OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE PAPER

6200 North Central Expressway NUMBEFi 0 T C 2 63 3

Dallas, Texas 75206

Design Considerations for Dynamically Positioned

ut iii t.y Vessels
By

John S. Sargent and Paul N. Cowgill, Honeywell

- - - ~ ~

THIS PAPER IS SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

~ - --< ~ "" - --..- -

. ... _ .. _. .~..~. .@Copyright 1976

Offshore Technology Conference on behalf of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Pe~roleum
Engineers,-Inc. (Society of Mining Engineer~, The Me~allurgica! Society and .Society .of Petroleum. Engmee:s),
. American Association of Petroleum. Geologists, Ameflcan Institute of Chemical Engmeers, Ameflcan ~oclety
of 9ivil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Inst~t~te of Electric.al and ElectronJc~ En-
gineers, Marine Technology Society, Society of Exploration GeophysIcists, and Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers. . " "
This pa.per was prepared for presentation at the Eighth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Hous.ton,
Tex., May 3-(3, 1976. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. illustratIOns
may not be copied. Such use of an abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by
whom the paper is presented.

ABSTRACT submersibles in development today. A survey of

Automatic stationkeepingalongside an off-
shore structure represents a particularly demand-
ing r~quirement for a dynamically positioned
utility vessel. The adequacy of existing conyen-
tional position determination methods is reviewed
and the potential of new, but unproven, radar-
anging techniques is discussed. The effects of
utility vessel drag"mass, and propulsion ·charac-
eristics on stationkeepingperformance are des-
ribed and compared to "ballpark" requirements
anticipated for positioning alongside both sta-
ionary and floating platforms.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of dynamic positioning (DP) is
rot unique to offshore drilling or pipelaying
~ctivities, but rather is applicable wherever the r.erns of position determination--that is, where·
reed exists to position a vessel relative to a
~tationary refeLence point, a moving subsea vehi-
Ie, ora fl.oating surface structure •.. Dynamically position offset is maintained. Dynamic" position-
positioned vessels have been, and are being,
onstructed to perform a wide variety of offshore 0 the control system designer for two reasons:
~ork activites. Generally termed "utility ves-
~els," they have pioneered the development of
~ynamic positioning technology frpm the days of
he EurekaLin 1,961.to t!J.epew, small seIi1i- .
dynamically positioned (DP) utility vessels 2 ,3,4
is presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Present and anticipated appli~ations of DP
~tility vessels include coring and bottom sam~
pIing, subsea inspection~-diver support and sub-
~ersible tracking, cablelaying, platform support--
~upply and construction, and firefightinK. Some.
pf these applications are relatively new and
impose special problems upon the configuration and
~esign of the vessel and its propulsion, and on
I~he DP system as' well.
This paper concentrates on the problems
associated with positioning relative to an off-
shore platform - floating as well as stationary.
Jffshore work activities encountering these prob-
ems include construction support, subsea inspec-
ion, and firefighting, as well as platform sup-
ply. Kmphasis is directed toward the dual con-
vou are relative to the platform--and station-
eeping, or the accuracy with which a desired
'ng alongside an offshore structure is of interest
1. The determination of position offset for
control purposes may call for the direct
measurement of the offset distance,
176 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR DYNAMICALLY POSITIONED UTILITY VESSELS OTC 2633
which in turn may require the use of a 6. State-of-the-art technology with a
senging system which is as yet unproven maximum use of developed "off-the-shelf'
for DP applications. components

2. Control~of position offset may require 7. Self-contained, as much as possible,

propulsion capabilities in excess of upon the dynamically positioned vesseL
those required for normal stationkeeping
under the same weather conditions. 8. Data rates of at least 1 per second, and
delays and lags of less than 1 second
Both of these potential situations are quite
likely to become realities when the offshore 9. Direct measurement of relative velocity,
structure is floating, rather than fixed to the or range rate
sea floor.
We presently know of no single system or
concept which has all these characteristics.
POSITION OFFSET DETERMINATION However, there are several available systems whicr
incorporate many. For instance, for a very stable
The most conventional position-fixing systems utility vessel--such as a semisubmersible--which
with proven application for dynamic positioning must be positioned alongside a large ship-shape
include various types and methods of short-base- hull or homogeneous structure, a SAMT (Speed of
line acoustic position reference-systems and taut Approach Measuring Instrument) radar system,7
wire inclinometers. Both system types measure presently used for berthing large tankers, might
position relative to a point fixed in the_sea be adapted. However, passively ranging devices--
floor, with the measur~ment made in terms ofa such as SAMI and Collision Avoidance Radar--
vert~cgl angle, or "percent water depth" off- potentially suffer from clutter problems, or the
set. ' inability to discriminate the signal return of a
single reference point from the returns off fore-
The requirements for position-fixing when ground and background structure. Therefore the
stationkeeping in the vicinity of an offshore requirement to position alongside an open struc-
structure will depend upon the relative offset ture makes this solution impractical. Narrow
accuracy to be maintained, the water depth, and beam/aperture transmission systems, such as
whether or not the structure is floating. When laser-optics, require active pointing control to
the structure is floating, a direct measurement of keep them directed at identifiable targets, and
distance offset is expected to be required unless are also less attractive when the wave-induced
the water depth is shallow and the platform is relative motion between platform and utility
very 1arg~and stable, or unless mild weather vessel is relatively large.
conditions are coupled with "loose" stationkeeping
requirements. The most promising systems presently appear
to be actively ranging radar-transponder schemes
Direct-distance-measurement concepts are in operating in the microwave band. 8 ,9 As shown in
consideration which vary from the use of a hori- Figure 1, these systems suffer the disadvantage of
zontally stretched taut wire to a highly sophisti-not being conpletely self-contained on the DP
cated laser-optics, and which to various degrees utility vessel but incorporate most of the other
achieve the following desirable characteristics: desirable characteristics listed. A minimum
configuration consists of three stations and the
1. Measurement with a resolution of 0.1 signal processing electronics. The ranges are
meters and an accuracy of 0.5 meters + 1 measured between each control station ("interroga-
percent of offset tor") and the responding station (transponder).
Knowing these ranges and the distance between the
2. Minimum vessel-to-platform offset of vessel-located interrogators, the offset location
approximately 3 meters to a maximum can be determined relative to the platform. A
offset of 100 meters fourth transponder could be added to calibrate the
baseline stations aboard the utility vessel.
3. Relative insensitivity to the hull
configurations of both the platform and When the structure is stationary, i.e., fixed
the dyna~ically positioned utility to the sea floor, a DE system of conventional
vessel design employing conventional position reference
systems--such as shortbaseline system (SBS) acous-
4. Heavy weather operation, varying from tic or taut wire--may suffice depending upon the
sea state 5 for close-alongside capabil-required positioning control accuracy and water
ity to sea state 7 or 8 for position depth.
offsets-up to 100 meters -
Existing and planned stationary structures,
5. All-weather operation, in darkness, fog, such as production platforms, may be expected in
spray, rain, snow, etc. water depths up to 300 meters. State-of-the-art
OTe 2633 .. J. S. SARGENT, P. N. COWGILL 177
SBS-acoustic systems provide quoted accuracies of than 1.2 meters (4 feet) in 300 meters water
1 percent of water depth when all system errors depth.
are statistically combined. These errors are,
however, a combination of time-invariant or slowh To a lesser extent , a similar situation holds
(i.e. daily, diurnally) varying errors referred tctrue with a taut wire position reference. System
as "bias errors" and rapidly varying errors (Le. errors can be subdivided into bias and random
minutes, seconds) referred to as "random" errors. errors and bias errors are reduced by the inherent
For the application of positioning alongside a operation of visually se~ting the control system
platform, most of the bias error can be eliminated set point so as to obtain the desired offset from
in the process of changing the set point relative the platform. Taut wire error magnitudes are of
to the acoustic system null by visually maneuver- the same order of magnitude or larger than those
ing the vessel to the prescribed offset relative of the acoustlc system. In'addition the dynamics
to the platform. of the taut wire tend to amplify random errors.
Studies of DP system stability with a taut wire
Random errors in an SBS-acoustic system system--currently in progress--show that the
include real motion due to waves, apparent motion dynamics of the taut wire have a twofold effect or
due to waves, and certain signal reception and DP system design, both of which would tend to
electronic signal processing errors. The dominant reduce its usefulness as a position reference wher
signal processing. random error is the jitter, or positioning alongside a deep-water platform.
uncertainty in the arrival of acoustic pulses at
the receiving hydrophones. The apparent wave 1. Stability considerations require a
motion is the result of· imperfect cancellation by reduction in DP controller gain, and
the vertical reference system of the pitch and possibly a reshaping of compensation
roll adulteration of sensed position. These networks, which will result in a lower-
latter errors represent a potential nuisance to ing of DP system positioning accuracy.
the modulation of automatically, controlled propul-
sion but are too high in frequency to result in 2. The high amplification of wave-induced
actual vessel motion. motion noise may result in a heavier
filtering requirement which would tend
With proper filtering then, when positioning to.degrade system response to distur-
alongside a stationary platform, the position bance transients.
determination errors approach the resolution
accuracy of the sensing system with bias errors. The net result is that in water depths ap-
tending to be eliminated by the operator's visual proaching 300 meters, the positioning accuracy of
observation and monitoring of the desired offset. the DP system with a taut wire position reference
For anSBS-acousticsystem, typical resolution begins to show degradation relative to that with
accuracy varies from 0.2 percent to 0.4 percent of an acoustic system and is less suited to position-
water depth .10 . ing alongside a stationary platform. Unfortunate-
ly, taut wire studies are not sufficiently far
Of greatest· concern Jrom the viewpoint of along to permit a quantitative estimate of taut
contr·ol and positioning accuracy are those random wire accuracy relative to SBS~acoustic system
and slowing~varying errors which are found over a accuracy when applied to positioning alongside?
frequency range from approximately .001 Hz to .01 platform.
Hz (1000 to 100 seconds). These error varieties
are sufficiently fast to escape the attention of a Passive common-user radio position-fixing
DP operator, but slow enough to result in control-systems such as DECCA HI-FIX do not have the
led vessel motion equal to the error amplitudes. measurement precision required for positioning
close alongside offshore structures. In addition,
Usual noise sources, such as wave motion and continuous wave propagation is subject to the
signal detection uncertainties, are much higher iDfamiliar skywave multi-path contamination at night
frequency and removed through filtering. Current which severely degrades accuracy. Best system
an-d tide induced variations are much lower in accuracy under "i-deal" conditions (daylight,
frequency and should be eas~ly corrected by the DPtransmission over water, station baseline less
operator through a set-point adjustment. Utility than 30 km) is estimated as "a few meters"U with
vessel angular motion resulting from variable accuracies of several meters considered more
shipboard equipment loading--such as cranes, water typical.
cannons, etc.--may be well within the .001 Hz to
.01 Hz frequency band and may require accurate Active ranging rad~r position-fixing systems,
tilt compensation from_a vertical gyro or equiva- ~hich include one or more ship-based transmitters
lent device. If.the acoustic system resolution and remote stations dedicated to a single user,
errors are adopted as the position determination ~ea8ure station-to-station distance directly.
error, the contribution to the total system con- Signal propagation is line-of-sight and in the
trol error by the acoustic system--when position- ~icrowave band. At least two different systems of
ing alongside a stationary platform--is estimated the range-range (rho-rho) type are available and
as less than 0.4 percent of water depth, or less pne range-bearing (rho-theta) type is in final
178 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR DYNAMI( LLLY POSITIONED UTILITY VESSELS OTC 2633
[d~velopmen=-” Both require a minimum of one remot~ The basic range measurement resolutions will
station. )ropagate into larger position determination
:rrors when transformed into X-Y position. For th
Figure 2 depicts the range measurement geo- ‘range-range” system the X-Y error is a function
metry of both the “range-range” and %ho-theta” ~f the intersection angle between the two lines-
types of radar-ranging systems. Such systems can )f-sight from the shipb?ard baseline stations to
either be set up as “indirect” or “direct” posi- :he remote platform transponder. The maximum
tion determination systems depending on the loca- :esolution in position is estimated as:
tiop of stations relati,ve to the platform along-
side which dynamic positioning is required. With
“indirect” position measurement, none of the
stations are located on the platform but rather
would be located on other offshore structures
within line-of-sight of the plat~orm. Vessel CR is the range measurement resolution
position is thus determined relative to a “grid” a is the range intersection angle
established .by these remote stations. With “di-
rect” position measurement, at least one station ?his angle is in turn a function of the ratio of
is located on the platform to be positioned :he baseline length to the offset distance, and o

1 longside,=with the oth~r station(s)=locatedon

the dynamically positioned vessel.
:he heading of the utility vessel. relative to the
JIatform. Manufacturers recommend that the range
intersection angle be maintained between 30 de-.

1? The advantage o=fthe “indirect” method_ for

ositioning relative- to stationary structures is
that, once set-up, a dynamically positioned
;rees and 150 degrees, with minimum error at 90
legrees. The loci of relative heading angle and
)ffset distance resulting in a minimum 30-degree

1
tility vessel-can work within an area--say an
ffshore field--without having to shift and sur-
ey-in radio-positioning equipment when the work
site is moved from location to location. This
range intersection angle are shown in Figure 3 fo
Tarious baseline lengths. The position deterrni-
lation error based upon range resolution of 0.1
meters and a 30 degree intersection angle is ..

I
dvantage can become d_ecisivewhen the mission_is approximately 0.4 meters.
ighting.a fire aboard a production platform in a
eveloped field. With a “rho-theta” system the position deter
~ination error is a function of.the bearing angle
The principal advantage of the “direct” xcror as well as the range error, and the total

1 ethod is that fewer stations would be required,

nd probably only one remote station not located
n the ut%lity vess_el.-However, the addition of a
econd transponder of the floating platform does
ermit the determination of the heading of the
MS X-Y error is related as:

‘=P= Iep2+(.o175pe@2 ] 112

I
There
tility vessel relative to the floating platform.
en the platform is itself a dynamically posi-
SP is the total position error
ioned drillship, this configuration permits the
EP is the basic range measurement error
eading of the utility vessel to be slaved to that

1
p is the range from the scanning-antenna to
f the drillship, so as to follow heading changes
the platform transponder
utomatically, with no action required of the DP
E13is the bearing measurement error
perator. It should also be noted that the small
ize and portability of the transponder unit make
A comparison of the expected accuracy and
t readily transportable to whatever platform it
:esolution capabilities of representative SBS-
“s desired to be along-side.
Lcoustic and radar-ranging position-fixing system,
k offered in Figure 4. In terms of direct dis-

I
As with the acoustic and taut-wire systems,
he quoted accuracies of ,state-of-the-art.radio :ance, SBS-acoustic system errors tend to grow
.inearly with depth, whereas radar-ranging system
osition-fixing- systems are undoubtedly composed
~rrors are insensitive to depth variations. Both
f bias and random error sources. It is reason-
:otal system accuracies and system resolutions art
! ble to again expect that in a given working
ituation, the position offset relative to a
tationary platform will be visually set by the
represented, but for close alongside positioning,
:he platform offset determination errors are

1
:xpected to approach resolution accuracies.
perator, and thus such bias errors will tend to
e eliminated. Therefore, it is again expected
hat the error contributed by the position refer-
;TATIONKEEPING ALONGSIDE A STATIONARY PLATFORM
nce system to the total DP system positioning
rror will approach the basic resolution of the

1
adar system. Two suppliers quote systems with The dynamic positioning control system for a
ange resolutions on the order of 0.1 meters. Ltility vessel--or any other vessel--is subjected
OTC 2633 — —.
-.—
._.J.s. SnGENT. ,. p. N. COWGILL 179

to three basic types of inputs as indicated in [egrading effect, however, when it requires heavy
the block diagram of Figure 5: :nough filtering--to avoid excessive wear in
:hrust actuation systems--to necessitate a reduc-
1. Operator commands :ion in DP control system stiffness. 13

2. Force and moment disturbances A simplified block diagram illustrating the

lominant dynamic elements of the DP system in
3. NoiseY in the form of either short :esponse to disturbance forces is provided in
period wave induc=d motion, or position ~igure 6.** (For a given set of operating condi-
signal reception and processing noise tions, the differential equations describing each
Qement can be linearized to gain insight into th(
Operator commands, typically in the form of ;ystem.) The summation of disturbance forces, Fd
,set point changes, or joystick signals, are issuet .s opposed by the summation of control system
to maneuver the vessel to a location and heading ;enerated propulsion forces, Fc. The difference
alongside the platform which is suftable for the m forces drives the equations of motion to resul
accomplishment of the desired work function. Onc .n position X.
issued, the DP control system senses deviations
from that operator selected “set point,” as limit The disturbances forces of Figure 6 fall -intl
ed by sensor capabilities,-and issues commands to ;WO categories:
the appropriate propulsion units to stabilize
vessel position at that set point. It does so in 1. Those which can be accurately predicted
the presence of.spurious position data, or noise- or estimated in real time, such as wind
most notably associated either with wave induced drag
motion or signal reception/detection uncertain-
ties--and disturbance forces which tend to drive 2. Those which are unknown, or which can
the vessel off the set point. only be estimated with great error, SUC1
as wave drift forces and current drag
The noise is suppressed both by its indepen-
dent measurement-and differing with the position The disturbing effects of predictable, or .
sensor signals to attempt cancellation, and by measurable, forces can be minimized through feed
filtering. The filtering process always intro- !orward compensation whereas those of the second
duces phase shift, or time lag, in the position :ategory must be balanced by the slow, integral
determination, but relieves the high frequency compensation of the PID controller. The coeffi-
modulation to which the controlled propulsion cients of the PID controller are frequently mech-
would otherwise.be subjected. The filtered posi- mized as functions proportional to vessel mass t[
tion data is compared to the operator-selected =ke the control”systems time domain convergence
set point and the error is processed into force md d-ampingcharacteristics insensitive to vessel
commands by the control algorithm. All contem- lass. A DP control system designed in this fash-
porary DP systems use-the same basic algorithm-- .on tends to recover from a disturbance in the
known as PID*--for control,12 The control system ;ame time, for a given set of operating condi-
commanded forces are allocated to available pro- tions, irrespective of changes in vessel draft an<
pulsion units in the form of actuation commands [displacementmass. Indeed, this design concept
which result in thrust. The summation of thrust- an be extended over a wide range of different
generated forces (moments) and environmental- ressels, each with different drag and mass char--
disturbance forces (moments) act through the .cteristics, to achieve the same recovery time ant
hydrodynamic equations to create vessel motion. .amping.

Once the set point has been selected by the
DP operator, the system inputs of primary interesi
from the viewpoint of stationkeeping accuracy are
the disturbance forces. Position noise has a
secondary effect on accuracy provided that propul-
sion units are not driven into saturation. It ha~
been analytically and empirically demonstrated
that the thrust modulation typically deriving fro]
noise is too high in frequency to result in posi-
tion motion of any significance. It does have a
What does vary from one draft (mass condi-
ion) to another and from one vessel to another.i:
he magnitude of the position excursion resulting
‘rem a transient disturbance force. In other
rords, although the PID controller can be desfgnec
o effect recovery in the same amount of time frol
disturbance, and with the same damping for a
ride range of varying vessel mass and drag char-
acteristics, the amplitude of vessel motion will
end to differ, and depend upon, vessel mass and
rag.

*PID stands for Proportional, Integral,
Differential
**All dynamic elements are rep-resented for sim-
plicity as continuous, S-plane transfer func-
tions, although a digital computer is typically
utilized for control.
The simplified loop dynamics of Figure 6 can
e further simplified to that of Figure 7 which
educes the dynamics of stationkeeping alongside z
)latform to its fundamental elements. Here the
ressel dynamics and the control system, containin$
sensor, filter, PID controller, and actuation
180 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR DYNAMICALLY POSITIONED UTILITY VESSELS OTC 2633

A(S)
dynamic~(s~re reduced to two polynomials: — A comparison of wind draglmass ratios for
The mass term, mT, appears n.B(~~e
various dynamically positioned vessels either
and ‘T ~ “
latter o nominal because the PID controller existing, in development, or in planning is of-
coefficients are assumed to be linear functions of fered in Figure 9. The ordinate values are ob-
mass. “Closing the loop” results in a transfer tained by dividing the drag coefficient--scaled L
function relationship between vessel position,-x, metric tonnes per knot-squared--by the displace-
and the disturbance force-to-mass ratio Fd/mT. ment mass plus added mass--scaled in metric ton-
nes. The abscissa values are the displacement
According to linear theory, then, the vessel mass. Three data sets are represented for ship-
excursion due to an environmental disturbance will shape utility vessels, drillship, and semisubmer
be proportional to the vessel’s drag-to-mass* sibles respectively for both surge and sway. The
ratio. Based upon simulation results which in- scatter of data in surge indicates no significant
elude detailed models of the nonlinear equations difference among the three vessel types. In sway
of motion and other significant system nonlinear- however, the semisubmersibles definitely exhibit
ities, such as actuation system rate limiting, lower wind drag/mass ratio which suggests an
this turns out to be a very good approximation. advantage in stationkeeping accuracy when posi-
The validity of this approximation has been con- tioning alongside a stationary platform. However
firmed both by varying vessel drag--holding mass these results ignore the “shading effect” of the
constant--and by varying vessel mass--holding drag platform when the utility vessel is on the lee
constant. Some results are plotted in Figure 8 side. The extent to which shading would bias
for a wide range of drag/mass ratios. These these tentative results is beyond the scope of
results were generated by simulation for the this paper.
conditions of 100 meters depth with a steady wind
of 30 knots on the beam, gusting for 1 minute to Only wind drag/mass ratios are considered in
40 knots. Data were obtained for zero active wind this comparison for two reasons:
compensation in the DP control system and for 100
percent compensation. Active wind compensation 1. Wind, as a disturbance generator, tends
utilizes a wind drag model stored in the DP com- to vary much more rapidly than current
puter, the measurement of wind speed and direc- or waves and typically represents more
tion, and the estimations of wind forces on the of a problem to the DP system.
vessel to command a propulsion force equal and
opposite to the estimated wind force. Zero com- 2. A comparison of sway current drag/mass
pensation corresponds to no wind force estimations ratios for the same sets of vessels
whereas 100 percent compensation corresponds to a indicated no definite advantage of one
wind model which i.s 100 percent accurate. Motion type over another.
still results with 100 percent compensation due to
the time lags in the control path deriving_ from In those areas of the world where sudden rip
wind measurement, filtering, computation delay and ides are encountered, current drag/mass ratios
thrust actuation lag. light tend to dominate the selection of one vesse
onfiguration over another.
The results of Figure 8 point out the impor-
tance of two factors as well as validating the
linear relationship between drag/mass ratio and ITATIONKEEPING ALONGSIDE A FLOATING PLATFORM
excursion magnitude:
When the dynamically positioned utility
1. Performance is quite sensitive to the ,essel is obliged to maintain a position offset
accuracy of active wind compensation, .longside a floating platform, the controlled
and lotion of the utility vessel must be slaved to
‘O11OW the motion of the floating platform. The
2. This sensitivity becomes more important, ~P controller and the installed propulsion must b
the higher the dragf mass ratios ‘sized” to meet the platform tracking requirement
rithin the propulsion modulation limits estab-
The significance_of this result is that when lished for the utility vessel.
positioning alongside a.stationary platform,
sccuracy considerations tend to favor utility The platform motion characteristics are
vessel configurations having low dragfmass ratios, lependent upon the spectral characteristics of
such as semisubmersibles. Given vessels of equal disturbances and upon the dominant mass-related
drag characteristics, the stationkeeping accuracy :erms in the platform equations of motion. Float
advantage would tend to lie with the vessel havin~ .ng offshore platforms are always configured so
the larger mass. :hat their dominant resonant frequencies are well
below the spectral band of high wave energy.

*MSSS in this context includes’”bo–th

displacement For simple analyses and discussion, the
mass and added mass. Fundamental dynamics of floating platforms may be
haracterized by third-order differential equa- with water depth due to declines in the basic
ions of the form: stiffness of each system. This reduction.in
stiffness amplifies the motion below the natural
m
~;+Kc~uc+;/(uc+;) +KRi+ “,’” frequency without tending to reduce sensitivity I
disturbance components above the system natural
+ (Kp+K~)x +K1jxdt=Fd frequency. This effect is shown in the closed-
Ioopfrequency responses of platforms to force
disturbances in Figure 10. Here the response
here amplitude ratios are normalized to “position
displacement per unit disturbance acceleration”,
mT is the total .mass_igcluding displacement resulting from application of a disturbance force
mass and hydrodynamics added mass In Figure 10, the dynamics of both the moored an(
Kc is the hydrodynamic drag coefficient dynamically positioned platforms are greatly
simplified. The moored platform is modeled as ar

Uc is current speed undamped second-order system whereas the DP plat-

KR is a linear damping coefficient form is modeled as an undamped mass stabilized b>
a PID controller. Figure 10 illustrates some of
Kp and Ks are the restoring forces per unit the fundamental differences between the dynamics
position error of moored and dynamically positioned platforms.
In shallow water, the mooring system tends to be
K1 is a coefficient resulting in a force stiffer, resulting in a higher natural frequency
opposing steady-state disturbance force (or lower period), but also very sensitive to
components disturbances whose spectral frequencies coincide
with platform natural frequency. Also the moored
Fd represents the _d_isturbanceforce . platform responds to all disturbances whose domi-
nant frequencies are at or below the platform
resonant frequency. On the other hand, the DP
platform natural frequency is typically lower tha
nd that of a moored platform in shallow water, but i
. has no sharply-peaked resonances and the low
x, X, % are platform position, rate and frequency components of disturbance forces, i.e.Y
cceleration respectively. those changing in an hourly or longer basis, are
more effectively attenuated by the integral com-
This equation is general enough to repre- pensation of the PID controller. This is espec-
ent a moored platform, a-dynamically ositio”ned ially true for a wind disturbance when the bene-
Latform, or a c-ombinationof the two.i4 M, ficial effects of “feed-forward,” or active, wind
swms apply to a moored, dynamically positioned compensation are included, as is also shown in
Latform, whereas the Kp, K1, and ~ coefficients Figure 10.
re zero if the platform is only moored. The Ks
>efficient is zero if the platform is only dynam- For whichever platform the utility vessel is
zany positioned. The natural motion period of to be positioned close alongside, the required
~e dynamic system is controlled by the ratio of stiffness of its DP controller is dictated by the
r/(KP+KS), or: dominant oscillation amplitudes and frequencies .O
Sometimes referred to as “band-
the utility vessel controller stiffness i
T,== ‘--””-” ‘- :‘t;~form”
a measure of the platform motion frequencies whit
Ps
c an be followed within the desired tracking error
~ere
For discussion purposes in this paper, it
Tn is the natural, or dominant motion period will be assumed that the “bandwidth” required of
and the other terms are as previously de- the utility vessel must be adequate to track
fined. motion frequencies up to the platform natural
frequency. For simplified treatment it is assume
The point to be made.is that--ignoring wave that dominant platform motion may be represented
>tion--the frequency responses of the platform ina s a simple sinsusoid. Prior to illustrating the
~e various axes of motion are typically charac- effect of platform motion amplitude and frequency
:rized by single dominant resonant frequencies, on utility vessel bandwidth, consider the block
love which the platform sensitivity to disturb- diagram in Figure .11. A wind disturbance is
Ices rapidly decreases with increasing frequency. Presumed to act upon both the floating platform
le platform tends to respond only to those por- and utility vessel. It results in relative motio
Lens of disturbance spectra which are no higher between the two which is sensed and fed as a
1 frequency than the frequencies of dominant control variable into the utility vessel control-
~atform motion. 1er. This results in the issuing of commands to
utility vessel propulsion to maintain a desired
The natural periods of both moored and dy- 0ffset relative to the platform.
tmically positioned platforms tend to increase
17
,- DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR DYNAMICALLY POSITIONED UTILITY VESSELS OTC 2633

Further simplification of Figure 11 results E is the platform tracking error.

n the sketch in Figure 12, which isolates the
undamental control process. The motion of the A plot of this expression is shown in Figure
latform becomes the driving function into the 13. The significance of this is that once the
losed-loop dynamics of the utility vessel. The motion envelope and dominant natural period of the
ifference between the platform motion and the platform are known, the bandwidth for the utility
tility vessel motion becomes the tracking error-– vessel can be estimated, which results in an error,
he parameter by which the positioning performance within the specified tracking error criterion.
f the utility vessel is evaluated. The determi-
nationof the exact tracking error requires com- For quantitative illustration purposes, it is
uter simulation of both platform and utility assumed that the platform to be positioned along-
essel equations of motion. Of primary interest side is itself dynamically positioned. It will
ere is an estimation of “how the dominant motion also be assumed that the depth range of <nterest
haracteristics of the platform affect the sizing is from 100 meters to 2000 meters. Preliminary
f the utility vessel propulsion and control discussions with potential customers for DP
ystem so as to stay within a satisfactory-limit utility vessels have suggested a typical station-
n tracking error. keeping accuracy relative to the platform of ~ 3
meters about an offset of 6 meters. Over this
As indicated in Figure 12, the utility vessel range--3 to 9 meters--the platform and utility
losed-loop dynamic equations are actually at vessel can be effectively accessed with each
east 10th order. However, the control system otherfs cranes.
esponse to a disturbance is_dominated by a pair
f damped 2nd-order roots which relate to the Assuming a sinusoidal platform motion of 3
.atural period and are functions of mass and meters in 100 meters of water (3 percent water
estoring force coefficient. Assuming that both depth) due to a disturbance environment, it is of
latform motion and utility vessel dynamics are interest to know how the platform motion envelope
ominated by 2nd-order roots, an approximate will vary with deeper water in the same disturb-
xpression can be derived which relates the “band- ance environment. This is shown in Figure 14. If
~idth” of the utility vessel to the frequency of a given disturbance results in 3 meters of motion
he dominant platform motion sinusoid to achieve aof a DP platform in 100 meters of water, that same
.esired tracking error. The platform motion in a disturbance results in approximately 6.5 meters
ingle axis is approximated by the equation: motion in 1000 meters of water, and 7.9 meters in
27rt 2000 meters depth.
Y(t)=A sinant=A sin —
Tn
There ‘- ‘--– ‘--‘- -“ “-‘- ..— . Assuming that the platform motion contains nc
significant frequency components higher than its
A is the motion amplitude natural frequency (ignoring wave-induced motion),
~ is the natural frequency the tracking error can be estimated from Figure 1:
Tn is the natural period for a given utility vessel bandwidth. This has
been done and plotted in Figure 15 for three
‘he utility vessel closed-loop dynamics are ap- values of bandwidth: ‘B%100; ‘B=~%loo;”
roximated by the transfer .functio.n: uB=2~100 where %1OO is the platform natural
~B 2 period at 100 meters depth.
.
D–Uv -
S2+2@B5+~B2 Care must be taken in interpreting the curve:
of Figure 15. They all apply to an estimate of
the tracking error of a constant- bandwidth
utility vessel control system when the DP platforn
here ~B is the bandwidth of the utility vessel is subjected to a constant disturbance environment
controller but in varying water depths. Thus when the util-
c is the damping ’ratio of the dominant 2nd- ity vessel bandwidth at all depths is equal to th(
order roots :platform natural frequency at 100 meters depth,
S is the La Place notation operator - the tracking error exceeds the platform motion
amplitude in shallow water but improves to meet
ith these very simplifying assumptions, the rati ‘the tracking requirement of three meters maximum
f the tr=cking error to the platform motion error in 1000 meters of water. In other words,
mplitude is: platform motion of 3 meters at 100 meters depth
results in over 4 meters tracking error, whereas
6.5 meters motion at 1000 meters depth results in
‘n/ ‘B only 3 meters tracking error--when the utility
vessel bandwidth at all water depths is equal to
r
the platform motion natural period at 100 meters
‘:’= [,-(SY ‘(3 I ‘y+’ depth
hen the damping ratio is 0.5, and
OTC 2633 —=.—.—- -.. ..—
—-. J. S. SARGENT. P. N. COWGILL 783

The tracking error of course reduces if the percent/meter and 0.040 meters/sec2. These value:
ltility vessel control system is made. stiffer. apply to the sway control axis at 100 meters watel
.
for ~B=~~l o, the maximum tracking error at depth.
minimum dept~ (100 meters) is 3 meters and it
improves to 2 meters in depths of 1000 meters and The ability to track a 3-meter platform
;reater. For uB=2~100, tracking error improves motion amplitude when at 100 meters depth with an
:0 less than 2 mete-rsat 100 meters depth and to error less than 3 meters has been estimated to
less than 1.5 meters in deep water. require a utility vessel bandwidth approximately~
times the dominant platform motion frequency..
These data can also be applied to platform This same bandwidth would reduce tracking error i~
lotion of any other amplitude simply by multi- deep water to less than 2 meters. Figure 15 shows
)lying by a scale.factor equal to A/3 where A is that the KpUC product to achieve this bandwidth i$
:he amplitude of interest. Results of a similar twice that of a typical DP drilling platform in
qualitative nature occur if the platform is 100 meters depth.
100red; however, quantitative comparisons are
necessarily dependent upon the relative disturb- Theoretically this increase can simply be
Lnce force/mass ratios and the variation of moor- achieved by maintaining the same maximum control
.ng spring constants with depth, and are not acceleration--- 040 meters/sec2 --and doubling the
.ncluded in this paper. gain to 7.4 percent/meter. The acceptability of
this gain increase is, however, contingent upon
Having related the dependency of tracking maintaining thrust modulation levels within
mror to utility vessel bandwidth, it is of inter-prescribed limits. In general, doubling the
:st to explore the tradeoffs among control thrust,controller gain tends to increase modulation,
ressel mass, and controller gains which determine levels by more than a factor of 2. The alterna-
:he bandwidth. The control system stiffness, or tive to increasing controller gain is to increase
bandwidth, is approximated by the expression: control authority. This may be accomplished by
the combination of increasing propulsive force an(
reducing vessel mass.
‘p ‘max
It is to be expected that the higher utility
%=%=”=KB r 7 ‘“
vessel control system bandwidth necessary to
dynamically position alongside a floating platforn
would be realized through a ,combination ?f all
three alternatives, i.e.,
rhere
1. Increasing controller gain, and thereby
~ @ the bandwidth in radfsec thrust modulation
Kp is the controller position gain in
l/meters 2. Increasing propulsive force
PC is the maximum control acceleration,
“authority”, or 3. Reducing total mass
thrust/mas<ratio in metere./sec2
The tradeoff among these three choices will
TWX is the maximum control thrust probably vary from application to application and
is dependent upon the design w~ather conditions,
mT is total Vessel mass the wave coupling characteristics of the utility
vessel, the position sensing system used for close
KB is a coefficient depending upon control alongside positioning, the expected motion char-
system damping and is typically close to 1. acteristics of the platform, and other considera-
tions.
Thus, to achieve a given bandwidth with a
iven vesselmass, the required controller gain However, in general it is recommended that
nd control authority, or maximum required thrust, the maximum control acceleration be higher than
re inversely proportional. Interestingly, band- that of a typical DP drillship, with a value of
idth is also inversely proportional to the .060 meters/sec2 offered as a “ballpark” design
quare-root of the total mass, mT--the heavier the minimum.
essel, the higher the product of KpT~ required
o achieve the desired bandwidth. The required A survey of the estimated sway control au-
ontroller gain is plotted in Figure 16 against thorities of the seven ship-shape- utility vessels
he required contxol authority to achieve band- in Table 1 indicates an ~pproximate range from .02
idths equal to l,fi, and 2 times that of a typi- meters/sec2 to 0.3 m/see , and an average of .10
al DP drillship in 100 meters depth. Representa- metersjsec2. However, the higher accelerations
ive values of contro”lgain and control accelera- correspond to the older, lower displacement ves-
ion for a dynamically positioned ship-shape sels. Among the four most recent ship-shape
rilling platform are shown in Figure 16 to be 3.7 vessels, the range i.s from .03 to .05 meters/sec2,
>-t lJfirJ.LtiL\ LULID.!-U51WLJ..L
ith an average of approximately .04 meters/sec2.
his is the same as the typical sway control
cceleration for a dynamically positioned drill-
hip, but well below the .06 value recommended for
ositioning alongside a floating platform.
From”-theforegoing discussion it is apparent
hat a large utility vessel mass--which improves
.ccuracy when positioning alongside a stationary
latform--tends to degrade motion tracking.gccur-
.cy when positioning alongside a floating plat-
orm. The large mass, which lowers drag/mass
atios and reduces sensitivity to environmental
disturbances, must now be accelerated by the
tationkeeping control system when the utility
essel is required to track the motion of a float-
.ng platform. ~us for stationkeeping relative to 6. Adams, R.B., “Accuracy of the Taut-Line
floating platform, the advantage tends to shift
lack toward the light ship-shape utility vessel in
.erms of the propulsion required to achieve the
~ecessary control system bandwidths.
CONCLUSIONS
A conventional SBS-acoustic system can be
Ltilized for positioning alongside a stationary
IIatform in shallow water, but in deeper water its
‘percent water depth” measurement characteristic
Iakes its use marginal in depths approaching 300
leters. For positioning alongside a floating
~latform, direct.distance measurement is most
)robably required. Radar-ranging systems which
Ire available, but as yet unproven, for this
Application represent the most likely near-term
:olution.
When stationkeeping alongside a stationary
)Iatform, accuracy considerations favor those
Ltility vessel configurations having low wind drag
md large mass. When stationkeeping close along-
:ide a floating platform, the need to track the
lotion of the platform favors those configurations
laving large thrust and small mass. Therefore
:emisubmersibles are well suited to positioning
:elative to fixed offshore structures but lighter , 13. Sargent, J.S. and Eldred, J.J., “Adaptive
;hip-shape vessels are better suited to posi-
ioning close alongside floating platforms.
ist of References
1. Shatto, H.L. and Dozier, J.R., “A Dynamic
Stationkeeping System for Floating Vessels,”
Shell Oil Co., Sept. 1962
U1I> run lJ1lU’wlLLfilJJ4L rua LLJ.LJLYr4LJ ULJ. I.LLL vr!a Dr.l <,3
r -“44
2. Harbonn, Jacques, “The Terebel Dynamic Posi-
tioning System--Results of Five Years of
Field Work and Experiments,” OTC paper 1499,
1971
3. Wise, D.A. and English, J.W., “Tank and Wind
Tunnel Tests for a Drillship with Dynamic
positioning Control,” OTC paper 2345, 1975
4. Offshore, JUIY 1975, “Forth Sea VeSSel iS O.f
New Design,” pp. 130-135
5. VanCalcar, H., “Acoustic Position preference
Methods for Offshore Drilling Operations,”
OTC paper 1141, 1969
Position-Indicator for Offshore Drilling
Vessels,” Journal of Engineering for .
Industry, February 1968
7. Appleyard, S.F., “SAMI Today,” Tanker and
Bulk Carrier, Vol. 20, No. 5 Sept. 1973
8. Lambson, Richard, “Modern Aids to Dredge
Positioning,” World Dredging and Marine .-
Construction, July_1975
9. Marine Equipment News, “Accurately position-
ing the World’s Largest Semisubmersible Bay
Barge,” Sept.-Ott. 1975
10. Roberts, J.C., “An Advanced Acoustic Positiol
Reference System,” OTC paper 2173, 1975
11. Powell, Claud, “An Informal Review of Shore–
Based Radio Position-Fixing Systems,” Joint
Meeting of-the Hydrographic Society and the
Society for Underwater Technology, Sept. 6,
1973
12. VanCalcar, H. and Morgan, M.J., “Dynamic
Positioning Today,” Oceanology International
1975
Control of Thruster Modulation for a Dynami-
tally Positioned Drillship,” OTC paper 2036,
1974
— 14. Sargent, J.S. and Morgan, M.J., “Augmentatio
of a Mooring System through Dynamic Posi-
tioning,” OTC paper 2064, 1974
 TABLE 1 - EXISTING
AND PLANNED DP UTILITY VESSELS
SWAY TH RUST/
o ISP LENGTH BEAM ORAFT MASS RATI o (EST.)
VESSEL ] YEAR I APPLICATION HULL FORM (MT) (Ml (M) (M) (METE RshEc2)

EUREKA 1961 CORING, SHIPSHAPE NEW8UIL0 (?} 410 41.5 11.0 2.0 .11
I RESEARCH

1=
TEREBEL 1964 CORING, SHIPSHAPE CONVERTEO 1030 52.1 13.6 2.1 .08
RESEARCH LAF401NG.

.— I, CRAFT

NAUBUC 1968 CABLE. SHIPSHAPE CQNVERTEO 850 45.7 10.4 3.1 .3

LAYING NET TENOER

SHIPSHAPE NEW BUILD 2274 79.0 12.0 3.7 .03

-!E- 1 1
~ SHIPSHAPE
BULK CARRIER
x 99.1 15.2 ~ .05

SEAWAY FALCON

‘ATTENTuRM--mE=
1975 MULTIPURPOSE

—
SHIPSHAPE

SHIPSHAPE
NEW BUILO

CONVERTEO
WORK BOAT
3650

1569
T—
60.0

52.7
16,0

11.0

.
4.3

3.9
.03

.04

SEMl+l18

SEMI-SUB
NEW BUILO

NEw BUILD
9000

19300
T
77.0

108 I
52.5

67.4.
15.5

21.3
.05

.03
(H-3)

...---F 2—.-
TARI . . . .. VESSEL
UTILITY —..——DP PROPULSION

BASIC HP
CONFIG. PER
VESSEL URATION PROPULSION UNITS ORIVE OETAILS UNIT

EUREKA AZIMUTH THRUSTERS 2 AC FIXEO.PITCH, OPEN BLAOE, 400

(1 FWOI STEERABLE
1 AFT)
.

TEREBEL AZIMUTH THRUSTERS 2 (B OTH OIESEL FIXEO.PITCH, OPEN BLAOE, 300

FWO ) STEERABLE

THRUSTER 1 [AFT) OIESEL FIXEO-PITCH, OUCTEO, 600

STEERABLE

NAUBUC AZIMUTH THRUSTERS 4 (2/2) DIESEL FIXED-PITCH, OPEN BLAOE, 1200

STEE RA8LE

ARCTIC SURVEYOR X.Y MAINS 2 ““ OIESEL CPP, OUCTEO “- ‘““ 1000

THRUSTERS 2(1/1) AC CPP, TUNNEL 600

—
AZIMUTH THRUSTERS 4 (2/2) AC CCP, DUCTEO STEEi7ABLE 1000

SEAWAY FALCON X.Y MAINS 2 OIESEL CCP, OPEN BLAOE 1000

THRUSTERS 4 (z/2) AC CPP, TUNNEL z @ 574

Z @ 387
— —
KATTENTURM AZIMUTH MAINS z OIESEL FIXEO PITCH, OPEN 965

+x THRUSTERS 2 OIESEL CPP, OUCTEO, STEERABLE 513

—
UNCLEJOHN SSV X.Y MAINS z AC CPP, OUCTEO 3000

THRUSTERS 6 AC CPP, 4 TUNNEL 1000

(2 IN EACH PONTOONI
2 OUCTEO (ON STBO
PONTOON)
 U ,,!+,
M! ,
. ,

,“RO

y r“
,“RUST 1,s

-E t
El “’’’’’”””
ASK
,,”,,,

,“.,(,!,.
N() ?
.“,, .,(””1.

Fig. 1 - Radar ranging position reference.

 RHO-THETA:
x=pcos O+Q
y=psind

PLATFORM ANTENNA RANGE-RANGE:

(HEMISPHERICALI
2 . R22
R,
[
X.
2d
i,, ~til~~’NTERSECTION
& 2 2 2
R, – R2 1/2

2 . d
~=R1 -+ —
a ‘“\ 2d 2
[( )1

R2
RI
w
\

.\,
\\
.,
,.
C“’<\-”\/’“\
\
\
OMNI ANTENNA
VESSEL

..., SCANNING ANTENNA

cd= 30 RPM

“\\
,.
\

OMNIANTENNAJ
/
\’

Fig. 2 - “Range-range’’andRHO-THETA geometry.

 ACCURACY CONSTRAINTS, CY=300; cA< 0.4 METERS
A .
/- >

b\ K’ ‘w’. Y.

10 20 30 40 5[

OFFSET OF BASELINE CENTER, A - METERS

Fig. 3 - Operating limits on range-range positioning.

 TO 5.8 METERS
A

RAOAR
ACCURACIES

--
> l.5!- / 41.5

I 1 1 1 , , I
50 100 150 200 250 300

WATER OEPTH ‘METERS

Fig. 4- Comparison of SBS-acoustic and radar system position determination

capabilities.

OP CONTROLLER
~.–– ——— ——— ——— —.—
7 ~w[NDspEcTRuM
/
I
I
I
I

COMMANDS
(SET POINT)
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
–l-l-l-%%q++=l-q+-
,1 I WAVE
L-. -—— ——— ——— ——- _ –—d I I NOISE
I l—
L_ S1GNAL
,,”,USULCC
!.
OETECTI ON
A
WAVE
COUPLING
I
I_ WAVE
SPECTRUM

NOISE
Fig. 5 - Dynamic positioning system block diagram.
 ACTIVE WIND COMPENSATION

‘AWC

1 + TAS

q-p+-+p-,~
WAVE FILTERING SENSOR
LOW PASS FILTERING

Kp Kl, KR - ‘T

Fig. 6 - Simplified control loop dynamics.

MASS E!2. OF MOTION

Fd (S1
x= ~ [A (S) Q (S)1 = VESSEL
MOTION
B (S) Q (S)+ A (S) P (S)

Fd
OR x ‘- - DISTURBANCE FORCE
‘T ToTAL MASS

Fig. 7 - Motion dependence upon disturbance/mass ratio.

 .
%WIND COMPENSATION

o 100
SIMULATION CONDITIONS
7 ❑
NoMINAL ~ . WATER DEPTH = 100 METERS
MASS WINO ON BEAM
STEADY SPEED =30 KNOTS
VARYING ~ . GUST SPEED =40 KNOTS
MASS
Eh GUST OURATION = 60 SEC.
/
6

m
cc
UI
1-
Lu
=.

;! 100
I
( ! SEC I
4

I 1 !
0.5 1.0 1.5

WlNi3 O RAG/MASS RATl O ‘10–61KT2

Fig. 8 - Station keeping sensitivity to drag/mass ratio.

 1.5
1.5

1
Y’ “+
A SHIPSHAPE UTI LITY VESSEL ~ x
O DRILLSHIP t
❑ SEMI SUBMERSIBLE
L1.1
cl
A o
lx 1.0 •1 1.0
=
w
o’
r=
a
o
E

0 0

I
A
0.5 A A 0.5
00
❑

I I I I J
5 10 15 20

VESSEL DISPLACEMENT, METRIC-TONNES X 10–3

1.5
1.5
AAA

A 0
1.0
1.0

A 0.OO
A ❑
I
0:5 ❑ 0.5

I I
5
I

10
I

15 20
I

VESSEL DISPLACEMENT, METRIC-TONNES X 10–3

Fig. 9 - Wind drag/mass ratio for various dynamically positioned vessels.

80 dB
\

\
‘NAillCP( I’IONEO ORILLRIG
60 dB EPTH ZERO
:OMP.

00
+ -

. >0
40 dE # =-

A IAGE WIND SPE jO

0 ENPORTSPECTI

40
20 dE
3 ORILLRIG
f5% ACTIVE 20

\
a
O dE
.001 Hz .01 Hz .1Hz
.0001 Hz

Fig. 10 - Platform motion response to disturbance acceleration.

PLATFORM
WIND
MOTION
DISTURBANCE

I 1
——

c=
—1——l———————— ————J——
VESSEL
0 RAG

+
I OFFSET
I

(6TH ORDER)
I (2ND
VESSEL
DYNAMICS

ORDER)
I

Fig. 11 - Vessel to platform station keeping.

 PLATFORM MOTION CHARACTERISTIC, Y (d

~- “

UTILITY VESSEL REPREsFNTATloN

DEFINITIONS:

—
o B2
1. O“v (s1
s2+2r6JBs+tiB2

2.
. —
% KB ~

3. KP CONTROLLER GAIN

4. . CONTROL AUTHORITY
6-
MAXIMUM THFIUST
. . .- -. —- —
MASS+ AOOEO MASS

5. r OAMPIFIG FACTOR

6, s = LAPLACE OPERATOR

Fig. 12 - Simplified utility vessel tracking model

1.0

0.8
ACTUAL
EXPRESSION

0.6

PROPORTIONALITY
0.4

~= 0.s .
A
02

c
0.2 0.4 0.6 .08 1.0

Wn
OPERATING FREQUENCY RATIO, —
‘B

WBI w“

Fig. 13 - The tracking error ratio as a function of the operating frequency ratio.
 9.0

6.0 1.0

3.0 0.5
I
I n
0
~ 100 METERS
I
I
1
I

500 1000 .1500

WATER DEPTH, METERS

Fig. 14 - Excursion growth due to constant disturbance-

dynamically positioned platform.’

.
4.0

3.0
KPIJC =1 xDRILLSHIP@100m

2.0
2.0
KPIJC ‘2x DRl LLSHlP@100m
1.4

Kpflc=4x DRlLLSHlP@100m
1.0

t I

500 1000 1500

‘$JATER DEPTH,METERs

Fig. 15 - Utility vessel tracking dependency on control

stiffness.
1.0
.9 I I I
.8 [ [

.7

.6

,5

I t
.4

.3

L
RECOIMN IIOEO MINIMI
.—— . —-, ——

=
% \
TYPiCAL JR EkTING P VESSELS
---- ——- .— -- --- —-- .——

1’ I

.03

I % I
I I
I
.02
L
I
I I
I I
I I

.01
2 4 6 8 10

CONTROLLER GAIN, KP - 10–2/METERS

Fig. 16 - Thrust/mass requirement for positioning alongside:

a floating platform.