Six Degree Platform&Gangway

Ampelmann Demonstrator
J. van der Tempel (TU Delft)

D. Cerda Salzmann (TU Delft)
F. Gerner (TU Delft)
J. Koch (TU Delft)
A. Gbel (TU Delft)
(We@Sea project 2006-008)

Final Report 1-7-2008
Ampelmann
Demonstrator
Final Report
V1.2
1 July 2008
Authors:
Dr.Ir. Jan van der Tempel

Ir. David Cerda Salzmann
Ir. Frederik Gerner
Ir. Jillis Koch
Ir. Arjan Gbel
Section Offshore Engineering

Delft University of Technology
This project was carried out under the WE@Sea programme under number
2006-008-RL5
Summary
The Delft University of Technology is developing a Demonstrator of the Ampelmann, a motion
compensation platform for access to offshore wind turbines. The project is sponsored by the
University, We@Sea, Shell, SMST and Smit. The goal is to design, build and operate this
system in offshore conditions to further develop the safety system, operational procedures and
prove the motion compensation capability of the system.
For access to offshore wind turbines, the current limit for ship based transfer is Hs = 1.5 m
(73% for Dutch North Sea conditions. The Ampelmann has been designed for a typical 50m
long vessel and full compensation to Hs = 2.0 m (85%) with a possibility of allowing some
motions when transferring in Hs = 2.5 m (93%). In this demonstrator phase, a smaller vessel
(25 m) will be used to prove full motion compensation up to Hs = 1.0 m and test the reduced
compensation mode for higher sea states.
The platform design has a base diameter of 6 m and a cylinder stroke of 2 m. The gangway
system is designed in such a way that after connecting to the turbine, the gangway can rotate
and translate freely to compensate for small motions of the Ampelmann transfer deck in normal
operation and larger motions for operation in the ride-through-failure mode. Maximum length
of the gangway is 16m including a telescopic part of 6m. The vessel will keep a mean distance
of 7 m.
Regarding safety, the system is designed to have sufficient backup and redundancy to be able to
continue an operation when a single component fails. This ride-trough-failure mode must last at
least 10 s, depending on the part failing and the activity at the moment of failure and could even
last more than 30s. During the ride-through-failure, the person transferring has enough time to
finish or abort this accessing procedure and return to his seat on the Ampelmann or to escape to
the offshore structure. When the access procedure is completed or aborted, the Ampelmann
operator can retract the gangway and bring the system to its settled position. The procedure
does have time limits after which the system automatically takes over to return the Ampelmann
to a safe position. All component failure modes are studied in an FMEA (failure mode effect
analysis) to come to sufficient redundancy, regular checks and maintenance philosophy.
Furthermore, the operational execution is examined in a HEMP study to identify all critical
steps and precautions to be taken by personnel on board the vessel and the Ampelmann.
The project is executed by a team of 5 residing under the Offshore Engineering group, lead by
Dr. Ir. Jan van der Tempel. The team is supported by a vast number of experts in all disciplines
from inside and outside the University and from the sponsoring companies in particular.
The design of the Ampelmann Demonstrator started in September 2006. Final design was
completed in December 2006. Components were ordered early January and delivered in May.
System assembly was completed in 4 days in May. The unit was tested offshore on June 27th
and July 11th. Compensation of a sea state to Hs = 1.5m was excellent with only 4cm heave and
less than 0.5o roll and pitch residual motions.
Finalizing of the system was carried out over the summer. Onshore tests were completed on
December 7th for an audience of Shell, SMIT, Vestas, Lloyds Register and Staatstoezicht op de
Mijnen. The next day, the Ampelmann was installed on the SMIT Bronco and sailed to
IJmuiden. On Friday, December 14th, a safe transfer was made to and from WTG 03 of the
Offshore Wind farm Egmond aan Zee (OWEZ) owned by Shell and Nuon. The Ampelmann
returned to Rotterdam where demobilization was completed on Friday, December 21st, just
before lunch.
The project met the set goals: design, build and test an Ampelmann unit with a compensation
test inn Hs = 1.5m and a transfer in Hs < 0.5m. Durability testing and access in higher wave
conditions will be done in future projects.
The project was a success proving that motion compensation can be performed by an
Ampelmann under offshore conditions and that offshore access can indeed be as easy as
crossing the street.
I
II
Table of contents
Summary ......................................................................................................................................I
Table of contents.......................................................................................................................III
1. Introduction and background ......................................................................................... 5
1.1 Demonstrator project .......................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Project goals ....................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Invention............................................................................................................................. 5
1.4 History of the Ampelmann ................................................................................................. 6
1.5 Document setup .................................................................................................................. 6
2. Design philosophy ............................................................................................................. 7
2.1 General design considerations ............................................................................................ 7
2.2 Demonstrator design goals ................................................................................................. 7
3. Ampelmann operational procedure ................................................................................ 8
4. Platform design ............................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Boundary conditions of platform...................................................................................... 10
4.2 Design steps for platform ................................................................................................. 11
4.3 Platform geometry ............................................................................................................ 16
5. Gangway design .............................................................................................................. 18
6. Safety ............................................................................................................................... 22
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 22
6.2 Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) ............................................................................ 22
6.3 Hazard Effect Management Process (HEMP) .................................................................. 24
7. Ampelmann Test Plan .................................................................................................... 25
8. Testing ............................................................................................................................. 29
8.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 29
8.2 Cylinder control and motion envelop testing.................................................................... 29
8.3 Platform x-y-z control ...................................................................................................... 30
8.4 Load-out: testing plug & play........................................................................................... 31
8.5 Offshore motion compensation......................................................................................... 32
8.6 Offshore motion compensation test I................................................................................ 33
8.7 Intermediate: View on Delft ............................................................................................. 35
8.8 Offshore motion compensation test II .............................................................................. 36
8.9 Endurance test: World Port Days ..................................................................................... 37
8.10 Onshore completion and testing ....................................................................................... 37
8.11 Offshore Access................................................................................................................ 38
9. Conclusions and Outlook ............................................................................................... 43
10. Inventors contemplations.............................................................................................. 44
Appendix I Project Partners & Sponsors............................................................................... 45
Appendix II Test Report OWEZ............................................................................................. 47
Appendix III Risk Analysis OWEZ access.............................................................................. 3
III
IV
1. Introduction and background

1.1 Demonstrator project
This is the final report of the development of the Ampelmann Demonstrator. The project started
on September 1st 2006 and ended on December 24th 2007 with the completion of this document.
The goal of the project is to develop a full size Demonstrator unit of the Ampelmann, a system
to compensate wave induced ship motions in a transfer deck to allow easy and safe access to
offshore wind turbines. The project was carried out by the Delft University of Technology with
co-operation of project partners Shell, SMIT and SMST and under the subsidy scheme of
WE@Sea. Partners and sponsors are shown in Appendix I.
1.2 Project goals

The project has the following goals:
Design and build an Ampelmann platform
Make it offshore proof
Make it safe
Test it offshore
If possible: transfer people to an offshore wind turbine.
The details of design goals are described in chapters 2-6.
1.3 Invention
In the summer of 2002 Jan van der Tempel and David-Pieter Molenaar attended the World
Wind Energy Conference in Berlin. One of the speakers discussed his solution for offshore
access. The animation shown in that presentation was somewhat distorted with regard to scale.
The comments from the audience were not really satisfactorily answered by the speaker.
Later that afternoon, after having done a small tour of the city, Jan and David-Pieter sat down
outside Caf Adler, just around the corner from Checkpoint Charlie, discussing the access
solution of the speaker. It was decided that an offshore engineer and a controls engineer should
be able to tackle this problem once and for all.
Beer in hand, the following requirements were drafted:
Ship based system
No contact with structure
No requirements on structure
The basic problem is that the vessel moves in all six degrees of freedom. It was an easy step
from that to the Stewart platform (also used for flight simulators) that is also capable of moving
in these 6 DOFs. Should it be possible to measure the motions of the vessel accurately and feed
these to the control of the Stewart platform fast enough, a stand-still transfer deck can be
created. From this platform a simple gangway could be extended to the offshore wind turbine.
The basic systems were therefore defined:
Use a Stewart platform
Measure the ship motions on board (no reference to the structure or seabed)
To be able to discuss the invention in front of others, without giving away the clue, a code
name was needed. Fun and effectiveness came together in picking the Ampelmann, the little
man in the pedestrian traffic light (Ampel) who wears a hat in the East-German part of Berlin;
one of the few remaining artifacts of the DDR age. The choice proved even more effective as it
provides a fitting slogan to the system (created a few days later):
Offshore Access, as easy as crossing the street
5
1.4 History of the Ampelmann
Invention and first explorations

July 2002 Invention
July 02-Dec 03 Discussions with experts at DUT
Jan-Oct 2004 2 MSc projects on design of Ampelmann system
Mar-May 2004 2 BSc students draft test plan
June-Aug 2004 Testing of Seatex MRU and Octans measuring systems
Aug 2004 System patented
Scale model testing

Oct 2004 Acquiring funding from SenterNovem / Shell
Nov 2004 Start Proof-of-Concept phase
Dec 2004 Arrival of platform
Jan 2005 Dry-testing on Simonita simulator
Feb 2005 Wet-testing in wave basin + demonstration for Industry and Press
Mar-May 2005 Writing a Business Plan
June-Dec 2005 Client contacts in offshore wind
Oct-Nov 2005 Demonstration on TV, in Houses of Parliament and at European Commission
Oct 05 Aug 06 3 MSc students at Smit, Heerema and Shell for further development
Jan-Aug 2006 Demonstrator plan and financing
Demonstrator
Sept 06- Dec07 Demonstrator construction and testing (this project)
1.5 Document setup

The project was initiated with a simple goal: create and Ampelmann Demonstrator and show
that it works offshore. Chapter 2 gives the background on design philosophies and chapter 3 the
generic operational procedure of the Ampelmann giving access to offshore wind turbines. The
next 3 chapters go into further detail on the different sub systems: the platform design (4), the
gangway (5) and the safety approach (6). Chapter 7 gives the planning of the tests and chapter 8
the report of all tests and trials. Chapter 9 resumes briefly the conclusions and an outlook to
further improvement. Chapter 10 is a personal review of the project manager and inventor.
6
2. Design philosophy
2.1 General design considerations
The Ampelmann concept has been based on a very limited set of design requirements. These
requirements have remained fixed up to this point and serve to narrow the options for motion
compensation to a digestible number.
Cancel all motions 6-DoF system: Stewart platform
Stand-alone system all systems on ship: power, measure, control, gangway
Plug-and-play system can be installed on any vessel without interfacing
2.2 Demonstrator design goals

The goal is to create an Ampelmann platform to design, test and show the following:
System is offshore-proof
System operation is inherently safe, even when components fail
Test system offshore
Provide access to offshore wind turbines
The design requirements to reach this goal were defined as:

Platform must be large enough to test real offshore applicability
Platform must fit all vessels longer than 25 m for compensation up to Hs = 1 m
Platform must fit all vessels longer than 50 m for compensation up to Hs = 2 m
Platform must be plug & play, installable within 1 day on vessels with standard
container fittings
This lead to the following approximate geometry and characteristics:
2m stroke cylinders
Capable of full motion compensation up to Hs = 1 m on a 25 m vessel and up to
Hs = 2 m on a 50 m vessel
Hs < 1 m accounts for wave condition occurring 50% of the time off the Dutch coast
Hs < 2 m accounts for wave condition occurring 85% of the time off the Dutch coast
For more severe sea states, operation can also be tested easily
The design of the safety system is the key to the success of this Demonstrator phase. Experts
from the offshore, offshore wind, automatic pilot, drive-by-wire and the medical life support
systems fields of expertise are being consulted to translate the requirements from those
disciplines regarding safety, reliability and redundancy to the Ampelmann operations. The main
functionality of the Ampelmann system during component error or failure has currently been
set to the following:
The system always returns to its safe, settled position
The system never becomes a launching pad: introducing very large accelerations
When extending the gangway and when connected to the turbine, the system does not
shut down due to any failure but remains operational for at least 10 s and preferably
30 s (= 6 wave periods). This gives people on the gangway time to either retreat to the
Ampelmann platform or step on to the turbine. The compensation characteristics must
meet 95% of full compensation during this period. After the 10 s period, the platform
returns to its safe, settled position.
7
3. Ampelmann operational procedure

The general operational procedure is depicted in the following 17 figures. Please note that these
pictures are for illustration only and do not reflect any safety features.
1. Vessel sails to offshore wind farm, Ampelmann disengaged and turned off
2. Vessel arrives at offshore wind turbine and engages Station Keeping Assistance or
Dynamic Positioning System
3. Crew approaches Ampelmann
4. Crew arrives on transfer deck

5. Gangway is retracted to prevent it from colliding with container during operation
6. HPU (Hydraulic Power Unit) is turned on, Ampelmann goes to neutral position (half of
cylinder stroke)
7. Ampelmann is switched to compensation mode
8. Gangway is turned toward turbine
8
9. Gangway is extended toward turbine platform

10. Gangway is engaged to platform
11. Transfer of crew from Ampelmann to turbine
12. Gangway is disengaged from platform and retracted

13. Gangway is rotated to neutral position
14. Gangway is locked in position
15. Ampelmann compensation mode is switched off, Ampelmann returns to the neutral
position
16. Ampelmann returns to the settled position
17. Gangway is extended, HPU is switched off, vessel sails away.
9
4. Platform design
4.1 Boundary conditions of platform
Introduction
The use of this Ampelmann as a demonstrator implies the following:
Load cases are determined for demonstration purposes (higher than dedicated design)
Maximum allowable dimensions are to be taken into account for transport and
mounting on vessel.
Load Cases
In the design process, two load cases will be considered: one for cargo stabilization and one for
personnel transfer. Both load cases are illustrated below in figures 4.1 and 4.2, corresponding
values are listed in table 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Load case 1 Figure 4.2 Load case 2
Table 4.1 Load case values

Load case 1 Load case 2
F1 10 ton 4 ton
F2 - 2 ton
F3 - 0.2 ton
Ftotal 10 ton 6.2 ton
X1 - 14 m
X2 - 7m
Size limits
For practical reasons, the Ampelmann platform is allowed to have limited dimensions, which
are to be taken into consideration during the design process. The two main limiting factors are:
Road transportation must be possible
Platform must fit on ship deck
For road transport, the limits shown in table 4.2 apply.
10
Table 4.2 Size limits for road transport
Exceptional Transport
Normal transport
(exemption required)
< 4.00 m no convoy

max width 3.00 m < 4.50 m 1 escort
> 4.50 m 2 escorts
< 40 m no convoy
max length
22.00 m < 50 m 1 escort
total vehicle
> 50 m 2 escorts
max height 4.00 m depends on route
max mass < 100 tonne no convoy

50 tonne
total vehicle > 100 tonne 2 escorts
The deck space for the Ampelmann depends on the vessel. On a smaller vessel such as the Smit
Bronco, the limited deck space will require the platform to be placed on top of two 20 ft
containers, forcing the base plate to fit on a 6 m x 6 m square.
4.2 Design steps for platform

Introduction
The design process given in this chapter describes the procedures that are to be performed, in
order to design the Stewart platform for an Ampelmann system, starting with the cylinder
stroke length as the first design input. This basic Stewart platform configuration is shown in
figure 4.3.
top platform
z
y
x gimbal
ot
actuator
z
y base platform
ob x
Figure 4.3 Basic Stewart platform configuration
11
The entire design process is illustrated in figure 4.4 below; all blocks in this process are treated
in this chapter.
Stroke length Load cases

Calculation Procedure
Other
Geometry
Parameters
Design Criteria
Size Limits
Preferred Geometry
Buckling
Max Force Cylinder Size
HPU
Time Series Max Velocity Flow Valves
Figure 4.4 Design process flow chart
Stroke length
The main input parameter for this design procedure is the stroke length of the cylinders. The
stroke length of a cylinder is defined as the difference between the minimum and maximum
cylinder lengths as depicted in figure 4.5.
Minimum cylinder length
Maximum cylinder length
Stroke length
Figure 4.5 Stroke length
Other Geometry Parameters

The geometry of a Stewart Platform can be described by a set of 6 parameters. In this case, the
following parameters will be used:
Rt = Radius top platform [m]

Rb = Radius base platform [m]
st = Half separation distance between top gimbal pairs [m]
sb = Half separation distance between base gimbal pairs [m]
lstroke = Cylinder stroke length [m]
ldead = Cylinder dead length [m]
The first four of these parameters are illustrated in the figures 4.6 and 4.7 below.
12
y
t2 y
b2
t3 b1
120
b3 120
120 t t1 b
x sb x
t6
Rt b4 120
Rb
t4 b6
sb t5 b5
Figure 4.6 Top platform parameters Figure 4.7 Base platform parameters
The dead length of a cylinder is defined as the minimum cylinder length (gimbal to gimbal)
minus the stroke length; this is the length that is not used for length augmentation.
Size Limits
When choosing values for the base and top radii, a special consideration must be given to the
size limits mentioned earlier. A too large top or base platform might cause difficulties for
transport, assembly or mounting on the vessel.
Calculation Procedure
A set of calculation procedures can now be performed for different geometries in a MATLAB
calculation sequence. Stewart platform geometries can be changed by varying top and base
radius, top and base gimbal distances and the dead length, while the stroke length remains fixed.
By creating loops in the calculation program, all required calculations can be performed for a
set of varying parameters, allowing a quick assessment within a large number of platform
configurations.
In the calculation procedure, the following steps are performed. First, the workspace limits are
determined for a given geometry. This is done by varying the displacements and rotations of
the base plate in small steps while the top plate remains fixed. When one of the cylinders
reaches its minimum or maximum length, the workspace limit is found. While doing this, a
large amount of platform poses is defined. Next, the dexterity of the platform can be calculated
for each pose. Finally, also for each pose the axial forces in each cylinder can be determined for
both load cases.
The MATLAB sequence can eventually summarize the main results of the calculation
procedure for each given geometry:
Minimum dexterity
Maximum axial forces in cylinders
Workspace limits
By using design criteria, the different geometries can be assessed and the optimal geometry can
be selected.
13
Design Criteria
Based on the output of the calculation procedure, a preferred geometry can be selected using
the following criteria.
First of all, the minimum dexterity of any Stewart may not be too low: platforms with low
dexterities can become singular and cylinders will experience very high axial forces. In flight
simulator design, a practical minimum value of 0.2 is used. However, the use of this value is
questionable since dexterity is scale dependent. In this case, it is more efficient to compare the
minimum dexterity of different platform architectures and discard the architectures that yield
the lowest dexterities..
Second of all, a platform will preferably have low axial forces in its cylinders. High axial forces
call for cylinders with a larger rod diameter and a larger casing diameter, which calls for a lot
of other larger components making the platform more expensive.
Finally, the workspace limits are to be taken into account. Since the Ampelmann aims to
compensate ship motions, the functionality of this system increases with a larger workspace.
Generally, when comparing ship motions to the limits of the workspace of a Stewart platform,
it becomes clear that the limiting degree of freedom of a Stewart platform is the heave. A
platform that can perform large heave excursions is therefore preferred.
The assessment of different platforms is thus based on a combination between high dexterities,
low axial forces and large heave excursions. It is advised to do a comparison between platforms
with more heave but larger axial forces and platforms with less heave but smaller axial forces,
for it is not yet known which criterion is the real design driver.
Preferred Geometry
After the calculation procedure is performed, a preferred geometry can be selected for further
research. It is however advised to select several geometries for a more exact assessment
between geometries once the corresponding cylinders, valves and HPU have been designed. A
more precise comparison between different designs can then be based on financial arguments as
well as workability percentages.
Maximum Force
One of the results from the calculation procedure is the maximum axial force in the cylinders,
both of tension and compression. It is obvious that a cylinder should be designed to withstand
those loads. It should however be noted that these loads are merely the result of a static analysis;
the forces caused by the accelerations of the top loads have not been considered. Since the main
purpose of the Ampelmann is to keep the top load static, it can be assumed that the top loads
will not experience large accelerations. There are however two situations to consider where the
accelerations can indeed have an influence on the cylinder loads: during start-up and in cases of
emergency.
During start-up, the platform will first be in settled position and the top load has the same
motions as the vessel. Next, the platform is lifted towards neutral position, while the top is in
motion. Finally, motion compensation is engaged and the accelerations on the top platform
become negligible. After transfer procedures, the platform compensation mode will be ended
and the platform is lowered back towards settled position. During the lifting and lowering
procedures, the accelerations caused by the vessel motions might cause extra loads on the
cylinders. It is advised to have these forces calculated.
Consideration should be given to a worst-case-scenario, where an emergency might cause the

platform to undergo unusual accelerations, which might lead to exceptionally high leg forces.
14
Buckling
The first design step for the cylinders is to determine the rod size and the cylinder casing size
by the buckling criterion. For this, DNV uses the following equation:
E 2
P=
1000 L Z s
L1 L2 1 1 L L
Z= + + + sin 2 1
I1 I 2 I 2 I1 2 L
With:
P = Maximum axial load [kN]

s = Safety factor = 4.0
I1 = Moment of inertia of cylinder tube cross section [mm4]
I2 = Moment of inertia of piston rod cross section [mm4]
L = Maximum cylinder length gimbal-to-gimbal [mm]
L1 = Cylinder tube length from gimbal [mm]
L2 = Piston rod length from gimbal [mm]
E = Modus of elasticity of the piston rod material
= 2.06 x 105 N/mm
DNV further states that a lower safety factor than 4.0 may be accepted for more accurately
validated calculation methods. Relevant parameters to be included in such a method are:
- Yield strength of piston rod material
- Bending moments caused by the rotation of the bearings
- Guiding length
- Clearance between gland and piston rod
- Actual deflection curve.
It should be noted that the maximum axial force in a cylinder does not necessarily has to occur
in combination with the maximum cylinder length. The buckling check could thus be
performed for several length-force combinations, rather than just the combination of the
maximum values of both parameters.
Cylinder Size
Cylinder manufacturers can deliver cylinders in different standard sizes. It is advised to choose
a cylinder with standard dimension for ease in production. Preferably, one chooses the cylinder
with the smallest dimensions that still satisfies the buckling criterion. Another check to perform
concerns the bottom end and the annular end cross sections: the cross section area must be large
enough to allow the oil-pressure to withstand the maximum forces.
Time series
Up tot this point, only static calculations have been performed on the Ampelmann. The next
step in the design process is to take time series into account. For this, the preferred geometry,
the future vessel and the exact location of the Ampelmann on the vessel is required. By
combining the vessel's RAOs with different sea states (combinations of Hs and Tz), time series
for the base plate of the Ampelmann system can be generated. By using these time series, the
actual Ampelmann performance can be simulated: while keeping the top plate fixed, the base
plate motions are simulated. For each time step, the required cylinder lengths can be calculated.
A statement can then be given on the Ampelmann performance: for each sea state, percentage
of time can be calculated in which the cylinder lengths do not enable full motion compensation.
By choosing an arbitrary boundary limit for this performance, the maximum sea state can be
15
determined in which the specified Ampelmann can operate. This sea state shall be used to
generate a time series of the base plate motions for the subsequent calculations.
Maximum velocity
The time series for the Ampelmann base platform are not only used to determine the required
cylinder lengths at any instant and thereby determining its performance. They also enable
calculating the velocities of all cylinders, which is required to determine the required flow in
the system. A set of time series, adding up to twenty hours of simulation is used for this.
Flow
After determining the cylinder velocities, the flow in the cylinder can be determined from the
following equation:
Q = v A
with:
Q = Flow [m3/s]
v = Cylinder velocity [m/s]
A = Cylinder cross section area [m2]
Simulations using the time series yield the nominal and peak flows for each cylinder separately
as well as for the entire system. To reduce the flow, a double acting cylinder is used with the
annular end being charged with pump pressure. This significantly reduces the maximum
required flow at the bottom end, because when the cylinder extends the flow from the annular
end is available for the supply to the bottom end (Figure 4.8).
Figure 4.8 Used hydraulic concept
HPU & Valves

From the mean and peak values of the flow, the specifications for the valves, HPU and
accumulators can be determined. The mean and peak power consumption can also be calculated
by simulations in the time domain, by considering the cylinder velocities and forces.
4.3 Platform geometry

The dexterity, workspace and maximum cylinder forces were determined for a set of different
platform architectures by varying the different platform parameters with a step size. Based on
the criteria mentioned earlier, a selection of the most promising geometries was made, shown in
table 4.3. Finally, the platform geometry that enables the largest vertical motion was selected as
the final geometry. This platform has a top radius of 2.75 m, a base radius of 3.00 m, gimbal
half-spacings of 0.25 m on upper and lower platform and a cylinder dead length of 1.25 m.
16
Table 4.3 Comparison of platform geometries

Excursions from
Platform height Axial Cylinder Excursions from
Geometry parameters [m] Dexterity [-] neutral position
[m] Forces [kN] neutral position [m]
[]
Rt Rb st sb ldead Settled Neutral Fmax Fmin max min x y z rl pt yw
2.75 3.00 0.25 0.25 1.25 2.15 3.40 66.8 -33.7 0.233 0.149 3.63 3.31 2.50 55 53 76
3.00 3.00 0.25 0.25 1.50 2.39 3.63 66.3 -35.2 0.234 0.154 3.79 3.43 2.48 50 48 73
2.75 3.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.02 3.25 67.8 -35.7 0.233 0.138 3.59 3.30 2.46 55 53 75
2.50 3.00 0.25 0.25 1.25 2.25 3.47 65.4 -34.2 0.231 0.133 3.59 3.29 2.45 61 58 83
3.00 3.00 0.25 0.50 1.25 2.27 3.49 67.6 -38.1 0.234 0.145 3.75 3.42 2.44 50 47 72
3.00 3.00 0.50 0.25 1.25 2.27 3.49 67.2 -37.7 0.234 0.150 3.75 3.42 2.44 51 48 72
2.75 3.00 0.25 0.25 1.50 2.51 3.72 65.9 -36.3 0.233 0.139 3.74 3.41 2.42 55 52 79
2.50 3.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 2.10 3.31 66.5 -34.5 0.232 0.124 3.56 3.28 2.42 61 57 81
3.00 3.00 0.25 0.25 1.75 2.74 3.95 68.3 -37.5 0.234 0.146 3.89 3.53 2.41 50 47 76
17
5. Gangway design
Telescopic requirements
The main dimensions of the gangway are displayed in table 5.1.
Table 5.1 Dimensions of the gangway

Length Max 15.000 mm
Minimum telescopic behavior: 6.000 mm (3m each way).
This result in a overall length of the gangway in stored position and
survival mode of at most 9m
Width Min As small as reasonably practicable (check with regulations!)
The required minimum and maximum length of the gangway (telescopic behaviour) is
determined using figure 5.1 and is listed in table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Determination of the length of the gangway

Length determination: Length [mm]
X1 Mid-point Smit Bronco 5.000
X2 Clearance vessel offshore structure 7.000
X3 Connection device 1.000
X4 Neutral length gangway (= x1 + x2 ) 12.000
Y1 Maximum offset vessel in survival mode +/_ 1500

Y2 Extra safety margin +/_ 1500
Z1 Maximum length in stored position and survival mode

9.000
(neutral length - offset - safety margin)
Z2 Maximum length in survival mode
15.000
(neutral length + offset + safety margin)
Figure 5.1 The neutral length of the gangway
The required survival modes of the telescopic behaviour of the gangway are determined by
table 5.2 and illustrated in figure 5.2.
18
Figure 5.2 Survival modes telescopic behaviour gangway
Flexibility gangway
The required rotational flexibility of the gangway is listed in table 5.3. These are split in:
- Directional mode: Active steering of the gangway to the offshore structure
- Operational mode: Passive mode while the gangway is connected to the
offshore structure with the Ampelmann in full compensation.
- Survival mode: Passive mode while the gangway is connected to the
offshore structure with total failure of the Ampelmann.
Table 5.3 Required rotational flexibilities of the gangway

Yaw turntable Active (directional): min. 2 x 180
Passive (operational mode): -3/+3 (min. requirements)
Passive (survival mode): -45/+45 (negotiable)
Pitch gangway Active (directional): min. -10 max. 10 ( Connection at 0)
Passive (operational mode): -3/+3 (min. requirements)
Passive (survival mode): -20/+20 (negotiable)
Roll gangway Active (directional): 0
Passive (operational mode): -3/+3 (allowable at tip gangway)
Passive (survival mode): -20/+20 (allowable at tip gangway &
negotiable)
Telescopic Active (directional): 6000mm length
Passive (following max rest motions): 6000mm length preferable more
if reasonably practicable
19
Yaw.
A controlled rotation of 2 times 180 (Directional) is minimal required. The resulting yaw
motions during operation will be maximally 2. If the Ampelmann fails a passive survival
rotation of plus and minus 45 is required (negotiable). The directional, operational and
survival angles of yaw are displayed in figure 5.3.
Figure 5.3 Yaw motions in directional, operational and survival mode
Pitch.
During operation the gangway must be positioned between an angle of 0 and 22. When in
survival mode a maximum angle of 30% is required as shown in figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4 Pitch motions of the gangway
20
Loads:
- Operational loads on tip:
The maximum operational loads on the tip of the gangway are displayed in table 5.5. The total
maximum combined load is 440 kg.
Table 5.5 Maximum operational loads on tip

Mass on tip determination: Min
1 person (x 100kg) 100 kg
1 x load 40 kg
Connection (specified by SMST) 300 kg
Total 440 kg
NB: No safety factor has been used yet for the maximum load.
- Survival loads on tip:

The maximum survival loads on the tip of the gangway are displayed in table 5,6. The total
maximum combined load is 640 kg.
Table 5.6 Maximum survival loads on tip

Mass on tip determination: Min
3 persons (x 100kg) 300 kg
1 x load 40 kg
Connection (specified by SMST) 300 kg
Total 640 kg
NB: No safety factor has been used yet for the maximum load.
The result of the design process is shown in figure 5.5 as a composition photo of all extreme
positions of the telescopic access bridge.
Figure 5.5 Extreme positions of telescopic access bridge
21
6. Safety
6.1 Introduction
The Safety Strategy of the Ampelmann strives after a fail-safe Ampelmann system. The
Ampelmann Demonstrator will be designed following two types of safety management systems:
Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA): Safety management system that prevents, detects
and corrects failures with respect to potential breakdown of its system components.
Hazard Effect Management Process (HEMP): Safety management system that reduces the
risk of potential hazards in the different operational modes.
6.2 Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA)

This section describes the approach of a fail-safe Ampelmann design. In this approach, the
design process of the Ampelmann is characterized by the identification (1) of all conceivable
failure modes with respect to its system elements. This allows best preventive measures (2)
followed by a continuous failure-mode detection system (3) completed with a full set of
corrective (back-up) measures (4).
The intended effect of a full set of preventive measures is to achieve that the disclosure of any
failure of a system element is actively prevented at all time. The intended effect of the set of
detective and corrective measures is to automatically detect and instantly correct any failure
(initiate back-up systems) once failure of a system element still reveals. This latter set of safety
measures (detection & correction) must ensure a safe Ride-Through-Failure (RTF) of any
single failure for at least 30 seconds. The first 15 seconds (phase 1) will allow all personnel to
safely exit the gangway. In second 15 seconds (phase 2: 15s-30s) the gangway will be
disconnected from the structure and the Ampelmann will disengage the compensation mode
into neutral and settled position. This second phase is called: Controlled Down (CD).
Depending on the type of disclosed failure (and available back-up options), a Controlled Down
shall be operated manually or initiated full automatically by the safety system.
When for a system element all potential failure modes have been identified and sufficient
detection and corrective (back-up) measures have been incorporated, the system element will
be identified to be fail-safe. When a system element engenders potential failures that are either
hard to detect or hard to be corrected, this element will be pointed out to be critical. In the
safety strategy of the Ampelmann, striving for a fail-safe Ampelmann design, the number of
components that listed to be critical needs to be stringently reduced.
As point of departure for this Failure Mode Effect Analysis, the Ampelmann system is
subdivided into 3 main modules, 18 sub-components and x system elements. For each sub-
component the failure modes of its system elements are listed in a FMEA-matrix.
22
Differentiation Ampelmann system:
Main components:
Container
Hexapod
Gangway
Sub-components: Sub-components: Sub-components:

Hydraulic Power Unit Cylinders Telescopic gangway
Accumulators Manifolds + valves Turn Table
Motion Sensors Sub-manifold QCDC: Quick
Motion Control Cabinet Electrical Umbilical Connector DisConnector
Programmable Logic Controller Hydraulic hoses Leverrope
Bottom Frame
Top Frame
User Interface 1
User Interface 2
Flowchart:
23
6.3 Hazard Effect Management Process (HEMP)

This section describes the effect of any failure or hazard (operational, accidental or
environmental) in the different operational modes of the Ampelmann. This is called the Hazard
Effect Management Process (HEMP). The HEMP first lists all hazards (HAZID: Hazard
Identification) in order to point out the Hazardous Operations (HAZOP).
With respect to the transfer of personnel using the Ampelmann system, the basic Ampelmann
operation listens to 12 different phases in which 5 different safety scores are applicable:
Safety score 1: Failure is not noticed and has no effect on the process.
Safety score 2: Failure is not noticed and has a small effect on the process.
Safety score 3: Failure leads to annoyance but can be easily solved
Safety score 4: Failure can be corrected but leads to a short delay
Safety score 5: Failure cannot be corrected and leads to failure Ampelmann.
With respect to the most critical operational mode, the transfer of personnel to and from
offshore structure, the safety score may not be beyond score number 2. For all other operational
modes, the safety score must be below 4. Only in the testing pre-check phase of the
Ampelmann and the test-phase of the station keeping of the vessel the required safety score
may be equal to 4.
24
7. Ampelmann Test Plan

Introduction
This document describes the tests that will be carried out to prove the suitability of the
Ampelmann Demonstrator for access to offshore wind turbines. The test plan is set up in such a
way that all tests are performed to meet Performance Based Standards: pre-set goals that must
be met during the test before the next test can commence.
Preceding tests
The Ampelmann Demonstrator project has been running since September 2006. The
Demonstrator was operational at the end of May 2007 and several tests have already been done.
A short summary of these tests is given here as background. Some of the test me reoccur in the
offshore tests, others are conclusive on their own.
Single cylinder control

The first test was to control every cylinder individually and tune the control of the hydraulic
valves, the position transducers and the hydraulic pressure transducers. Small deviations per
component have been identified and are incorporated in the control system to assure accuracy.
Motion envelope testing

All extreme motion envelopes were visited to check whether there would be no collision op
components in any possible extreme platform orientation.
Simultaneous cylinder control

In this test the control of the all cylinders simultaneously was tested, resulting in control of the
platform through set points of the transfer deck being continuously translated to required
cylinder length. The test resulted in a demonstration sequence in which all six degrees of
freedom can be simulated by the transfer deck.
Coupling of Octans
The final loop in the control system is that the set points of the transfer deck are delivered by
continuous measurements from the Octans. The system proved be capable of following the
Octans motions or counteracting them.
Offshore motion compensation test I

The system was mounted on a barge and towed to the entrance of the Port of Rotterdam. The
significant wave height was around Hs = 1.0 m and the compensation of the vessel motions was
registered visually from the deck of the barge. The system performed very well. The test proved
the basic working of motion compensation and that the system is waterproof.
Offshore motion compensation test II

The same configuration was tested two weeks later with a further update of the control system
and with a second Octans that was mounted on the transfer deck. The wave conditions were
slightly higher: Hs = 1.25 1.5 m. The processing of the Octans data showed a residual motion
of the transfer deck to be less than 4 cm heave and less than 0.5o roll and pitch. As a fixed
structure was not available at the site, surge and sway would not be determined accurately.
Furthermore, the experience of being on the operating Ampelmann was tested by placing a
team member on the transfer deck with sufficient safety precautions for accidental control
errors. The motion compensation was engaged 4 times and 2 emergency stops were also
executed. The sensation of being on the platform was like being onshore, although slight
trembling of the transfer deck was noticeable due to the fact that the deck was not fully
completed yet. This meant that the deck did not yet have its eventual stiffness. The need for a
non-transparent deck was proven again: looking down through the grating and seeing barge and
25
cylinders move makes the person on the transfer deck feel unstable. When looking to the
horizon or passing ships, the sensation of being on a vessel is lost instantly.
Component redundancy checking

The Ampelmann Demonstrator has been designed to have nearly all critical components to
have a backup. In case of a single failure, the platform can continue its operation on a backup
component until the transfer of the person is completed. The component failure modes have
been identified and control algorithms have been programmed to detect errors and switch to the
backup component. All failure modes have been tested manually and the system operation was
not interrupted. The redundant components are:
- cylinder valves
- position transducers
- wiring
- control computers
- PLCs
- power packs
- electricity supply
- motion measurement system
Onshore testing
The following tests will be carried out before fitting the Ampelmann on the vessel. The tests
incorporate the full system functionality including transfer deck and telescopic access bridge
and the training of the operator.
Transfer deck and telescopic access bridge functionality

The topside of the Ampelmann has an additional three degrees of freedom: luffing (TAB up
and down), telescoping (TAB in and out) and sluwing (rotation of transfer deck. These degrees
of freedom are tested first separately and then simultaneously. Furthermore, these degrees of
freedom are controlled actively but have a safety overflow mode to prevent make them follow
residual motions passively. This overflow mode is tested by pushing the TAB against a dummy
boat landing and creating motions with the Ampelmann platform to simulate motion
compensation failure. The setting of the overflow mode is variable and will be adjusted during
this test to get acquainted with the sensitivity of the system.
Failure mode alarm test

All failure modes have a pre-determined alarm sequence. All modes will be simulated to check
whether all alarm systems function correctly. These systems are for example: the operator
control console, warning light, traffic light and sirens.
Load testing gangway and transfer deck

The design loads are tested on the transfer deck and gangway to make sure the system is secure
in case of overloading. The gangway will be loaded with 400 kg, transfer deck with 500 kg.
Furthermore testing of contact force against the dummy boat landing is performed.
Boat landing docking procedure
The Ampelmann operators will go through a training sequence in which they dock the
Ampelmann TAB against the dummy boat landing. The first series of tests will be carried out
from a stationary Ampelmann deck at several heights. In the second series, the transfer deck
will be actuated with the residual motions measured during the second offshore compensation
test. Then the residual motions are increased to a sea state beyond the design limits of the
Ampelmann platform: Hs = 2.5 m. These residual motions are generated by a vessel motion
simulator and will result in occasional heave of the transfer deck. The final series of landings
will incorporate failure mode testing in which the Ampelmann is turned on at random to
simulate ship motions in a Hs = 1.0 m sea state. The operator will then have to retrieve the
gangway safely following the emergency procedures.
26
Redundancy checking
Again, the redundancy of the components is tested actively, with the operators present to have
them witness the failure modes and the associated control panel messages.
Access test
When the training program of the operators is completed, the people who have been selected to
make the transfer to the offshore structure, will perform a complete dry run of the docking
procedure: check of the Ampelmann system, including performance test. Access to transfer
deck, strapping into seat, Ampelmann engaged to neutral height, including residual motions.
Docking of the TAB against dummy boat landing and transfer of 2 persons following standard
procedures. Furthermore, several failure modes are tested to make the operator and personnel
familiar with the procedures, signals and codes.
Offshore testing of the Ampelmann Demonstrator

The following tests will be carried out offshore during the final test phase. Each test will be
described in detail on a separate test form with measurable results that need to be met at the end
of the test. Only when a test has been completed satisfactory will the next test commence. Upon
failure of completing a test satisfactory, a meeting is held where all available data is analyzed
and a plan of action is drafted. This can either be to perform the test in a different manner or to
alter the consecutive test steps.
Ship safety testing

Man overboard training in port with Ampelmann engaged to dummy wind turbine. Test
is carried out with buoy as man-overboard. 3 x testing
Engine failure test in port: all 3 engines one failure (main port, main starboard, bow
thruster. Again Ampelmann engaged to dummy wind turbine.
Power failure in port, 1 test to check whether secondary power restores control within 5
seconds
Man overboard training offshore, just outside the port. Training with buoy, only once.
Station keeping
Upon arrival 500m zone structure: 1 test for station keeping check maneuverability
and tidal current
@ 50m from structure: 1 test of 5 minute station keeping, again check tide
@ 20m from structure 2 test of minimum 5 minutes
@ 10m from structure 3 tests of 10 minutes, different headings
27
Engaging Ampelmann
Test in port, all systems functioning, once
Test in port, extend gangway against dummy boat landing, 3 times
Test in port, gangway against boat landing residual motions of 25 cm, 3 times
Test in port, gangway against boat landing failure mode in 1.5m Hs, 3 times
Test offshore, just outside port: engage Ampelmann, 3 times, min 5 minutes
Test offshore, just outside port: engage Ampelmann, operate gangway max extension
and luffing, 3 times, min 5 minutes
@ 20m from structure: engage system and measure compensation visually, 3 times,
min 5 minutes
@ 20m from structure: engage system operate gangway, no connection, 3 times, min 5
minutes
@ 7m from structure, engage system, operate gangway and connect, at least 3 minutes,
3 times
Offshore Access
Engage system, operate gangway and connect, when safe: transfer one person,
disconnect
Engage system, operate gangway and connect, when safe: retrieve person, disconnect
Engage system, operate gangway and connect, when safe: transfer two persons,
disconnect
Engage system, operate gangway and connect, when safe: retrieve persons, disconnect
28
8. Testing
8.1 Introduction
The testing of the Ampelmann Demonstrator comprises all tests performed from the moment
the unit was assembled to the final test of transferring a person to an offshore wind turbine. In
building the software of the unit, several tests were performed as part of the building process.
Of all major tests a plan was drafted and records were made. This chapter gives a broad
overview of the different test phases.
8.2 Cylinder control and motion envelop testing

Upon completion of the assembly of the Ampelmann main system, the hydraulic hoses were
connected to the first cylinder to start fine tuning of the motion control software. To prevent
other cylinders from interacting with the tuning activities, the cylinder was connected directly
to the power pack as shown in figures 8.1.
Figure 8.1 First cylinder connected directly to power pack and control system testing
When the cylinder control was tested sufficiently, the hydraulic piping was fitted to the
platform and the hydraulic hoses connected to all 6 cylinders as shown in figure 8.2 which gave
the opportunity to test motions of all 6 cylinders simultaneously. In this phase all cylinders
were controlled on extension only: no platform control was fitted yet.
Figure 8.2 Fitting of hydraulic piping and connection of hoses to all 6 cylinders.
Having control over all 6 cylinders enabled the motion envelop testing. As the platform can
reach an umbrella of positions, it is critical in the testing to check whether all components can
follow the cylinder positions without components touching or even damaging each other.
Figure 8.3 shows the system in different extreme positions. All components passed the test and
no adaptations were required for the platform to reach all cylinder length combinations that are
possible.
29
Figure 8.3 Motion envelop testing
8.3 Platform x-y-z control

After the control of 6 individual cylinders was tested and the platform envelop checked, the
transformation of single cylinder control to platform orientation control was introduced. By
controlling the top platform centre point orientation and re-calculating the required cylinder
lengths, the platform can be controlled by feeding it harmonic signals, ship motions, or the
measurements from the Octans. To test and demonstrate the workings of the platform and to
prepare software and control panel integration, a panel was made to turn the system on and let
it perform the six degrees of freedom motions: surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw as shown
in figure 8.4.
Heave Yaw
Surge Roll
Sway Pitch
Figure 8.4 Six degrees of freedom control via control panel
30
At this stage, the Octans was also connected to the system, but manual control by moving the
Octans proved very uncomfortable due to the scale effects between human reach and the
platform reach. Furthermore, very fast motions can be performed easily by moving the Octans
and with the Ampelmann running at maximum velocity, it can follow, but again at a very
uncomfortable high velocity for spectators. Further manual testing was therefore discontinued.
8.4 Load-out: testing plug & play

The Ampelmann Demonstrator was designed to be plug & play: easy to install on any vessel
within an acceptable time frame. The first test of this was the load-out at Heerema Zwijndrecht.
The advantage on site was the abundant presence of cranes, multi-wheel trailers and other
lifting equipment. Preparation for load-out took 3 hours: unbolting the platform from the mud-
plates and preparing the control computers to be moved. Figure 8.5 shows the lifting of the
system onto the multi-wheel trailer.
Figure 8.5 Preparation for load-out: lifting Ampelmann

and power packs onto the multi-wheel trailer
The load-out itself took less than 2 hours: rolling the system out of the construction hall and
lifting it onto the barge. For this lift, the power packs and Ampelmann were still connected via
the hydraulic hoses. This meant only one lift was required, but it also made it necessary to use a
spreader bar and two cranes as shown in figure 8.6.
Figure 8.6 Transport to quay side and lifting with spreader bar and two cranes
The system was installed on a SMIT barge and fixed to it by welding the footplates and fixing
the power packs and containers using steel profiles. Installation and welding is shown in figure
8.7.
31
Figure 8.7 Installation on barge, fixing of containers and general layout
As only the electrical control umbilical needed to be connected, the time to be operational after
lifting was less than 1 hour. The entire load-out took approximately 8 hours, spread over 2 days.
Biggest improvement to be introduced was the disconnection of the hydraulic hoses from the
power packs. Although an extra lift is then needed, the expensive and complicated duo lift can
be abandoned.
8.5 Offshore motion compensation

After the unit was installed on the barge, the system was maneuvered to Rotterdam. During
transit, the first motion compensation test was done. Although the waves on the river were in
the order of centimeters, the system proved stable for small wave motion compensation. Figure
8.8 shows pictures of the departure on the Maiden Voyage, figure 8.9 the transit to Rotterdam.
Figure 8.8 Departure on Maiden Voyage from Zwijdrecht to Rotterdam
32
Figure 8.9 Transit to Rotterdam
8.6 Offshore motion compensation test I

After arriving in Rotterdam at the SMIT head office, the final checks were made for the sea-
worthiness of the Ampelmann. An oil response kit was installed on board as was fire
extinguishing equipment and man overboard kit. Final preparations being made to the platform
is shown in figure 8.10.
Figure 8.10 Final preparations before first offshore trial
On the 29th of June, the Ampelmann was taken offshore by the SMIT tug Eerland 28. The tests
were carried out at the mouth of the Port of Rotterdam, off Hook of Holland, as shown on the
map in figure 8.11. Weather conditions resembled fall more than summer with only 12oC,
clouds, rain and a sea state just above Hs = 1.0m at the test site. The system was tested first for
heave, pitch and roll compensation. Later surge and sway were added. For yaw a reset button
was created. The surge and sway motions are doubly integrated accelerations, slowly drifting
with the vessel co-ordinates, the heading is a true compass measurement without drift. When
following it throughout longer period tests, the increasingly yawed platform disallows other
motion compensation.
Station keeping performances of the barge and tug were moderate, but sufficient for the first
tests. Visual check against the horizon gave very good confidence on motion compensation, but
video footage shot from the barge or tug was influence by the ship motions (the human eye can
correct for vessel motions, cameras cannot). It was therefore decided to have a camera onshore
and a measurement device on the platform for the next test.
Pictures of the tests are shown in figure 8.12.
33
Test site
Figure 8.11 Sailing route from SMIT HQ to test site at mouth of the Port of Rotterdam
Figure 8.12 Images of offshore testing on the 29th of June 200
34
8.7 Intermediate: View on Delft

After the first offshore test, the Ampelmann was transferred to Delft to give the sponsors,
industry, University staff and students and the press the opportunity to see the Ampelmann. At
the same spot where famous Dutch painter Vermeer painted his View on Delft the
Ampelmann was demonstrated as shown in figure 8.13.
Figure 8.13 View on Delft by Vermeer and by the Ampelmann Team

As waves are non-existent on the Rijn-Schie kanaal in Delft, attempts were made to create
dynamic response of the barge by rolling and/or swaying the Ampelmann transfer deck in the
roll frequency of the barge. Conclusions of these tests were that the barge only responds
slightly to sway, roll does not give noticeable response. The natural frequency of roll is 0.29 Hz.
But any induced roll of the barge was damped in one stroke. It was therefore decided only to
show the six degrees of freedom and a series of measurements from the first offshore tests,
simulating the wave motions in the transfer deck, rather than compensating them. The pictures
in figure 8.14 give an overview of the preparations in Rotterdam, the trip to Delft and the
demonstration.
Mayor of Delft: B. Verkerk; Chairman DUT: H. van Luijk; Director NZW: H. den Rooijen; Ampelmann: Jan van der Tempel
Figure 8.14 Preparations in Rotterdam, sailing to Delft, speakers

and the Demonstration on 3rd of July 2007
35
8.8 Offshore motion compensation test II

On July 11th, the Ampelmann was again sailed to the test site for a second motion compensation
test. Weather conditions were less cold, but with more wind from westerly directions, wave
heights were reaching Hs = 1.5m. The tests started around noon at the outer reaches of the break
waters, but later in the afternoon, the vessel moved into more sheltered areas as above Hs =
1.5m waves were building up, which was beyond test procedures.
The following additional test features were added:
Second Octans on transfer deck to measure residual motions
Test with person on transfer deck
Filming form onshore location to record compensation capabilities from stationary location
Figure 8.15 shows an overview of the tests.
Figure 8.15 Second offshore motion compensation test on July 11th 2007
36
The main conclusions or the test were the following:

Motion compensation on a 30m barge in Hs = 1.5m works properly
Residual motion: heave: less than 4cm, roll and pitch: < 0.5o
Experience on transfer deck: as if onshore; connection with vessel completely gone
Addition of visual separation needed: seeing the cylinders move underneath gives strange
feeling fitting of cloth underneath transfer deck
8.9 Endurance test: World Port Days

Upon completion of the offshore motion compensation tests, the Ampelmann Demonstrator
returned to Heerema Zwijdrecht for completion of the hydraulic system, extension of the
internal measurement system and testing of the redundancy. Furthermore, the transfer deck was
developed further to include the telescopic access bridge.
At the beginning of September, the Ampelmann Demonstrator was invited by SMIT and the
organization to give a demonstration at the World Port Days in the Port of Rotterdam. This
three day event would be opened by local folk singer Gerard Cox, performing from the
Ampelmann. Furthermore, the Ampelmann technology was demonstrated to an audience of
50,000. Figure 8.16 shows Gerard Cox performing.
Figure 8.16 Opening of World Port Days by Gerard Cox on the Ampelmann Demonstrator
The remainder of the weekend, the public could control the six degrees of freedom of the
Ampelmann. For a full two and a half day children and their parents were invited to use the
control panel and let the Ampelmann make motions. The weekend was primarily an endurance
test for the system operating 10 hours on end and being operated by untrained personnel. All
systems functioned without problems.
8.10 Onshore completion and testing

The week after the World Port Days, the Ampelmann was demobilized and shipped from SMIT
in Rotterdam to SMST in Franker, in the North of the Netherlands. At SMST the transfer deck
and telescopic access bridge had been constructed and for final finishing of hydraulics and
control it was beneficial to be close to the workshop. Figure 8.17 shows the transport route
from SMIT to SMST.
Upon arrival, the Ampelmann was re-assembled and final control testing could commence. The
main goal was to have all redundant systems ready and tested before the final offshore test.
Furthermore, the tuning of the gangway controls could be tested and optimized. With structural,
hydraulics and control experts of SMST nearby, the system completion could be finished. The
final onshore tests were to land the gangway on a copy of the OWEZ boat landing, as shown in
figure 8.18.
37
Figure 8.17 Transit from SMIT in Rotterdam to SMST in Franker
Figure 8.18 Training of operator and transfer crew

on onshore copy of OWEZ boat landing
The tests ended with an demonstration on Friday, December 7th for representatives of Shell,
NZW, Vestas, Staatstoezicht op de Mijnen and Lloyds Register. The demonstration included
an introduction to the platform, visual inspection and a transfer. Several comments were
recorded and used for further improvement to prepare for the offshore access tests.
8.11 Offshore Access

The next day, the Ampelmann was shipped from Franker to Harlingen on a barge. De-
mobilization took from 6:00 to 13:00. In the afternoon, the Ampelmann and one power pack
were installed between 14:30 and 17:00, when darkness made installation work on the tight
38
deck less safe. The next day, the installation continued with installation of the power pack,
transfer deck and control computer between 10:00 and 12:00. The remainder of the day was
spent on welding the Ampelmann to the deck and re-connecting hydraulics and electronics. The
system was operational at noon on Monday. De-mob and Mob are shown in figure 8.19.
Figure 8.19 De-mobilizing from Franeker and installation on SMIT Bronco in Harlingen
On Tuesday, December 11th, the SMIT Bronco set sail for IJmuiden. Offshore conditions were
beyond the Ampelmann testing conditions: Hs > 2.0m. Nevertheless, the system can run in
simulation mode and was able to compensate all measured motions with less than 15 cm
residual movement due to cylinder length limitations. These results exceeded ship motion
simulations: they were more conservative than the real situation. Figure 8.20 shows the tour
from Harlingen via the Shell co-owned offshore wind farm OWEZ to IJmuiden.
Figure 8.20 Sailing from Harlingen to Ijmuiden, Tuesday, December 11th 2007
Unfortunately, the sailing trip had some negative effects on the functioning of one of the power
packs. Due to moist in the connectors, the power pack did run, but would not start its hydraulic
pump. Offshore correction by feeding it by-passed information from the Ampelmann PLC did
help and made the power pack functioning within 2 hours, but an intermediate shutdown during
the first test resulted in aborting further efforts. The power pack controls were repaired the next
morning in the Port of IJmuiden. Figure 8.21 shows images of the transit to Ijmuiden.
39
Figure 8.21 Transfer from Harlingen to IJmuiden: setting sail on the Waddenzee, passing ECN
in Petten (shot from behind HAWT and zoom (pictures: Jos Beurskens))maximum roll: 11
degrees, maximum heave: 2.8m (Ampelmann: 2.5m) And OWEZ at touching distance
40
The Ampelmann was further prepared for the offshore trials and all licences were gather to be
able to enter the Offshore Wind farm Egmond aan Zee (OWEZ). Both operator, Noordzee
Wind (NZW), a joint venture of Shell & Nuon, and the maintenance contractor BCE (Vestas
and Ballast Nedam) were co-operative and critical to make the effort safe. The Risk Analysis to
acquire a Permit to Work is shown in Appendix III. The most significant outcome of the safety
meetings was to land the Ampelmann gangway not on the ladder, but beside it. By pressing the
tip against the structure and the side of the ladder, it could be fixed in all directions. Should
contact be lost and the gangway move up, it would not hit the person who just transferred while
he was climbing the ladder. The OWEZ wind turbines have an additional benefit for this
working method: the tip could be landed at the level of the spider deck. The person transfer
therefore only needs to step on the ladder and step sideways directly out of reach of the
gangway. The ladder and spider deck are shown in figure 8.21.
Figure 8.21 Landing at spider deck level
The transfer was executed on Friday, December 14th 2007. The mv Fortuna accompanied the
SMIT Bronco and had an MOB boat in the water on standby. The conditions were ideal for
testing a transfer, but not for demonstration of motion compensation behaviour: < 0.5m wave
height. The transfer was executed by Jan van der Tempel to WTG 03. Figure 8.22 shows the
images of the transfer.
Figure 8.22 Transfer to WTG 03 on December 14th 2007
The following days more landings were performed under different approach angles and tidal
conditions. The co-ordination between operator and Master improved significantly.
Improvements to the station keeping on manual control were implemented over the weekend.
Detailed description by the Shell representative on board are shown in appendix II.
On Wednesday, December 19th, the SMIT Bronco left IJmuiden and set sail to Rotterdam
where the Ampelmann was de-mobilised and stored for future projects.
41
42
9. Conclusions and Outlook

The project goals were very simple and straightforward:
Design and build an Ampelmann platform
Make it offshore proof
Make it safe
Test it offshore
If possible: transfer people to an offshore wind turbine.
The Ampelmann Demonstrator project reached these goals. The platform has performed well to
a sea state of Hs = 1.5m with only 4cm heave residual motions in the transfer deck. Furthermore,
a series of landings on offshore wind turbines have been executed in the OWEZ wind farm. On
Friday, December 14th 2007, a safe transfer was made to and from turbine WTG 03. Wave
conditions were minimal. During that week a maximum wave height of Hs = 0.5m was
encountered while landing the gangway against the monopile.
Improvements on the design and control system of the Ampelmann Demonstrator have been
ongoing throughout the project, up to the last tests. The system proved to be robust and
offshore proof. The main improvements will be made in the Station Keeping Assistant: a device
to tell both the Vessel Master and the Operator what the relative positions are. Furthermore, the
operational experience has changed the teams view on redundancy. In this Demonstrator, all
redundancy was externally monitored and enforced by PLC and control computers. Though
functional, inherent system redundancy will be an easier way forward, tackling failures at the
core and not at the end of the flow lines.
The Ampelmann Demonstrator proved that offshore access can be made as easy as crossing the
street.
43
10. Inventors contemplations

We have done what everyone outside our team deemed impossible. We have built a fully
operational unit with 1.5 years. We gathered all knowledge and experience and got it done. We
started with a 1m stoke cylinder platform and redesigned in December to 2m stroke which
made the project base completion less than a year. Assembly of the core system took only 4
days, for a team that had never done this before. Many called us deadline junkies for
completing all demonstration goals over summer: with the system assembled end of May, we
were able to do offshore tests end of June. And present it to the press early July. Being able to
have kids operate it early September was an engineering feat in itself. The relaxedness came
only when everything moved to Friesland, where distance to Delft provided the much need
relaxation to test all that was needed. When we were at the Offshore Wind Energy Conference
in Berlin, the very place Ampelmann was invented, speed pick up again, probably beyond
common belief. Presentation on the 6th of December of what was to happen became reality
within 2 weeks. The full 5 days of offshore testing provided enough data to improve the system
to promote the system from prototype to fully operational unit.
We were able to find the minor weaknesses in the design and address many during testing. And
we had all knowledge and tools onboard to fix them. Ampelmann commissioning takes a day,
fixing minor problems only hours. Much will need to be improved but all is there for any
challenge.
I am proud to have worked with all of the Dutch industry: from builders of components to
system integrators to critical end-users. WE did it, all of us!
If there will ever be a time and place to thank all, it is now in this beautiful picture show and for
me on Christmas Eve: we did it! You did it! Thank you! And be proud!
Ampelmann has always been more than just a cool image, it has become an icon of
accomplishment, and we made it happen. I am grateful and forever in dept to all those beautiful
people who owned this idea as I did.
Most indebted I am to my team: Frederik, David, Jillis and Arjan. You gave more than I could
ask. When weekends became working days and sleep a luxury, you were there, always. You
were there even when I was not. The perfect proof of a perfect team!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the Ampelmann is beyond beholding
THANK YOU!
Jan van der Tempel
44
Appendix I Project Partners & Sponsors
Partners:
45
Sponsors:
46
Appendix II Test Report OWEZ
47
48
49
50
51
52
AMPELMANN DEMONSTRATOR
OFFSHORE WINDPARK EGMOND AAN ZEE (OWEZ)

Offshore Access & Egress O&M Procedure
Appendix III
Risk Analysis OWEZ access
Ampelmann-RA-OWEZ-V2.0 OFFSHORE WINDPARK EGMOND AAN ZEE (OWEZ) 1 of 7


Offshore Tower Access Trapping of feet Sea - Swell / State Injury 3 4 12 Trained personnel 3 1 3
between ladder rungs PPE to include floatation suit
Routine access to ladder and tip of the Life Jacket Head protection Gloves
gangway Safety Footwear.
SOP to be followed
Transfer to WTG not to take place
over the set parameters for sea state
(vessel master has overall authority).
Tip of gangway pushes against side
of inclined ladder above boat
landing to prevent being trapped
Offshore Tower Access Impacting into Sea - Swell / State Damage to: 3 3 9 Competent Vessel Master 3 1 3
fenders & ladders. Ladders Competent Ampelmann operator
Routine access to ladder J Tubes Rubber fender on tip gangway
Vessel Gangway in freefloating mode to
follow any residual motions
Transfer to WTG not to take place
over the set parameters for sea state
(vessel master has overall authority).
Offshore Tower Access Impacting into Sea - Swell / State Injury 3 3 9 Vessel Master to check sea state 3 1 3
fenders & ladders. with Marine Coordinator before
Routine access to ladder departure
Local Sea conditions to be assessed
by vessel master.
Each engineer to personally assess
the sea state for accessing tower - is
it within their own capabilities. One
man says no, no one to accesses the
tower.
Ampelmann operations limit
exceed maximum prescribed sea
state limit for testing


Offshore Tower Access Slip on ladder Marine growth and Injury 5 3 15 Good grip footwear 5 1 5
Fall into water moisture Drowning Maintain 3 points of contact with the
Climbing ladder Fall onto boat Falling tools or Hypothermia ladder while climbing.
Carrying Equipment Work Boat on stand by throughout
tools/equipment climb.
Correct survival equipment for water
temperatures.
Rescue equipment on Work Boat.
Personnel will not climb access to
turbine with tools or equipment.
Standby boat ready to pick up
MOB
Gangway turned away from ladder
No tools carried by transferring
crew
Access to higher ladder: no marine
growth
Offshore Tower Access Hit by falling objects Dropped tools or Injury to: 3 3 13 All persons to wear hard hats when 3 1 3
equipment Person climbing in the vicinity of WTG.
Climbing ladder ladder. No tools carried by transferring
Personnel in crew
boat.
Offshore Tower Egress Fall into water Sea Swell / State Injury 5 3 15 Trained personnel 5 1 5
Fall into boat Drowning PPE to include floatation suit
Routine Access to Boat Hyperthermia Life Jacket Head protection Gloves
Safety Footwear.
SOP to be followed
Transfer to & from WTG not to take
place if over the set parameters for
sea state (vessel master has overall
authority)
Offshore Tower Egress Personnel stranded Change in sea state (to Inability to 5 3 15 Work boat to be on standby within 5 1 5
on WTG severe). safely access/ the Wind Farm at all times.


Adverse weather Snow, sleet, hail egress WTG. Personnel not to be placed on WTG
Visibility less than 700m if there is any doubt of being able to
get them off.
Work Boat to have adequate capacity
to evacuate all operatives working
within the wind farm.
Weather to be monitored regularly
Personnel to be evacuated from
WTGs before the conditions
deteriorates.
Work Boats to carry WTG Survival
Packs containing welfare equipment
for enforced stay on a WTG.
Do not access ladder when visibility
drops below 700m
Ampelmann operation Component failure: Injury 5 3 15 Redundant power pack and Piston 5 1 5
Loss of hydraulic Drowning type accumulator
Access/egress Falling into water power Hypothermia UPS electrical power back up with
Falling onto Loss of electrical power relay switches
gangway Loss of valve control Double valves on cylinders
Being hit by Failure of position Double position transducers
gangway transducers Double measurement device
Failure of measurement Failsafe redundant control
system computers
Failure of control
computer
Ampelmann operation Falling into water Loss of contact tip Injury 5 4 20 Limit to maximum workable sea 5 1 5
Falling onto structure due to: Drowning state < than maximum
Access/egress gangway Ampelmann exceeds Hypothermia Ampelmann sea state
Being hit by motion envelope Warning to captain and operator
gangway Gangway too short about extension gangway: only in


Gangway not fast green area: transfer

enough Accumulators to supply additional
Station keeping vessel hydraulic capability for high
velocity telescoping (0.5m/s)
Station keeping assistant display
on bridge for captain
Ampelmann operation Oil spill Leaking seal Pollution 4 3 12 Visual inspection before operation 3 2 6
Broken hose to detect seal leaks/damaged hoses
All operations Biologically degradable hydraulic
oil
Oil spill kit on board
Swivels on rotating hoses
Oil spill provisions installed
around platform
Drums to accommodate polluted
oil spill gear
Ampelmann operation Hit by moving Ampelmann operating Injury 5 5 25 No people in reach of Ampelmann 5 1 5
cylinders on deck
All operations
Ampelmann operation Fall into water Ampelmann and Injury 4 2 8 System design according to Lloyds 4 1 4
Fall on platform support structural Drowning Register
All operations failure Hypothermia NDT of critical joints platform
Load test of SWL x 1.5 = 450 kg at
tip with certificate of test by
Lloyds
All crew not transferring strapped
in on Ampelmann
Station keeping Collision Engine failure Damage 4 4 16 Double engines and abort at 1 4 1 4
Vessel drifting structure/vesse failing
Captain judgment l Station keeping on most favorable
Injury side for environmental conditions:
vessel drifts away from structure
Station Keeping Assistant display


on bridge for captain

Constant communication between
captain and operator
Operator measures distance to pile
with laser, operation between 5m
and 9m distance between structure
and vessel
Severity Probability: Risk Code:

1 No or insignificant damage. 1 Unlikely. No knowledge of any such cases. 18: Low risk. No or acceptable risk. Activity can be carried out.
2 Minor damage or illness. First aid treatment. 2 Not likely to occur but may occur. 915: Medium risk. Operations to be carried out only after the appropriate
3 Serious damage or illness. Loss of working hours. 3 Now and then, occurs occasionally. management have given its approval after consultation with specialists.
4 Serious damage or illness. Disablement. 4 Likely, could occur more than once. 16-25: High risk. Must be reduced. Operation shall not be carried out.
5 Fatality or Major Injury of one or more persons. 5 Frequently, could occur regularly.




Six Degree Platform&amp;Gangway

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Six Degree Platform&amp;Gangway

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ampelmann Demonstrator

J. van der Tempel (TU Delft)

(We@Sea project 2006-008)

Dr.Ir. Jan van der Tempel

Section Offshore Engineering

1. Introduction and background

1.2 Project goals

Offshore Access, as easy as crossing the street

1.4 History of the Ampelmann

Invention and first explorations

Scale model testing

1.5 Document setup

2.2 Demonstrator design goals

The design requirements to reach this goal were defined as:

3. Ampelmann operational procedure

4. Crew arrives on transfer deck

9. Gangway is extended toward turbine platform

12. Gangway is disengaged from platform and retracted

Figure 4.1 Load case 1 Figure 4.2 Load case 2

Table 4.1 Load case values

For road transport, the limits shown in table 4.2 apply.

Table 4.2 Size limits for road transport

< 4.00 m no convoy

max height 4.00 m depends on route

max mass < 100 tonne no convoy

4.2 Design steps for platform

Figure 4.3 Basic Stewart platform configuration

Stroke length Load cases

Max Force Cylinder Size

Figure 4.4 Design process flow chart

Minimum cylinder length

Maximum cylinder length

Figure 4.5 Stroke length

Other Geometry Parameters

Rt = Radius top platform [m]

Consideration should be given to a worst-case-scenario, where an emergency might cause the

P = Maximum axial load [kN]

Figure 4.8 Used hydraulic concept

HPU & Valves

4.3 Platform geometry

Table 4.3 Comparison of platform geometries

Rt Rb st sb ldead Settled Neutral Fmax Fmin max min x y z rl pt yw

Table 5.1 Dimensions of the gangway

Table 5.2 Determination of the length of the gangway

Y1 Maximum offset vessel in survival mode +/_ 1500

Z1 Maximum length in stored position and survival mode

Figure 5.1 The neutral length of the gangway

Figure 5.2 Survival modes telescopic behaviour gangway

Table 5.3 Required rotational flexibilities of the gangway

Figure 5.3 Yaw motions in directional, operational and survival mode

Figure 5.4 Pitch motions of the gangway

Table 5.5 Maximum operational loads on tip

- Survival loads on tip:

Table 5.6 Maximum survival loads on tip

Figure 5.5 Extreme positions of telescopic access bridge

6.2 Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA)

Differentiation Ampelmann system:

Sub-components: Sub-components: Sub-components:

6.3 Hazard Effect Management Process (HEMP)

7. Ampelmann Test Plan

Single cylinder control

Motion envelope testing

Simultaneous cylinder control

Offshore motion compensation test I

Six Degree Platform&Gangway

Six Degree Platform&Gangway