in accordance with the relevant standards and shall be
free of scale, blisters, laminations, or any sort of defects.
All the welding work must be in accordance with the approved specifications, drawings and
standards.
All metals suffer more from corrosion in a marine environment than onshore. This is mainly due
to the formation of galvanic cells within the metals of the structures acting as anodes and
cathodes and the solution of salts in seawater acting as the electrolyte or microbial action
inducing galvanic cells.
Corrosion rates will vary according to local conditions and the position of the fender in the
intertidal zone and may be significantly higher in hotter climates.
Coating systems are the main solutions for corrosion protection of steel panels. Typically, ISO
12944 should be followed as a minimum standard for the paint system selection and generally
system Im2 as per table 2 of the ISO12944 -2 applies for fenders since this system is recommend
for immersed structures without cathodic protection. However, on some occasions other
systems might be more applicable as per table 1 of the ISO12944 or Im4 in case of cathodic
protection. It is recommended for the designer to carefully consider the ISO12944 in those
cases.
For the longest service life in seawater, splash zones and inter-tidal locations durability class
‘vh’ (‘expected service life’ of 20 years, vh = very high durability according to ISO12944-1) is
recommended.
The surface preparation and paint application are as critical as the paint selection to ensure
proper cure, adhesion and Dry Film Thickness (DFT) of the paint system. To ensure maximum
performance of a paint system, the majority of the coats of the system or, if possible, the
complete system, should be applied in the workshop/factory. The surface preparation is
recommended to be as per ISO12944-4 and the paint application as per ISO12944-7.
146
After completion of installation on site, any damage shall be repaired. Proper inspection and
preventive maintenance are essential to achieve the design life. It is essential that the paint
system is suitably maintained according to paint manufacturers recommendations.
Waterproof closed-box type panels coated with high durability paints designed for very high
corrosion environments have proved to be a very efficient way to protect against corrosion
over the years in many marine installations and can be considered enough protection in the
majority of the cases and in the majority of cases sacrificial anodes are not required. For some
special cases which should be determined by the designers, where the fenders are located in
places under very severe and extreme corrosion conditions the addition of zinc anodes to the
external plates of the steel panels could be a good option to reduce the corrosion
deterioration when the steel parts are submerged in water, as they provide a large zinc
reservoir so they can protect steel. It is important that the anode is permanently immersed to
avoid build-up of an oxide surface layer which prevents the anode from working.
In such a case, all fender design parameters must be communicated to the ICCP designer
ahead of the full system development.
UHMW-PE face pads can be installed to cover the entire face of the panel (including the face
of all the chamfers). They are intended to create a smooth sacrificial rubbing surface designed
to limit frictional forces on the fender and the panel, when it comes into contact with the
vessel.
Specifications and/or drawings should define the low friction facing colour. The colourants are
blended into the raw resin material, as to colour the entire pad thickness.
UHMW-PE low friction facing pads are manufactured by compression moulding. Heat and
hydraulic pressure are used to fuse the polymer powder inside a mould between large platens.
Then the UHMW-PE is machined in order to adjust shape, edges and holes to the dimensional
specifications.
High-quality chains, accessories, compatible fastenings, brackets, anchors, etc. must ensure
the correct support and load distribution on the fender system. There is a wide range of
materials suitable for fender applications and these must be tested and certified.
147
The correct fabrication of fender accessories is critically important for the performance and
durability of the fender unit therefore adequate details should be included in the specification
and drawings.
9.6.1 Chains
Fender elements and chain brackets are fixed on concrete structures by means of steel
anchors.
These can be either cast-in or resin anchors; whenever possible, preference should be given
to cast-in anchors as this minimises the risk of installation-related quality issues and saves human
efforts and time.
The anchors should be manufactured as per the prevailing project standards and
requirements. When these are not specified, internationally recognised standards can be
applied.
Anchors are to be manufactured based on the factored design load.
The anchor’s mechanical properties are directly impacted by the material durability.
Although stainless steel fixings may be recommended/specified in corrosive environments,
there is no need for full cast-in assemblies to be made of the same steel grade. Stainless steel
sockets may, for example, be used in combination with carbon steel anchors. Although no
galvanic corrosion would occur in the absence of an electrolyte.
9.6.3.1 Galvanising
Chains assemblies' components, anchors and chain brackets are usually galvanised. This
method provides good corrosion protection for chains and other steel accessories.
There are various processes to apply the zinc layer, depending on the element thickness and
the coating thickness to be achieved. The method used for fender components is typically
hot-dip galvanising, where the elements to be galvanised are immersed in a bath of molten
zinc, allowing for a nominal zinc layer of about 80 µm (for element thicknesses > 6 mm). ISO
1461, ASTM A153, ASTM A123 are the commonly followed international standards for hot-dip
galvanisation. Hot-dip galvanisation is not an applicable option for steel panel structures since
technically it is not possible to manufacture hot-dip galvanised closed box steel panels.
Paint can be applied to hot-dip galvanised surfaces. ISO EN 12944-5: shall be followed for DFT
(dry film thickness) recommendations.
In highly corrosive environments, some fender elements such as anchors or fixings may be
specified to be stainless steel to ISO 3506 or equivalent. The designer shall decide the
appropriate stainless-steel grade applicable to local design requirements. Since stainless steel
load capacity is limited compared with other steel types, it is not recommended the use of
stainless steel for chains or U-anchors.
148
Designers should be aware that galvanic corrosion occurs when stainless-steel material is in
direct contact with galvanised material.
Pneumatic fenders consist of a cylindrical air bag with hemispherical heads at both ends,
which shall be filled with compressed air that absorbs the energy of the berthing vessel.
The basic body construction of this fender consists of an outer rubber layer, synthetic-tyre-cord
layer for reinforcement layer and an inner rubber layer.
The outer rubber protects the cord layers and inner rubber from abrasion and other external
forces. This rubber compounds shall have enough tensile and tear strength and the fenders
should be built with rubbers and metal components to provide a long lifespan. The
reinforcement synthetic-tyre-cord layers needs to be strong enough to hold the internal
pressure in both compressed and non-compressed situations.
These layers are vulcanised together to ensure bonding between layers of dissimilar
characteristics. For more details on minimum material requirements for pneumatic fenders,
refer to the relevant ISO 17357-1-2014 standard.
• Cylindrical mid-body and conical shaped ends ending in a swivel end fitting on the
cylinder/conical centreline at each end.
• Cylindrical mid body and hemispherical shaped ends and typically fitted with chain/tyre
nets as a protection/wear element and to facilitate attachment via flange plates (with
clevis pins which are part of the net.
• Circular or donut type fender with bearing pads, with a composite reinforced elastomer
skin which houses an energy absorbing foam annulus.
Foam fenders are constructed with a resilient, energy absorbing closed cell foam core. The
core can be constructed of laminated layers to create a virtually solid core. This core is
covered by a composite skin of elastomer and flexible reinforcement. The purpose of the skin
is to contain and to protect the energy absorbing material. This surface should allow for the
anticipated level of wear during the service life of the fender.
Skin thickness, reinforcement layer and the density of the foam determine the performance
and the durability of foam fenders. The skin is necessarily reinforced to ensure this function is
performed reliably.
Depending on the foam filled fender design, features such as integral end swivels, attachment
points, chain/tyre nets bearing materials may be included.
149
10 TEST PROCEDURES OF MARINE FENDERS
This chapter provides an overview of the recommended testing protocols for evaluating the
performance, ensuring material quality, and reporting the performance of wrapped,
moulded, and extruded rubber, pneumatic, and foam-filled marine fenders (except extruded
profiles e.g., DD fenders, Composite and fenders used for mounting on tugs.
These testing procedures are specifically designed to ensure that the engineering data
presented in manufacturers' catalogues, as well as the verification of fender performance and
durability, are based on standardized testing methodologies widely recognized and practiced
within the industry. By adhering to these common testing procedures, manufacturers can
provide reliable and comparable data, enabling customers to make informed decisions when
selecting marine fenders for their specific applications.
The testing of rubber is classified into three types as can found in Table 10-1.
150
Type of testing Definition Types of testing Extent of disclosure Testing conducted by
Fundamental Testing of fenders and - Base performance (see Section 10.1) By the manufacturer Manufacturers or third-
testing material to create data for - Creation of velocity factor (𝐶𝑣 ), temperature factor (𝐶𝑡 ), angle factor in the party agents engaged
publication in the (𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔 ), (see Section 10.7.3-10.7.5) manuals/brochures/ by the manufacturer.
catalogue for either a new - Durability test (see Section 10.6) websites All tests are mandatory
product launch or - Chemical composition or Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA, refer
enhancement of features 10.7.2) of rubber compound of the grades published in the
and /or improvement of catalogue
performance of the existing - Physical properties of vulcanised rubber compound (see section
products. 10.7.1)
- TGA of sample fenders tally with rubber compounds, samples for
physical properties (see Section 10.7.2) and values published in the
catalogue.
Type approval Fundamental testing - Base performance (see Section 10.1) Testing data or Testing conducted by
testing witnessed and verified by - Creation of velocity factor (𝐶𝑣 ), temperature factor (𝐶𝑡 ), angle factor sources of testing manufacturer and
third-party for obtaining (𝐶𝑎𝑛𝑔 ), (see Section 10.7.3-10.7.5) data for factors to be verified by third-party
Type Approval certificate - Durability test (minimum 3000 cycles) (see Section 10.6) disclosed upon agents or testing
- Chemical composition or Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA, refer request. conducted in a third-
10.7.2) of rubber compound of the grades published in the party testing facility.
catalogue All tests are mandatory
- Physical properties of rubber compound (see Section 10.7.1)
- TGA of sample fenders tally with rubber compound, samples for
physical properties (see Section 10.7.2) and values published in the
catalogue.
Verification The testing of commercial Mandatory tests: To the project Mandatory tests are
testing fenders to ascertain their - Verification of base performance (see Section 10.1) conducted by
adherence to the - Physical properties of rubber compound (see Section 10.7.1) manufacturer.
published performance Highly recommended
standards or customer- Highly recommended tests: tests are witnessed/
specified energy and - Performance and physical properties testing witnessed by a third- verified by third-party
reaction requirements. party, or using a third-party testing jig or in a third- party testing agent
facility. or
- Chemical composition or Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA, refer tests are conducted in a
10.7.2) of rubber compound used for production third-party testing facility
- TGA analysis of samples from rubber fenders based on the
agreement between
Optional tests: manufacturer and
- Verification of factors (see Section 10.7.3-10.7.5)
151
Type of testing Definition Types of testing Extent of disclosure Testing conducted by
- Verification of durability test (see Section 10.6) designers/project
- Shear- compression test (see Section 10.6) specification.
- Fatigue testing (see Section 10.6)
Note:
- The selection of appropriate tests for a project is at the discretion of the
designers or end users, taking into consideration factors such as the level of
severity and risk associated with the site, as well as the type and quantity of
fenders employed.
- The project or purchase specifications should clearly outline the specific tests
required for evaluation.
- In certain cases, deviations from mandatory testing requirements may be
permitted based on project specific requirements or specifications. Flexibility
may be allowed to accommodate variations from the standard testing
protocols, provided it aligns with the project's specific needs and complies
with the specified criteria.
152
10.2 Determination of Fender Base Performance
The compression of a fender at slow constant speed and determining performance is called
the Constant Velocity (CV) performance. The slow constant speed is speed of 0.33-1.33 mm/s
(strain rate V0 = 0.01 to 0.3 %/s).
The performance Base reaction force (Rbase) and Base energy absorption (Ebase) tested in a
standard condition shall be called as the Base fender performance. This is the basic data
published in manufacturer's catalogue along with design factors.
The basic condition for the fender testing. At the following standard conditions, the
characteristic correction factors are each 1.0.
a. The test apparatus shall be equipped with a calibrated (not more than 12 months at the
time of testing) load measuring device such as load cell(s) or pressure transducers and
linear transducer(s) or calibrated laser displacement sensors for measuring displacements,
all capable of providing continuous monitoring of fender performance.
b. The test apparatus shall be capable of recording and storing load-cell and transducer
data at intervals of 0.05 hf or smaller, where hf is a fender’s normal height. The following
information shall be included, as a minimum:
a. Serial number and description of test item
b. Date, time at the start and at the end of the test
c. Location of the test facility and the test apparatus ID
d. Stabilisation temperature of the test specimen
e. Test ambient temperature
c. For fender tests, all equipment used to measure and record force and deflection shall be
calibrated and certified accurate to within ±1 (one) percent in accordance with ISO or
equivalent requirements. Calibration shall be performed within one year of the use of the
equipment, or less if the normal calibration interval is shorter than one year. Calibration of
test apparatus shall be checked annually by a qualified external organisation, using
instrumentation which is traceable to a certified national standard.
153
10.4 Supporting Protocols
The first compression cycle of the fender exhibits unpredictable reaction force and deviates
from the values provided in the manufacturer’s catalogue. However, subsequent
compressions gradually bring the fender's performance closer to the published values. This first
compression, referred to as the ‘break-in’ compression, occurs when the fender is compressed
to its designed deflection shortly after manufacturing and is considered to be part of the
manufacturing process for big fenders:
• “Break-in” compression is mandatory for buckling type rubber elements used for fender
systems with a catalogue reaction force more than 1000 kN (100 tonnes) or those intended
for installation on load-sensitive structures such as dolphins.
• For other types of fenders, the decision and specification regarding ‘break-in’ cycles, if
necessary, should be determined by the end users or their designers. Upon request, the
manufacturer should provide evidence for all ‘break-in’ compressions. It is not mandatory
to subject such fenders to temperature stabilisation.
In the case of fenders used in low-temperature environments (-10°C and below) or stored for
an extended period of time, it is advisable to perform the ‘break-in’ process before delivery.
Stabilising compressions refer to the initial compressions conducted before the fender
performance tests in order to minimise the impact on the fender's performance of residual
stresses generated during the manufacturing process. These compressions aim to stabilise the
performance variance. The testing conditions for the stabilising compressions should adhere
to standard conditions.
Typically, at least two stabilising cycles are performed to ensure that the difference in the first
peak values of the reaction force between two consecutive compressions falls within the
range of 0-5 %. Once the difference between two consecutive compressions is less than 5 %,
further compressions are not permitted as the desired level of stability has been achieved.
During and after the vulcanization process, residual heat is retained within the fender body.
The performance of the fenders can be influenced by factors such as residual heat and
environmental temperature. Therefore, it is crucial to stabilise the fender's temperature before
conducting performance tests.
Temperature stabilisation should be conducted in a conditioning room set at the standard
temperature of 23 ± 5℃ for a duration determined using Equation (10-1). Alternatively, the
number of days required for temperature stabilisation can be calculated by measuring the
centre temperature of the fender body using methods such as thermocouples, heat transfer
analysis, or other equivalent approaches. (See Appendix B).
154
𝑡(𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠) = (12.675 𝐿𝑁(∆𝑇) − 2.0352) (𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑟𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠)2 (10-1)
Where,
When the initial temperature higher than 28℃, ∆T = Initial temperature - 28
• The duration of thermal stabilisation after curing process shall be calculated using the
‘curing temperature’ as an ‘initial temperature’.
• If the fender has been stored at ambient temperature for an extended period, the
temperature of the fender should be checked and recorded for the past week. The highest
or lowest temperature for which △T is highest, shall be chosen as an initial temperature.
During the conditioning of the fenders in the conditioning room, the manufacturer should
monitor the process using suitable methods such as video streaming or thermal data loggers
to ensure that the fenders are stored within the designated room. Temperature logging should
be performed at a frequency of no less than three times per day, and the duration should
align with the thermal stabilisation days calculated using Equation (10-1).
The body surface temperature of the fenders just before testing should be measured using
appropriate equipment such as thermocouples or handheld non-contact thermometers. The
measurement should be conducted at a distance of no more than 1 metre from the rubber
surface, with a frequency of no less than three times per day at a minimum of three different
spots. The measurement duration should align with the thermal stabilisation days calculated
using Equation (10-1).
It is important to note that temperature stabilisation is mandatory for all fundamental, type
approval, and verification testing processes.
The performance test shall be conducted under standard condition using the CV testing
method.
a. Thermal stabilisation is mandatory for all compression cycles, prior to conducting the
performance test. Additional ‘break-in’ compression is not needed if the fenders selected
for verification testing are randomly chosen from the pool of already broken-in fenders.
b. If applicable, perform a complete break-in compression cycle by deflecting the specimen
once to its designated deflection point.
c. Conduct stabilising compression cycles on the break-in specimen by deflecting it a
minimum of two times, with a minimum 5-minute interval between each compression (See
10.4.2).
d. Allow the specimen to undergo a recovery period of at least one hour maintaining the
ambient temperature of 23±5̊ C.
e. Before proceeding with the final compression, verify the temperature of the fender at
various locations to ensure it remains within the specified limits.
f. Perform another deflection of the specimen under standard conditions. This cycle will be
regarded as the ‘standard compression’ cycle, and the performance values obtained
during this cycle will serve as the base performance.
It is important to complete the entire test process, from the break-in compression cycle to the
standard compression, within a maximum period of 24 hours.
155
For fenders stored beyond the maximum recovery time of 24 hours, it is expected that the
reaction force will increase (above the fourth compression value but always below the first
compression value) depending on factors such as the grade and type of rubber, as well as
the time and temperature of the storage area. If performance of such fenders needs to be
determined, additional stabilising compression cycle should be conducted followed by the
standard compression.
156
Fundamental testing Type approval testing Verification testing
1. The specimens used for the tests shall consist of full-size fenders of the specific project.
1. The test specimens 1. The test specimens shall
2. For certain types of fenders, such as cone-shaped fenders, the use of a steel spacer between the fender and
utilised shall consist of consist of full-size fenders
the plates may be necessary.
either full-size fenders or or scale-down models.
3. The number of samples selected for testing should be determined based on an agreed sample scheme
scale-down models. 2. During the testing
between the customer and the fender manufacturer. If a specific sampling scheme has not been
2. For fenders or specimens, procedure, the fenders
established, a minimum of 10 % of the fender order should be randomly selected and tested to ensure
it is crucial to subject or specimens should be
compliance with performance requirements.
them to compression at compressed to meet
4. Fender compression should be stopped at the design deflection point. In some cases, it may be beneficial to
the maximum and slightly exceed the
exceed the design deflection by up to 1 % in order to analyse the trend of the increase or decrease in
achievable deflection. designated design
reaction force.
The deflection at which deflection.
5. A fender is deemed to meet the required performance criteria for berthing if it achieves the base (CV)
the efficiency, 3. The determination of the
energy value (within production tolerance) without exceeding the base (CV) reaction value (within
represented by the E/R number of fenders for
production tolerance) at any deflection point. However, the compression needs to be conducted up to the
ratio (energy absorption testing purposes is the
maximum design deflection.
to reaction force ratio), responsibility of the
6. In situations where the primary function of a fender is to absorb minimum berthing energy without exceeding
reaches its peak is manufacturer. It is
maximum reaction force, and the subsequent reaction force is not of critical importance, it is possible for the
defined as the ‘Design recommended to select
reaction force to exceed above production tolerances even before reaching the design deflection.
deflection’ of the fender. a minimum of three
However, in projects where precise reaction force values are crucial for facility design (e.g. mooring
At this deflection point, rubber grades and three
simulation), it is essential to establish an agreed-upon acceptance policy with the customer.
the base reaction force heights that represent
7. If any randomly selected fender, representing 10 % of the order quantity, fails to meet the performance
and base energy the corresponding
criteria, testing should be extended to include 20 % of randomly selected fenders.
absorption of the fenders catalogue grades and
8. If any additional fender from the 20 % lot fails the performance test or if the fenders are intended for use in
shall be determined. heights for each fender
load-sensitive structures, 100 % of the fenders need to be tested.
type and energy-
9. Chemical composition or TGA (See 10.7.2) testing of the rubber compound obtained from the body of the
absorbing material
tested fenders should tally with values published, rubber compound used in the production floor and the
(rubber grades).
samples used for physical property testing (see 10.7.2).
4. In cases where
10. A witness should be allowed to observe the compression procedure near the testing press, ensuring safety
intermediate grades are
protocols are followed. It is not recommended to view the testing procedure via off-site remote streaming
involved, interpolation
devices unless there has been prior discussion and mutual agreement between the manufacturer and the
techniques may be
client regarding such arrangements.
applied to derive results.
11. If applicable, the location of the load cells on the third-party independent testing jig should be discussed and
5. Change in geometry
finalised between the manufacturer and the third party before conducting the tests.
needs a new set of Type
12. Folding marks appear on the fender inner or outer surface of the fender during compression are acceptable
approval testing
unless proven to be crack marks.
13. While asymmetric folding of fenders during compression testing is not expected, it can be accepted as long
as it does not impact performance values and durability.
157
10.6 Protocol for Durability Test
The objective of this test is to simulate and assess the long-term fatigue performance of a
fender within a condensed timeframe, providing insights into its longevity. The durability test
encompasses three main phases: pre-repetitive compression, repetitive compressions, and
post-repetitive compression. The procedure for conducting this test is outlined as follows:
Pre-repetitive compression:
b. Conduct the break-in compression by deflecting the specimen once to its designed
deflection see Table 10-3.
c. Stabilise the specimen by deflecting it twice to its designed deflection under standard
conditions. Record the reaction force of the last compression as RS2 and the corresponding
energy absorption as ES2.
d. Transfer the specimen to a conditioning room controlled at 23±5°C and allow it to ‘recover’
for a minimum of one hour and a maximum of 24 hours.
e. Measure the height of the specimen (hS2) and verify the temperature on its surface to
ensure it remains within the specified range of 23±5°C.
Repetitive compression:
f. Apply repetitive deflections to the specimen at its designed deflection. The compression
speed and strain rate are not specifically defined, however the duration of one complete
cycle should not exceed 150 seconds. Note that the specimen may generate heat during
repetitive deflection and should not be artificially cooled.
g. Return the specimen to the conditioning room, ensuring the temperature is within the
specified range, and allow it to "recover" for a minimum of one hour and a maximum of 24
hours
Post-repetitive compression:
h. Measure the height of the fender (hf,SC) and perform a single deflection of the specimen at
the standard condition. Record the reaction force of this compression as Rf,SC and the
corresponding energy absorption as ESC.
158
Fundamental testing Type approval testing Verification testing
1. The testing process shall 1. It is recommended that a 1. For durability test:
include the evaluation of at minimum of two rubber - Select a randomly chosen commercial
least three distinct rubber grades are included in the fender, specifically manufactured for a
grades, representing the testing process, project, as the specimen. If a full-size fender is
softest and hardest specifically the hardest not feasible, use a scaled-down model that
variations within each and softest variants. adequately represents the commercial
fender type. 2. The specimen used for fender and fits within the available test press
testing purposes shall be at the third-party or manufacturer's facility.
either a real size fender or - Ensure that the scaled-down model possesses
2. The specimen used for
a scaled-down version. In the same fundamental design and
testing purposes shall be
the case of leg fenders, compound as the commercial fender.
either a real size fender or a
the L/H ratio of the - For leg fenders, the specimen's L/h ratio
scaled-down version. In the
specimen must not fall should not be lower than the minimum ratio
case of leg fenders, the L/H
below the minimum ratio of any catalogue models with the same basic
ratio of the specimen must
found in the catalogue of design.
not fall below the minimum
fenders with the same - The project specification, agreed upon by
ratio found in the
basic design. the manufacturer and designer/end user,
catalogue of fenders with
3. Prior to and following the should indicate the size and type of samples
the same basic design.
completion of the test, a required.
TGA (Thermogravimetric - For Shear-compression test: The specimen
3. The minimum number of
Analysis) examination of shall be a scaled down model, or a
compression cycles to be
the test specimen should commercial fender manufactured for a
conducted during testing is
be conducted by an project.
set at 3000, unless otherwise
accredited third-party 2. The samples for chemical composition or
determined by the
laboratory. Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA, refer
manufacturer based on
4. The testing protocol 10.7.2) of the specimen's body, both before
specific considerations.
requires a minimum of and upon completion of the durability test,
3000 compression cycles must be collected by a third-party witness.
to be performed. The results should tally with the TGA of the
5. Acceptable requirements fender body manufactured for the project.
for the durability test are 3. Acceptable requirements for the durability
as follows: test are as follows:
- No visible defects such - No visible defects such as cracks.
as cracks. - The remaining value of reaction force
- The remaining value of Rf,SC/Rf,S2 shall be above 80 %
reaction force Rf,SC/Rf,S2 - The remaining value of energy absorption
shall be above 80 % ESC/ES2 shall be above 80 %
- The remaining value of - The residual strain (hf,s2 -hf,SC)/hf,S2 shall be less
energy absorption ESC ES2 than 5 %.
shall be above 80 %
- The residual strain (hf,s2 - For shear-compression test:
hf,SC)/hf,S2 shall be less - Test sample shall be free from any indications
than 5 %. of crack or permanent deformation in shape.
4. The number of cycles for the durability test
should be a minimum of 3,000 or as agreed
upon between the manufacturer and
purchaser, or as specified in the project
specification.
Fatigue testing:
• Fatigue testing is highly recommended for fenders installed at exposed berths, high-
frequency berths, or between two permanently moored vessels. It becomes particularly
crucial when a buckling fender element is permitted to deflect beyond the linear elastic
range of the performance curve. (For detailed information, refer to Chapter 7.)
159
• Fatigue testing entails subjecting the fender to compression cycles exceeding 3,000 cycles.
The specific number of cycles and compression percentage should be determined based
on dynamic mooring analysis or the project specification.
• The test samples should be scaled down models that closely resemble the shape, basic
design, and compound of the actual fenders.
• The standard approach for fatigue testing involves matching the strain rate between the
actual fender used in projects and the model fender. This method should be employed
unless an alternative approach is justified with technical reasoning. In the case of a
buckling fender that experiences repeated deflections beyond the linear elastic range of
the performance curve, alternative scaling methods or testing techniques may be
necessary to accurately simulate the accumulation of heat in the fender element.
In the rubber production line, the raw materials, including rubbers and chemicals, undergo a
physical mixing process. In this context, a ‘batch’ refers to the mixing capacity of a mixer used
for compound mixing. It is common for multiple batches to be employed in the production of
a single fender. On the other hand, a ‘lot’ is defined as the quantity of materials used for a
specific project, encompassing each fender type and grade. To assess the quality and
characteristics of the rubber compounds utilised in the products, it is highly recommended to
conduct physical property tests. These tests serve as a means of evaluating the suitability of
the rubber compounds for various stages, including Fundamental testing, Type Approval
testing, and Verification testing.
• Sample type: The sample used for testing should consist of un-vulcanised rubber
compounds obtained from the production floor and subsequently vulcanise them in the
laboratory following the standards for sample preparation.
• The responsibility for preparing the test specimens from the rubber compound lies with
either the designated third-party laboratory responsible for conducting the tests or the
manufacturer's laboratory, as specified in the project specification agreed upon by the
manufacturer, designer, or end user.
• Sample collection method: The collection of samples should be carried out by obtaining
the required number of samples from each type, grade, and lot of compounds used in the
production for the project. Alternatively, a sampling scheme agreed upon between the
customer and the fender manufacturer can be followed to determine the sample
collection approach.
• Testing Different Compounds: In cases where different compounds are utilised in a fender,
it is recommended that samples are obtained from all rubber compounds involved to
conduct physical properties tests.
• Recommendation for Physical Property Tests: Table 10-5 provides a set of recommended
physical property tests for rubber compounds used in rubber fenders (except extruded
profiles, e.g. DD fenders, composite fenders and fenders used for mounting on tugboats).
These recommendations serve as a guide and are not limited to the listed tests.
• Verification Testing: For verification purposes, the chemical composition or Thermo-
Gravimetric Analysis (TGA, see Section 10.7.2) test results of the rubber specimens used for
physical properties testing should tally with the values obtained from samples collected
from a commercially manufactured fender specifically produced for the project.
160
Property Testing standard Condition Requirement Applicability
Tensile strength
ISO 37 Before Ageing ≥ 16 MPa All
Elongation at break
ISO 37 Before ageing ≥ 350 % All
Bond strength
≥7 N/mm and failure in the
ISO 813 Rubber to steel Optional to metal inserted in a fender body
rubber.
Sea water 28 days at 85ºC, refer DIN
resistance 50905-4 for the preparation
ISO 1817 Volume change: ≤ +10/-5 % Optional to fenders 100 % submersed in sea water all the time
and composition of sea
water
Abrasion loss
ISO 4649 Original ≤150 mm3 Optional to direct contact of vessels and fenders
161
Property Testing standard Condition Requirement Applicability
Heavy Oil resistance
Optional to fenders exposed to heavy oil (e.g., under marine
ISO 1817 72h at 23ºC in IRM oil #901 Volume change: ≤ ±10 %
loading arm)
Hardness
≤. 78 standard
ISO 48-4 Original Value (Shore A)
≤ 75 Applications above 40 degrees Celsius site temperature
162
10.7.2 TGA (Thermogravimetric Analysis)
The rubber chemical composition test involves employing TGA (Thermogravimetric Analysis)
equipment and adhering to ISO 9924 or an equivalent rubber compound testing standard. ISO
9924 outlines a thermogravimetric method for assessing ‘Total organic content’, carbon black
content, and ash in vulcanisates and uncured compounds, with the mass loss at 300°C
approximately indicating low volatile-materials content. ‘Total organic content’ encompasses
polymers and low volatile materials within the compound.
To quantify specific quantities of low volatile materials like waxy hydrocarbons, mineral oils,
and sulphur, an acetone or solvent extraction, following ISO 1407 or an equivalent standard,
should precede TGA testing. TGA can be applied to un-vulcanised rubber compounds,
vulcanized rubber samples for physical properties testing, or samples from final products.
Sample quantity determination may be recommended by the testing laboratory or agreed
upon between the customer and the fender manufacturer.
For verification testing, at least 10 % of the fenders should be randomly selected, with sampling
locations diversified on a fender to account for compound variations. The manufacturer
should identify the sampling locations where the effect of scraping on a fender body has the
minimum influence on the fender quality. Any remaining samples post-TGA should be retained
for customer retrieval upon request.
Maintaining consistent TGA values is vital in fender production across multiple segments,
including the uncured rubber compound, cured rubber compounds for physical testing, and
fender body samples. All TGA values should align with published values, although some
variations are anticipated when comparing results from different sample sources.
Part of type approval is TGA. This results in a bandwidth per content component for each
rubber grade, to be shared by the supplier on request. TGA of production fenders should stay
within this bandwidth. Differences between laboratories should be cleared up via the sheets
tested per project (Section 10.7.1).
Reliable results necessitate conducting a minimum of three TGA samples from various fender
areas, specimens, and rubber compound batches, with an average providing a
representative measurement. To comprehensively assess fender quality, TGA testing should
complement performance and durability assessments due to the sensitivity of rubber
compounds to their manufacturing and curing history. It should be noted, TGA testing serves
for determination of quantities in the compound only. Consistent TGA results indicate a
continuous quality level of the compound mixing. Significant deviations in TGA results should
trigger additional property testing (Section 10.7.1).
The compression test protocol is intended to create a velocity factor (Cv) as a part of the
fundamental testing in widely divergent compression speeds.
163
a) Prior to conducting velocity factor tests, it is essential to ensure the thermal stabilisation of
the specimens at a temperature of 23±5°C, see Section 10.4.3.
b) To complete the break-in compression cycle, the specimen must be deflected once to its
design deflection, see Section 10.4.1.
c) The break-in specimen must undergo complete stabilising compression cycles by
deflecting it twice or more at the standard condition. The compression cycle should be
stopped when the reduction of the reaction force (first peak) for two consecutive
compressions falls within the range of 0-5 %. A 5-minute interval should be maintained
between two compressions. The reaction force of the final compression is denoted as R S2,
and the energy absorption is denoted as ES2.
d) Transfer the specimen to the conditioning room controlled at the standard temperature with
an accuracy of ± 1֯ C and allow it to ‘recover’ for a minimum of one in the conditioning room.
e) The specimen should be deflected to its designed deflection using one recommended
compression speed or strain rate; see note below for the specific details. The compression
speed can be Constant Velocity (𝑉𝐶𝑉 ) or Decreasing Velocity (𝑉𝐷𝑉 ), starting at the initial design
speed and gradually decreasing with deflection.
The reaction force of this cycle is referred to as RV, and the energy absorption is denoted as EV.
If the fender loses its typical buckling characteristics due to excessive speed, the design
reaction force Rf,v is determined at the deflection where the standard energy is absorbed.
In such cases, 𝐶𝑣,𝐸 equals to 1.0.
If the CV method is adopted for creating the velocity factor, a conversion factor or
calculation is required to convert the CV testing speed to DV testing speed. However, the
DV method does not necessitate any conversion factor.
f) After the deflection cycle, the specimen should be allowed to ‘recover’ for a minimum of
one hour and a maximum of two hours in the conditioning room.
g) Deflect the specimen again at the standard condition at standard speed. This cycle shall
be the same as a ‘Standard compression’ cycle and the reaction force is termed as RSC
and the energy absorption is ESC.
h) The velocity factor 𝐶𝑣 , is determined by Eq. (10-2) and (10-3) for each recommended
compression speed specified.
Where,
164
Compression time (second): designed deflection (mm)/ average decelerating compression speed (mm/s).
• Decreasing Velocity (DV) tests involve starting at various recommended compression speeds at 0 % deflection
and gradually reducing to a rate slower than 5 mm/s at the designed deflection. The method employed for
decreasing velocity can be linear, sinusoidal, or simulating a berthing scenario. The specific form of decreasing
velocity should be noted and documented.
• Manufacturers have the option to choose either CV or DV testing methods for creation of velocity factors. In the
event that the CV method is selected, it becomes necessary to provide a CV to DV speed correction factor in
order to accurately calculate the compression speed of a fender. Conversely, if the DV test method is chosen,
no correction factor is required for the calculation of the fender's compression speed.
• The test specimen may consist of a scale model that shares the same material and geometry as the fender
depicted in the manufacturer's catalogue. The minimum size of the scale model should correspond to the smallest
size provided in the catalogue or as determined by the manufacturer. It is necessary to conduct tests on at least
three different rubber grades, encompassing the softest, medium, and hardest variations for each type of rubber.
• Equations (10-2) and (10-3) are recommended to nullify the compression history of a specimen if a single
specimen is used for different speeds. While alternative methods for cancelling the compression history may be
acceptable, a logical explanation must be provided. It is advisable to employ a new specimen for each test
speed.
This compression test protocol is intended to create temperature factors as a part of the
fundamental testing in a wide range of temperatures.
a. Prior to conducting temperature factor tests, it is essential to ensure the thermal stabilisation
of the specimens at a temperature of 23±5°C, See Section 10.4.3.
b. The break-in compression cycle must be completed by deflecting the specimen once to
its designed deflection, see Section 10.4.1.
c. The break-in specimen should undergo complete stabilizing compression cycles by
deflecting it twice or more at the standard condition. The compression cycle should be
stopped when the reduction of the reaction force (first peak) for two consecutive
compressions falls within the range of 0-5 %. A 5-minute interval should be maintained
between two compressions. The reaction force of the final compression is termed as RS2,
and the energy absorption is termed as ES2.
d. Place the specimen in a controlled conditioning room set at the recommended testing
temperature with an accuracy of ±֯1° C. Allow the specimen to ‘recover’ and reach
thermal stabilisation for the duration specified in Eq. (10-1).
Deflect the specimen once to its designed deflection. The reaction force for this cycle is
referred to as RV, and the energy absorption is denoted as EV . In the event that the fender
loses its buckling due to extremely low temperatures, the reaction force Rf,v should be
measured at the deflection where the standard energy is absorbed. In this case Ct,E can
be considered 1.0.
e. Transfer the specimen to the conditioning room maintained at the standard temperature
with an accuracy of ±1֯ C. Allow the specimen to ‘recover’ and reach thermal stabilisation
for the duration specified in Eq. (10-1).
f. Deflect the specimen again under standard conditions and temperature. This cycle should
be considered as a ‘Standard compression’ cycle. The reaction force for this cycle is
denoted as Rf,SC, and the energy absorption is denoted as ESC.
g. The temperature factor Ct is determined by Eq. (10-5) and (10-6).
h. For each specimen and for each recommended temperature, repeat the steps from d) to
h), (see note below).
165
i. Compute & publish the factors against temperatures in the catalogue.
Notes:
• The recommended temperatures for testing include: +50°C, +40°C, +30°C, +10°C, 0°C, -10°C, -20°C -30°C, and -
40°C.
• It is required to complete a comprehensive test, starting from the break-in phase up to the final compression, for
a single temperature within a maximum timeframe of 24 hours.
• The test specimen can consist of a scaled model that possesses the same material and geometry as the actual-
sized fender depicted in the manufacturer's catalogue. The minimum size of the scale model should align with
the smallest size published in the catalogue or as determined by the manufacturer. It is essential to conduct tests
on at least two different rubber grades, encompassing the softest and hardest variations for each type of rubber.
• Equations (10-5) and (10-6) are recommended for cancelling the compression history if a single specimen is
utilized for testing at different temperatures. While various methods for cancelling the compression history may be
acceptable, it is imperative to provide a reasonable explanation. It is advisable to employ a new specimen for
each test temperature.
• The compression velocity and angle should remain consistent and at standard conditions for all tests.
This compression test protocol is intended to create angle factors (Cang) as a part of the
fundamental testing in a wide range of angles. In this context, the term ‘angle’ refers to the
inclination of the vessel's hull resulting from berthing and/or hull flare. Consequently, it is crucial
that the direction of angular compression in the test is aligned parallel to the compression axis
of the fender.
a) Prior to conducting the angle factor tests, it is essential to perform thermal stabilisation of
the specimens at a temperature of 23±5֯ C, see Section 10.4.3.
b) The break-in compression cycle should be completed by deflecting the specimen once
to its design deflection see Section 10.4.1.
c) The break-in specimen should undergo complete stabilising compression cycles by
deflecting it twice or more at the standard condition. The compression cycle should be
stopped when the reduction of the reaction force (first peak) for two consecutive
compressions falls within the range of 0-5 %. A 5-minute interval should be maintained
between two compressions. The reaction force of the final compression is termed as RS2,
and the energy absorption is termed as ES2.
d) Transfer the specimen to the conditioning room controlled at the standard temperature
with an accuracy of ±1֯ C and allow it to ‘recover’ for a minimum of one in the conditioning
room.
e) Install a properly designed angular jig in the compression testing press.
f) Deflect the specimen once to its maximum deflection for a recommended design angle
(refer to the accompanying notes below), under standardised conditions of compression
speed and temperature. The reaction force for this cycle is termed as R V, and the energy
absorption is denoted as EV.
g) Return the specimen to the conditioning room controlled at the standard temperature with
an accuracy of ±1֯ C, allowing it to ‘recover’ for a minimum of one hour.
h) Remove the angular jig from the compression testing press.
i) Deflect the specimen under standard conditions, which shall be considered as a ‘Standard
compression’ cycle.
j) The reaction force is called RSC and the energy absorption is called ESC.
k) The Angular Factor (Cang) of this condition is determined by Eq. (10-7)and (10-8).
166
Notes:
• The recommended design angles for testing are 5, 10, 15, and 20 degrees.
• It is required to complete a comprehensive test, starting from the break-in phase up to the final compression, for
a single angle within a maximum timeframe of 24 hours.
• The test specimen may consist of a scaled model that shares the same material and geometry as the actual-
sized fender described in the manufacturer's catalogue. The minimum size of the scale model should correspond
to the smallest size published in the catalogue or be determined by the manufacturer. It is crucial to test at least
three different rubber grades, including the softest, medium, and hardest variants of each type of fender.
• Equations (10-7) and (10-8) are recommended for cancelling the compression history when a single specimen is
used for testing at various angles. Acceptable alternative methods for cancelling the compression history may
be employed, provided a reasonable explanation is provided. It is advisable to use a new specimen for each
rubber grade and each angle.
• If the fender exhibits non-axisymmetric characteristics, testing is necessary in two orthogonal directions.
Additionally, the centre position for deflection must be clearly defined.
• Typically, the Angle Factor at any angle does not exceed 1.0 during zero-degree compression. As a result, Cang,E
holds greater importance in fender design than Cang,R .
Sample type: un-vulcanized rubber compound obtained directly from the production floor
and vulcanized in the laboratory following established standards for sample preparation.
The recommended tests for evaluating these samples can be found in Table 3 of the latest ISO
17357-1 standard.
The performance of a pneumatic fender exhibits stability when the initial internal pressure is
precisely set to the specified pressure level. However, it is important to note that the
performance may vary in response to changes in temperature.
167
10.10 Classification of Foam Fender Testing
Fundamental Testing of fenders and material - Base performance (see Section 10.12.1) By the manufacturer on the Manufacturers or third-party
testing to create data for publication in - Creation of Velocity Factor (Cv), Temperature factor (Ct), manuals/brochures/websites agents engaged by the
the catalogue for either a new Angle factor (Cang) (see Section 0) manufacturer.
product launch or - Durability test (see Section 10.12.3) All tests are mandatory.
enhancement of features and/ - Physical properties of foam core, polyurethane skin
or improvement of performance layer, reinforcement layer (see Section 10.11)
of the existing products.
Type Fundamental testing witnessed - Base performance (see Section 10.12.1) Testing data or sources of Testing conducted by
approval and verified by third-party party - Creation of Velocity Factor (Cv), Temperature factor (Ct), testing data for factors to be manufacturer and verified by
testing for obtaining Type Approval Angle factor (Cang) (see Section 0) disclosed upon request. third-party agents or testing
certificate - Durability test (see Section 10.12.3) conducted in a third-party
- Physical properties of foam core, polyurethane skin testing facility.
layer, reinforcement layer (see Section 10.11) All tests are mandatory.
Verification The testing of commercial Highly recommended tests: To the project Highly recommended tests
testing fenders utilised in job sites to - Performance and physical properties testing witnessed are witnessed/verified by
ascertain their adherence to the by a third-party, or using a 3rd party testing jig or in a 3rd third-party agent
published performance party testing facility or
standards or customer-specified - Skin thickness and foam density verification testing (see tests are conducted in a
energy and reaction Section 10.12.410.12.4 ) third-party testing facility
requirements - Fender pull-through test (10.12.5) based on the agreement
between manufacturer and
Note: designers/ project
- The selection of appropriate tests for a project is at the discretion of specification.
the designers or end users, taking into consideration factors such as
the level of severity and risk associated with the site, as well as the
type and quantity of fenders employed.
- The project or purchase specifications should clearly outline the
specific tests required for evaluation.
- In certain cases, deviations from highly recommended testing
requirements may be permitted based on project specific
requirements or specifications. Flexibility may be allowed to
accommodate variations from the standard testing protocols,
provided it aligns with the project's specific needs and complies with
the specified criteria.
168
10.11 Material Tests for Foam Fenders
The manufacturer receives and evaluates resilient closed cell foam sheets for utilisation in the
fender production process. Acceptance of the quality (referring to properties Table
10-7) dependent upon the examination of test certificates containing specified values
provided by the vendors.
Alternatively, a tailored testing scheme may be established between the designer and the
manufacturer to ensure the foam quality meets the requirements of a specific project, e.g.
the recommended tests and requirements are as listed Table 10-7.
Water absorption ISO 2896 Unaged Max. 1.0 kg/m2 of cut surface
The manufacturer receives two components of polyurethane materials intended for use in
the fender production process. Acceptance of the quality (referring to properties Table
10-8) is determined by conducting in-house or third-party tests on Tensile strength,
Elongation-at-break, and hardness.
The test records generated from the third-party testing serve as evidence of the polyurethane
material quality. Alternatively, a customised testing scheme can be established between the
designer and the manufacturer to ensure the materials meet the quality requirements of a
specific project.
169
Property Testing standard Condition Requirement
Flex Fatigue life (Ross) ASTM D-1052 Unaged Min. 250,000 cycle
For the outer skin, it is recommended that nylon tyre cord of 2520 or an equivalent material is
used with physical properties as listed in Table 10-8 as the reinforcing filaments.
The manufacturer receives raw filaments for the production process. Acceptance of the
quality (referring to Table 10-9) is dependent upon conducting in-house or third-party tests on
Breaking strength and Elongation-at-break.
In order to ensure quality, it is advised that the manufacturer conducts annual testing of the
filaments in a third-party laboratory. Random samples should be obtained from the production
floor for this purpose. The test records generated from the third-party testing serve as evidence
of the quality of the reinforcing filaments. Alternatively, a mutually agreed upon testing
scheme can be established between the designer and the manufacturer to assess the quality
of the filaments for a specific project. The recommended tests and requirements are as listed
in Table 10-9.
To determine foam fender base performance and include it in the catalogue the following
procedure is recommended:
170
3. Do not rotate the test fender after break-in cycles.
4. Foam fenders exhibit significantly slower compression recovery rates. Hence sufficient
recovery time should be allowed. Allow sufficient recovery time (max 24 hours) until the
fender regains over 95 % of its original height. Then, deflect it again at 0.33 to 1.33 mm/s.
The test should be terminated once the deflection reaches the design deflection point or
slightly beyond.
Notes:
• Test Apparatus: The test apparatus should conform to the specifications outlined in section 10.4.
• Sample size/type: For fenders with a diameter equal or smaller than 1,800 mm, actual fender elements
manufactured for the specific project locations should be used.
• For fenders larger than 1,800 mm diameter by 3600 mm long, the tests of a 1,200 mm diameter by 2,000 mm long or
larger fender may be selected to determine the energy and reaction forces of the fender. The actual fender for a
project and the test fender should both be constructed with the same materials, have the same general
configurations of the ends and have the same skin thickness-to-diameter ratio. Scaling shall be conducted per the
following equations:
o Energy = test fender energy x diameter ratio squared x overall length ratio.
o Reaction Force = test fender reaction x diameter ratio x overall length ratio.
Velocity and temperature factors are often neglected for foam fenders; however, these
effects can be significant in some cases. For higher capacity and smaller size foam fenders in
171
particular, these fenders can exhibit significant velocity factors. Temperature effects can be
important for extreme temperature environments. Manufacturers who report correction
factors for temperature and velocity effects on foam fenders can follow similar test procedures
as for rubber fenders, with the following clarifications.
Refer to Section 10.7.3 to 10.7.5 for the application of the aforementioned principle in
generating the velocity and temperature correction factors. Some modifications are required
in the procedures to account for the differences between foam and rubber. The procedure
outlined in section 10.12.1 serves as a sound guideline for conducting these tests.
Note that:
• Length of the specimens used for angular correction factors should be determined based
on an L/D ratio of 1.5 to 2.0.
• For L/D ratios larger than this range, the manufacturer should determine the angle factors
based on the specific requirements of the project.
Angular effects are not typically determined using dedicated testing, however can be
calculated based on the relative deflection of each portion of the fender.
Foam fenders, unlike their rubber counterparts, exhibit significantly slower compression
recovery rates. This characteristic is attributed to the unique structural composition and
material properties of foam. When subjected to compression, foam fenders take a longer
duration to regain their original shape and height compared to rubber fenders. Consequently,
conventional durability testing methods that rely on constant compression without allowing
sufficient time for recovery fail to provide reliable insights into the built quality of foam fenders.
Recognizing the limitations of durability testing, use of the conventional durability tests is not
recommended for assessing foam fenders quality. Instead, it is suggested that, in projects
requiring durability verification, a customised test protocol should be collaboratively
established between the fender manufacturer and the designer/owner.
The energy absorption capacity and reaction force of foam fenders are significantly
influenced by the density of the foam core and the thickness of the Polyurethane skin.
Moreover, the appropriate skin thickness also contributes to the abrasion resistance of the
fender.
In certain projects where conducting the performance test is impractical, the foam density
verification test can serve as a suitable substitute for performance verification.
1. The project specification should include a specific requirement for the skin thickness. This
measurement should be calculated based on the reaction force, friction coefficient of the
Polyurethane skin, and an additional allowance for normal wear. The necessary data for
these calculations should be obtained from the manufacturer.
2. A representative sample of 10 % of the fenders from each production lot, or an agreed-
upon number of samples between the manufacturer and the client, should be selected
for testing purposes.
172
3. To assess and examine the thickness of the elastomer and the placement of the
reinforcement layer, a core drill with a diameter ranging from 6 mm (minimum) to 51 mm
(maximum) should be used to extract a core sample from the fender skin.
4. In addition to assessing the skin thickness, the drill may be extended up to 40 % of the fender
diameter to collect foam samples for verifying foam density. Care should be taken during
this drilling process to minimise heat generation, which can potentially alter the foam
density.
5. Skin testing should be conducted at two specific locations on each tested fender: the mid-
body and one conical end.
6. The skin thickness should be measured and recorded on the extracted core samples, while
paying attention to the placement of the reinforcement layer.
7. The measured skin thickness should fall within a range of specified thickness with a
tolerance of -10 %.
8. Fenders that do not meet the specified skin thickness measurement, falling below the -10
% threshold, should be rejected. In such cases, the manufacturer should perform thickness
tests on an additional 10 % of the production lot's fenders.
9. Rejected fenders should be replaced with fenders that meet the specifications, and skin
thickness testing should be conducted on the replacement units as well.
10. The testing process should be witnessed either by a certified, independent inspection
agency or as agreed upon by the manufacturer and the client. The manufacturer should
provide a minimum 10 working days' notice before conducting the skin thickness tests.
11. After completing the skin thickness testing, the core holes should be patched using
elastomer of the same composition and thickness as the specified elastomer skin. Nylon
reinforcing is not necessary for these core patches.
12. Prior to delivering the fenders to the job site, it is mandatory to conduct a minimum of two
skin thickness tests for each test fender.
This optional test aims to evaluate the ability of the end fittings and central chain member to
withstand longitudinal pull forces along the axis of the fender. The test is considered a failure if
the central chain member, end fittings, or reinforced skin are unable to resist the fender's
design safe working end pull load.
Test procedure:
173
10.13 Tests for Accessories
This test should be conducted as part of the panel structure manufacturing process.
1. Drill hole/s of an appropriate diameter and install M16 or suitable connections on the rear
side of the panel.
2. Install pipe nipple-valves and connect the air line.
3. Apply air pressure to the panel, maintaining a pressure of 1.0 kg/sq.cm (100 kPa) (Higher or
lower air pressure values may be agreed upon between the customer and the
manufacturer).
4. Spray a soapy water solution onto all external welds.
5. Maintain the pressure for a duration of 15 minutes (Higher or lower time may be agreed
upon between the customer and the manufacturer).
6. Inspect the panel for any indications of leaks and subsequently depressurise the panel.
7. For each identified leak point, grind out at least half of the existing weld depth and perform
a reweld.
8. Repeat the aforementioned steps until no leaks are observed.
9. Remove the pipe nipple and seal the valve using a gasket and plug bolt.
Die Penetration (DP) or Magnetic As per relevant standard and DP Report or MPI report
particle Inspection (MPI) test approved procedure
Note: Designer should decide and specify the type of test applicable for the steel components.
174
UHMW-PE Resin and Pads
Notes:
1. Pads are produced through the compression moulding process, using high temperature and pressure, with granular UHMW-PE resins.
2. The supplier is required to furnish a material testing certificate, encompassing properties such as density, tensile strength, elongation, abrasion
resistance, hardness, and Charpy impact strength. The material certificate should comply with the specifications of a 3.1 certificate as per EN
10204 or an equivalent standard.
3. To ensure quality assurance, the end user has the option to validate the quality by obtaining samples from randomly selected pads and
conducting tests for density, impact strength, abrasion resistance, and MFI (melt flow index) at an independent third-party laboratory.
4. The UHMW-PE moulder should provide the specifications and quantities for the moulded products. The frequency of testing should involve
conducting one test per production lot or adhering to an agreed sampling scheme established between the customer and the manufacturer.
5. Regenerated UHMW-PE presents a potential sustainable alternative to virgin material. However, for heavy-duty applications such as belted
vessels, the use of virgin material is recommended to ensure optimal performance and durability.
175
11 INSTALLATION, INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
The performance of a fender system throughout its service life is dependent on the correct
installation and maintenance procedures specified by the designer and suppliers. It is essential
that the end users, under guidance of suppliers, ensure that these are implemented.
Considering the loads and the demanding operating environment of the various components
of the fender systems, these cannot be maintenance-free.
A lack of fender system maintenance is commonplace on numerous facilities. It is important
that due consideration is given at the design stage to this key topic and a low-maintenance
design should be favoured whenever economically possible.
11.1 Installation
It is essential that fender systems are always handled correctly to avoid any damage that
could affect performance. In advance of the delivery of the fender systems, the fender
supplier is expected to provide detailed handling and installation guidelines, to ensure that the
installation contractor may develop the relevant detailed method statements accordingly.
Depending on the fender system complexity and/or the teams experience, the installation
contractor may also consider training of their staff by the fender supplier for the assembly and
installation of the first fender systems.
Checks shall always be performed upon receipt of the fender systems on site to confirm that
no damage occurred to the fenders and their accessories during shipping.
For large fender systems that require crane lifting, it is essential that the suppliers include in their
design the necessary lifting lugs for safe installation.
Upon completion of the installation, and depending on the project size or complexity, the end
user may invite the fender supplier to visually inspect the works and issue an acceptance report
confirming that the fender systems have been adequately installed and free of damage,
ahead of the issue of any warranty or insurance certification.
Particular attention should be given at the design stage of the berthing structure to access
each fender system location safely, practically and economically. This should consider
installation, inspection, maintenance, and replacement activities and should include
consideration for suitable sized cranes.
For fenders mounted directly onto the berthing structure (such as cone or arch fenders),
installation contractors typically use suspended temporary structures for safe access to the
fender rubber and chain fixing locations. End users and port facility operators may consider
retaining these work platforms after installation, to benefit from this safe system of access for
inspection or maintenance activities of the fender systems in the future.
176
11.2 Spares and Storage
11.2.1 Spares
Due consideration should be given for the provision of spare parts for the fender system. This may
typically consist of items subject to wear and tear or accidental damage, such as:
• Facing pads
• Facing pads fixings
• Chains
• Chain weak link (when installed)
It is recommended that the end user, with the support of the fender systems designer and the
supplier, conducts a risk assessment to identify the recommended list of spare parts. These spare
parts can then be included within the purchase order for the complete fender system.
For facing pads, end users may prefer to order large sheets to cut out the replacement facing
pads that are needed, as fender panels are typically fitted with various pads sizes depending on
their position.
For critical facilities with a limited number of units installed, end users may consider ordering a spare
fender system; the same would need to be adequately stored, and the maintenance team
attention drawn on the durability aspect.
However, for rubber fenders, considering the ageing process, it is not recommended to order spare
units; on facilities with a large number of fenders systems installed, such as continuous quays,
damaged units could be replaced with end-units, with limited operational impact during the
replacement units procurement process.
11.2.2 Storage
Rubber elements can be stored for a period that depends on their composition and the
storage conditions, which are of the utmost importance for fender systems. It is therefore
essential that fender manufacturers provide detailed packing and storage guidelines for the
products supplied in order to minimise unwanted changes in properties or surface
deterioration. This guidance (including the recommended storage durations) should be
developed according to ISO 2230 “Rubber products - Guidelines for storage” or an equivalent
standard.
In the guidelines provided by the fender supplier, the end user’s attention should be drawn to
the natural hardening process of the fender rubber during delayed usage, which will often
result in a temporary hardening; while the resulting higher reaction forces would not exceed
hard berthing conditions, it is essential that the first berthings against stored units are carefully
controlled to remain within the overall safety margins.
The same requirement applies to unused installed units or units where installation has been
delayed at construction stage.
Any fender system will deteriorate with time due to ageing, environmental conditions,
operational loads and/or unforeseen events such as hard or accidental berthing events. These
could affect the performance of the fender system and increase the risk of failure. They may
also lead to additional incidents and/or disruption to operations of the berth. As such, the
177
routine inspection and maintenance of fender systems is essential to ensure their durability and
performance throughout their service life and potentially reducing life cycle costs.
Given these parameters vary from site to site, definitive inspection and maintenance intervals
can be difficult to recommend. Due consideration should be given to all these factors while
developing the inspection and maintenance programmes, in addition to any specific local
regulations or port authority requirements.
This section therefore provides general guidance only. Operators may refer to more detailed
documents to develop their specific inspection and maintenance plans, such as:
(CDIT; maintenance, 2019): “Japanese Guidelines for the Maintenance of Rubber Fenders
Systems”.
PIANC report 103 (PIANC, 2008): – “Life Cycle Management of Port Structures”.
The upcoming PIANC MarCom WG 233 guidelines: “Inspection, Maintenance & Repair of
Waterfront Facilities”.
(ASCE, 2015): “The American Manual on Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment”.
11.3.1 Inspection
The prime causes of fenders system deterioration are harsh environment, excessive berthing
loads and degradation of facing panels and chain systems; deterioration processes
accelerate when these are neglected. Inspection regimes typically vary between ports; the
frequency of the inspection will depend on the port use and port exposure as well as on the
port's inspection and maintenance philosophy. As a minimum, an annual inspection of all
fender systems should be carried out, irrespective of port operations.
Regular inspection of fender systems provides a mechanism for early detection of fender
system deterioration. This enables planned maintenance to be carried out to ensure safe
operation and minimise berth downtime. As such, inspections should be conducted at
recurring intervals and before/after certain activities, considering the potential failure modes
of each of the components; these would include the fender and all its accessories and are
not limited to the following:
• Cracks
• Signs of over-compression
• Unit droop (sagging) due to loose support connections
• Non-vertical panels
• Loose chains
• Broken chains / fuses
• Missing fixings / fittings
For systems with a low elevation, these inspections are best undertaken at low tides; if the tidal
range is large and mobile suspended equipment is not available, boat access will need to be
considered.
178
Table 11-1 lists the common failure modes for typical fender components, affected by
environmental conditions such as splashing water, UV exposure, extreme temperatures,
marine growth, etc., that cause deterioration of fender components over time. Operators
should follow the fender supplier’s recommended inspection regimes, adjusting the same to
the specific site conditions to arrive at a cost-effective inspection regime.
Hard berthing, extreme storms, tsunamis or earthquakes may damage rubber fender
components and this potential damage may lead to unexpected safety and environmental
issues as well as financial consequences. It is therefore recommended to carry out a thorough
inspection of the fender system before resuming berth operation after abnormal events.
11.3.2 Maintenance
The results of each inspection should be evaluated to determine the next recommended
course of action. In addition to the supplier’s recommendations, which should be adhered to
so as to maintain any warranty validity, there are numerous guidelines available to assist in the
179
evaluation of the deterioration of various components. Recommended remedial actions are
also provided as documented (CDIT; maintenance, 2019). Operators should however also
refer to any specific local regulations or Port Authority requirements.
As a general approach, irrespective of the fender type or specific findings, attention should
be given to the following elements:
• Structural steel members (such as panels) are generally protected from corrosion by
coating systems, in addition to sacrificial material thickness and/or cathodic protection. It
is recommended that any coating damage is promptly repaired to maintain the overall
structure durability as exposed steel can corrode rapidly in an exposed marine
environment, especially within the splash zone.
• In case of significant corrosion and/or a major overhaul event, closed box panels should
be pressure-tested to verify their integrity and prevent the risk of internal corrosion.
• Low friction facing pads are subject to wear and tear. Regular maintenance and
replacement should be considered, as surface degradation increases friction forces with
vessels over time. Attention should also be given to the minimum pad thickness, below
which the fixings are exposed, resulting in possible hull damage and/or risks of sparks. This
is of utmost importance at berths where petroleum products or hazardous cargoes are
handled. Partial replacement of low friction pads shall take into consideration the
adjacent pads thickness to avoid localised high stresses and /or scraping the paint of vessel
hull by the exposed edges of the new pads.
• Chain corrosion impacts the chain link diameter and weakens the chain capacity. Some
cost-effective designs may consider chain replacement during the fender system service
life. In such cases, particular attention should be brought to the chains integrity, especially
in the absence of any safety features (such as a weak link).
• Under certain conditions (e.g. wave or vessel engine induced vibrations), fixings and fittings
could become loose and may need to be tighten up. If not identified and dealt with at
design and fabrication stage, loosening of components can be addressed using non-
permanent thread-locker.
• In areas with a risk of severe ice formation, ice should be regularly cleared from fenders
systems as it adds weight that could affect their overall performance and prevent the
fenders from being compressed. While doing so, care should be taken in order to prevent
damage the fender components (Refer to Chapter 8.9).
• Check the air pressure on regular basis and adjust as required (after identification and
repairs of the possible leak source).
• Loose or worn rubber sleeves can damage the net of the fender; in such cases, fibre rope
or fibre jacket can be used temporarily until the rubber sleeves are replaced.
• Apply grease when necessary to ensure the proper rotation of the swivels.
• If present, inspect and clean the safety valve on annual basis (as a minimum).
180
pressure washing/ scraping shall however be used cautiously to avoid damage to the
fender skin.
Subject to design berthing loads not being exceeded and adequate maintenance being
performed, a fender’s service life should meet the minimum design life requirements. Should
the same be exceeded, and although rubber fenders may appear to be in sound condition,
particular care should always be taken in case of extended service life, as rubber hardens over
time and increases the fender reaction forces. This may lead to damage to both the berth
structure and the vessel hull structure. Hardness tests using a ‘durometer’ can be performed to
compare the current fender hardness values against the original fender hardness, to detect
potential ageing and the potential need for replacement. Alternatively, some fender units can
be removed for load testing, however this is likely to incur significant additional costs.
Inspections are traditionally performed by port and terminal maintenance staff by visually
inspecting the installed fender systems. This method can be time-consuming and can be
subject to reading/ recording errors or omissions.
Operators may therefore consider some emerging technologies that now have the potential
to capture real-time data, provide instant system status, analyse the operational performance,
deliver historical records in order to help improving berth utilisation, which can extend the
fender system life and reduce the overall life cycle costs.
These systems typically consist of sensors that can be easily installed on or near the fender
system, possibly without the need for power and data cabling. These sensors can measure
numerous parameters such as vessel berthing speed, fender deflection, compression duration,
berthing angle, fender shear movement, panels air tightness, etc. The data can be either
stored locally or transferred in real-time to the cloud for storing and remote processing. The
analysis of this data can create greater insights into the fender system performance over time
for operators, maintenance teams and future design considerations.
181
12 SUSTAINABILITY OF FENDERS
In 2015, the United Nations set out the Sustainable Development Goals. The Sustainable
Development Goals are the blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all.
In total there are 17 Sustainable Development Goals and they address the global challenges
we face, including for fenders relevant goals like ‘Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure’,
‘Reducing Inequality’ and ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’ (UN, 2022).
Sustainability in general has seen a growing focus in the last decade and has a priority within
PIANC. Reference is made to the ‘PIANC Declaration on Climate Change’, in which PIANC
recognises the importance of the climate change challenge and said it will actively pursue
the sustainable future of the waterborne industry.
PIANC Report EnviCom WG 150 (PIANC, 2014) creates awareness of the advantages of
implementing a green port philosophy and what this philosophy means at present for ports
and port authorities around the world and community support for port growth. This will be
achieved by supplying tools and guidance that show how proactive environmental measures
and strategies can contribute to obtaining consent for future operations and developments,
how opportunities can be created through own initiatives (thereby remaining ahead of
legislation) and how green growth can be realised.
A growing number of ports have a sustainability programme and require their investments and
new projects to be sustainable and meet their internal and national minimum requirements.
When designing or acquiring fender systems the full life cycle and recyclability of fender
systems to work towards sustainability development goals should be considered.
Many countries are taking steps towards a full circular economy. This means that a product
should be 100 % recycled and reused in the same or similar applications. With the current state
of technology achieving 100 % recycling is a significant challenge for rubber products in
general and thus fenders. However, given the public importance of the circular economy and
the responsibility that manufacturers have, this is something that the fender (rubber) industry
should strive for. Furthermore, end users have the responsibility to require from manufacturers
a certain level of recyclability of the fender system, because manufacturers generally follow
the market demand.
When the sustainability of a fender system is considered all the relevant UN Sustainable
Development Goals should be taken into account. The full life cycle of the fender system
needs to be looked at, from cradle to grave which includes material sourcing, manufacturing
and recycling all fender components after it service life.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the main contributors to global warming and climate
change. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are a leading cause of climate
change. A carbon footprint is the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by an
individual, event, organisation, service, place or product, and it can be expressed as carbon
dioxide equivalent (Carbontrust, 2009), abbreviated as CO2e. The CO2e of rubber production
depends on various factors such as the type of rubber, the production method, and the
location of the production.
182
Reduction of the carbon footprint is essential for climate actions. Fenders being one of the
essential components of infrastructure for waterborne transport, the fender industry should
develop programmes with clear goals to reduce their carbon footprint and users can play a
catalytic role by selecting least carbon intensive products.
The carbon footprint of rubber fluctuates depending on the sourcing and production method
(refer to Section 12.3 and 12.4) and carbon footprint reduction starts with understanding the
current footprint level. Fender manufactures can consider to perform a Life Cycle Analysis
(LCA) and obtain a 3rd party certified Environment Performance Declaration (EPD) for its
products. For instance, the average CO2e of natural rubber production in Thailand was found
to be around 6.05 kg CO2e/kg of rubber, while the CO2e of synthetic rubber production ranges
from 3.85 to 15.63 kg CO2e/kg of rubber, depending on the specific type of synthetic rubber
and the production method (Chaikoon & Faungnawakij, 2016). The carbon footprints are only
including emissions during production of rubber.
Reducing carbon footprint should consider the full life cycle: Raw materials, production,
logistics and recycling. Sometimes CO2 emissions are unavoidable; in such cases
manufacturers could consider compensation for residual CO2 in carbon dioxide balancing
projects.
Sourcing sustainable raw material is a general challenge for the rubber industry. The main two
types of virgin rubber that is used for fender production are natural rubber (NR) and synthetic
rubber (SBR) with each their own challenges:
i. Natural rubber may come with irresponsible farming methods, deforestation and
human right abuses. Global platforms for sustainable natural rubber fenders (GPSNR,
2022) are being developed and this is something PIANC encourages to be considered
when specifying/ purchasing fenders.
ii. SBR is petroleum-based and therefore not considered to be sustainable. No good
alternatives are available since butadiene is a key intermediate in the production of
synthetic rubber. Rather than sourcing it from petroleum, innovative alternatives are
being developed however are not currently available (ACS, 2022).
Generally, a blend of NR + SBR is being used, however not all applications require this blend
and a NR only compound from a sustainable source can be considered.
Besides from the most common source ‘rubber tree’ (Hevea Natural Rubber) NR can also
come from alternative plants such as Russian Dandelion and Guayule providing a sustainable
alternative to synthetic rubbers. These alternatives have been used i.e., in car tyres however
the use is limited due to different material properties and limited availability (considering the
global demand) (Sarkar & Bhowmick, 2018).
Besides rubber, a fender also consists of other ingredients (refer to Section 9.2). More
sustainable alternatives are being developed and used, such as recycled carbon black and
sustainable oils. Today the application of these alternatives is limited due their impact on the
final rubber product properties (Sarkar & Bhowmick, 2018).
12.4 Fabrication
ISO14001 sets out the criteria for an environmental management system that manufacturers
can implement and be certified to. It maps out a framework that a company or organisation
183
can follow to set up an effective environmental management system (ISO14001, 2015). It is
recommended that this is considered as a requirement for manufacturers of fenders and all
components of a fender system.
The impact of the ISO14001 is limited and the ISO14000 series include more ground breaking
compliance standards however compliance to these standards take time and the industry in
general have yet to adopt these.
The end user, designer and fender manufacturers can make a positive impact on sustainability
through appropriate and long-lasting design and fender selection criteria. When selecting and
designing fender systems the following aspects are worth considering:
12.6 Recycling
Fenders are found in almost every port and are commonly used for several years. Due to
changed operational requirements, changed design criteria or wear and tear of fenders,
berths are upgraded and fenders are replaced on a regular basis.
A sustainable way to deal with old fenders is to reuse them on a new berth. This is something
that can be considered for fenders that are not yet at the end of their service life, i.e. in cases
where fenders need to be upgraded to accommodate a different range of vessels.
184
After an initial visual examination of the fenders to understand their condition, a more in-depth
examination can be made by checking the original test records, understanding the frequency
of use, and checking surface conditions for cracks, ozone cracks and damage. For berths in
a more demanding situation a performance test is recommended. Refer to section 6.4.17 on
ageing of fenders and performance loss of a fender during its life and to Chapter 10 on testing
of fenders.
In most cases a used fender is found unfit for re-use and needs to be recycled. A fender system
consists of various components made from various materials. Commonly used materials in
fender systems are rubber, foam, PU, steel and UHMW-PE. These materials all have very
different possibilities in recyclability.
Ports struggle with the disposal of the old fenders in a sustainable way. The current infrastructure
for recycling rubber products is focused on thin rubber products such as car and truck tyres
and conveyor belts. Due to the size of the fenders and the large steel inserts, it is difficult to
process old fenders and grind them into small useable particles.
In practice, ports either store their old fenders or they are used for landfill or taken by waste
disposal companies that burn them as a fuel (also called Tyre-Derived Fuel (TDF). This burning
is typically done (or should be done if this form of disposal is chosen) at extreme high
temperature to limit the environmental impact and maximise energy gain from burning. Due
to the high level of oil in rubber and other additives that burn easily burning rubber generates
a large amount of energy. Nevertheless, burning fenders is not considered as a sustainable
solution and is certainly not circular.
There are various solutions for processing used rubber to a re-usable product. The costs and
economics, use of the end product and demand vs availability of end product decide the
preference of recycling process.
Typically, the following types of recycled rubbers are available:
• Ground rubber crumbs. Reclaimed mechanically or via waterjet. Rubber crumbs are larger
in particle size than powder which means that they are technically less usable or the use is
limited to less demanding applications. This process for reclaiming is more cost-efficient
compared to the other processes.
• Ground rubber. This is achieved cryogenically, or via waterjet or a mechanical process and
results in powder or small granules. Typically, a rubber powder with a small particle size is
preferred as this increases the usability by adding a small percentage in new applications
or a higher percentage in less demanding applications. This process is expensive and
requires more energy.
• Reclaim by mechanical & chemical process. This results in uncured rubber slabs, well
usable in all sorts of applications however the process is expensive and requires more
energy and chemicals.
The use of recycled rubber in general is limited despite the large availability of recycled rubber.
Recycled rubber has a great impact on the rubber properties of the final product (reference
is made to Section 9.2.3). The adverse effects on properties in reality mean that the life
expectancy with increased recycled content is greatly reduced. The reduced life expectancy
makes the use of recycled rubber less sustainable.
185
This means that a recycled rubber compound can only be used in small percentage in new
products, in a higher percentage in low-quality applications or as additives in various other
application areas, for example as a filler of concrete and asphalt.
Due to this, rubber is currently not truly recyclable, although it is re-usable in different forms and
applications. This results in that reclaimed rubber is not really being recycled, as intended with
a fully circular economy, however it can be used for low duty applications or as filler/ additive.
Examples of low duty applications are rubber playground mats, sports surfaces, flooring, etc.
Reclaimed rubber is used as filler/ additive in cement and asphalt.
Pneumatic fenders have an additional challenge where the pneumatic fender body is
reinforced with nylon fabric. It is hard to impossible to separate the nylon fabric from the rubber
meaning that the reclaimed rubber crumbs or granules will be polluted with nylon. This strongly
limits the further use of this type of fender.
Another form of converting rubber waste is Pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of the
organic components of the rubber in a reactor, at typical pyrolysis temperatures of about
500°C. With Pyrolysis a large amount of waste rubber can be disposed of while at the same
time obtaining high-value products, such as oil, chemicals, carbon black, and fuel gas with
high calorific value; and in addition steel can be recovered (Han, Han, & Chen, 2023) (Akbas
& Yuhana, 2021).
A closed cell foam fender is a fender that can be refurbished. The skin can be repaired or an
entire new skin can be applied over the old foam. The closed cell foam has a very high
durability although some performance loss after refurbishment should be considered. By
adding new hardware, the fender is like in new condition. However, logistics sometimes
prevent this to be an economical solution.
Biodegradable foams are being developed and offered however have not found their way
yet to fenders due to the degrading nature of the material and additional costs.
i. Foam
Typically, EPE (expanded polyethylene) type of foams are being used for foam fenders.
EPE foam can be recycled by hot melting it to granulate PE pellets which can be used
in various applications (Greenmax, 2022).
ii. PU Skin
PU in general is recyclable (i.e., mattresses) (Americanchemistry, 2022). However, the PU
skin of a foam fender has similar recycling challenges than rubber with a limited
infrastructure to recycle this kind of PU waste. The nylon reinforcement in the PU skin
results in an additional challenge. When the skin is being scrapped the nylon
reinforcement pollutes the scrapped material limiting a wider use of it. Currently this is
being disposed via channels similar to rubber recycling. Since the foam fender skin is
relatively thin compared to a solid fixed rubber fender the amount of disposal material
is less and easier to process.
Fender panels as well as various other fender components are typically made from steel. Steel
in general is the most recycled material, even more than all other material combined.
Approximately 86 % of steel in general is currently being recycled (Steel, 2022).
186
Steel is 100 % recyclable and generally new steel contains up to 25 % recycled steel (Recycle,
2022). The use of scrap steel saves up to 74 % of the energy needed to make steel from virgin
materials (Recycle, 2022).
UHMW-PE becomes available for recycling at the end of its lifetime which can be at the end
of the lifetime of the fender systems or, since UHMW-PE is a wear item, at some point during
the lifetime of a fender system.
UHMW-PE can be easily reprocessed into a re-usable material. Pure UHMW-PE can be
reprocessed to a regenerated grade of UHMW-PE that can be used for fender application
again. The material properties generally are less (including wear resistance) compared to
virgin UHMW-PE. A positive exception is the coefficient of friction that is the same for virgin as
for regenerated UHMW-PE. Generally regenerated UHMW-PE is broadly accepted for fender
applications.
Generally regenerated UHMW is produced from recycled material that comes from
production scrap at the manufacturing ensuring them full control of the quality of the recycled
raw material.
Reusing recycled material that comes from disposed UHMW-PE that has reached the end of
its life cycle is generally not used for regenerated UHMW-PE. Since in most cases the original
quality of the disposed UHMW-PE is unknown, manufacturers are not keen on producing
regenerated UHMW-PE with this recycled material since they do not know the origin and
quality of the material. Hence, they cannot be sure that the quality of the regenerated UHMW-
PE manufactured with this disposed UHMW-PE will meet their standards.
Still UHMW-PE fender pads can be recycled and re-used in the plastic industry however then
often is re-used for low-spec applications (outdoor plastic furniture, traffic poles) or used in
other industries like in the paper industry.
The increasing global focus on sustainability and the need for real change also makes its way
to ports and the manufacturing industry. Rubber manufacturing including fender
manufacturing still have various challenges to face, such as recycling of their products and
mapping their carbon footprint.
The fender industry together with the end users as well as designers and other stakeholders
should take the lead and challenge each other and co-operate to come to the most
sustainable solution for their projects and develop ways to develop, manufacture and dispose
of fenders in the most sustainable way possible.
When the sustainability of fender systems is being considered for a project than all parties
involved in the process of selecting, designing, purchasing and manufacturing the fender
systems should make their contribution to design and manufacture the most sustainable fender
the industry can do at the moment.
Although there are limitations, as it currently stands there are things that already can be done
by all stakeholders in the process of fender system selection, designing and manufacturing. By
being smart with materials and engineering, the sustainability of the fender system can be
improved and the impact on our environment can be reduced.
187
13 SPECIFICATION WRITING
13.1 Responsibility for Providing Information
Accurate and complete specifications are important to achieve an economical and durable
fender system complying with the required performance.
Testing requirements X 0
It is recommended a Basis of Design document in line with Chapter 4 is produced and agreed
with all parties before the fender system design commences.
188
13.2 General
The fender specification should clearly indicate the required qualifications of the whole
supplier chain. These may include the following:
• Be able to predict and verify product performance.
• Track record with clients’ reference letters and details of production facilities.
• Valid product liability insurance.
• Records of any claims, if requested.
Supplier chains with no track record (new suppliers/manufacturers) should provide additional
documentation prior to qualification, such as general company information, production line
process, quality control, source of materials, prior testing/rubber verification, etc.
All relevant national or international standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other
specified standards should be referenced and ranged clearly.
The fender systems manufacturer should apply a certified system of Quality Management
which conforms to ISO 9000/9001 or a recognised equivalent.
If requested, the supplier should present an inspection test plan, refer to Chapter 9.1.
Further submittal requirements (after contract award) should be detailed in the specification.
These submittals may include:
189
Fender unit
• Quality assurance certification and all documents in English language (or local language
if accepted by the purchaser ).
• Actual location of manufacturing.
• Method and date of manufacturing.
• Size and rubber grade of fender unit.
• Date of delivery.
• Verification test results.
- Physical property test results (hardness, tensile strength, elongation at break, etc.).
- Chemical composition for rubber traceability (TGA – polymer, carbon black, ash as a
minimum). The values are manufacturer specific and generally should not be posted in the
specification.
- Load deflection graphs
- Durability test results (if applicable)
• Confirmation that each fender unit has been subject to a break-in cycle, if required (see
Chapters 10.4 and 11.3.2).
• Foam density and skin thickness (nylon reinforcement check) if applicable.
Fender panel and accessories
• Calculations showing the requirements and designs of the fender panel. This should include
sketches of various anticipated loading conditions, formulae, and design principles.
• Confirmation and results of the fender panel pressure test.
• Coating materials and application methods, dry film thickness (DFT) certifications.
• Calculations and drawings showing the requirements and designs of accessories such as
chains, anchors, panels, etc.
• Internal and/or third-party records of low friction UHMW-PE facing properties including the
friction coefficient.
Other
• Design computations that indicate the fender system meets the project specified criteria.
• Calculations or diagrams showing the fenders and mooring lines interaction at all states of
the tide in loaded and ballasted condition.
• Installation, maintenance, and removal manuals.
• Internal and/or third-party records of coatings DFT for all painted elements or galvanisation
certificates.
• Any other relevant information agreed upon between the purchaser and supplier.
All input should be provided and reviewed prior to manufacturing and both design and
manufacturing must be carefully planned to avoid delay caused by factors such as additional
testing or manufacturing acceptance.
13.2.5 Records
Project record requirements should be clearly given in the specification, which in most cases
means a full record of manufacturing and installation to be kept and provided to the user
upon request.
Fender rubber units should be permanently marked so that they can be individually identified.
The marking should include the following:
i. Rubber unit name and size.
ii. Manufacturing date (month and year).
190
iii. Serial number (unique to the individual rubber unit).
iv. Rubber grade.
v. Name of fender manufacturer (and if different, the supplier). Showing two identification
marks on opposite sides of the rubber unit is recommended.
Specification should clearly state the required warranty period and minimum product liability
insurance for the project. Appropriate warranty type and period may vary depending on the
vessel type, number of berthing operations per year and the design vessel characteristics (i.e.
with belting or not), port conditions and operations.
It is recommended that provisions are included regarding countermeasures for the product
and compensation for damage incurred in case testing or quality fraud is discovered.
Pertinent information about the vessels, berthing operations and terminal structures should be
included in the specification and responsible for berthing energy calculation should be clearly
stated.
Many fender types change performance under certain loading conditions such as fatigue
loading, partially compressed fenders, etc. so loading conditions need to be set out very
clearly.
191
• The maximum allowable (design) reaction force on existing quay structure, if any.
The designer should give special consideration to any permanently moored vessels. In those
circumstances, issues with the fender system fatigue, rubber longevity, inspections and
maintenance need to be studied and allowed for in the design.
The purchaser should carefully consider including the following requirements in the
specification, as appropriate:
• Design life should be considered prior to committing and environmental standards capturing
a whole life cycle of the fender system should be followed as given in Chapter 12.
• Materials and workmanship should conform to current standards and good practice and
should be deemed suitable for use in aggressive marine/ tidal environments.
• Testing reports with fender performance curves, physical properties of rubber certificates,
mill certificates for steel panels, low friction facing, chains and bolts should be supplied for
each different fender type/ size at the time of delivery (refer to Chapter 10).
• Fender system including accessories should be fabricated, assembled, installed and tested
in accordance with Manufacturer’s instructions and PIANC recommendations (refer to
Chapter 11).
• The production facility of materials should not be changed from the first technical
submission or during a project, unless the Manufacturer has demonstrated that the
materials from the new source can at least equally meet the requirements.
• Manufacturers should provide comprehensive documentation on the fender products
where, as a minimum, the base performance properties are clearly specified (refer to
Chapter 10).
• Purchasers should be able to witness (or measure independently) quality control, testing of both
the fender and physical property/ TGA tests for the materials either themselves or using
independent, experienced, third parties using their measuring equipment (refer to Chapter 10).
• Purchasers that hire a third party to witness and verify fender testing and production are
recommended to select a reputable and qualified company.
• Calibration of the testing equipment.
• Manufacturers should provide information on the tolerances of their product for both
energy absorption and reaction force and also indicate how the fender unit performs
under other conditions such as angular compression, under water and overload (maximum
deflection limits) (refer to Chapter 10).
If rubber fender performance needs to be verified by the third party selected by the purchaser,
the supplier must allow the third party an access to the factory and fully cooperate with the
testing. It is recommended that following information from the third party is specified by the
purchaser:
• Proven independence.
• Knowledge and experience with the testing set-up.
• ISO 17025 certified with the corresponding credentials.
• Equipment used and methodology.
• Quality and accuracy.
• Third party scope – fundamental, durability, type approval, verification testing.
• Verification scope
192
- Verify that fenders meet the project specifications, i.e. material and performance
testing, dimensions, visual check, etc.
- Ensure third party equipment is working properly and identify the standard deviation
between third party and manufacturers equipment.
- A clear and agreed test set-up is crucial to obtain comparable values.
• A clear and unambiguous acceptance procedure should be agreed in terms of test results
between third party and manufacturer. Results between test facilities can differ for both
performance testing and material testing. Acceptance criteria should be based on the
manufacturer's catalogue values plus tolerance values. Tolerance values should be
agreed upon prior to the verification testing.
Supplier documentation should detail the requirements regarding delivery, installation and
storage. The following requirements should be considered:
As part of the tender submission, the fender manufacturer should provide instructions on what
maintenance and inspections are required for the fender system.
13.6 Sustainability
At the end of the service life of the fender system or components that need to be changed,
should be easily replaced, and as much as practical, all components of the fender system
should be recycled. Further guidance is available in Chapter 12.
193
14 REFERENCES
• ACS. (2022). ACS Green Chemistry Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.acs.org/greenchemistry.html.
• Akbas, A., & Yuhana, N. (2021). Recycling of Rubber Wasters as Fuel and Its Additives.
Recycling, Issue 6, 78.
• Akiyama, H. (2018). Study on aging of circular hollow rubber fender in long term usage.
Doctoral Thesis (in Japanese). Osaka, Japan: Osaka University.
• Akiyama, H. S. (2017, Vol. 5). Investigation on service years of large size rubber marine
fenders. Journal of JSCE, pp. 392-401.
• Akiyama, H., Shiomi, T., Omura, A., Yamamoto, S., & Ueda, S. (2017). Method to Estimate
the Aging of Large Rubber Marine Fender. International Offshore and Polar Engineering
Conference (pp. 1459-1466). San Francisco, California, USA: ISOPE.
• Americanchemistry. (2022). Retrieved from
https://www.americanchemistry.com/industry-groups/center-for-the-polyurethanes-
industry-cpi.
• ASCE. (2015). Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment. ISBN (print): 9780784413579.
Reston, Virginia,: American Society of Civil Engineers.
• ASCE 7. (2022). ASCE 7. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
American Society of Civil Engineers. Reston, USA. ISBN: 978-0-7844-1085-1.
• BS6349. (2014). BS 6349-4:2014, Maritime works – Part 4: Code of practice for design of
fendering and mooring systems. London: The British Standards Institution .
• Carbontrust. (2009).
https://web.archive.org/web/20090511102744/http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/solutions/C
arbonFootprinting/what_is_a_carbon_footprint.htm.
• CDIT; Design. (2019). Guidelines for Design and Testing of Rubber Fender Systems, No.51E.
Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT), Japan. Tokyo: Coastal
Development Institute of Technology (CDIT).
194
• CDIT; maintenance. (2019). Guidelines for the Maintenance of Rubber Fender Systems
(2nd Edition). Japan Tokyo: Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT).
• Chaikoon, T., & Faungnawakij, S. (2016). Carbon footprint of natural rubber production in
Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 135, pages 1306-1314.
• Childs, K. M. (2001). ASCE manual of practice no. 101, Underwater Investigations:
Standard Practice Manual.
• DNV. (1992). Structural reliability analysis of marine structures. Classification notes NO.
30.6. Hovik, Norway: Det Norske Veritas.
• EN 1990. (2011). NEN-EN 1990. Eurocode – Basis of structural design. European Committee
for standardization. Brussels, Belgium.
• GPSNR. (2022). Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber (GPSNR). Retrieved from
https://sustainablenaturalrubber.org/.
• Greenmax. (2022). Retrieved from https://www.greenmax-machine.com/what-kind-of-
polyethylene-material-can-be-recycled.html.
• Han, W., Han, D., & Chen, H. (2023). Pyrolysis of Waste Tires: A Review. Polymers, Issue 15,
1604.
• Heemskerk, I. (2020). Determining the mechanisms causing the hydraulic damping during
ship berthing, Delft University of Technology, May 28, 2020.
• IMO. (2011). IMO Manual on Oil Pollution, Section I, Prevention. London: IMO.
• Ligtvoet, A., & Lei van der, T. (2012). Analyse bedrijfswaarden HbR. Delft, the Netherlands:
Technische Universiteit Delft.
• Lloyd's. (1989). Strength of side shell structure to resist quayside fender loads, Class
Computational Services Group, Report no. CSD 89/24, SEPT 1989 . London: Lloyd's Register
of Shipping, CONFIDENTIAL.
• Lloyd's. (1993). A Container Ship's Ability To Resist Quayside Fender Loads, Report No. CSD
92/38. London: Lloyd's Register Of Shipping.
• Nakamura, T., Nakamura, T., Miyata, M., Yoneyama, H., & Kashima, H. (2020, March).
Study for revision of a design method that considers the usage environment of fenders.
Technical Note of National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, No.1101 (in
Japanese).
• OCDI. (2009). Technical Standards and Commentaries for Port and Harbour Facilities in
Japan. Tokyo, Japan. The Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute. Tokyo, Japan:
OCDI.
195
• OCIMF. (2013). Ship to Ship Transfer Guide for Petroleum, Chemicals and Liquefied Gases,
Section 9.1.2 and Table 9.1. London: The Oil Companies International Marine Forum
(OCIMF).
• OCIMF. (2018). Mooring Equipment Guidelines 4th edition (MEG4). London: The Oil
Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF).
• Orlin, F. (2020). Reliability-based Assessment for Fender Systems. Delft: Delft University of
Technology.
• PIANC. (2002). Guidelines for the Design of Fenders Systems, report of PIANC MarCom
WG33. Brussels: PIANC.
• PIANC. (2008). Life Cycle Management of Port Structures, Recommended Practice for
Implementation, report of PIANC MarCom WG103 . Brussels: PIANC.
• PIANC. (2014). Sustainable Ports - A Guide for Port Authorities (2014), report from PIANC
EnviCom WG150. Brussels: PIANC.
• PIANC. (2016). Guidelines for Cruise Terminals, report of PIANC MarCom WG 152:.
• PIANC. (2019). Design Principles of Dry Bulk Marine Terminals, report of PIANC MarCom
WG184. Brussels: PIANC.
• PIANC. (2024). Mooring of Large Ships at Quays (2024), report of PIANC MarCom WG186.
Brussels: PIANC.
• PIANC WG145. (2022). Berthing velocity analysis of seagoing vessels over 30,000 dwt
(2022), report of PIANC MarCom WG 145.
• PIANC WG235. (2022). Ship Dimensions and Data for Design of Marine Infrastructure
(2022), report of PIANC MarCom WG235. Brussels: PIANC.
• Rackwitz, R. (2000). Optimization – the basis of code making and reliability verification.
Structural Safety. 22. pp. 27–60.
• ROM. (2008). ROM 0.5-05, (2008), Geotechnical Recommendations for the Design of
Maritime and Harbour Works. Madrid, Spain: ROM. ISBN 978-8488975622. Madrid.
• ROM. (2012). ROM 2.0-11; Recomendaciones para el proyecto y ejecucion en Obras de
Atraque y Amarre. Puertos del Estado (2012): . Puertos del Estado.
• Roubos, A. A., Gaal, M., Hein, C., Iversen, R., & Williams, R. (2022). Recommendations for
berthing velocity in PIANC WG 211. ASCE COPRI Ports 2022. Honolulu: ASCE .
• Roubos, A. A., Groenewegen, L., Ollero, J., Hein, C., & Wal, E. v. (2018). Design values for
berthing velocity of large Seagoing vessels, PIANC World Congress Panama 2018.
• Roubos, A. A., Mirihagalla, P., Gaal, M., Blankers, G., Groenewegen, P., Eldridge, E., &
Roussel, L. (2023). Effect of PIANC WG211 design method on fender dimensions. PIANC
America 2023 Conference. Fort Lauderdale: PIANC USA.
• Roubos, A., Iversen, R., & Oskamp, J. (2024). Backgrounds Partial Energy Factor For Fender
Desing Proposed by PIANC WG211. PIANC World Conference South Africa 2024. Cape
Town: PIANC.
196
• Sarkar, P., & Bhowmick, A. K. (2018). Sustainable rubber and rubber additives. Journal of
applied polymer science, 135(24), 45701. Wiley Online Library.
• Shimizu, K., Yasui, M., & Yamase, S. (2015). A study of durability for marine fenders with
reclaimed rubber and calcium carbonate,. Proceeding of 25 th ISOPE, (pp. 1506-1512).
• Sijberden, H. L., Smedes, R. H., & de Gijt , J. G. (1996). Fender design a new concept.
Harbour congres. Antwerpen.
• Ueda, S. Y. (2010). Reliability Design of Fender System for Berthing ships. PIANC MMX
Congress Liverpool UK.
• UN. (2022). https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-
goals/.
197
APPENDIX A: RELIABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR FENDERS
Load and Resistance Factor Design Approach
While the load and resistance factor design approach is widely adopted in the design of
marine structures, the work of PIANC WG 33 (2002) incorporated safety using a global safety
factor. It was unclear, however, whether this design approach results in an appropriate
reliability level. Several aspects that significantly influence the reliability level, such as berthing
frequency, correlations between design variables and multiple fender contact, were not
embedded in the design approach of PIANC WG 33.
In accordance with other design codes and standards, PIANC WG 211 considers a fender
system to be reliable when the design value of the energy absorption capacity (Ef;d) is greater
than the design value for the kinetic energy (Ek;d).
𝐸𝑓,𝑑 ≥ 𝐸𝑘,𝑑
1.
Where:
Ef,d = Design value for the capacity of the fender system [kNm].
Ek,d = Design value for kinetic energy exerted by the berthing vessel [kNm].
Since uncertainties are present in the energy absorption capacity of a fender system as well
as in the kinetic energy exerted by the approaching vessel acting on the fender system, PIANC
WG 211 introduced the partial material factors and a partial energy factors. These partial
factors can be applied to the characteristic values of fender capacity Ef;c (Chapter 6) and
kinetic energy Ek;c (Chapter 5) of the approaching vessel in order to determine the associated
design values Ef;d and Ek;d.
𝐸𝑘,𝑑 = 𝛾𝐸 𝐸𝑘,𝑐 2.
𝐸𝑓,𝑐 3.
𝐸𝑓,𝑑 =
𝛾𝑚
Where:
γm = Partial material factor related to the resistance of the fender system [-]
198
Table A-1 presents target reliability indices for different consequences classes, e.g. class A, B,
C, D and E. In this table, the reliability level of a fender is related to the probability of failure
during a certain reference period, for instance the design life of 20 years. Since uncertainty in
berthing velocity generally dominates the uncertainty in fender reliability individual failure
events are largely independent (Ueda, 2010). Hence, the probably of failure and the
associated reliability target can be determined using the following relations.
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑓
𝑃f;𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 1 − (1 − 𝑃f;𝑡1 ) = 1 − (1 − 𝑃f;𝑖 ) 4.
𝑃f;𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑓 = Φ (−𝛽𝑡;𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑓 ) 5.
Where:
𝑃f;𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑓 = Probability of failure during a certain refence period [-]
Negligible/ Conside-
Some High Very high
low rable
Probability of failure Pf
tref = 1 year 1 1.08E-04 1.33E-05 5.41E-06 1.30E-06 9.96E-08
tref = 25 years 25 2.69E-03 3.34E-04 1.35E-04 3.25E-05 2.49E-06
tref = 50 years 50 5.38E-03 6.67E-04 2.71E-04 6.50E-05 4.98E-06
Target reliability index βt
tref = 1 year 1 3.702 4.201 4.401 4.701 5.20
tref = 25 years 25 2.78 3.40 3.64 3.99 4.57
tref = 50 years 50 2.554 3.214 3.464 3.834 4.424
1) Reliability indices are based on (ISO2394, 2015).
2) Reliability index is based on (Rackwitz, 2000).
3) Reliability indices is based on (EN 1990, 2011)
4) Values are in the range of the values suggested in several national and international codes and standards all over
the world, such as (ASCE 7, 2022), (OCDI, 2009), (EN 1990, 2011) and (ROM, 2008).
4) Based on a berthing frequency of 100 berthings per year.
Table A-0-1: Probability of failure and associated reliability target for different consequence classes
199
Understanding the position and failure consequences of a fender system is of great
importance. In general, when failure consequences are high the required reliability level
increases. In some circumstances, failure of a single fender will not result in economic
repercussions, whereas in other situations major accidents may occur. When national
recommendations regarding reliability targets are lacking, Chapter 4 presents typical
examples of fender systems for different consequence classes. Most of the fender systems
installed on marine structures correspond to class A or class B. Table A-2 lists typical descriptions
of failure consequences in literature, which can serve as background information when
selecting a consequence class.
200
Description Consequence class
A B C D E
Qualitative Negligible/low Some Considerable High Very high
Human safety
- Number of people at risk NPAR <5 NPAR <50 NPAR <500 NPAR <1500 NPAR >1500
(ASCE 7, 2022)
- Degree of warning (ASCE Progression of failure is not Redundant structural Progression of failure is Widespread progression of Widespread progression,
7, 2022) (DNV, 1992) possible and people at risk response and progression mitigated, but failure is damage is likely to occur induced by unexpected
are able to escape in of failure is mitigated and sudden without providing and failure is sudden and sudden
time. failure is not sudden warning signals. without providing warning environmental disasters, is
providing adequate signals. possible.
warning signals.
Economic
- Description (ISO2394, 2015) Predominantly insignificant Material damage and Material losses and Disastrous events causing Catastrophic events
material damage. functionality losses of functionality losses of severe losses of societal causing losses of societal
significance for owners societal significance, services and disruptions services and disruptions
and operators and low or causing regional and delays at national and delays beyond
no social impact. disruptions and delays in scale over periods in the national scale over
important societal services order of months. periods in the order of
over several weeks. years.
- Accessibility (Ligtvoet & Lei Very little hindrance to Small consequences for Short period of barricade Damage to navigation Loss of main navigation
van der, 2012) shipping, railway transport, availability of navigation with regard to navigation channels, railways, roads channels, railways, roads
pipeline systems (Very channels, railways, roads channels, railways, roads or pipeline corridors. (The or pipeline corridors. (Main
or pipeline corridors. or pipeline corridors. (The transport routes are
201
Description Consequence class
A B C D E
short period, less than one (Barricade measures for a availability is lower for a availability is lower for a unavailable for a period of
day). period of one day). period of one week) period of weeks) months)
Environmental (ISO2394, Damage to the qualities Damage to the qualities Damage to the qualities Significant damage to the Significant damage to the
2015) of the environment of an of the environment of an of the environment limited qualities of the qualities of the
order that can be restored order that can be restored to the surroundings of the environment contained at environment spreading
completely in a matter of completely in a matter of failure event and that can national scale but significantly beyond the
days. weeks. be restored in a matter of spreading significantly national scale and that
weeks. beyond the surroundings can only be partly
of the failure event and restored in a matter of
that can only be partly years to decades.
restored in a matter of
months.
Reputation (Ligtvoet & Lei No negative attention in Very short period of Short and limited period of Period of negative Long period of negative
van der, 2012) media and no damage to negative attention in negative attention in attention in local, regional attention in local, regional
the image of the port. local, regional and local, regional and and national media and national media (>
national media (>1 day). national media (> 2 days). (>week), Serious concerns month). Very serious
Serious concerns among Serious concerns among among people living in concerns among people
people living in the people living in the the vicinity, local living in the vicinity, local
vicinity, local government, vicinity, local government, government, national government, national
national government or national government or government or external government or external
external clients. Damage external clients. Damage clients. Damage to image clients. Permanent
to image of a few to image of the port for of the port for some time. damage to image of the
stakeholders. some time. port.
202
APPENDIX B: THERMAL CONDUCTION OF RUBBER FENDERS
The symbols in this appendix deviate from the main report as these come from dedicated
reference (Nakamura, Nakamura, Miyata, Yoneyama, & Kashima, 2020).
Rubber is a material with low thermal conductivity. It takes a long time for heat to penetrate
inside fender body. During compression tests, measuring surface temperature is not enough
and the thermal stabilisation time is important to estimate. The following theory is used to
estimate time for thermal stabilisation.
One dimensional heat conduction theory is used to predict heat transfer inside a rubber body.
Fig. B.1 shows the calculation model of fender which is infinite rubber plate of thickness: 2 L.
Assuming that the temperature difference is θ (θ=T0-TW), the equation will be:
The temperature difference at the centre of rubber body at t=t will be:
(B.1)
203
2.Calculation of Thermal Stabilisation Time, Background of Equation (B.1)
The time until the temperature at the centre of rubber plate approaches 23℃ when the
specimen is moved from the initial temperature (ambient temperature, vulcanisation
temperature, etc.) to the standard temperature (23℃), can be estimated by using equation
B.1 above. The calculation conditions of rubber material were set as follows. These values may
be changed due to the actual materials.
The result is shown in Fig. B.2. The number of required days is close or shorter when the initial
temperature is daily atmosphere (-10 to 40℃), however longer when the initial temperature is
as high as vulcanisation temperature especially for large size fenders.
Figure B-2: relation rubber thickness and temperature adaptation of fender (Nakamura et al., 2020)
The performance of rubber fenders is affected by ambient temperature. So, the design
temperatures have a large influence on the choice of fender system. The ideal information
should be the temperature data recorded at the site where the fender is located. In practice,
the meteorological records in websites are very useful, however the designer should be careful
on the selection of appropriate temperature data for the fender design.
The above heat conduction theory is used to determine the design temperature from
statistical weather records. The record of air temperature in February 2018 at the Kushiro port
in Northern Japan is used as an example.
204
The lowest was -16.5 ℃ and the highest is 4.1 ℃. The temperature was recorded with one-hour
increments and displayed in Fig. B.3 with orange dots and line. The red curve is the time history
of rubber temperature at the depth of 10 cm and the yellow curve is at 20 cm deep. The black
line is the mean daily temperature.
Figure B-3: Time history of inner temperature and ambient temperature (Nakamura, Nakamura, Miyata,
Yoneyama, & Kashima, 2020)
The response of temperature depends on the thickness of rubber however according to Fig.
A.3, the highest and lowest daily average look appropriate for the highest and lowest design
temperature for rubber fender. However some extreme low temperatures are lower than the
lowest daily average. So, the fenders for the very cold weather, e.g. below -10 ℃ and the port
is in operation, actual measurement at site is recommended.
205
APPENDIX C MULTI-FENDER CONTACT, GEOMETRY FOR
FENDER COMPRESSION CALCULATIONS
Where multi-fender contact occurs the berthing energy is distributed between the contacted
fenders. This is described in Section 6.4.5. To calculate the contribution of multiple fenders
acting during berthing, the vessel and fender geometry are required. Figures C.1 and C.2
demonstrate the geometry of multi-fender contact and the impact of fender geometry.
Because the location of the tangent point on the hull varies with the elevation, designers
should consider the effects of the vessel draught, tide and elevation of the fenders. At a lower
elevation the fender contact on the hull will be further away from the bow and thus will result
in a higher eccentricity factor (Ce) in the berthing energy calculation (refer to Chapter 5).
Case 1: Multi Fender Contact at Low Approach Angle α – Contact at Hull Tangent Point
Multi-Fender Contact
∆H2 = ∆H1 - S Tan α Sin ϴ = (S / Cos α) / RB ≈ S / RB for small α
∆H3 = ∆H1 - 2S Tan α F = Bow hull offset at B1 from line of flat hull
∆H4 = ∆H1 - 3S Tan α F = 2RB Sin (½ϴ) Cos (90 - ½ϴ) = 2RB Sin2(½ϴ)
Etc Alternatively, F = RB(1 – Cos ϴ)
∆B1= ∆H1 + S tan α - F / Cos α α = Approach angle and H = Fender height
∆B2 no contact assumed ≥ 0 RB = Bow Radius at the level of the fender
RB RB
S S S S S
Figure C-1: Fender contact at hull tangent line impacts at fender centreline
206
Case 2: Multi Fender Contact at Low Approach Angle α – Hull Tangent Point between fenders
Multi-Fender Contact
∆H2 = ∆H1 - S Tan α Sin ϴ = (½S / Cos α) / RB ≈ S / 2RB for small α
∆H3 = ∆H1 - 2S Tan α F = Bow hull offset at B1 from line of flat hull
∆H4 = ∆H1 - 3S Tan α F = 2RB Sin (½ϴ) Cos (90 - ½ϴ) = 2RB Sin2(½ϴ)
Etc. α = Approach angle, H = Fender height
∆B1 = ∆H1 + S Tan α - F / Cos α Alternatively, F = RB(1 – Cos ϴ)
∆B2 no contact assumed ≥ 0
vessel bow
∆B1 ∆H1 etc.
fender line
α
H
S ½S ½S S S S
Figure C-2: Fender contact at hull tangent line centrally between fenders
It should be noted that the eccentricity factor (Ce) will change as more fenders are contacted
as the distance from the vessel centre of mass to the centroid of the fender reactions will
change. Refer to Section 5.6 for further explanation.
207
APPENDIX D: ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS AND UNITS
14.1 D.1 ABBREVIATIONS
BS British Standard
GT Gross Tonnage
RoRo Roll-on/roll-off
STS Ship-to-Ship
UV Ultraviolet
208
14.2 D.2 SYMBOLS
Symbols cover all Chapters and Appendices except for Appendix B and C.
𝐴𝑐 (m2) Contact area of fender panel with vessel hull, excluding chamfers
𝑐𝑒𝑓𝑓 (m) Effective clearance between supporting structure and vessel hull due to bow
flare.
𝐶𝑚 (-) Added mass factor
209
Symbol Unit Definition
𝐸𝑘,𝑐 (kNm) Characteristic energy to be absorbed by fenders in contact (and the supporting
structure where applicable) during the impact
𝐸𝑘,𝑑 (kNm) Design energy to be absorbed by fenders in contact during the impact
𝐸𝑆𝐶 (kNm) Energy absorbed after single deflection at the standard condition
𝐸𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑐 (kNm) Characteristic ship-to-ship berthing energy that needs to be absorbed by fender
system at the time of impact
𝐸𝑣 (kNm) Kinetic energy of berthing vessel at the time of impact
𝐿𝑏𝑜𝑤,𝐹 (m) Distance from the bow tangent point to the bow at the elevation of the fender
𝑀 (tonnes) Displacement of the berthing vessel, equal to the total mass of the vessel and
all its cargo
𝑀1 (tonnes) Mass equivalent to displacement of the Vessel 1
210
Symbol Unit Definition
𝑀𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑐 (tonnes) Characteristic mass for energy of ship-to-ship berthing, including the effects of
the displacement and added mass of both vessels
𝑛 (-) Annual berthing frequency
𝑅𝑓,𝑆𝐶 (kNm) Reaction force after single deflection at the standard condition
𝑟𝐹 (m) Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to the resultant fender reaction force
𝑟𝐿 (m) Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to the hull contact point of resultant
fender reaction force parallel to the berthing line
𝑟𝐿𝑖 (m) Distance from the centre of mass of the vessel to compressed i th fender
perpendicular to the berthing line
𝑟𝐿𝑛 (m) Distance from the centre of mass of the vessel to compressed n th fender
perpendicular to the berthing line
211
Symbol Unit Definition
𝑟𝑠 (m) Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to the hull contact point of resultant
fender reaction force parallel to the berthing line
𝑟𝑠𝑖 (m) Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to compressed i th fender parallel to
the berthing line
𝑟𝑠𝑛 (m) Distance from the centre of mass of vessel to compressed n th fender parallel to
the berthing line
𝑇0 (°C) Standard temperature
𝑇𝑐,ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ (°C) Average monthly ambient air temperature of the hottest month
𝑇𝑐,𝑙𝑜𝑤 (°C) Average ambient air temperature of the coldest day of the year with a return
period of five years
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥,𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 (°C) Average daily maximum ambient temperature of the coldest month
𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛,𝑐𝑜𝑙𝑑 (°C) Average daily minimum ambient temperature of the coldest month
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥,ℎ𝑜𝑡 (°C) Average monthly maximum ambient temperature of the hottest month
𝑇𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛,ℎ𝑜𝑡 (°C) Average monthly ambient air temperature of the hottest month
𝑇𝑚𝑖𝑛,ℎ𝑜𝑡 (°C) Average monthly minimum ambient temperature of the hottest month
𝑉𝐵 (m/s) Berthing velocity of vessel at the time of impact, perpendicular to the berthing
line
𝑉𝐵,𝑐 (m/s) Characteristic berthing velocity of vessel at the time of impact, perpendicular
to the berthing line
𝑉𝐵1 (m/s) Berthing velocity of the Vessel 1
𝑉𝐿 (m/s) Berthing velocity of vessel at the time of impact, parallel to the berthing line
𝑉𝐿1 (m/s) Berthing velocity of the Vessel 1 at the time of impact, parallel to the virtual
berthing line (ship-to-ship berthing)
𝑉𝐿2 (m/s) Berthing velocity of vessel at the time of impact, parallel to the virtual berthing
line (ship-to-ship berthing)
𝑉𝐿,𝑐 (m/s) Characteristic berthing velocity of vessel at the time of impact, parallel to the
berthing line
𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑠,𝑐 (m/s) Characteristic closing berthing velocity between vessels
𝑋𝑏𝑜𝑤;𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑘 (m) Distance from the bow to the tangent line at deck level
𝑋𝑏𝑜𝑤;𝑙𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑙 (m) Distance from the bow to the hull/bow tangent point at water level for a laden
vessel
𝑥𝐵 (m) Distance from bow at the elevation of the fender to centroid of fender reaction
force
212
Symbol Unit Definition
𝛾𝐸,𝑟𝑒𝑓 (-) Reference partial energy factor for 100 berthings per year
∅ (degrees) Angle between velocity vector and the line between the hull contact point of
the resultant fender reaction force and the centre of mass of vessel
Φ (-) Standard normal cumulative distribution function
𝜑𝑄 (-) Combination factor from international code, standard or national annex
𝜔0 (radians/s) Initial angular velocity of the berthing vessel
213
APPENDIX E: TERMS OF REFERENCE WG 211
Terms of Reference Updating of WG 33 – ‘Guidelines For The Design Of Fender Systems’
1. Background
Marine fenders are a critical component in maritime infrastructure, absorbing the energy of
vessels during berthing and while moored, and protecting both vessels and berth structures
from damage.
In 1984 PIANC published a Supplement to Bulletin No. 45, containing improved design methods
for fender systems.
This guideline was followed in 2002 by PIANC WG 33, which included more advanced fender
design and testing methods, taking into account performance modification factors for
manufacturing tolerances, temperature and velocity.
Since the WG 33 guideline was published:
• there have been further advances in design methods for fender systems
• vessel dimensions and hull shapes have further evolved
• WG 145 (being finalised) has collected and analysed berthing velocities and angles
• WG 145 has also addressed reliability design, vessel dimensions and container vessel flare
angles
• WG 186 (in progress) is considering mooring requirements for large vessels at quay walls
• an update of WG 24 is proposed (‘Criteria for Movement of Moored Ships in Harbours’)
• manufacturers have undertaken further research into fender materials, performance,
durability and impacts of aging
• improvements to WG 33 guidelines have been suggested by users, including improved
fender testing and verification procedures, performance requirements for fender system
elements and the addition of maintenance and repair guidelines
• automated mooring systems are increasingly being used in conjunction with conventional
fender systems.
214
• review recent research by fender manufacturers and update guidance in relation to
durability and performance, including:
- fender materials composition and influence on performance factors
- fender durability and causes of failure
- impact of aging on fender performance and reactions
• review the WG 33 guidance in relation to testing procedures for fender materials and
fender performance, with specific reference to:
- representative scope of testing
- consistency of test procedures and compliance in testing facilities
- representative quality and quantity of samples to be tested
- independence of testing and verification of fender materials and performance
• clarify that PIANC is not a fender certifying body and cannot endorse certification of
compliance by third parties using the guidelines
• provide guidance on design of other fender system components including facing panels,
chains and fixings
• provide guidance on durability, maintenance and repair of fender system components
• provide guidance on the implications of automated mooring systems used in conjunction
with fender systems.
3. Documents to be Reviewed
Documents to be reviewed include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Supplement to PIANC Bulletin No. 45 (1984): “Report of the International Commission for
Improving the Design of Fender Systems”.
• PIANC MarCom Working Group 33 (2002): “Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems”.
• EAU (2004): “Recommendations of the Committee for Waterfront Structures, Harbours and
Waterways”.
• “Technical Standards and Commentaries for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan”, 2009.
• Spanish ROM 0.2-11 (2011): “Recommendations for the Planning and Execution of Berthing
and Mooring Works”.
• BS6349 (2014): “Code of Practice for Design of Fendering and Mooring Systems”, Maritime
Structures Part 4.
• PIANC MarCom Working Group 145 (2020): “Berthing Velocity Analysis of Seagoing Vessels
over 30,000 dwt”.
• PIANC MarCom Working Group 24 (1995) (update proposed): “Criteria for Movement of
Moored Ships in Harbours”.
• PIANC MarCom Working Group 186 (in preparation): “Mooring of Large Ships at Quay
Walls”.
• “Maintenance Guideline for Rubber Marine Fenders”, Coastal Development Institute of
Technology Library, No.40, 2013.
• Recent technical papers and presentations including the following presented at the PIANC
Australia Fender Workshop and PIANC/IEAust Ports and Coasts Conference (2017):
- “Approaches to Life Evaluation of Rubber Marine Fenders”, by H. Akiyama, T. Shiomi, K.
Shimizu, S. Yamamoto, S. Ueda and T. Kamada.
- “Life Evaluation of Fenders Including Effect of Compounding Fillers”, presentation by H.
Akiyama, Bridgestone Corporation.
- “Large Vessel Profile and Fender System Design Study”, presentation by H. Akiyama,
Bridgestone Corporation.
- “Ensuring Fender Performance through Compression and Material Testing”,
presentation by M. Kumar, Trelleborg Marine Systems.
215
- “Fender Compression and Durability Testing – First Hand Experience and Room for
Improvement”, presentation by H. Singh, CH2M.
6. Intended Product
• The intended product is an update of WG 33 providing concise and clear design guidance
for fender systems, in alignment with current practice, together with updated guidance in
relation to fender materials, performance, testing, durability and maintenance.
216
PIANC HQ: Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20 B. 3 | 1000 Brussels | Belgium
217