You are on page 1of 19

Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

Mobile o!shore base concepts.

Concrete hull and steel topsides
Gunnar Rognaas*, Jun Xu, Severin Lindseth, Finn Rosendahl
Aker Maritime ASA, Postbox 249, Lilleaker, N-0216, Norway


This paper describes two di!erent types of concepts for a mobile o!shore base (MOB). The
concepts are hybrids with high strength light weight aggregate concrete (LWC60) in the hull
and steel in the topside deck. One concept is a semi submersible type consisting of four identical
modules. The MOB is basically 1525 m (5000 ft.) long. The second concept is a single structural
unit consisting of a central concrete core 890 m long with a steel cantilever 317 m long at each
end. The total length of the unit is 1525 m. Results from detailed code check of fatigue life for the
concrete hull is included. It is concluded that fatigue is a `non-issuea for the concrete hull
with a design life of 100 years. Possible construction methods and schedules are also
presented.  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Floating structures; Concrete

1. Introduction

Very large #oating structures (VLFS) are characterized by requirements for a long
design life (typically 100 years) and low maintenance cost. Durability and fatigue
resistance are key words for selection of materials, design and fabrication.
In this paper it will be demonstrated that high-performance concrete (HPC) ful"lls
the design and construction requirements of a VLFS such as the mobile o!shore base
(MOB). The MOB has been evaluated for possible use by the US defense.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: #47-22-94-50-00; fax: #47-22-94-52-96.

E-mail addresses: (G. Rognaas), (J. Xu), (S. Lindseth), " (F. Rosendahl).

0951-8339/01/$ - see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 1 - 8 3 3 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 9 - 8
6 G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

2. Rules/functional requirements

`Mobile o!shore units classi"cation rulesa by Det norske Veritas (DnV) have been
used for the design. For design of concrete structural elements DnV's `Fixed o!shore
installation rulesa are used.
Functional requirements from the Client have been:

Design life Min 40 years

Minimum size of the MOB 1525 m;152.5 m
minimum size 1525 m;61 m
largest airplane C17 Globemaster
Transit speed 8}10 knots
Storage requirements:
material storage 270,000 m (min)}837,000 m (preferably)
liquid storage 132,400 m (fuel)
9,500 m (water)
Minimum draught 15}20 m
Aircraft operation in Sea State 6; Maximum pitch between modules
H "6 m 1.5% (0.863)
Survival condition H "15 m
Missiles attack No design requirements
Storage areas (topside) Minimum e!ective height is 6.0 m

3. Concept screening

The following categories of concepts were investigated as possible types for a con-
crete MOB [1]:
E Dock.
E Barge.
E Ship.
E Catamaran.
E Semi-submersible (column-stabilized), twin hull.
The driving parameters during concept screening were:
E Minimum overall size 1525 m;152.5 m.
E Draft of about 15 m (for transit in shallow water).
E Acceptable motions for aircraft operations.
E Forces/structural strength for Survival condition.
E Transit speed in the range about 10 knots.
A large number of hydrodynamic analyses were run using the WADAM program
to investigate the behavior of the di!erent concepts for the operation and survival
conditions (Figs. 1}5).
G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23 7

Fig. 1. Dock type.

Fig. 2. Barge type * cross section.

Fig. 3. Ship type * cross section.

Fig. 4. Catamaran type * cross section.

8 G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

Fig. 5. Semi type/twin hull type * cross section.

The following observations were made:

The dock-type structure experienced numerical convergence problems in the com-
puter program due to the internal water inside the walls (dock). Probably the concept
will experience internal sloshing also in real life. Therefore the concept was aban-
The idea of the dock-type concept was to utilize the internal sheltered harbor for
on- and o!-loading operations of ships.
For barge-type structures the natural periods are in the range 11}16 s. These
periods are within the range of frequently occurring waves. This implies that the
barges move much more when subjected to waves. A barge will generally follow the
wave if the wavelength is larger than twice the module length.
The ship- and catamaran-type structures behave almost like barges with respect to
wave induced motions.
Semi-submergible types and twin-hull structures with, reduced water plane area, have
natural periods of more than 30 s in roll and pitch.
During the screening period it seemed possible to design a structure with reduced
water plane area (semi) with a length about 300 m, which has a pitch angle less than
about 0.83 for the aircraft takeo! and landing operations. It was assumed that by
hinging modules together the relative pitch between modules would be acceptable.
The pitch will decrease for longer modules. For structural reasons the length of a semi
should not be more than 500 m.
In order to reduce the pitch to about 0.83 for the other types of structures (without
reduced water plane area) the length of one module should be at least about
500}750 m.
The semi-submergible hybrid concept (Fig. 6) with light weight aggregate (LWA)
concrete in the hull and with steel topside deck was selected as the most appropriate
concept. The main advantages of a semi-structure are:

E A semi-type structure with draft in the range of 40 m has good motion behavior.
E The concept can be optimized to have relatively high speed at Transit draft.
G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23 9

Fig. 6. Hybrid semi-submersible concept. Mobile o!shore base. Length of 1525 m.

E Potential for module length in the range of 300}500 m (#).

E A steel topside structure is lighter than concrete and is therefore, favorable, with
respect to draft and hydrostatic stability.
The main advantages of using high-performance concrete (HPC) [2] are:
E Superior fatigue resistance.
E Ultimate strength.
E Low maintenance cost.
E Robustness against accidental loading.

4. Semi-submersible concept

4.1. General description

The hybrid semi-concept selected consists of four modules of length 381 m (1250 ft)
(Fig. 7). Each module is 152.5 m (500 ft) wide at the steel deck levels. The four modules
are inter-connected in the operation condition giving the required 5000 ft long runway.
During aircraft operation the #oating draft is 36.5 m. During (self-propelled) trans-
portation the Transit draft is 15.7 m; i.e. #oating on pontoons only.
The 61 m wide runway for aircraft landing and take-o!s is placed on one side of the
top deck to allow for parking and loading/unloading along the other side.
For sea conditions beyond that of aircraft operation but below H "7.5 m, the
modules are disconnected such that each module is operating individually. This is to
limit the forces in the connectors.
The connector system between the four modules is designed to take axial forces,
horizontal- and vertical-shear forces as well as torsion (roll) moments. Both yaw and
pitch motions are allowed in the connectors between the modules. In order to reduce
10 G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

Fig. 7. Hybrid semi. 1 MOB unit. Length 381 m.

the forces on the connectors, the wave directions are limited to $453 relative to the
longitudinal MOB axis.
The MOB is also equipped with container cranes and pedestal cranes for lifting to
and from ships moored alongside the MOB.
Eight thrusters of 6 MW each are installed per module in order to give the required
speed of 8}10 knots.
The area inside each circular column is one #oatation compartment. The area in the
pontoons between columns is divided into two compartments. That gives adequate
hydrostatic stability both for intact and damage situations.
The modules can go from operational draft (36.5 m) to transit draft (15.7 m) in 31 h.
The reverse operation takes 11 h.

4.2. Steel deck * topside

The geometry of the steel deck is given by the overall functional requirements with
respect to width and length.
The height of the steel topside is given by three internal storage decks below the top
(#ight) deck. Each internal deck has a free height of 6 m. The total height of the topside
structure is 21.4 m.
Inside the topside structure longitudinal- and transverse-walls are provided in
order to give su$cient global shear sti!ness.
There are elevators between each deck level and down to sea level for roll o! from
ships and lift up to appropriate decks in the topside deck structure.

4.3. Concrete hull

The hull sizing (of each module) is determined based on the following:
The pontoon length is 365 m and gives su$cient space between modules to allow for
yaw and pitch motions. The pontoon cross-section (47.5 m;16.5 m) is based on
G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23 11

requirements for buoyancy and speed during transit. This means that the pontoon top
slabs are above water line during transit, which improves transit speed.
The number of columns (12) and column diameter (28 m) is based on requirements
to stability and strength. Circular columns compared to continuous walls, were
selected to reduce the transverse forces between the longitudinal pontoons from wave
The column height of 45 m is based on an assumption that there should be about
20 m of still-water above top of the pontoons during storm conditions. The clearance
from still-water to bottom deck of topsides was set to 25 m to avoid severe slamming
to the bottom of the topside deck.

4.4. Steel braces

Transverse braces are installed between the columns in order to limit forces into the
steel deck. The braces are `ball and socketa connected inside the columns in order to
avoid bending moments in the braces.
For a more thorough description of the concept refer to [3].

5. Hydrodynamics

Hydrodynamic analyses [4] and [5], have been done with the WADAM program
in order to investigate motion behavior and wave-induced forces on one single
module. The WADAM program utilizes wave di!raction/radiation theory and oper-
ates on panel models.
The "rst natural periods are given in Table 3, `Basic con"gurationa. Short-term
maxima, for 3 h storm condition, are calculated by using Pierson Moscowitz wave
spectra for wave periods from ¹ "6}20 s. The following responses are found,
expressed per unit signi"cant wave height (H ) (Table 1).
An alternative to the Pierson}Moscowitz spectrum is a double peaked spectrum.
It may have a more realistic simulation of a storm condition. A brief investigation
with double peaked spectrum showed that the Pierson}Moscowitz (PM) spectrum
generally is somewhat conservative compared with a double peaked spectrum.
Maximum mid-section moment and forces for H "15 m are given in Table 5,
`Basic con"gurationa.

Table 1
Hydrodynamic responses per m H
Surge (m/m) 0.22
Sway (m/m) 0.40
Heave (m/m) 0.41
Roll (3/m) 0.33
Pitch (3/m) 0.19
Yaw (3/m) 0.11
12 G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

6. Air gap

Several air gap analyses are performed using WADAM/SESAM for a single module
in survival condition. These analyses determine the required distance from still
water level to the topside structure (i.e. air gap at still water). The air gap is
calculated based on consideration of radiation/di!raction e!ects on the wave
surface elevation, i.e. wave enhancement factors are calculated for a range of selected
The analyses revealed a need for a larger nominal air gap than initially assumed.
The initial air gap was therefore increased from 20 to 25 m by increasing the column
height from 40 to 45 m. The theoretical calculations must be verixed by future model
The suggested air gap of 25 m is a few meters lower than strictly required from
WADAM calculations. A slamming design pressure of 70 kN/m has been used for the
steel bottom deck.

7. Structural analyses

A comprehensive "nite element analysis (FEA) is performed [6] for one single
module of the MOB structure. The FE model comprises the full length of one module.
The total number of elements is nearly 200,000 and the degrees of freedom are in the
order of 700,000.
The global FE model is made of shell elements with a relatively "ne mesh. See
Fig. 8.
The wave loads are generated by WADAM and automatically applied to the FE
model. Further, the structural responses are calculated by SESTRA. Both WADAM
and SESTRA are parts of the SESAM program package, which is widely used in
design of o!shore structures.

Fig. 8. Finite element model.

G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23 13

In total seven di!erent waves are selected for consideration in the global FEA. The
wave loads are separated in a real and an imaginary parts in order to be able to
evaluate all phase angles of the actual wave.
In addition longhand calculations are performed to investigate local loads and
moment e!ects not included in the FEA.

8. Structural design checks

The main objective of the structural analysis and consecutive design has been to
demonstrate structural feasibility, and to check realistic dimensions and material
quantities. The design checks [6] demonstrate that all structural speci"cations and
requirements, which are assessed to be governing, are ful"lled.
A summary of material quantities is given in Tables 6 and 7, `Basic con"gurationa.
Maximum intensity of ordinary reinforcement is 3 H32 per 200 mm. This is a
reasonable intensity with respect to constructibility.
The concrete hull has a fatigue life of 600 years in the anticipated most unfavorable
areas [11]. If using a safety factor of 10 for areas without access for inspection,
a fatigue design life of 60 years is expected. Fatigue life could be improved if needed.

9. Connectors

9.1. Connector arrangement

The design of connectors [7] between modules are based on the following assump-
tions, Figs. 9}13:
E Relative surge, sway, heave and roll motions between modules are suppressed in the
E Pitch and yaw motions are allowed.
E Max. wave heading is limited to 453 and H )7.5 m.
E Technology from the design of the #exible joint (`ball and socketa) bearings on the
Troll A o!shore project in the North Sea is utilized.
E Steel cables are provided to take axial tensile forces between the modules.

Fig. 9. Connector arrangement. Plan view.

14 G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

Fig. 10. Detail of central connector. Plan view.

Fig. 11. Section A-A (Fig. 10).

The design allows for large relative motions during coupling (hook-up) and de-
coupling of the modules. Vertical relative motions of up to $2 m are acceptable
during the start of the coupling operation.
The design of the connector arrangement is utilizing elastomeric bearings, hydraulic
jacks and fenders, which all are commercially available. However, some up-sizing of
the components are required.
To activate the elastomeric bearings, a system of hydraulic jacks is used. The jacks
are linked together in the same hydraulic circuit in order to obtain an equal distribu-
tion of forces on the di!erent bearings.
G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23 15

Fig. 12. Detail of wing connector. Plan view.

Fig. 13. Vertical/longitudinal section of wing connector.

The connector arrangement allows a quick de-coupling of the four MOB modules
when a critical sea state is forecasted.
During de-coupling the modules will start to move relative to each other. If the
movement is increased beyond a certain limit ($0.15 m in longitudinal direction and
$1.5 m vertically), the fenders are utilized to reduce impact loading.

9.2. Hydrodynamic analyses

The computer program SIMO has been used to calculate the relative motions
between modules and the connector forces between the modules.
16 G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

Fig. 14. Relative pitch (degrees) between modules.

Table 2
Connector forces for H "7.5 m and wave heading 453
Axial force, F 135 MN
Horizontal shear, F 140 MN
Vertical shear, F 150 MN
Torsional moment; M 13,400 MN m

Input to the SIMO program is data from:

E WAMIT/WADAM (di!raction/radiation panel model): added mass, potential
damping, wave excitation.
E SEAFLOATER (Morrison beam model): viscous damping coe$cients of individual
modules. Linear springs are used to simulate the connection system between
Typical simulation time of approximately 1 h has been used. Investigations are
performed to check the variation in standard deviations related to simulation time.
Relative pitch between modules are plotted in Fig. 14 for some wave conditions.
Wave direction varies between 0 and 453.
Acceptable pitch angle between modules is obtained for wave periods (¹ )
below approximately 16 s and for wave heading below 253. It is also seen that for
a reduction of ¹ from 17.0 to 10.0 s, the relative pitch is reduced by a factor of
approximately 10.
Connector design forces are obtained for wave heights of H "7.5 m with
¹ )17.4 s and maximum wave heading of 453 (Table 2).
G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23 17

10. Extended semi - 1829 m

10.1. Introduction

An investigation of extending the MOB hybrid semi from 1525 m (5000 ft) to 1829 m
(6000 ft) has been done by extending the four modules equally. The main objective was
to indicate a correlation between cost and module length for a hybrid semi-submers-
ible MOB [8].

10.2. Sizing

Each of the four modules were modi"ed as follows:

The steel deck was increased 76.2 m in length (from 380 to 456.2 m). The column
height was increased by 2.5 m, from 45 to 47.5 m, in order to avoid a possible air gap
problem from increased module length in combination with pitching motions.
The pontoon lengths was kept at an absolute minimum in order to limit the increase
of wave loading e!ects, assumed to increase by the square of the length.
In order to increase buoyancy the pontoon width was increased by 2 m from 47.5 to
49.5 m. The pontoon length was increased from 365 to 381 m.

10.3. Hydrodynamics and structural design

Hydrodynamic motions and loading for one extended module were analyzed as for
the basic con"guration. Natural periods for the basic and sensitivity con"gurations
are given in Table 3.
The roll period increased from 53.4 to 113 s. The reduced transverse GM from 10.1
to 2.8 m may explain the increased roll period. This is due to increased topside
steel weight and the elongation of columns by in 2.5 m. Furthermore, in the hy-
drodynamic analysis the topside storage weight of 86,000 t was not included for the
basic con"guration, while a topside storage of 65,000 t was included for the sensitivity
From Table 4 one can see that the surge, sway and heave (translations) responses
have increased moderately in a survival condition. The roll, pitch and yaw (rotations)
are slightly reduced or unchanged. Based on this it was assumed that the connector
motions and forces will change moderately. Multi-body motion analyses, using
SIMO, were therefore not performed in the study of the sensitivity con"guration.

Table 3
Natural periods for the basic and the sensitivity con"gurations

Mode Basic con"guration Sensitivity con"guration

Heave (s) 35.7 38.7

Roll (s) 53.4 113.0
Pitch (s) 36.8 42.5
18 G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

Table 4
Motions of a single module (extreme motions at the most critical
wave heading for each response). H "15 m. Draft 36.5 m
Response Basic Sensitivity

Surge (m) 3.3 4.3

Sway (m) 6.0 7.0
Heave (m) 6.2 6.6
Roll (deg.) 5.0 4.6
Pitch (deg.) 2.9 2.8
Yaw (deg.) 1.6 1.6

Table 5
Maximum mid-section forces. H "15 m
Response Basic con"guration Sensitivity con"guration Wave direction

Longitudinal, F (MN) 390 315 90

Transverse shear, F (MN) 135 145 60
Vertical shear, F (MN) 285 309 0
Torsion, M (GN m) 28 35.6 60
M (GN m) 42 43.6 0
M (GN m) 16 16.8 70

Table 6
Displacement per semi-module. Draft 36.5 m. Metacentric height 2.0 m

Item Basic con"guration (t) Sensitivity con"guration (t)

Concrete 345,000 372,811

Horizontal braces 17,700 17,900
CMO&MMO 2160 2592
Topside steel 112,100 137,700
Topside equipment 2500 2500
Topside storage 86,000 72,000
Fuel and fresh water 31,200 31,200
Ballast water 118,400 128,715
Total 713,760 776,5418

Material quantities and weight for the basic- and the sensitivity con"guration are
given in Tables 6 and 7.
From Table 6 one can see that the topside storage capacity is reduced from 86,000 t
to 72,000 t restricted by the GM of 2 m. The storage capacity or GM can be improved,
if needed, by tuning the transverse distance between the columns.
G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23 19

Table 7
Material take * o!s per module

Part Basic con"guration Sensitivity con"guration

(380 m) (456.2 m)

Concrete in pontoons (m) 112,000 117,886

Concrete in columns (m) 32,000 32,927
Total concrete volume, hull (m) 144,000 155,338
Ordinary reinforcement (t) 45,840 49,174
Prestessing cables (t) 13,380 14,287
Steel braces; hull (t) 17,700 17,900
Topside structural steel (t) 112,100 137,700

The MOB extension from 1524 to 1829 m, 20% increase in length, resulted in a cost
increase of 11%.

11. Construction method

11.1. Base case

The evaluation of the construction methods and the temporary marine operations
associated with the construction of the MOB structure, are based on Aker Maritime's
(Norwegian Contractors) considerable experience from construction of very large
concrete o!shore platforms over a period of 25 years. No major problems are foreseen
in the construction of MOB structures utilizing this experience.
A construction method using a `construction assembly linea technique is suggested
[9], Figs. 15 and 16. The idea is based on the technique used (e.g.) on the tunnel
sections for the " resund Crossing between Denmark and Sweden.
The idea is to have an assembly line consisting of 5 workstations. Stations 1}4 are
on the same horizontal level. The fourth and "fth workstations are inside a two-level
dock. Station 4 makes the hull a#oat when seawater is pumped into the dock to an
elevation above the ocean level, approximately #12 m. The hull is subsequently
#oated to station 5 inside the dock. Station 5 has su$cient depth to make the hull
#oat with water level equal to the sea level.
At stations 1}3 civil construction work is carried out. For vertical surfaces such as
pontoon walls and columns, the favorable slipforming technique will be used.
The hull is skidded from Stations 1 progressively through 2}4 on the same
horizontal level.
At station 4 the transverse permanent and temporary steel braces between the
pontoons are installed and the mechanical out"tting is completed prior to pumping of
water into stations 4 and 5 in the dock.
When the hull arrive station 5, the water level is lowered down to sea level. At
station 5 the steel deck is installed in three segments per MOB unit. The segments are
20 G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

Fig. 15. Construction assembly line. Plan view.

Fig. 16. Construction assembly line. Elevation view.

Fig. 17. Construction assembly line. Schedule.

lifted from barges by cranes placed on the abutments for the outer dock gate. The hull
is winched to the exact position under the "xed cranes for installation of the steel deck
G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23 21

11.2. Alternative construction method

An alternative construction method is also investigated using graving docks:

After the construction of the complete concrete hull, installation of transverse
braces and a temporary bracing system in the graving dock, the hull is towed to
a deep-water site in a sheltered area. The hull is ballasted down with water to a
freeboard of approximately 6 m. The topside is installed (`mateda) in three sections
per hull module.
The method requires relatively deep water (about 60 m) in sheltered areas close to
the graving dock.

12. Construction schedules

Construction schedules are investigated for the semi-concept 1528 m long construc-
ted with the `assembly linea method and the alternative `matinga method.
For both methods it is included one year with detail engineering and site prepara-
tions prior to start construction. Approximately 24 months construction time is
needed for each hull/topsides module prior to installation of the topside.
The `assembly linea method will need approximately 5 years for completion of the
"rst mobile o!shore base. The next MOB can be delivered only 2 years after the "rst
one (Fig. 17).
If the `matinga method is used with the four modules constructed one after the
other, total construction time is estimated to 9 years and 6 months. If two and two
modules are constructed in parallel, total construction time is estimated to 5 years and
7 months.

13. Alternative concept * `Concorea

13.1. Introduction

Concrete barges have particular bene"ts due to their robust strength. On the other
hand they move more in the waves than the semis. Therefore each module have to be
longer to comply with pitch angle requirements between the modules during aircraft
The proposed `Concorea, concrete core, mono hull concept is an idea evolved from
the barge concepts. It is demonstrated that it is possible to design a MOB structure
being 1524 m long without connectors (Fig. 18).

13.2. General description

The `Concorea mono-hull concept [10] is 1524 m long (5000 ft). It consists of a central
concrete box section. This section forms an 890 m long `corea of the MOB. Steel
22 G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23

Fig. 18. `Concorea. Length 1524 m.

cantilevers are attached at each end of the `corea. The cantilevers are 317 m long each.
Total MOB length is 1524 m (5000 ft).
Minimum draft for this concept is 19.4 m.
The transit speed in still water is 12 knots with 173 MW of propulsion power. For
operation the maximum need of power is 273 MW at wave heading 453.

13.3. Concrete hull

The total height of the concrete hull is 100 m. The lower part of the concrete hull is
120 m wide while the upper 8 meters (at deck level) is 152.5 m wide.
The hull structure is proposed made of light weight aggregate concrete of grade
LWC60. Total concrete volume is 747,000 m.

13.4. Steel cantilevers

The e!ective width of the steel cantilevers is 120 m. The height is parabolicly
varying from 5 m at the tip to 36.4 m at the connection to the concrete hull. The total
weight of one cantilever is 71,600 t.
Maximum vertical signi"cant single amplitude (SSA) velocity is 1.04 m/s at the tip
of the cantilevers during aircraft operation, with wave heading less than 453. Max-
imum allowable velocity according to the design basis is 1.4 m/s. Maximum vertical
acceleration (SSA value) is 0.31 m/s.
Most probable maximum vertical acceleration at the tip of the cantilevers in
survival condition is 5.2 m/s.
G. Rognaas et al. / Marine Structures 14 (2001) 5}23 23

14. Conclusions

It is possible to design and construct a mobile o!shore base using high performance
concrete complying with Det norske Veritas `mobile o!shore classi"cation rulesa.
Concrete hull is very competitive on acquisition and maintenance cost. Geometry is
simple. Durability in marine environment and fatigue resistance is excellent. The
concrete structure is robust to impacts from dropped objects, ship impacts etc.
The studies have revealed needs for further works, such as:

E Model testing to con"rm theoretical air gap calculations for the semi-submersible
E Connection arrangements: Relative motions between modules during the time span
for de-coupling and assessment of time needed for de-coupling.
E Veri"cation of estimated transit speed against model tests.


This paper is based upon work performed for US Naval Surface Warfare Center's
and O$ce of Naval Research's MOB Program.


[1] Lindseth S. Aker Maritime: Concept screening report. Aker Maritime report C9019-ANC-JD-RN-
0002 in the Mobile O!shore Base study for Naval Surface Warfare Center, 1999.
[2] Bjerkeli L. Aker Maritime: high performance concrete * an ideal material for large #oating
structures. Proceedings of the third International Workshop on Very Large Floating Structures,
Hawaii, 1999.
[3] Gro. v O, Rognaas G. Aker Maritime: Summary report. Aker Maritime report C9019-ANC-JD-RN-
0003 in the Mobile O!shore Base study for Naval Warfare Center, 1999.
[4] Vedeld S. Aker Maritime: Global performance. Aker Maritime report C9019-ANC-JD-RN-0004 in
the Mobile O!shore Base study for Naval Warfare Center, 1999.
[5] Xu J. Aker Maritime: hydrodynamic global performance. Concrete semi. Aker Maritime report
C9019-ANC-JD-RN-0022 in the Mobile O!shore Base study for Naval Warfare Center, 1999.
[6] Gro. v O, Rognaas G. Aker Maritime: Structural analysis and design. Aker Maritime report C9019-
ANC-JD-RN-0023 in the Mobile O!shore Base study for Naval Surface Warfare Center, 1999.
[7] Meaas P. Aker Maritime: Connection arrangement. Aker Maritime report C9019-ANC-JD-RN-
0024 in the Mobile O!shore Base study for Naval Surface Warfare Center, 1999.
[8] Xu J, As srud S, Rognaas G. Aker Maritime: Hybrid concrete semi. Extended from 1524 m to 1828 m
with 4 Modules. Aker Maritime Report C58248-A5 in the Mobile O!shore Base study for the O$ce
of Naval Research, 1999.
[9] Hovda T. Aker Maritime: Construction techniques. Aker Maritime report C58248-C2 in the Mobile
O!shore Base study for the O$ce of Naval Research, 1999.
[10] Rognaas G. Aker Maritime. Barge type concept. Aker Maritime report C9019-ANC-JD-RN-0031 in
the Mobile O!shore Base study for Naval Surface Warfare Center, 1999.
[11] As srud S, Munkeby J. Aker Maritime: Fatigue life prediction for concrete semi. Aker Maritime report
C58248-A.2.3 in the Mobile O!shore Base study for O$ce of Naval Research, 1999.