Offshore Access: A key driver to increase Offshore Wind Farms Efficiency

Juan Amate Lpez#1, Pedro Pablo Castro Izquierdo#2, Alejandro Gonzlez Andreu #3, Alberto Rodrguez Lpez #4
#

Iberdrola Ingeniera y Construccin Avda. Manoteras 20. Madrid. Spain

jaez@iberdrola.es pciz@iberdrola.es 3 agonzalez@iberdrola.es 4 arop@iberdrola.es
2 1

Abstract Accessibility level of offshore wind farms (OWF) is becoming one of the foremost problems to handle for todays developers, as it may affect significantly on the energy yield obtained and on project economics. Since this has been assumed, it is getting more important to properly design the access methodologies for OWF, this means to choose the optimum solutions to access to the OWF from the shore and the best systems to perform the transfer operations (marine or aerial) to access the offshore structures meeting Health and Safety (H&S) requirements. Since the offshore wind development is walking towards larger power plants and far away from the shore, offshore accessibility is becoming one of the most important design drivers to increase OWF efficiency. Also, wind turbine availability warranties depend on offshore accessibility and this would become a big problem for project financing and one big headache for the developer. Several research programmes like the Carbon Trusts Offshore Wind Accelerator (OWA) are considering the possibility of decreasing the overall operational cost by selecting the optimum access solution for each project site, and this means to perform a serious analysis on existing technologies. In these last years it has been booming a new sector to provide access for OWF that has developed several new boat designs that meet OWF operational needs or has refurbished old designs from the Oil & Gas industry. The main design drivers were to choose a hull technology that increase the sea acceptance (wave height, wind speed) during both access and transfer operations, the access speed, to adapt boat technical features to project size needs (load & personnel capacities, lifting capacity) and to decrease costs. Also, in a parallel way several companies and research institutes has been developing systems specialized on making safe transfers from boats to OWF structures (WTG, metmast, transformer substation, or even an accommodation module) by using systems that may compensate the waves cinematic effect over the transfer boat. Despite this, there is a lack of an specific H&S standards for these operations at OWF that must be created in the next coming years. This paper aims to establish a serious background for selecting the optimum access system for an specific OWF site by comparing all technologies in use not only in the Renewable Energy Industry but also establishing some synergies with the Oil & Gas industry that has notable experience in this matter.

For this purpose it has been made a deep analysis on both access and transfer systems detailing and comparing their main costs, capacities, features and needs.

Keywords Accessibility, access system, transfer system, offshore wind farm.

I. INTRODUCTION To develop an OWF project, the heavy investment to be made through installing structures in a hostile environment, like sea is for human being, is worth by the theoretical benefits to be obtained by them. Taking this into account, to ensure OWF proper operability within the whole project lifecycle should be one of the main challenges to be reached as OWF efficiency is defined as the ratio of the total incomes obtained with the OWF production based on its energy yield balance to the total costs (capital and operational expenditures, CAPEX & OPEX) needed for its installation, operation and maintenance. The main target to maximize OWFs production and thus OWFs efficiency is to keep them working as much time as possible, which means that OWFs should be available the longer the better, producing energy as sooner as wind resource were available. Nevertheless, the reliability of the elements of OWFs structures is limited and they might fail during the project lifecycle, losing thus its production capacity. To repair these faults (or even to do maintenance works to prevent them) it is going to be necessary that qualified personnel access the offshore structures. These access and transfer operations are not an easy matter and their success relies on many factors (meteorological and oceanic conditions, time to perform the operation, number of persons needed to repair the fault, materials needed by the technicians, etc.) or even the access or transfer system used to perform the operation, making of accessibility a crucial design pattern for an OWF project. Thus far, to consider offshore accessibility as a key driver to increase OWF efficiency, this paper aims to establish a serious background for selecting the optimum access system for an particular OWF site by comparing all technologies in use not only in the Renewals Energies industry but also establishing some synergies with the Oil & Gas industry that

has notable experience in this matter. For this purpose it has been made a deep analysis on access and transfer systems, detailing and comparing their main costs, capacities, features and needs. II. CERTIFICATION AND STANDARDS FOR OFFSHORE WIND
ACCESSIBILITY

The analysis of access and transfer systems should begin by studying the existing framework (certification and classification standards) to design proper offshore accessibility plans and methodologies for a specific site. After a deep analysis on this scope, the results encountered show a lack of proper offshore wind accessibility rules and standards. Although a deep development is forecasted in this issue within the next years, in our study we have only found one reference that meets properly the requirements that we were looking for. The Offshore Standard DNV-OS-J201 Offshore Substations for Wind Farms (October 2009) provides in its Section 7 (Access and Transfer) design and management principles, requirements and guidance for safe and controlled access and transfer of personnel to and from the offshore substation. According to this publication, we have identified on the one hand, some issues to consider when defining performance criteria for both marine (meteorological and ocean condition operating window, boat suitability for intended operation, personnel or cargo transfer or boat crew training and competence) and aerial access (severity of turbulence that may occur in the helicopter flight path). The design basis which we have contemplated include site conditions (meteorological and ocean conditions at the installation site and along the travel routes, in particular wind and waves, and weather windows for safe access and transfer) and means of transport (boat and helicopter options, size, capabilities [cargo capabilities mainly], requirements, distances and travel times). On the other hand, for offshore transfer needs, extrapolating the minimum requirements and options mentioned by DNV-OS-J201 about offshore substations accessibility, it should be used means of transferring persons and cargo between boat and installation (wind turbines, metmasts or even to offshore accommodation modules) where each activity shall be carried out within defined meteorological and oceanographic conditions, compensating all the wave induced movements. Also helicopters must be considered, actually a designated deck area or a system of compensating operational limitations (a special deck in the nacelle of the wind turbine, e.g.) shall be established from which persons and cargo can be safely transferred. It is therefore necessary to identify the access system (marine or aerial) attributes and values that ensure the proper operation execution meeting site conditions and cargo requirements. The parameters that we have considered necessary to be contemplated will be detailed later in this paper. We have also used standard DNV-OS-J201 to classify the transfer systems, grouping them, simplifying our survey and

being more accurate identifying features, capacities and needs in accordance with the requirements to meet. This classification includes fendering systems, gangway docking systems, personnel carriers, full compensated systems and other transfer methods as we will see later in this paper. To complement these guidelines and recommendations, just until a proper Standard for OWF Accessibility were developed, we consider necessary to use some of the existing publications in related areas as Oil & Gas industry (O&G) or Health & Safety (H&S) and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) disciplines gathering as much information as possible helping in our idea of identifying criteria to perform offshore access and transfer activities in a reliable and safe way. The information reviewed is about establishing an operational H&S management system to eliminate or minimise risk to employees and other interested parties who may be exposed to OH&S risks associated with its activities (OHSAS 18001 Health & Safety Standard.- Occupational Health & Safety Advisory Services, ANSI Z-10 Occupational Health and Safety Management System.- American National Standards Institute (ANSI)), using guidelines for prevention and control of hazards in the Wind Energy sector like installing fixtures on tower components to facilitate the use of fall protection systems, providing workers with adequate equipments and work-positioning device systems or provision of appropriate marine boats and qualified boat operators (Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy.- International Finance Corporation), identifying the occupational hazards associated with OWF in Operation activities (maintenance and minor repair operations) where primary issues are access and egress (frequent personnel transfers between boats and towers and where it is anticipated that each offshore wind farm turbine could require up to six maintenance or repair visits per year (The Health and Safety Risks an Regulatory Strategy Related to Energy Developments.- UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE)), recommendations for operation and maintenance activities, including practical exercises with boats (positioning, launching, manoeuvring and landing) and analysing of all the transfer situations in order to develop the necessary procedures for both boats and helicopters (Recommendations for Design of Offshore Wind Turbines (RECOFF) (Work Package 6: Operation and maintenance: labour safety and standard method for data collection).- EU Project Recommendations for Design of Offshore Wind Turbines) or even very specific standards publications (CAP 437 Offshore Helicopter Landing Areas Guidance on Standards.- Civil Aviation Authority UK, OS-E401 Helicopter decks.- DNV, EN 13852-1 Cranes Offshore cranes Part 1: Generalpurpose offshore cranes.- DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung ).

III. STATE OF ART OF OFFSHORE ACCESS SYSTEMS Once analyzed the existing framework, we have considered necessary to make a distinction between two types of access systems due to different limitations and requirements to be contemplated. On the one hand we have classified marine access, where wave induced movements are the main challenge to beat, and on the other hand we have identified aerial access, where wind speed and turbulence would be the main issues to deal with. A. Marine access Firstly, we have studied marine access and a new distinction has been made in order to group all existing boats which are able to perform an OWF access through their sizes and capacities. We have pondered over this classification to gather similar boats, with similar capacities, features and needs, into a few groups, which is much easier to analyze and quantify than the huge amount of different boats able to be considered in the analysis. Boats have not always the same seakeeping behaviour. One of the main design patterns which affect the behaviour of a specific boat sailing on open sea is its hull configuration and thus, we have classified three kinds of different boats according to this feature: 1) Monohull boats: They are boats constructed of a single water displacing body. A monohull is relatively wide and a good portion thereof remains submerged at all times below the water surface which may produce great resistance to motion at high speeds and poor seakeeping behaviour in rough seas. 2) Catamaran boats: They are boats constructed with a different hull structure from monohull boats. The hull of a catamaran consists of a pair of hulls, each of which is comparatively narrow and long, laterally spaced and typically held together by the deck or by the superstructure of the boat. This offers the advantages of a reduced resistance to motion which permits this kind of boats to attain speeds not possible with a monohull and/or the option of being equipped with less powerful (and therefore less expensive) engines. Furthermore, because of their relatively great length in relation to their width, catamarans are able to travel at high speed and have an excellent lateral stability. 3) Small-Waterplane-Area-Twin-Hull (SWATH) boats: SWATH is a twin-hull design that minimizes hull volume in the surface area of the sea, where wave energy is located, making thus the vessel very stable, even in high seas and at high speeds. The bulk of the displacement necessary to keep the ship afloat is located beneath the waves, where it is less affected by wave action, as wave excitation drops exponentially with depth. To summarize this analysis on hull configurations, different heel angles of boats sailing in sea states of 1.5 2 metres significant wave height are reviewed in figure 1 showing their seakeeping behaviour.

Fig. 1 Heel angles for different boats according with their hull design

As previously referred in this paper, we consider necessary to list the main attributes which could decide whether a particular system (boats in this case) is valid to perform an offshore access, meeting project conditions and framework certification and classifications standards. These are the physical attributes of the boat (length, beam, draft and displacement) which may indicate if it is capable to harbour a specific load or to perform a particular manoeuvre, its maximum and service speed, which may help to estimate access travel times, its consumption or autonomy, necessary to know about its uninterrupted service time, its load capacity (both cargo and personnel capacity included) to know if it is able to perform a particular job and, finally, its significant wave height acceptance, to know if it will be possible to perform the access with a specific sea state. The next step consists in making a study of the state of art of suitable offshore access boats. To make this work we have extracted information from different companies which offer this boats services, which have let us generating reference values for the attributes previously identified in the boat classification defined (monohull boats, catamaran boats and SWATH boats) (Table 1). The companies from whom we have obtained information are BALTEC Composite GmbH, Abeking & Rassmussen, Wind Cat Workboats BV, Alnmaritec Ltd., South Boats Special Projects, FINTRY Marine Ltd. and Gareloch Support Services (GSS) Ltd., many of them being personally contacted to request the information needed.

ACCESS SYSTEMS MONOHULL

Length Beam Draft Displacement Engine power Speed (service / max) Fuel consume Significant wave height accep. Load capacity Personnel capacity m m m ton 15 5 1 28

CATAMARAN
20 7 0,9 25

SWATH
25 15 2,7 125

kW kt l/h

1.500 20 / 24 220

750 25 / 28 150

1.580 15 / 18 300

m ton #

1,5 1 8

2 2,5 12

3,5 3 12

Table 1. Marine access systems reference values

B. Aerial access A similar procedure has been carried out with aerial access and, as we have also considered necessary gathering helicopters with similar capacities, we have classified them in two groups according to the sort of jobs they are going to deal with: 1) Utility helicopters: They are multi-purpose aircrafts capable of lifting both personnel and cargo, which may be used in offshore wind operation and maintenance activities (like transferring personnel directly to the wind turbines nacelle). 2) Offshore transport helicopters: They are aircrafts capable of transporting a higher amount of personnel and cargo than utility helicopters due to their size and design. In aerial offshore accessibility we have identified as main attributes to define the capability of a helicopter to perform an offshore access fulfilling framework certification and classifications standards, firstly, the speed of the aircraft, to estimate access travel times, its consumption or autonomy, to calculate total service time to deliver, its load capacity (both cargo and personnel capacity), to know if it is able to perform a specific job and, finally, its wind speed acceptance, to know if it will be possible to perform the access. We have also made a state of art study of suitable offshore access helicopters like we did in marine access systems, creating reference values with all collected data for the attributes previously named in the helicopter classification (utility helicopters, offshore transport helicopter) (Table 2). All the information has been obtained from companies such as Bond Air Services, Inaer Aviation Group, Eurocopter, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Agusta Westland NV, Unifly A/S, Erikson Air Crane or BELL Helicopter, many of them being personally contacted as we did in marine access category.

20 18

5 4 s n 3 o T 2

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 s n o s r e P

1 0 Monohull Catamaran SWATH Utility Helicopter PersonnelCapacity Transport Helicopter

LoadCapacity

Chart 1. Load and Personnel Capacities for Access Systems

4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50

Metres

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Monohull Catamaran SignificantWaveHeight SWATH

Chart 2. Sea Window for Marine Access Systems

60.00

50.00

ACCESS SYSTEMS
knots

40.00

UTILITY
Cruise speed Fuel consume Wind speed acceptance Load capacity Personnel capacity kt kg/h Up to 155 190 - 220

TRANSPORT
Up to 140 500

30.00

20.00
kt ton # 40-50 1 4 40-50 5 19

10.00

Table 2. Aerial access systems reference values

0.00 UtilityHelicopter TransportHelicopter WindSpeed

Merging all these results into simple charts, it is easier to compare different access systems features as load and personnel capacities (Chart 1), sea window (Chart 2) or delivery speeds (Chart 3).

Chart 3. Sea Window for Aerial Access Systems

180 160 140 120

knots

100 80 60 40 20 0 Monohull Catamaran SWATH UtilityHelicopter Transport Helicopter

CruiseSpeed

Chart 4. Cruise Speeds for Offshore Access Systems

All these values (both for marine and aerial access systems) show reference issues when developing offshore design methodologies, helping to decide the best access system for a particular OWF project. According to this, we have proposed some tables for decision taking, relating access systems with OWF site features as we will describe them later in this document. IV. STATE OF ART OF OFFSHORE TRANSFER SYSTEMS We have also considered necessary to make a distinction in transfer systems, groping them according to the operation delivered, just in the way we did with access systems. Working with a structured and classified list of available transfer systems it is going to be much easier to study them later for their suitability for a specific OWF project. As previously referred, to elaborate this classification we have used standard DNV-OS-J201 arrangement, including as transfer system types the following: fendering systems, gangway docking systems, personnel carriers, full compensated systems and other transfer methods. Apart from this classification, we have identified as main attributes to define the operation capability of a transfer system, satisfying the certification and classification standards previously reviewed, its personnel and cargo capacity, its wave height acceptance to perform the transfer, its capability to compensate the waves induced movement and, a very important issue, its special needs to be able to perform the transfer operation. Nevertheless, after making a deep survey on companies that provide offshore transfer systems, including not only commercial methods but also prototypes or design concepts, the results encountered show that, apart from grouping them by their operation type, as opposed with access systems, they cannot be much more standardised; any of them has many attributes which differ from the rest of the systems so that we have chosen to study them, inside the operation types previously named, one by one.

A. Fendering systems The first group analysed in the study include the fendering systems. During fendering operations a boat docks or pushes against an offshore structure, delivering engines full power compensating thus the wave induced movements. This procedure allows persons to step over to a ladder or a similar climbing device. Fendering the boat may also permit transfer of cargo if a suitable crane and available deck space exist. It is important to notice that when fendering operations were to be used, some criteria should be applied as design of the structure to be accessed, capable of withstanding loads and impacts from the largest expected size of service vessel, considering even necessary to install two access points appropriately positioned to accommodate for prevailing wind, wave and tidal conditions. It should be also necessary that, as a minimum, all personnel were provided with appropriate personal protection, survival and visibility equipment. The performance of this kind of transfer system is fully conditioned by the boat used to fender the offshore structure; its size, design, power and additional hoisting devices will define the transfer level to deliver (wave induced compensation, wave height acceptance and load capacity mainly), so the reference values that we have assigned (see Table 3) may fluctuate according with the boat used.

FENDERING SYSTEMS

Personnel capacity Load capacity

1 person each 100-150 kg + additional workboat hoisting device capacity

Wave induced movement compensation? Significant wave height acceptance

Boat compensation + boat engine force Boat acceptance (1m 2.5m)

Special needs

Workboat bow design Offshore structure design

Table 3. Fendering transfer system reference values

B. Gangway docking systems The second group identified include gangway docking systems. Gangway docking type operations consist of a boat mounted gangway which is connected directly or indirectly to the offshore structure to access. As it is the case in the previous group, to meet the requirements previously defined on Certification and standards for Offshore Wind accessibility, some criteria should be applied where gangway docking operations were to be used. The offshore structure to be accessed, the landing platform, the gangway and the docking arrangement shall be designed to withstand loads and impacts from the largest expected size of service boat, the link mechanisms between gangway and structure shall be designed in a way which prevents excess stresses and loads on the installation structure and the boat or vessel shall have a dynamic positioning system

where considered necessary following a formal safety assessment. It should be also necessary that, as a minimum, all personnel were provided with appropriate personal protection, survival and visibility equipment. It may also be considered the idea of mounting the gangway on the offshore structure instead of the own access boat, despite of the lack of reusability of the gangway that this configuration means. The requirements previously defined would apply at this point too. We have found different gangway docking systems while doing the survey on offshore transfer systems. These are the following: 1) The Offshore Access System (OAS), developed by Offshore Solutions BV, consists of a 21 metres hydraulically operated telescopic gangway fitted with an active heavecompensation system. The OAS incorporates a motion reference unit which, when engaged, maintains the gangway tip at a constant height relative to the horizon. This allows the gangway to connect to a fixed structure safely, in sea states currently up to 2.5 metres significant wave height. The heave compensation system is automatically enabled when in approach mode. This is when the gangway is slewed outboard from its cradle and extended to engage with a vertical pole on the installation. Then, a constant-force system ensures that pressure is exerted against the pole before the gangway is retracted to engage the patented latching mechanism and land the gangway. This mechanism, exclusive to Offshore Solutions, ensures a safe and secure connection that is designed with fail-safe systems for emergency disconnection when necessary. It is at this point that the reliance upon technology stops. The heave compensation system is disengaged and the gangway is allowed to float between the vessel and the installation. This free-floating condition automatically compensates for the motion of the vessel, thereby allowing the safe transfer of personnel to commence without reliance upon any active technological system. The vessel position relative to the installation is maintained by the use of a Class 2 (minimum) Dynamic Positioning (DP) equipped vessel. According to Offshore Solutions information, there is also a special 40 metres heave compensated OAS prototype with telescopic pedestal, suitable for large accommodation vessels which can operate in sea states up to 5 metres significant wave height.

GANGWAY DOCKING SYSTEMS OAS Offshore Solutions

Gangway size (length x width) Personnel capacity Load capacity Wave induced movement compensation? Significant wave height acceptance

17.5 metres x 0.8 metres 3 persons 300 kg

Heave compensation 2.5 metres

Special needs

23 ton payload DP2 vessel Offshore structure design (vertical pole & deck)

Table 4. OAS transfer system reference values

2) The Offshore Transfer System (OTS), also developed by Offshore Solutions BV, is a patented lightweight gangway which has been developed for benign water locations (sea states up to 1,5 metres significant wave height) to allow safe access from a fast crew boat to an offshore structure. The OTS can be installed onboard any suitable vessel, whilst all that is required on the offshore structure is a vertical pole to provide a connection point. The gangway is simple to operate and does not rely on a controlled heave compensation system. The coupling arm is extended from under the gangway once the OTS is moved from its stowed position into its approach position. The latch hook at the end of the coupling arm is then manoeuvred around the vertical pole on the fixed structure. Once connected, the crew boat then applies forward thrust which is counteracted by a variable tension hydraulic spring. The inner gangway is then extended and secured in the operating position to allow the safe transfer of personnel to commence.

GANGWAY DOCKING SYSTEMS OTS Offshore Solutions

Gangway size (length x width) Personnel capacity Load capacity Wave induced movement compensation? Significant wave height acceptance

9 metres x 0.6-0.8 metres 3 persons 300 kg

No 1.5 metres

Special needs

4.2 ton payload vessel Offshore structure design (vertical pole )

Table 5. OTS transfer system reference values

3) The WaterBridge Turbine, developed by IHC Engineering Business Ltd., is an 8 metres inflatable bridge which facilitates people access to offshore structures in a greater range of weather conditions than traditional landing systems would permit (up to 2.5 metres significant wave height). Once deployed, WaterBridge minimises the effect of relative motion between the support boat and the target at the

transfer point allowing personnel safe and easy access in a wide range of sea conditions. Originally designed to access offshore wind turbines, the inflatable bridge concept has been developed from the original WaterBridge into a family of solutions for the transfer of personnel, supplies and equipment at sea.

GANGWAY DOCKING SYSTEMS WaterBridge Turbine IHC Engineering Business

Gangway length Personnel capacity Load capacity Wave induced movement compensation? Significant wave height acceptance 8 metres 1 person 150 kg

No 2.5 metres

Special needs

Minimal modifications in the offshore structure

Table 6. WaterBridge Turbine transfer system reference values

C. Personnel carriers The third offshore transfer systems group identified include personnel carriers. Winched transfer of persons (in approved man-riding carriers such as baskets, cages or cradles) and cargo can be performed with the boat positioned in a standoff location, not directly in contact with the installation, or fendered. As in the previous groups, to meet the requirements defined on Certification and standards for Offshore Wind accessibility in this paper, some criteria should be applied where winched transfer operations were to be used: Lifting structures shall be designed to permit safe vertical lift with consideration for load swing and minimal potential for impact with boat or installation, man-riding cranes or winches shall comply with applicable regulations and personnel carriers should be designed to protect users from lateral and vertical impacts that might arise during the defined operating envelope. It should be also necessary that, as a minimum, all personnel were provided with appropriate personal protection, visibility and survival equipment. Finally, the cargo should be transferred by winch or crane. We have found different personnel carriers while doing the survey on offshore transfer systems. These are the following: 4) The Personnel Transfer System (PTS), developed by PTS-Personnel Transfer System GmbH and currently at preproduction stage, is a radio controlled two-armed hydraulic boom, which must be installed on every single offshore structure. For the transfer the user wears a belt system which connects to the transfer hook. The supply vessel for PTS should be able to sail and hold position in seas of up to 3 metres significant wave height and with a safety distance of at least 5 metres to the structure to access. The PTS would be then activated and swing out from the neutral position into the working position, where the system is full heave compensated.

At this point, the transfer hook, moved by the winch, would follow the movements of the vessel. This is enabled by a fuzzy logic control and different movement detections systems. The person to be transferred steers the PTS via radio remote control in a way that the transfer hook would be approximately 1.5 metres above the aft deck of the vessel. At this moment the system would be compensating the vertical movement of the vessel while the hook stands still in relation to the deck. The user connects the transfer hook to his harness, presses the lift button and then the system lifts him from deck and outside the dangerous area. After that, the user steers the PTS to the landing point on the service platform and removes the connection to the transfer hook. The vessel is then free again and can take on other tasks. The material transfer would work very similarly, though there is now a person on the service platform of the offshore structure to steer the PTS. The way back to the vessel is more difficult, because the user cannot feel the movements of the vessel. The automatic control of PTS enables a smooth and save transfer back. The user moves the PTS over the deck of the vessel high enough outside dangerous impact area. Then he would lower himself down by the winch and, in a safe distance, he would ask the supervisor to switch the compensation on and, under compensation of the vertical movement of the vessel, the user would approach the deck. Under permanent compensation, the user can release the hook from the harness and leave the landing zone. PTS would then be steered into its basic position. A version without compensation is also available with 2-5 tons of load capacity, with a range of 8 metres and with 1.5 metres significant wave height acceptance.

PERSONNEL CARRIERS PTS Personnel Transfer System GmbH

Personnel capacity Load capacity Weight 1 person 500 kg 4.5 ton

Wave induced movement compensation? Significant wave height Wind speed acceptance

Full heave compensation (6 metres distance range) 3 metres 18 m/s

Special needs

Vessel able to sail and hold position in 3 metres significant wave height seas

Table 7. PTS transfer system reference values

5) The FROG Personnel Transfer Capsule is a personnel transfer device developed by Reflex Marine Ltd. and designed to provide increased passenger protection when carrying out the transfer of personnel between boats and installations. The FROG comprises the following two main assemblies: firstly, the stainless steel outer framework, containing polyethylene buoyancy panels and, secondly, a spring-dampened seating assembly mounted on a central column. The outer framework protects passengers from impacts and contains the buoyant elements which ensure the FROG floatability. Furthermore, FROG is self-righting in water as in its base there are keel

weights which assist in this behaviour. The outer shell lands on three tripod feet that provide shock absorption and ensure that the FROG is stable on uneven surfaces or when landing on a heaving vessel. The outer shell also has three large open accesses that allow rapid unimpeded exit. During transit, passengers are seated and secured with full harnesses to protect them against whiplash and falling. Seating is mounted on a sprung carriage to provide protection against heavy landings. Finally, the sling assembly is of a special design to prevent capsule rotation. 6) The TORO Personnel Transfer Capsule is also a personnel transfer device developed by Reflex Marine Ltd. which delivers the same service that FROG does, to provide increased passenger protection when carrying out the transfer of personnel between boats and installations. Both TORO and FROG deliver a similar service but TORO capsule supports the passengers in a semi-seated upright position which, together with suitability positioned grab handles, allows them to adopt a braced position against movement of the device. Lap belts are fitted as standard and full harnesses are available as an option for greater security. The TORO comprises, as FROG does, two main assemblies. Firstly, the inner assembly embracing foam filled polyethylene seats mounted on the load-bearing central column and, secondly, a stainless steel outer framework which supports foam filled polyethylene buoyancy panels providing thus the same behaviour previously described in FROG system. To take advantage of TORO and FROG capsules Reflex Marine is developing three different concepts to perform safe and reliable offshore transfers by using them. The first of all of them is the Concept A: Transfer Capsule combined with Wind Turbine Lift Facility, which would use a remote controlled winching system located on the turbine. Using this concept, passengers and equipment would be lifted with sufficient vertical winch speed to avoid re-collision with a heaving deck. The capsule would be then automatically slowed as it docks with the davit arm. The second one is Concept B: Transfer Capsule combined with Vessel Based Lift Facility, which would use a vessel based lifting arrangement that would be compensated to eliminate the vessel motions from the lifting activity. The compensation system could either act directly on the lifting arrangement or use a compensated platform to harbour the lifting equipment. Compensation might be restricted to 2-3 degrees of freedom to simplify the control process, whilst providing sufficient control to avoid establishing significant swing on the capsule. The capsule would accommodate the relative vertical motion between a moving vessel and a stationary crane point. A Dynamic Positioning (DP) equipped vessel would be preferable to use this concept. The last one, Concept C: Transfer Capsule self winched onto dumb lift point, would use a heavily modified transfer capsule where all winching effort would be directly applied within the capsule itself. To keep weight down and an effective hoist speed, a combination of pneumatic (fast) and electric (slow) power sources would be used together. The

turbine would be furnished with simple passive lifting point arrangement with gravity aided retraction of the transfer capsule into the turbine. The capsule winch would be principally powered via umbilical, including on board back up power for emergency. In addition, the capsule would be connected to the lifting point using rope socket connectors which would be looped into position on vessel arrival. Both TORO and FROG capsules used in the A and B concepts are in production stage while all the concepts themselves and the capsule to be used in Concept C are still in very preliminary stages. Concept B would be the most reusable of the three concepts analysed (the same fitted vessel could deliver the transfer system to many offshore structures) making it the most suitable concept for proper offshore wind accessibility.
PERSONNEL CARRIERS FROG, TORO (combined with Vessel Based Lift Facility) Reflex Marine
Personnel capacity 1-4 person

Wave induced movement compensation? Significant wave height Wind speed acceptance

Yes, with a compensated crane structure (for roll and pitch planes) Depends on crane and vessel wave height acceptance

Special needs

DP II vessel preferable Compensated crane structure

Table 8. FROG-TORO transfer systems reference values

D. Full compensated systems The next offshore transfer systems group identified includes full compensated systems that actively balance all wave induced vessel motions to make offshore transfers safe and reliable. As in the previous groups, to meet the requirements defined on Certification and standards for Offshore Wind accessibility in this paper, some criteria should be applied where this kind of systems were to be used. According to the device mounted over the full compensated platform in the found systems, the standards to be applied would be the same as gangway docking systems or personnel carriers previously described, depending on the transfer system as we describe below. The full compensated systems that we have found while doing the survey on offshore transfer systems are: 1) The Ampelmann, developed by Ampelmann Operations BV, is a ship-based system that provides a transfer deck that stays motionless relative to the fixed surface. To achieve this, the vessel is equipped with a set of motion sensors and a Stewart platform. The motions of the ship are continuously registered in all 6 degrees of freedom by the motion sensors on the deck of the vessel and instantaneously fed into a control system. The custom-made control system of the Ampelmann then calculates the required leg lengths of the hydraulic cylinders, required to keep the top plate of the

Stewart platform motionless compared to the fixed world. On this top plate a transfer deck is installed. By extending a 12 metres gangway between the transfer deck and the offshore structure, it can be accessed in an easy and safe way, even in high waves (for 2.5 up to 3 metres significant wave height, depending on vessel size). The other main components of the Ampelmann are its Hydraulic Power Units (power generator and hydraulic pump), Accumulators (hydraulic batteries for back-up and high peak demands), the Hoses and the Controls (High Speed Controller and Programmable Logic Controller (PLC)). Furthermore, the Ampelmann is designed with two control stands: one on the transfer deck of the Ampelmann to be controlled by the operator and one on the bridge of the vessel for redundancy. Typically, the Ampelmann is supplied with the full set of prerequisite components which results in an absolutely stand-alone system that can be installed on any suitable vessel (minimum 25 metres beam vessel, 80 metres preferred). In this basic design philosophy, all of its subcomponents are designed modular to be connected plug-andplay. This guarantees a quick and easy commissioning and decommission of the Ampelmann system all over the world.

FULL COMPENSATED SYSTEMS MOMAC Offshore Transfer System (MOTS) MOMAC

Dimensions (Length x Wide x Height) Load capacity 4 m x 1.8 m x 4.5 m 400 kg

Wave induced movement compensation? Significant wave height acceptance

Yes, vessel is led to the turbine by a roller fender in X and Y axle. In Z axle 3.2 m Depends on the used vessel (2.5 m with a 35 m beam vessel)

Special needs

Minimum 5 ton payload vessel (MOTS weight) Roller fender system to led the vessel to the boat-landing

Table 10. MOTS transfer system reference values

FULL COMPENSATED SYSTEMS Ampelmann Ampelmann Operations BV

Dimensions (Width x Depth x Height) Load capacity Wave induced movement compensation? Significant wave height Wind speed acceptance 8 m x 8 m x 8 m (+ 12 m gangway) 240 kg (at 20 m range)

E. Other transfer methods Finally we can bring together the rest of the systems encountered in our survey under other marine access methods group, where other access methods such as novel concepts may be included once demonstrated that the associated risks are as low as reasonably practicable. To meet the requirements defined on Certification and standards for Offshore Wind accessibility in this paper swing ropes, cargo nets, cargo containers and rope ladders shall not be used for transfer personnel. These systems which do not fit in any group previously described are the following: 1) The Selstair Personnel Transfer System, developed by Viking Life-Saving Equipment A/S, is a collapsible staircase that can be lowered either to sea or above sea for transferral to vessel. The system is deployed by pure gravity and electrical power is only needed for retrieval. Non-slip aluminium steps and landings, handrails and safety net around the staircase guarantee safe passage for all. It is essential that high capacity safety equipment is easy to operate by a minimum of crew. Remote launching and rapid deployment are considerable advantages when disembarking or boarding offshore installations. Stairs are stored inside the container when not in use. This protects the system from the harsh environment and reduces maintenance to a minimum. Selstair has few movable parts which makes its maintenance easier.

Yes, 6-DOF (2.4 m, 10) 2.5 -3 m (depending on vessel size) 35 kts

Special needs

Minimum 25 m beam vessel (80 m preferred) 32 ton payload vessel (Ampelmann weight)

Table 9. Ampelmann transfer system reference values

2) The MOMAC Offshore Transfer System (MOTS), developed by MOMAC GmbH & Co and currently at testing stage, is a self-stabilizing offshore transfer system that provides safe access to offshore structures by active compensating for the wave induced motions of a vessel (up to 3.2 metres in z-axle, vessel is led to the turbine by a roller fender compensating thus x-axle and y-axle). This system is a combination of proven robotics technology and real time motion measurement equipment; it also provides extensive safety even in case of power breakdown and can be used at every existing boat landing without modification. The MOTS installation is possible on any vessel equipped with a roller fender and which can load at its bow or stern the 5 tons weight system as well it is not necessary to provide the vessel with any Dynamic Positioning (DP) mechanism.

Fig. 2. The Selstair Personnel Transfer System (Viking Life)

2) The Windlift, developed by Fr.Fassmer GmbH, consists in a fendered docking station placed at the wind turbine, underneath the existing service platform. It is height adjustable (radio controlled) for both personnel and cargo safe transfer in sea states up to 1.25 metres significant wave height. When the transfer is to be performed, the platform is brought to upper stowing position preventing thus personnel moving by external wind turbine accesses. If the platform is not in use, the Windlift should be put in a stowed position protecting itself permanently from the effects of the sea.

stepping on the SLILAD the ladder is fixed to the vessel providing a safe and reliable transfer from vessel to ladder. After stepping on the SLILAD, the ladder becomes fixed to the platform providing a safe and reliable transfer for ladder to offshore structure. The next offshore transfer systems group identified includes full compensated systems that actively balance all wave induced vessel motions to make offshore transfers safe and reliable.

Fig. 5. The SLILAD Transfer System (MOMAC) Fig. 3. The Windlift (Fr.Fassmer GmbH)

3) The Boat Access System, developed by Caley Ocean Systems Ltd., is a solution where the boat can be auto-lifted away from the effects of the sea by installing on it a special hoist device. The intention was to use a relatively small standard craft (typically a RIB) that would be adapted to carry all the critical elements required for the Boat Access System while the wind turbine would not be fitted with any special elements.

Merging all these results into charts, we can also compare the different transfer systems features as load and personnel capacities (Chart 5) or sea window acceptance (Chart 6).
0.60 5 4 0.40 3

2 0.20 1 0.00 0

LoadCapacity

PersonnelCapacity

Chart 5. Load

and personnel capacities for Transfer Systems

Fig. 4. The Boat Access System (Caley Ocean Systems)

4) The SLILAD Transfer System, developed by MOMAC, consists in a sliding ladder which avoids relative movements between vessel to ladder and ladder to platform in transfer operations. SLILAD compensates for the vertical movement of the vessel through a locked connection element. Prior

Persons

Tons

3.50 3.00 2.50

TRANSFER SYSTEMS FENDERING OAS OTS (prototype) WATERBRIDGE PTS (prototype) AMPELMANN MOTS (prototype) (-) O OO OOO

MC= 0-4 BS OOO O OO OO O O O

MC = 5 BS OO OOO OO OO OO

MC = 6 BS OOO OO

Metres

2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00

Impossible to deliver the service Can deliver the service with poor effectiveness Can deliver the service with medium effectiveness Can deliver the service with good effectiveness

MC (Metocean conditions) BS (Beaufort scale)

Table 12. Transfer systems effectiveness over metocean conditions

SignificantWaveHeight

Chart 6. Sea

Window for Transfer Systems

V. COMPARISON AND ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR ACCESS CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING WITH SITE FEATURES The next step after the research work consists in pondering all the access and transfer systems found not only by using their capabilities and features but also their estimative costs and the special needs that they could need. In this way we are going to measure the real effectiveness on every system rating their capacity to deliver some service, dealing with a specific work and site conditions, on their costs and also their needs, other costs to be added actually. In order to perform this analysis we have considered necessary to study access and transfer systems separately and, moreover, make the analysis for different Offshore Wind sites in order to obtain the deepest and broadest results possible. The difficulty of making the study about all the different installed OWFs can be satisfied by classifying them according to some of their main attributes as follows: A. Metocean conditions. Different OWFs are and could be installed in different sites with similar both sea and wind states conditions. We have set four typical scenarios using the Beaufort scale, gathering thus sea and wind measures, to ponder in each one how effective are both access and transfer systems. The results are measured using mainly both significant wave height and wind speed acceptances and sea induced movement compensation capabilities of different systems on their costs and special needs.
ACCESS SYSTEMS
MONOHULL CATAMARAN SWATH HELICOPTER
(-) O OO OOO

B. Load capacities. In this category we have set three different scenarios not over the OWF projects sites, but over the kind of work to be performed on them analyzing all different access and transfer systems. The results are measured using mainly both load and personnel capabilities and capacities of each system on their costs and special needs.
ACCESS SYSTEMS
MONOHULL CATAMARAN SWATH HELICOPTER (UTILITY) HELICOPTER (TRANSPORT)
(-) O OO OOO

< 8 persons < 1 ton

8 10 persons 1 2,5 tons

> 10 persons > 2,5 tons

OOO O O O O

OO O O

OO O

Impossible to deliver the service Can deliver the service with poor effectiveness Can deliver the service with medium effectiveness Can deliver the service with good effectiveness

Table 13. Access systems effectiveness over load capacities to be delivered

1 person 100-150 kg OOO O O O O O O 2-3 persons 200-300 kg OO O OO OO OO OO > 3 persons > 300 kg O OO OOO OOO OO OO

TRANSFER SYSTEMS FENDERING OAS OTS (prototype) WATERBRIDGE PTS (prototype) AMPELMANN MOTS (prototype) (-) O OO OOO

Impossible to deliver the service Can deliver the service with poor effectiveness Can deliver the service with medium effectiveness Can deliver the service with good effectiveness

Table 14. Transfer systems effectiveness over load capacities to be delivered

MC= 0-4 BS OOO OO O O

MC = 5 BS OOO OO O

MC = 6 BS OOO OO

MC > 6 BS OOO

Impossible to deliver the service Can deliver the service with poor effectiveness Can deliver the service with medium effectiveness Can deliver the service with good effectiveness

MC (Metocean conditions) BS (Beaufort scale)

C. Distance to coast. In the same way of previous cases, different OWFs are and could be installed in different sites with similar distance to coast. In this way we have set three scenarios with present and forecasted values which separate OWFs from the coast to ponder in each one the effectiveness of different access systems.

Table 11. Access systems effectiveness over metocean conditions

The results are measured using mainly the access speeds, requirements have to be forgotten, as they can modify wave height acceptance and travel range capacity and significantly the total cost of the system. This point is very autonomy of different systems on their costs and special needs. obvious in the transfer systems where, in many cases, large or even specially equipped (Dynamic Positioning (DP)) vessels are needed, which are much more expensive that conventional ACCESS SYSTEMS d 10 km d 20 40 km d >> 50 km workboats. MONOHULL OOO OO O Summarizing all the information analysed, our final CATAMARAN OO OOO OO recommendation to increase OWFs efficiency through SWATH O OO OOO offshore accessibility, is to choose the right access or transfer HELICOPTER O OO OOO system for the right place. That is to say, to extract the more (-) Impossible to deliver the service variables which define the OWF project and the OWF site the O Can deliver the service with poor effectiveness OO Can deliver the service with medium effectiveness better, to evaluate all different systems to perform access and OOO Can deliver the service with good effectiveness transfer operations within all their capabilities, capacities, d (Distance to coast) costs and special needs and, finally, in the earlier stages of the Table 15. Access systems effectiveness over OWF distance to coast OWF lifecycle, to choose that system which fits better into the OWF project analyzed. VI. CONCLUSIONS The first conclusion we have reached is that Offshore Wind sector needs a proper Offshore Wind Access Standard which defines methodologies, guidelines and recommendations for access and transfer operation to all of the structures of an OWF. Thus, with this background information, any specific accessibility plan developed for a particular OWF would be much more efficient and accurate than any other made before the Offshore Wind Access Standard definition. Since there is a high amount of systems to perform access or transfer operations, it would be necessary to make a good definition of the needs of the O&M activity to perform at the OWF, as well as a good characterization of the OWF site in order to be more effective when selecting the systems to be used. Nevertheless, in spite of the OWF classification made, the attributes values would not be compared individually. For instance, if we compare monohull and SWATH boats speed, it seems that the first one is faster than the second one and this is because the speed of the different kinds of boats has been measured in calm sea state; if the test had been taken in a 2 metres of significant wave height sea state, the results would have been different. This may warn OWF manager not to take individually these attributes when selecting an offshore accessibility method, all of them may be taken into account together to obtain the most accurate results possible. We have also considered necessary to make a good simulation of the project lifecycle through statistical methodologies. This will provide us some information about the quantity and the kind of faults that may occur in the OWF. Then, these results can be used to choose the access and transfer systems which best meet project needs, balancing correctly, for each case, access times and required use frequencies versus costs, improving so the accessibility plan efficiency. Besides the accessibility plan development, it is very important to design it from the OWF project start point because, as we previously explained, many of the solutions need special modifications in the offshore structures to perform safe and reliable accesses and transfers by meeting all of the used systems needs. Furthermore, none of the system ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to thank all that companies that kindly help us in our survey on both transfer and access systems. These are BALTEC Composite GmbH, Abeking & Rassmussen, Bond Air Services, Inaer Aviation Group, Ampelmann Operations BV, Offshore Solutions BV, Reflex Marine Ltd., MOMAC GmbH & Co, PTS-Personnel Transfer System GmbH and Caley Ocean Systems Ltd. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] [4] OS-J201 Offshore Substations for Wind Farms (Section 7. Access and Transfer). - DNV Det Norske Veritas (October 2009). OHSAS 18001 Health & Safety Standard. - Occupational Health & Safety Advisory Services (OHSAS). Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Wind Energy. International Finance Corporation (World Bank Group). Recommendations for Design of Offshore Wind Turbines (RECOFF) (Work Package 6: Operation and maintenance: labour safety and standard method for data collection). - EU Project Recommendations for Design of Offshore Wind Turbines. Guidelines for Health & Safety in the industry. - BWEA Operational Safety Rules Group. The Health and Safety Risks an Regulatory Strategy Related to Energy Developments. - UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE). DS/EN 50308 Wind turbines - Protective measures - Requirements for design, operation and maintenance. - Dansk Standard. ANSI Z-10 Occupational Health and Safety Management System. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). CAP 437 Offshore Helicopter Landing Areas Guidance on Standards. - Civil Aviation Authority UK. OS-E401 Helicopter decks. - DNV Det Norske Veritas. EN 13852-1 Cranes Offshore cranes Part 1: General-purpose offshore cranes. - DIN Deutsches Institut fr Normung). BALTEC Composite GmbH.- http://www.baltec.de/ Abeking & Rassmussen.- http://www.abeking.com/ Wind Cat Workboats BV.- http://www.windcatworkboats.com/ Alnmaritec Ltd.- http://www.alnmaritec.co.uk/ South Boats Special Projects.- http://www.southboatssp.co.uk/ FINTRY Marine Ltd.- http://www.fintry-marine.com/ Gareloch Support Services (GSS) Ltd.- http://www.gssplant.co.uk/ Bond Air Services.- http://www.bondairservices.com/ Inaer Aviation Group.- http://www.grupoinaer.com/ Eurocopter.- http://www.eurocopter.com/ Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation.- http://www.sikorsky.com/ Agusta Westland NV.- http://www.agustawestland.com/ Unifly A/S.- http://www.uni-fly.dk/ Erikson Air Crane.- http://www.ericksonaircrane.com/

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

BELL Helicopter.- http://www.bellhelicopter.com/ Offshore Solutions BV.- http://www.offshore-solutions.nl/ IHC Engineering Business Ltd.- http://www.engb.com/ PTS-Personnel Transfer System GmbH.- http://www.pts-offshore.com/ Reflex Marine Ltd.- http://www.reflexmarine.com/ Ampelmann Operations BV.- http://www.ampelmann.nl/

[32] [33] [34] [35]

MOMAC GmbH & Co.- http://www.momac.de/ Viking Life-Saving Equipment A/S.- http://www.viking-life.com/ Fr.Fassmer GmbH.- http://www.fassmer.de/ Caley Ocean Systems Ltd.- http://www.caley.co.uk/