Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

Semi-submersible design – A new generation of offshore accommodation T

vessels
James MacGregor∗, Savan Mayekar, Duncan Watson
Prosafe Offshore, Greenwell Road, Aberdeen, AB12 3AX, UK

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper explores the naval architectural design considerations involved in a new fleet of offshore accom-
Semi-submersible modation semi-submersibles constructed by different owners in the period from 2008 to 2018. The principal
Floatel design features are compared with data from the previous generation of floatels constructed in the 1970s/80s.
Naval Architecture All fourteen vessels are compared at a high level, and in some areas detailed data from six of the new vessels
Newbuild
(three different design classes) is analysed. Information is provided on subjects such as weight estimation and
Accommodation
Weight
weight control, motions and station-keeping behaviour, resistance and propulsion. Key arrangement con-
siderations are discussed together with practical design data on internal volume and deck area.

1. Introduction Tamaki et al., 1984), and demonstrated an ability to remain safely

1.1. History
When the oil and gas industry embarked on the construction of large
offshore production platforms in the harsh environment of the North
Sea during the 1970s, there was a pressing need for temporary ac-
commodation vessels to support the large numbers of workers engaged
in “hooking up” and interconnecting the individual topsides modules
which had been constructed onshore and lifted onto the platform by
crane barges.
At that time, the available offshore crane capacity was limited,
which kept the size of individual platform modules small, meaning that
the required offshore hook up labour force was large, and the hook up
durations long. Initial construction operations managed by using
available monohull barges, but the difficulties were considerable.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s a substantial fleet of semi-sub-
mersible vessels was built to service this demand.
That generation of floatels derived from semi-submersibles designed
in the 1970s for midwater drilling operations in harsh environments
such as the North Sea, using spread mooring for station-keeping. The
fleet was composed primarily of Aker H3 and Friede & Goldman
Pacesetter designs featuring 6 or 8 slender columns, and multiple bra-
cings. Notable names included the Treasure Finder, Safe Supporter, Port
Royal and Polyconfidence. These units had operating displacements in
the region of 20,000 tonnes.
These vessels delivered excellent motion behaviour (Burnell, 1975;
moored close alongside the client platform. The personnel bridges
connecting the floatel with the platform were further developed at this
time, and resulted in a hydraulic telescoping gangway which (together
with the good motions of the semi-submersible design) allowed con-
nectivity to be maintained under rough weather conditions. In extreme
weather, the gangway would be lifted and the floatel winched away to a
stand-off distance until the weather moderated.
Following the decline of large scale North Sea platform construction
and hook up campaigns, some of these North Sea floatels were con-
verted in the 1990s into drilling units (Ren et al., 2001) or floating
production vessels, or migrated to accommodation duty in the Gulf of
Mexico. Brazil also developed as a market for floating offshore ac-
commodation solutions. No new floatels were built for nearly two
decades.
1.2. New designs
In the period 2003–2008, some vessel owners began to consider the
construction of a new generation of semi-submersible accommodation
vessels. Reasons included the advancing age of the survivors from the
original fleet (mostly aged 20–30 years by that time) and the perceived
need for support of ongoing maintenance campaigns on the (also
ageing) platform infrastructure in the North Sea and elsewhere (Lamas
and Carral, 2011).
Fourteen of the vessels constructed as a result of this investment are
listed in Table 1.

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 7967 227 016.
E-mail address: JRMacGregor@aol.com (J. MacGregor).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.11.053
Received 2 September 2018; Received in revised form 25 October 2018; Accepted 25 November 2018
0029-8018/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 1
New semi-submersible accommodation vessels constructed from 2008 to 2018.
Vessel Floatel Floatel Superior, Floatel Victory, Safe Boreas, Neptuno, Safe Notos, Safe Safe Nova, OOS Tiradentes
Reliance Floatel Endurance Floatel Triumph Safe Zephyrus Atlantis Eurus Safe Vega

Year of Build 2010 2010 2013 2015 2015 2016 2017 2018
2015 2015 2015 2016 2017
Ordered by Floatel Floatel Floatel Prosafe Cotemar Prosafe Axis C. Helios (OOS)
Design Gusto & KFELS Gusto & KFELS Gusto & KFELS GVA GustoMSC GustoMSC GM 500A CR600
SSAU 3600 DSS20/NS SSAU 3000E Ocean500 Ocean500
400NG
Yard Keppel Keppel Keppel Jurong COSCO Qidong COSCO Qidong COSCO CIMC Raffles
Qidong
No. of Beds 500 440 560 500 450 750 500 456 600
Regulatory RoW Norway & RoW RoW & UK Norway & RoW RoW (and UK & RoW Aim at RoW (and
compliance possibly UK) Norway & possibly UK)
RoW

The table characterises the new vessels by year of build, accom-
modation capacity, design type and ability to operate in the UK,
Norway, or the rest of the world (RoW). The latter is an important
differentiator, as vessels aimed at the North Sea market must be de-
signed for the most onerous metocean environment, and thus require
more strength, air gap, mooring capacity and motion performance than
vessels designed for the rest of the world.
Furthermore, in Norway and the UK the vessels are considered to be
offshore installations, and must therefore comply with the same set of
shelf state laws and regulations as the hydrocarbon production and
drilling installations. This adds a layer of certification, technical cap-
ability and cost beyond that that required for conventional marine
vessels engaged in the oil and gas industry. Norwegian requirements are
highest (freefall lifeboats, all single cabins etc), and a vessel certified for
work in Norway (subject to PSA and NMA regulations) will generally be
capable of certification in any other jurisdiction. A vessel capable of
operating on the UK continental shelf (regulated by UK Health & Safety
Executive, Energy Division) should be capable of operating everywhere
else, but not necessarily in Norway.
The designs of many of the modern generation of floatels are de-
rived from semi-submersible designs intended for drilling operations in
deep water and moderate environments, where dynamic positioning
(rather than mooring) and a high variable load capacity are prominent
design requirements. The new floatel designs typically have operating
displacements around 30,000 tonnes, four (sometimes six) large col-
umns with minimal bracing structures, and an enclosed deck box
structure (one or two decks high) capable of providing the necessary
strength and accommodating the larger power generation systems.
As such, they represent a considerable departure in terms of both
size and style compared to the previous generation. This paper explores
the naval architectural design considerations involved in this new fleet
of vessels, compared with the features of the preceding generation. All
fourteen vessels are compared at a high level, and in some areas a
deeper evaluation is carried out using data from six of the vessels (three
classes, illustrated in Figs. 1–4). These are designs/projects with which
the present writer(s) were more closely involved.
It is hoped that this information may provide guidance for future
designers and operators and supplement the sparse public domain lit-
erature on the preliminary design of semi-submersibles (Penney and
Riiser, 1985; Gallala, 2013).
1.3. Origins of new semi-submersible designs
The Floatel Reliance is very similar to the floatel Safe Concordia
which was built by Keppel in 2005. These vessels are targeted for floatel
duty in moderate environments such as Brazil and the Gulf of Mexico.
The Concordia and Reliance SSAU 3600 design was derived from a
Keppel design (SSDT 3600) for a series of tender assist drilling vessels,
originally developed for operations in moderate sea states around SE
Asia. Some signs of these origins can be seen in the modest air gap,
relatively small galley, DP2 rather than DP3 station-keeping, and a
relatively high length/beam ratio compared to the more “square”
layout of other semi-submersibles (tender assist rigs of this type require
longitudinal stability for crane transfer of the drilling package to the
adjacent client platform).
The Floatel Victory and the Floatel Triumph are in turn developed

Fig. 1. Safe Zephyrus – GVA 3000E design, constructed by Jurong Shipyard, Fig. 2. Safe Notos – GustoMSC Ocean 500 design, constructed by COSCO
Singapore. Qidong, China.

760
J. MacGregor et al.
Fig. 3. Axis Vega (now Safe Vega) – GM500A design, constructed by COSCO
Qidong, China (note alternative gangway pedestal at corner).
Fig. 4. Atlantis at work in Gulf of Mexico.
from the Floatel Reliance, and intended to be capable of operations on
the UK continental shelf, at least for part of the year. The basic six
column hull configuration is retained, but the displacement and air gap
is increased. Their ability to deal with harsher environments is further
enhanced by introduction of 10 point chain mooring systems, and a
move from 4 to 6 thrusters.
The Floatel Superior/Endurance are totally different to the Reliance/
Victory/Triumph, and are a DSS20™ design from Keppel/GustoMSC
closely related to deep-water semi-submersible drilling rigs previously
built by Keppel such as the DSS20 Maersk Explorer (2003), the DSS21
Maersk Developer series (2008 onwards) and the DSS38 design Gold Star
(2008). These two vessels are designed to meet Norwegian require-
ments.
The Ocean 500 hull design used for the Neptuno/Atlantis and Safe
Notos/Eurus was developed by GustoMSC. It is related to designs which
GustoMSC had previously developed for the deep-water drilling market,
and has similarities to the Floatel Superior/Endurance designs.
The Safe Boreas basic design was prepared by GVA several years
before the present building sequence commenced. This GVA3000E de-
sign is an enhancement of the previous GVA3000 Regalia vessel (de-
livered 1985), which became employed as a floatel after an early career
as a dynamically positioned diving support and offshore construction
vessel.
The Safe Nova and Vega were ordered by Axis at COSCO and make
use of a Global Maritime basic hull configuration previously used by
761
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
COSCO for the drilling/intervention vessel Island Innovator (delivered in
2012), and also used at CIMC Raffles as the basis for the COSL Pioneer
series of drilling rigs (ordered in 2005).
The OOS Tiradentes appears to be an in-house design from CIMC
Raffles, probably heavily based on their experience gained with the
Global Maritime and Agility design work for the COSL drill rigs.
1.4. Other competitor vessels
Not discussed in this paper are four other new vessels also engaged
in the offshore accommodation industry and competing with the “pure”
accommodation semi-submersibles. These are the OOS Gretha and OOS
Prometheus, built by CIMC Raffles, and the POSH Arcadia and POSH
Xanadu.
Although the OOS vessels do have twin pontoon semi-submersible
configuration, their designs are heavily influenced by the large con-
struction cranes onboard. The OOS Gretha is a 55,700t DP vessel with
no bracings but an asymmetric pontoon arrangement designed to sup-
port two 1800t cranes. The OOS Prometheus is a smaller anchored vessel
with one 1100t crane. The two 47,000t displacement POSH vessels do
not have the typical twin pontoon configuration (the lower submerged
hull is a single “barge” type structure) and were originally designed
(and partly built) for purposes other than accommodation.
Also not discussed are the other types of vessel with which the semi-
submersibles must now compete. In the last 10 years a number of
monohulls have been built or converted to use dynamic positioning for
floatel operations (see Table 3b of Lamas and Carral, 2011). These have
been used offshore Australia, Brazil and Mexico, but the North Sea
weather seems to preclude their year round use in that market.
On the other hand, the dedicated accommodation semi-sub-
mersibles in the North Sea have seen a threat emerge from so called
“walk to work” DP monohulls which provide offshore accommodation
and transfer via a gangway but avoid regulation as offshore installa-
tions by virtue of not remaining permanently connected to the client
platform.
Also, several twin hull units, based on the SWATH concept and
marketed as Compact Semi-Submersibles (CSS) have managed to obtain
floatel contracts in Brazil, operating on DP (see description in Lamas
and Carral, 2011). These are much smaller than the conventional semi-
submersibles (84 m length, 32 m beam, 20.8 m depth, with displace-
ment around 12,000 tonnes) and consequently less expensive to build
and operate. Other competitors in certain markets include monohull
barges and the jack-up type of accommodation unit, as described in
Table 2 of Lamas and Carral (2011).
2. Size and main dimensions
2.1. Weights, volumes - draft and air gap
Semi-submersibles are effectively constant draft designs, with a
small number of approved drafts at which they may be operated.
Table 2a lists the displacements at operating and survival draft for the
new designs, together with the Tonnage according to the 1969 IMO
Convention. The latter is a measure of the internal volume of the vessel.
Table 2b gives corresponding data for a sample of three older vessels.
With operating displacements in excess of 30,000 tonnes, most of
the new generation of vessels are some 50% heavier than the older
generation.
A critical feature for any semi-submersible is the air gap between
the still waterline, and the underside of the deck structure. There is a
close relationship between this dimension (especially for survival draft)
and the environment in which the vessel can be safely operated when
moored (when dynamically positioned, a vessel has the option to seek
shelter in extreme conditions). Fig. 5 illustrates the contours of the 100
year return wave height for the North Sea region. It can be seen that the
northern regions have significant wave heights which can exceed 15 m,
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 2a
Main dimensions, displacements and internal volume (new floatels).
Length overalla (on pontoons) (m) Breadth overalla (at pontoons) Displacement (tonnes) Tonnage ITC, 1969
(m)
Operating draft Survival draft Gross Net

Floatel Reliance 109.0 (93.9) 68.0 (45.2) 17,920 15,240 18,246 5,527
Floatel Superior 97.3 (90.0) 94.5 (64.5) 29,180 25,600 27,920 8,377
Floatel Endurance 105.0 (93.5) 103.0 (64.5) 30,860c 26,850c 30,803 9,241
33,594d 29,030d
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph 119.6 (98.1) 78.0 (53.4) 26,800b 22,700b 24,594 7,482
27,211 8,163
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus 104.2 (97.5) 91.25 (71.25) 33,930 31,630 34,076 10,412
34,264 10,280
Neptuno, Atlantis 98.0 (95.0) 92.5 (67.0) 33,400 28,400 28,808 8,643
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus 98.0 (95.0) 92.5 (67.0) 33,400 28,400 30,278 9,084
Safe Nova, Safe Vega 112.2 (104.5) 100.6 (66.3) 37,700 36,020 37,140 11,140
OOS Tiradentes 106.45 (100.8) c. 95 (68.9) 35,494 – 38,434 11,530

a
Includes lifeboats and helideck.
b
Effect of Floatel Triumph column blisters not included.
c
Includes longer pontoons compared to Floatel Superior.
d
Includes longer pontoons and column blisters.

Table 2b
Main dimensions, displacements and internal volume (old floatels).
Length overall (on pontoons) (m) Breadth overall (at pontoons) Displacement (tonnes) Tonnage ITC, 1969
(m)
Operating draft Survival draft Gross Net

Regalia (1985) 95.4 (87.6) 91.6 (60.83) 21,030 19,260 17,624 –

Safe Caledonia (1982) 91.3 (79.56) 69.7 (61.38) 20,470 17,985 19,230 5,770
Safe Scandinavia (1984) 106.3 (92.45) 93.9 (68.4) 28,315 25,777 25,383 7,615

and vessels will need air gaps of similar dimensions for safe operations.
Table 3 contains the key air gap parameters for the new vessels.
The air gap at operating draft is less than at survival draft, and
classification society approval documentation and the vessel Operations
Manual will contain instructions as to the weather conditions in which
a vessel must deballast from the operating draft to survival draft. This
will typically stipulate wave heights in the region of 5–6 m Hs. The
stability regulations dictate the windspeeds which must be considered
at survival (51.5 m/s) and at operating draft (36 m/s).
Provision of a high air gap is expensive in design terms, as it raises
the centre of gravity of the deck box and any variable load to be sup-
ported above the upper deck. There is therefore pressure to minimise
the air gap, especially for designs with large and heavy deck boxes. This
is generally not a problem for deep-water drilling semi-submersibles
which mostly work in moderate environments, but can be an issue for
harsh environment vessels.
The “tallest” of the new floatels have survival draft air gaps in the
region of 14 m. This compares with values of more than 15.5 m for
older generation vessels such as the Safe Caledonia and Safe Scandinavia.
The design assumption for the earlier units was that sufficient air gap
would be provided so that no wave contact with the deck structure
would occur. The modern generation has been designed to allow some
wave impact, provided that the structures are reinforced locally to deal
with the associated slamming loads. Extensive model testing and nu-
merical analysis is required to examine phenomena such as wave run-
up at the columns and other slamming effects. In late 2015 a fatality
occurred on a modern design drilling semi-submersible offshore
Norway (PSA, 2016) when a wave hit the face of the deck box and
several windows failed. This called the recent industry design practice
for air gap into question, and new guidance has been published (Pessoa
and Moe, 2017; Szalewski et al., 2017). However, the full implications
of this are likely to take several years to resolve.
Despite the overall growth in size of the new vessels, the typical
depth to main deck of around 35 m does not represent a significant
increase over the older designs. Even more marked is the relative lack of
increase in depth to underside of deck box. The new vessels display
figures in the range 24 m–29 m, compared to a range of 25 m–33 m for
the older vessels. This arises because the new deck box structures are
generally deeper than the old ones, and the increase has been added in
a downwards direction rather than upwards. This reduces air gap and/
or draft.
The drafts tabulated are those to underside of the pontoon. When
azimuth thruster heights are considered, actual drafts increase by some
4.0–5.5 m. Harbour drafts (with vessel deballasted to pontoon draft)
can be in the range of 13 m–15 m, which can severely restrict the lo-
cations where the larger units can be berthed. There are very few lo-
cations on the UK side of the North Sea where such semi-submersibles
can be brought alongside without having thrusters removed.
2.2. Dimensions of primary structural components
A twin pontoon semi-submersible structure is effectively “tied to-
gether” to resist wave splitting forces and racking moments by a com-
bination of the deck structure and the tubular bracings connecting the
lower hulls. Redundancy in the structural design is required so that
progressive collapse will not occur following loss of effectiveness of any
one of these structural members. Such a failure mode was instrumental
in the 1980 capsizing of the floatel Alexander Kielland.
None of the new generation employs vertical bracings to support the
deck structure. The upper structure of many of the previous vessels was
based on a network of transverse and longitudinal girders, simply
plated over. The new vessels employ an enclosed deck box where the
shell plate and decks (together with internal bulkheads) play a sig-
nificant role in strength, and the enclosed volume provides reserve
buoyancy for stability. These features are summarised in Tables 4 and 5.
The modern generation of floatel semi-submersibles utilises fewer
bracings than 1970s designs such as the Aker H3, Sedco 700 and F&G
Pacesetter. In the case of the four column designs, two transverse

762
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 3a
Draft and air gap (new floatels).
Draft – operating Draft – survival Depth to underside Depth to main Air gap – operating Air gap – survival draft
(m) (m) deck box (m) deck (m) draft (m) (m)

Floatel Reliance 12.2 7.9 18.9 24.69 6.7 11.0

Floatel Superior, Floatel Endurance 18.0 13.0 27.5 35.2 9.5 14.5
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph 16.8 11.6 23.8 – 7.0 12.2
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus 18.6 15.1 29.6 36.1 11.0 14.5
Neptuno, Atlantis 17.5 to 20.0 13.5 27.5 35.7 7.5–10.0 14.0
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus 17.5 to 20.0 13.5 27.5 35.7 7.5–10.0 14.0
Safe Nova, Safe Vega 17.75 15.75 29.25 37.45 11.5 13.5
OOS Tiradentes 17.75 to 20.0 14.25 to 15.75 28.25 36.25 10.5 to 8.25 14.0 to 12.5

bracings are used at each column pair, except for the Safe Boreas design
where only one bracing is used at each column pair. In that case, a high
degree of attention was paid to the stress and fatigue analyses and to
the construction quality and inspection of the connections.
Bracings are generally located above the pontoon tops to avoid drag
and slamming during transit, but should be sufficiently low so that
emergence and re-entry slamming does not occur when the unit is at
survival draft in large waves. The Floatel Reliance, Victory and Triumph
designs have transverse bracings which are close to the pontoon tops,
which is good for structural efficiency, but not ideal for transit. Also,
due to the shorter columns, most of the new vessels transverse bracings
are much closer to the survival draft (only 2.0–3.5 m submergence)
than the older generation, where submergences of 5.3 m and 6.0 m (e.g.
Pacesetter design Safe Caledonia and Aker H3.2 Safe Scandinavia) were
common.
With the exception of the Safe Boreas design, the larger examples of
the new generation have two working decks in the deck box. This gives
a length/depth ratio for these structures of around 8, compared to more
than 12 for the much more slender Safe Boreas deck concept. Despite
this, care is required with regard to the placing of openings in the
transverse and longitudinal bulkheads in these deck boxes to avoid
unnecessary stress concentrations.
The deck boxes have a double bottom of around 1.5 m height. In the
DP3 vessels, this space is used to arrange segregated routes for dis- Fig. 5. 100 Year extreme (winter) significant wave heights in North Sea (taken
tribution of cables and cooling water pipes between the three ma- from UK HSE report RR392).
chinery spaces in the deck box and the three pairs of thruster spaces in
the pontoons (ref. Fig. 22).
include the Floatel Reliance and the four units based on an Ocean 500
Note that in the case of the Floatel Reliance/Victory/Triumph, the
design (Neptuno, Atlantis, Safe Notos, Safe Eurus).
main deck is officially (i.e. for freeboard and stability calculation pur-
The changes may be summarised as follows;
poses) taken to be at the top of the double bottom rather than the up-
permost deck. For practical comparison in Table 5 these deck boxes are
considered to extend vertically to the upper deck. Furthermore, the • Safe Boreas and Safe Zephyrus had pontoon height increased by 9%
during design phase (prior to construction), which increased oper-
deckhouse erected on top of this double bottom extends transversely
ating displacement by some 3000t (9.7%)
only to the column centrelines, giving an aspect ratio of more than 2,
compared to the approximately square plan view of the other designs. • Floatel Triumph had blisters added to outboard sides of 2 midships
columns prior to delivery (not present on predecessor Floatel Victory)
• Floatel Endurance was designed with longer pontoons than pre-
decessor Floatel Superior, and then had a triangular (plan view)
2.3. Hullform modifications
blister added to each column prior to delivery (these are not present
on Floatel Superior), which further increased displacement by some
Nearly half of the new vessels have experienced some form of hull
2700t (8.8%) at operating draft
form modification during the design/building programme. Exceptions

Table 3b
Draft and air gap (old floatels).
Draft – operating (m) Draft – survival Depth to underside deck box Depth to main deck Air gap – operating draft Air gap – survival draft
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

Regalia (1985) 17.5 14.0 25.5 31.0 8.0 11.5

Safe Caledonia (1982) 18.29 13.72 29.33 33.83 11.04 15.61
Safe Scandinavia (1984) 22.0 17.5 34.5 (33.3 to girders) 37.72 11.3 15.8

763
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 4
Numbers of columns and structural bracings.
No. of columns No. of transverse bracings Transverse bracing centre height - relation to survival draft

Floatel Reliance 6 3 6.09 m (pontoon top), 1.83m below survival draft

Floatel Superior, Floatel Endurance 4 4 11.11 m, 1.89 m below survival draft
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph 6 3 Just above pontoon top
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus 4 2 12.0 m, 3.1 m below survival draft
Neptuno, Atlantis 4 4 11.5 m, 2.0 m below survival draft
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus 4 4 11.5 m, 2.0 m below survival draft
Safe Nova, Safe Vega 4 4 12.25 m, 3.5 m below survival draft
OOS Tiradentes 4 4 Not available

• Safe Nova and Safe Vega had sponsons added on inboard side of
pontoons and blisters fitted to fore and aft column faces during
construction, adding c. 5000t (15.6%) to operating displacement
Many newbuild drilling semi-submersibles have also experienced
similar problems during the design and build process. These modifica-
tions are generally implemented in order to improve the carrying ca-
pacity or stability of the units (e.g. to ensure that pontoon tops are not
constantly submerged). They generally have unfavourable effects on
station-keeping, motions and transit performance.
3. General arrangement
3.1. Overview
All of the new designs share the following arrangement features;
• Two slender lower hulls (pontoons), containing thruster rooms,
pump rooms, tanks for ballast, fuel and water and access trunk (one
example is illustrated in Fig. 6)
• Four or six vertical columns, containing access routes (elevators and
stairways), auxiliary machinery spaces and smaller tanks and voids
(example is illustrated in Fig. 7)
• Deck box (upper hull) containing one or two decks of machinery
spaces, workshops and store rooms, and elements of the living
quarters (examples are given in Fig. 8a and b)
• Main/upper deck – of which approximately 50% is consumed by the
living quarters block and the other half is dedicated to workshops
and stores and open deck space available for laydown or other
purposes (example is shown in Fig. 9)
• Lifeboat stations, cranes and personnel transfer gangway arranged
around the periphery of the unit, in various configurations
3.2. Deckhouses
Above the uppermost deck, two substantial deckhouses are erected;
one for the living quarters at one end, and stores and one for work-
shops/stores/auxiliary spaces at the other. The living quarters blocks in
the new designs are typically 5 decks high, with a navigating bridge or
control room located above.
On the four Ocean 500 based designs, the control room is located at
the side of the vessel near to the gangway, but also with a view towards
the sailing direction. On all the other designs, the navigating bridge and
DP bridge is located at the vessel centreline.
3.3. Location of gangway relative to exhaust and living quarters
The personnel gangway connecting the vessel to the client platform
is the primary operational tool of a floatel, and the selected position
dictates many aspects of the floatel interaction with the client platform
and also the internal arrangements of the floatel.
Table 6 summarises the locations of the gangway on the new floa-
tels, with specific reference to other arrangement features such as the
engine exhaust location and the living quarters. It can be seen that no
common theme has emerged amongst the new designs.
Most of the new designs typically have the heavy generator sets
located at one end of the vessel. This is likely due to the parent drilling
designs, where this weight would be balanced by heavy mud pumps and
mud pits at the opposite end. In the floatels the mud system weight is
replaced by the weight from the large living quarters. The exhausts
from these engines are generally arranged to discharge downwards, and
the fumes can cause unpleasant problems when drawn into the HVAC
system of the client platform if that is nearby. Unfortunately, many of
the floatel designs have chosen to place the gangway (and thus the
client platform) at the vessel end near the engines and not near the LQ.
This is likely because the alternative location at the end near the LQ has
been dominated by lifeboat arrangement considerations.
An end location of the gangway typically means that a projecting
part of the floatel (i.e. the pontoon end) will be closer to contact with
the client platform than the floatel deck structures. To maintain the
target separation distance, the gangway base is often cantilevered some
distance away from the main deck. In addition, the critical (governed
by the stroke limit) longitudinal axis of the gangway is subjected to
potentially large vessel motions in the surge axis. These issues do not
exist with a side mounted gangway.
The Floatel Reliance/Victory/Triumph designs have their engines

Table 5
Upper hull deck box characteristics.
Length (m) Breadth (m) LxB (m2) No. decks Deck Height Double Bottom Deck Box Height Deck box volume
(m) Height (m) (m) (m3)

Floatel Reliance 88.7 36.07 3200 1 4.57 1.22 5.79 18,524

Floatel Superior, Floatel Endurance 63.5 64.5 4096 2 3.25 1.2 7.7 31,537
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph – – – 1 – 1.5 – –
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus 82.5 71.25 5900 1 5.0 1.5 6.5 38,208
Neptuno, Atlantis 66.0 67.0 4420 2 3.3 1.6 8.2 36,260
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus 66.0 67.0 4420 2 3.3 1.6 8.2 36,260
Safe Nova, Safe Vega 80.7 66.3 5350 2 3.3 1.6 8.2 43,870
OOS Tiradentes 83.6 67.6 4900 2 3.3 1.4 8.0 45,210

764
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Fig. 6. Typical pontoon arrangement (Safe Boreas).

Fig. 7. Typical Column Arrangements (Safe Nova, forward starboard column).

765
J. MacGregor et al.
Fig. 8a. Typical deck box arrangement (lower deck – Safe Notos).
amidships (a legacy of the parent tender assist drilling rig design). This
allows for high exhaust stacks arranged port and starboard, which
avoids fumes near the end corner mounted gangway, but does mean
that the living quarters must be insulated from noise and vibration from
the nearby engines.
Some designs have been delivered with two pedestals for placement
of the gangway, but normally only one gangway is installed.
The Safe Notos/Eurus arrangement with a gangway mounted at the
side amidships (Figs. 2 and 9) reflects that of the older Safe Caledonia
(originally built as Safe Holmia in 1982), and has the following ad-
vantages;
• Gangway is near to the LQ, giving efficient access, and also allowing
766
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
direct visual contact from the control room (bridge)
• Gangway location is reasonably far from engine exhausts
• Hydrodynamic forces pushing vessel onto the platform act in sway
direction, and for the new hull designs this produces less motions
than forces in surge direction, meaning better gangway operability
• Gangway does not interfere with normal crane operations, but can
still be reached by crane for gangway pedestal height adjustment
operations
With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible that the best possible
arrangement has not been provided on any of the new vessels. An ar-
rangement with the gangway located at a vessel corner near the LQ (not
at the end of the vessel where the engines and exhausts are located)
J. MacGregor et al.
Fig. 8b. Typical deck box arrangement (Tween deck – Safe Notos).
may provide the best balance of advantages and disadvantages.
The corner position would allow the floatel to choose whether to
operate beam-on or end-on to the platform, thus maximising operability
under varying metocean conditions. Proximity to the LQ would address
two concerns; ease of personnel access to living spaces, and avoiding
engine exhaust fumes interfering with the client platform and the
gangway. One disadvantage with such an arrangement could be diffi-
culty in arranging coverage by a deck crane for assistance in gangway
height adjustment operations.
3.4. Internal arrangements - accommodation
Typical arrangements of the decks within the upper hull and on
767
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
main deck are given in Fig. 8a and b and 9.
In the upper hull, the primary considerations of layout involve the
following;
• Easy access from gangway stair tower to client office areas
• Easy access from gangway stair tower to workforce locker rooms
and changing rooms
• Access from locker/changing rooms to cabin areas
• Access from cabin areas to eating/recreation areas
The deck area allocated to client offices, change rooms and re-
creation rooms on some prior floatels was analysed prior to specifying
and contracting some of the new vessels described in this paper. The
J. MacGregor et al.
Fig. 9. Typical main deck arrangement (safe Notos).
findings are summarised in Tables 7 and 8, where they are expressed in
relation to the total personnel capacity of the vessel. In general, the
more modern units have more office area, reflecting the increasing
proportion of the offshore workforce engaged in desktop tasks. The
previous vessels had large communal recreation areas such as cinemas,
which may not be so necessary in modern vessels where more privacy is
available in the cabins, and each cabin is enabled with internet and
personal TV facilities. The cinema can serve as a meeting point for
management addresses, and as a muster station in emergency.
With regard to the galley, mess room and food stores, primary ob-
jectives in design should be as follows;
• Provision of sufficient storage and handling area, near to main deck
hatch or stores laydown areas (preferably allowing a food container
to be placed at same level as the food stores)
768
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
• Easy routes from stores area to galley, and from galley to serving
area
• Good personnel flow from living/access areas through serving area
and into mess room
• Good personnel flow from mess room past plate return and waste
disposal areas and back to living/access spaces
Table 9 shows the results of an analysis of deck areas allocated to
stores, mess room and galley on prior floatels, compared with similar
ratios for modern offshore construction monohulls. The metrics for the
mess room and galley are similar for both vessel types. The area for
food stores is relatively smaller on the floatels, probably because the
floatels are resupplied regularly, whereas the construction vessels must
be more self-sufficient, often working in remote areas or making long
ocean transits.
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 7

Two alternative pedestal locations – operating with gangway at

Note change made to Endurance exhausts – also moved to P&S

Deck box is strengthened to permit gangway pedestal at corner

Two alternative pedestal locations – completed with gangway

Working areas - changing rooms, offices.

Vessel may operate parallel to or perpendicular to platform

Vessel may operate parallel to or perpendicular to platform

Vessel may operate parallel to or perpendicular to platform

Range (m2 per PoB) Average (m2 per PoB)

Offices for client 0.66 to 1.18 0.85

Changing, Locker Rooms 0.52 to 1.33 0.90
Laundry & Linen Rooms 0.20 to 0.49 0.30

Exhausts fitted with water spray system

Table 8
Recreation areas.
corners away from gangway

side mid-length position Range (m2 per PoB) Average (m2 per PoB)

on end near centreline

Recreation rooms 1.09 to 2.27 1.75

The numbers of cabins and beds on the different vessels are sum-
marised in Table 10. The Norwegian rated vessels have the greatest
Notes

number of cabins due to the single occupancy requirement. In most of

the vessels the cabins are arranged along long conventional alleyways,
Exhaust direction

but in the Safe Boreas/Zephyrus they are arranged around two large
atriums, which provide natural light to the mess rooms and the inner
cabins. The presence of the atriums is probably one of the reasons why
Down

Down

Down

Down

Down

Down

the Gross Tonnage figures (Table 2a) for the Boreas/Zephyrus are more
Up

Up
Up

than 10% greater than those for the generally comparable Floatel Su-
Vessel end – away from LQ – near

Vessel end – away from LQ – near

Vessel end – away from LQ – near

Vessel end – away from LQ – near

perior/Endurance.
Vessel end – away from LQ and
Amidships P&S – away from

Amidships P&S – away from

Vessel end – away from LQ

3.5. Machinery spaces

Engine exhaust location

All the larger vessels have three engine rooms arranged side by side
at one end of the deck box. In most of the vessels, personnel access to
these rooms is in the fore and aft direction from the adjacent switch-
gangway

gangway

gangway

gangway

gangway

gangway

gangway

board rooms, or transversely through watertight doors. In the Safe

Boreas design, a full width transverse alleyway is provided between the
engine rooms and the switchboard rooms, giving direct access to each
Normal gangway orientation relative to

engine room. This alleyway was not possible in the Ocean 500 designs
Selectable (if corner location used)

Selectable (if corner location used)

(and presumably the DSS20 designs) because of high stresses in the

longitudinal bulkheads at that location (high shear force in deck box
coinciding with location of column shell structure).
Table 11 summarises the engine room sizes and clearances for three
Parallel to surge axis

Parallel to surge axis

Parallel to sway axis

different designs with approx. 30 MW installed power. The engine room

areas given exclude fuel service and settling tanks, which may be lo-
floatel motion

cated on the other side of engine room bulkheads. The figures show
Selectable

Selectable

Selectable

there are some tight clearances around the engines in all cases, but
demonstrate that the inline engine configuration allows considerably
more space between the engines than the vee arrangement.
Another large consumer of deck area in passenger vessels is the
Side - mid length (near LQ) OR corner

End centre-line OR corner (both away

space required for the air conditioning equipment. This is often un-
End – centreline – away from LQ

End – centreline – away from LQ

derestimated in the basic design process, and consequently problems

arise when additional space has to be found during the detailed design
Side – mid length – near LQ

phase when the actual sizes of the necessary equipment becomes

Corner – away from LQ

Corner – away from LQ

Corner – away from LQ

known. A typical HVAC installation for the LQ spaces alone of a North

Gangway location

Sea unit could include 17 air handling units, 105 actuated fire/gas
(away from LQ)

dampers, 21/22 inlet/outlet louvres and 21 local control units.

Prior to the specification and contracting of some of the new floa-
from LQ)

tels, the deck area allocated to HVAC rooms (excluding chiller plant
rooms) on some prior vessels was analysed (Table 12). The results were
not significantly different to those found for other vessels types, with
approx. 5–6% of the total air conditioned deck area requiring to be
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph

devoted to space for the HVAC equipment rooms. When this ratio was
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus

provided at the basic design stage it was found to be sufficient.

Floatel Superior, Floatel

Safe Notos, Safe Eurus

Safe Nova, Safe Vega

Gangway locations.

Neptuno, Atlantis

3.6. Watertight subdivision

Floatel Reliance

OOS Tiradentes
Endurance

In order to maintain compartments sufficiently small for damaged

Table 6

stability reasons, and at the same time comply with the practical re-
quirements for access, the vessels require extensive (and expensive)

769
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 9
Mess room, galley and food stores.
Semi-submersible accommodation floatels Monohull offshore construction vessels

2 2
Range (m per PoB) Average (m per PoB) Range (m2 per PoB) Average (m2 per PoB)

Mess Room 0.44 to 1.28 0.87 0.46 to 1.20 0.79

Galley 0.41 to 0.56 0.43 0.35 to 0.70 0.45
Dry food stores 0.13 to 0.21 0.16 0.47 to 0.91 (dry & cold 0.70 (dry & cold)
Cold/freeze stores 0.11 to 0.31 0.21

Table 10
Cabin arrangements.
No. cabins No. single cabins 2 man cabins 4 man cabins Bed capacity Safety certificate

Floatel Reliance 171 – – – 500 500

Floatel Superior, Floatel Endurance 440 440 0 0 440 440
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph 300 40 260 0 560 560
300 100 200 0 500 500
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus 450 450 0 0 450 450 (can be 490)
Neptuno, Atlantis 229 36 29 164 750 750 or more
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus 264 28 234 0 500 500
Safe Nova, Safe Vega 274 92 182 0 456 500
OOS Tiradentes – – – – – 600

installations of watertight (WT) sliding doors. For example, the Safe

Notos (GustoMSC design) has 40 sliding WT doors and 8 WT hatches Table 12
indicated on the control panel. The Safe Boreas (GVA 3000E design) has HVAC room deck area as a Percentage of air conditioned deck area.
50 sliding WT doors (18 in each pontoon, 4 in the deck box, others in Range Average
the columns), and 14 WT hatches.
Semi-submersible accommodation floatels 2.2–6.1% 4.7%
Other types of diesel electric offshore vessel 3.7–8.0% 6.0%
Cruise ships (Kanerva et al., 2000) 3.6–10.3% 5.8%
3.7. Tank arrangements

A major consumer of internal volume in the pontoons and columns

are the tanks for fuel, ballast and potable water. Although a typical
number seems to be 36, the number of ballast tanks can vary sig-
nificantly between designs – with two examples having 32 and 62
tanks, respectively.
Table 13 lists the designed tank capacities of the new vessels. While
potable water capacities do not vary much (typically storage is pro-
vided for one week's consumption), there is a significant range in the
fuel and ballast tank capacities as designed. Ballast capacity is typically
more than 50% of the displaced volume. As Fig. 6 shows, it is good
practice to ensure the fuel tanks are located on the inboard sides of
pontoons, with water ballast tanks outboard and at the ends of the
pontoons.
For a typical vessel with 2100 m3 fuel capacity (1785 tonnes) the
endurance on DP will be in the region of 40 days if thruster power
consumption averages 30% of MCR, giving total power demand of
around 9000 kW and 44 tonnes/day consumption.
4. Weights and stability
4.1. Lightship weight and steel weight
The larger examples of the new generation of vessels (lightship
weights around 22,000 tonnes) are some 50% heavier than the older
generation which had lightship weights in the region of 14,000 tonnes.
From the inclining tests carried out on 7 of the new floatels, the
lightship is typically around 63% of the operating displacement, as
shown in Table 14. A more accurate basis from which to make an early
estimate of the lightship weight is the Gross Registered Tonnage, with
which a very good correlation is displayed (averaging 0.664 tonnes per
GRT). Unfortunately, this figure is rarely calculated early in a design
process, but could be estimated quickly from the intended geometry.
For the 7 new floatels, the actual vertical centre of gravity of the
lightship is in the range 68%–76% of the depth to the main/upper deck.

Table 11
Engine rooms.
Engine numbers and type Engine room area (m2) Clearance engine skid to aft Clearance engine skid to forward Space between engines closest components
bulkhead (m) bulkhead (m) (m)

2 x 9L32 160 1.86 2.3 1.76

2 x 16V25 233a 1.7 1.3 0.82
2 x 16V26 164 (outboard) 1.0 3.0 1.05
184 (central)

a
Area includes aux. machinery space.

770
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 13
Tank capacities.
Fuel storage Potable water Ballast water

3 3
Capacity (m ) Capacity per installed MWe Capacity (m ) Capacity per Days at 0.25t Capacity (m3) Related to Operating
generator power (m3) PoB (m3) per man-day Displacement (m3 per tonne)

Floatel Reliance 1600 102.6 960 1.92 7.7 7,600 0.424

Floatel Superior, Floatel 1800 81.5 800 1.81 7.3 16,360 0.561
Endurance 2450 86.9 800 – –
Floatel Victory, Floatel 1800 76.9 950 1.70 6.8 9,610 0.358
Triumph 1840 78.6 950 1.90 7.6 9,873 0.368
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus 2100 69.7 920 2.04 8.2 15,045 0.443
Neptuno, Atlantis 3150 109.4 1000 1.33 5.3 14,475 0.433
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus 3150 109.4 900 1.80 7.2 15,350 0.460
Safe Nova, Safe Vega 2880 101 1190 2.61 10.4 15,750 0.418
OOS Tiradentes 3670 112 1550 2.58 10.3 14,570 –

The greatest contributor (about 60%) to the lightship weight is the

Table 15
structural steel weight. This is similar to the relationship observed for
Structural steel weight estimating relationships.
modern drilling semi-submersibles, where a sample of designs yields a
percentage in the range 55%–68% (average 62%). 7 of new generation floatels
For the larger vessels of the new generation, the structural steel
Range Average
weights are in the range of 12,000 to 17,000 tonnes. Table 15 sum-
marises norms derived from detailed estimates of steel weight and some Weight divided by Operating Displacement 0.34 to 0.45 0.382
other basis parameter. Again, the best basis for accurate early predic- Weight divided by Gross Tonnage 0.38 to 0.40 0.387
Weight divided by Estimated Lightship Weight 0.56 to 0.66 0.593
tion is the total enclosed volume, for which GRT is a proxy.
Weight divided by Actual Lightship Weight 0.57 to 0.68 0.609
Other weights vary depending on the scope of equipment and out-
fitting installed, and to some extent on the practices of the individual 1. Steel weight is structural steel weight including margin.
shipyards. Some ranges are given in Table 16 for the larger of the new 2. Estimated lightship weight is including margins.
generation vessels.
Major influences on the piping weight include choice of flanged or
sleeved pipe joints. For outfit steel, the result is influenced by the
shipyard design standards applied for ladders, gratings etc (tanker or Table 16
“offshore” standard may be too heavy). Estimated weights – including margin (tonnes) of Three designs.
Within the living quarters, a potential risk for weight and VCG Design 1 Design 2 Design 3
growth lies in the floor screed applied on top of the steel decks. Due to
Mechanical Equipment 2385 2605 3135
the large area and high elevation it is important to aim for a high
Piping 970 1560 1099
standard of flatness in these decks and control the pouring of the screed. Electrical Equipment, Bulks (cable, tray etc) 1046 1006 920
The cabins themselves may be fabricated in a “stick build” method HVAC Equipment and Ducting 591 500 613
using individual bulkhead and ceiling panels and associated toilet Living Quarters and Architectural Outfit 2920 1745 1780
module (wet unit) erected within the required footprint. Alternatively, Steel Outfit 2263 1853 1014

the cabin may be delivered as a single self-contained unit, installed in a

“plug and play” fashion with only a few connections to piping, cable
and HVAC services required. The weight of this should not be ignored,
Table 17
as single cabin modules of this type may weigh in the region of 1.2
Inclining experiment results compared to estimated weights and VCG for 4
tonnes each.
projects.
Parameter Source of Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4
4.2. Weight control during build Data

Lightship weight Lead ship 2.18% −4.37% −1.71% −1.81%

Due to their small waterplane area, semi-submersible projects are result Follow ship 1.56% −4.15% −1.74% –
notoriously sensitive to weight growth during design and build. Such VCG result Lead ship 0.29% 0.33% 3.21% 1.64%
adverse developments cannot be compensated for simply by operating Follow ship 1.33% 2.00% 2.63% –
LWT Vertical moment Lead ship 2.48% −4.06% 1.45% −0.20%
at a slightly deeper draft. Many newbuild projects leave the yards dis-
result Follow ship 2.91% −2.24% 0.84% –
playing visible blisters on the columns, often added at a late stage.

Table 14
Lightship weight and centre of gravity estimating relationships.
7 of new generation floatels Other semi-submersibles – pre 2012

Range Average Range Average

Lightship Weight Weight divided by Operating Displacement 0.58 to 0.67 0.63 0.49 to 0.68 0.533
Weight divided by Gross Tonnage 0.66 to 0.67 0.664 – –
Lightship Centre of Gravity VCG divided by Height to Main Deck 0.68 to 0.76 0.71 0.61 to 0.83 0.75

771
J. MacGregor et al.
Fig. 10. Project/Vessel 1 - Monthly variation in predicted lightweight (net and with margin).
The recent series of floatel projects gives an opportunity to compare
the accuracy of the weight estimating and control methods employed.
All the projects produced regular weight control reports, tracking the
estimated weights in each discipline, and monitoring the trends in
weight, centre of gravity and margin. Finally, the inclining tests carried
out for each vessel produced hopefully accurate measurements of the
actual weight and centre of gravity.
Due to the deep draft required to fit the thrusters, the inclining tests
for many of these vessels were carried out away from the shipyard
quays, sometimes in relatively exposed locations, which were less than
ideal for such tests.
Table 17 lists the results of the inclining experiments for the lead
ship (and follow ship where applicable) of four different classes (7
vessels), compared with the formally predicted weight and centre of
gravity prior to the test. The difference is expressed in percentage re-
lative to the estimated weight and centre of gravity.
Lightship weight at inclining was less than the predicted value (a
desirable result) in 3 of the 4 projects, but Project 1 failed (under-
estimated) by more than 2% on the lead ship. The error was reduced
somewhat for the second vessel.
For all four projects, the actual inclined VCG was always higher
(bad result) than predicted. In 2 out of 3 cases, the follow ship VCG was
higher than the lead ship VCG, sometimes by a considerable margin.
The reasons for this worsening trend are not fully understood.
Fig. 11. Project/Vessel 1 - Monthly variation in predicted Vertical Centre of Gravity.
772
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
The actual vertical moment of lightship was higher than predicted
for 4 vessels, and lower than predicted for the other 3. The worst error
was on Project 1, where the inclined vertical moment on the lead ship
was underestimated by 2.5%.
These deviations may be compared with the estimating margins
which were in place at the time of contract, which were in the region of
7% on lightship weight. In most cases this seems to have been sufficient,
but it appears that a separate margin on VCG would be prudent.
In passing, it may be worth recording that the most voluminous
weight control reports proved to be the least accurate. The report for
the lead ship on Project 1 comprised 205 pages, while Projects 2 to 4
used reports about 85 pages in length. There is a danger that excessive
detail can be misleading if not supported by higher level sense checks.
In the case of Project 1, informal deadweight surveys performed with
the vessel afloat some months prior to completion forecast a weight far
closer to the actual result than the formal weight report.
The trends displayed in the regular weight reporting also reveal the
design development of the different projects.
Fig. 10 shows the predicted net (without margin) and gross lightship
weight for the lead ship of Project 1. This project experienced a sudden
weight adjustment of more than 500 tonnes early in the project, which
in fact required redesign of some of the buoyancy elements. Thereafter,
the figure shows how the predicted gross weight continued to increase,
although at a lesser rate than the net weight (due to reducing margin
J. MacGregor et al.
Fig. 12. Project/Vessel 2 – Two Monthly reports of predicted lightship weight.
with increasing accuracy in the weight inputs). The estimate had not
stabilised by the end of the reporting period and in fact this project
proved to be heavier than these predictions. This caused a significant
loss of variable deck load capacity compared to target values (which
fortunately had been over-specified in anticipation of such problems).
Fig. 11 shows the predicted vertical centre of gravity for the same
vessel. This VCG for this project increased steadily throughout, but was
showing signs of stabilisation near the end. The estimate turned out to
be within 0.29% of the inclined value.
In contrast, Figs. 12 and 13 show the history of a stable project
which did not experience surprises during design, nor dangerous errors
in prediction. Both the weight estimate and the vertical centre of
gravity prediction were stable for many months prior to the inclining
test, which revealed a lightship lower than the predicted values, and a
VCG slightly higher (0.33%) than predicted.
Finally, Fig. 14 shows the history of a project which experienced
continuous difficulties and changes during design and build, expressed
by the almost continuous increase in net (no margin) and gross (with
margin) predicted lightweight.
4.3. Variable deck load and typical loading conditions
The outcome of the design and build process should yield a vessel
with a useful carrying capacity in all its operating conditions. The vessel
deckload capacity at operating draft must also be capable of being
Fig. 13. Project/Vessel 2 –Two-Monthly reports of predicted VCG.
773
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
carried at the survival draft as the overall allowable vertical centre of
gravity at the survival draft and the operating draft are linked by the so
called “deballasting curve”. For transit conditions, it is desirable to
carry large quantities of fuel but typically smaller deckloads without
submerging the pontoon tops.
The variable deck load requirements of floatels are generally much
smaller than those of semi-submersible drilling rigs, and this is reflected
in the actual capacities of the recently delivered units. While some have
advertised variable load capacities of 1500–2500 tonnes, many have a
true deckload capacity considerably lower than this. Often, a deckload
capacity is quoted which actually includes variable loads distributed
below the upper deck, such as personnel and effects, small tanks and
stores which can amount to 200 or 300 tonnes. Also, the useful payload
which can be carried depends on the presence (or not) of snow and ice
in the stability calculations. In addition, the operating mode of the unit
can have a substantial effect, as the moored mode can give a lower
overall centre of gravity than DP mode due to wire paid off the high up
winches, and mooring tension acting on fairleaders positioned low.
Taking these factors into account, most of the new floatels will have
true deckloads (positioned 1 m above the main deck) in the region of
1000 tonnes ignoring snow and ice, and around 700 tonnes accounting
for 200–400 tonnes of snow and ice. In practice, floatel working
deckloads are usually smaller than this – often less than 200 tonnes.
Table 18 compares some typical loading conditions for two older
floatels (one DP, one moored) with those of 3 new vessels. In these
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Fig. 14. Project/Vessel 3 – Two-Monthly reports of predicted lightship weight (with and without margin).

conditions the older vessels achieve GM values around 3.5 m with true
variable deckloads of only 160 and 210 tonnes, with comfortable
margins on allowable vertical centre of gravity. No snow or ice is
considered.
The newer vessels are presented in conditions which include more
deckload (326–726 tonnes), with snow and ice also considered in some
cases. It can be seen that Design 1 (with relatively slender columns)
may carry 726 tonnes together with snow and ice when using virtually
all of the allowable centre of gravity. This produces a GM (transverse)
of only 1.87 m, which is noticeably lower than the other vessel
conditions given in the table. Even if snow and ice are ignored and a
lighter, more realistic deckload of 326 tonnes is considered, the re-
sulting GM in DP mode of 2.68 m is still not large, despite the 0.89 m
margin on VCG. This is not a very different result from that for Design 3
in DP mode with 500 tonnes of deckload and snow/ice.
A very different result is obtained with Design 2 which has relatively
large and square columns and achieves higher GM values of around 6 m
in DP or moored mode when carrying around 700 tonnes of deckload or
snow/ice. These vessels also have a substantial margin (c. 2.5 m) on
VCG remaining, indicating that higher deckloads are possible.

Table 18
Comparison of typical operating conditions at operating draft.
Vessel actual ID Older vessels New vessels

A B 1 2 3

Mode Moored or DP DP Moor Moor DP Moor DP DP

True Deck load Weight (t) 210 160 726 326 670 400 500
VCG (m) 32.45 36.1 37.1 37.1 36.7 36.7 37.95
Loads for operation Snow & ice (t) 0 0 204 0 0 367 204
Snow, ice VCG (m) 0 0 31.16 0 0 41.1 31.2
Mooring tension (t) 0 159 728 0 787 0 0
Tension VCG (m) 0 15.0 16.92 0 16.2 0 0
Small tanks, stores (t) 133 282 307.5 307.5 200 200 307.5
Small tanks VCG (m) 11.3 30.76 29.76 29.76 – – 29.76
Other variable loads Fuel 930 594 1950 1950 2948 2948 2000
Fuel VCG (m) 3.31 1.66 6.64 6.64 5.5 5.5 6.64
Fresh water (t) 446 760 700 700 750 750 500
Fresh VCG (m) 15.43 10.32 4.2 4.2 4.41 4.41 4.78
Other (t) 378 58 221 221 – – 50
Subtotal (t) 1754 1413 2871 2871 – – 2550
Subtotal VCG (m) 11.69 7.62 9.91 9.91 – – 10.75
Ballast water Weight (t) 4932 6823 6421 7753 8249 8310 9110
VCG (m) 3.87 4.04 3.477 3.477 – – 3.23
Overall vertical centre of gravity VCG solid (m) 17.332 16.219 20.946 20.12 17.44 17.28 19.56
FSC transverse (m) 0.08 0.252 0.166 0.166 0.16 0.18 0.144
FSC longitudinal (m) 0.18 0.681 0.194 0.194 0.40 0.44 0.353
VCG transverse (m) 17.416 16.471 21.11 20.29 17.61 17.45 19.70
VCG longitudinal (m) 17.513 16.900 21.14 20.31 17.84 17.71 19.91
Overall KG margin, KM and GM Allowable KG (m) 18.272 17.185 21.20 21.20 20.30 20.30 20.764
Margin on KG (m) 0.76 0.285 0.06 0.893 2.46 2.587 0.86
KMt (m) 20.72 20.12 22.98 22.98 23.58 23.58 22.22
KMl (m) 20.67 20.59 22.95 22.95 23.24 23.24 24.94
GMt (m) 3.30 3.65 1.87 2.68 5.97 6.12 2.52
GMl (m) 3.16 3.69 1.81 2.64 5.40 5.53 5.02

774
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 19
Examples of weight growth through life – two existing semi-submersible floatels.
Vessel Years duration considered As built condition Later life condition Averaged annual increase

X 23 Lightship 12,485t Lightship 14,261t 77 Tonnes (0.62%)

VCG 21.3m VCG 23.30m 8.7 cm (0.41%)
Y 30 Lightship 14,192t Lightship 15,912t 57 Tonnes (0.40%)
VCG 22.92m VCG 26.67m 12.5 cm (0.54%)

Fig. 15. Relationship of waterplane area to displacement – old and new generation semi-submersibles.

It is worth noting that the governing stability direction for all these
vessels is usually longitudinal rather than transverse, even though the
hydrostatic stiffness (KM) is sometimes greater when inclined long-
itudinally (e.g. if columns have blisters fitted). This is because the
pontoon tanks produce a greater free surface effect in that axis.
The new designs have KM values some 2–3 m higher than the older
generation. As a general design rule, pontoon volume should be re-
duced as far as possible to maintain a high KM value.
4.4. Weight growth during life
It is of course impossible to predict the changes which these vessels
will encounter during their working lifetime, but experience shows that
change is a common feature. Indeed, less than one year after delivery
the Safe Boreas was modified by the placement of a temporary ac-
commodation module for 40 persons on the main deck. This should be
considered when setting the target deckload capacity of newbuild
floatel, in addition to the expected normal operating deckload.
Reference to previous vessels can provide some guidance, and
Table 19 contains data extracted from widely separated inclining tests
of two randomly selected older floatels. It can be seen that there is
substantial growth in both weight and vertical centre of gravity. These
two vessels had at that time not undergone radical transformation or
conversion, but had been subject to some upgrades and enhancements
including additional accommodation modules, upgraded mooring
winches etc.
5. Motion performance
5.1. First order motions
Reduced movement in the open ocean environment is the primary
purpose of the semi-submersible configuration, and this objective is
achieved by giving priority to the following features;
• Resonant frequencies of motion in heave, pitch and roll should occur
at long periods, beyond those of the waves commonly found in the
intended operating areas
• Distribution of buoyancy arranged so that wave excitation in com-
monly occurring wave periods is minimised (by arranging for
“cancellation” of up/down vertical forces and moments, and by
cancelling of pressure and inertia effects)
The first of these features is obtained by having low stiffness, which
is achieved by a using a small waterplane area relative to the displaced
mass. The second feature requires the submerged depths of the pontoon
upper and lower surfaces to be considered, as well as the “shielding” of
the pontoon top by the columns placed thereon.
Fig. 15 indicates that the new vessels generally have a larger water
plane area relative to their displacement than the older generation.
Despite this, the new vessels generally achieve heave periods no less
than 20 s, and resonant roll and pitch periods in the region of 40–50 s.
These are not much shorter than the older vessels, and well beyond the
average wave periods to be expected in most operating areas of the

Table 20
Periods of wave and swell spectra.
Sea Area West Africa Gulf of Mexico Brazil (Campos) West of Shetland (all year) Northern North Sea (all year)

Annual average Tp (s) 12.0 5.95 9.1 9.6 7.9

Percent of time when Tp exceeds 15s 12% 0% 5% 1.5% 0%

775
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 21
Comparison of pontoon submergence of old and new designs.
Design Type Vessel Operating draft Pontoon depth Pontoon as percent of Pontoon top submergence
(m) (m) operating draft (m)

Modern 4 column type – 1980s Safe Boreas (as built) 18.6 9.75 52.4% 8.85
onwards Safe Boreas prior pontoon height 18.6 8.96 48.2% 9.64
change
Floatel Endurance/Superior 18.0 8.625 47.9% 9.375
Regalia (1985) 17.5 7.85 44.8% 9.65
Safe Notos/Eurus 20.0 9.0 45.0% 11.0
6 or 8 column type – 1970s basic Safe Caledonia (Pacesetter design) 18.29 6.13 33.5% 12.16
design Safe Scandinavia (Aker H3.2 design) 22.0 7.2 32.7% 14.8

Fig. 16. Heave transfer function for four designs of semi-submersibles.

world. The probability of encountering sea spectra with a peak period
beyond 15 s is rather low, as Table 20 indicates.
It is more difficult to compare the old and new vessels in terms of
the second objective of reducing wave excitation. However, Table 21
does compare the pontoon top submergence of a number of vessels. The
pontoon now consumes nearly half of the draught, compared to one
third in the older designs. This means that the modern vessels have
pontoon tops significantly closer to the still water line (c. 9 m) than the
older designs (12–14 m), despite their larger size. They are basically
less “submersible” in form than the older vessels. This is likely to make
the pontoon top more susceptible to first and second order wave action,
especially if the vessel is trimmed or heeled slightly, thus bringing the
pontoon top even closer to the surface.
The overall effect of these differences is illustrated in Fig. 16, which
compares the heave transfer function for two of the new four column
floatel designs (GVA 3000E and DSS20NS) and two more traditional 8
column designs from Aker. The heave transfer functions are plotted
together with the probability distribution of the wave periods expected
in the northern North Sea (Haltenbanken seas states shown).
The Aker H3 is an old design, representative of some of the first
generation floatels, and can be seen to have a very long natural heave
period (about 25 s) and low response in the commonly encountered
wave periods from 5 to 10 s. The Aker H4.2 was considered a large
design in the 1980s (around 39,000 tonnes displacement) but now is
not much larger than some of the new floatels considered in this paper.
It has a generally similar response to the old Aker H3 (although with
slightly shorter heave natural period and higher responses), and has low
heave response in the common wave periods and beyond.
The two new floatel designs show higher heave response in the
range from 8 s upwards, around 100% more than the 8 column Aker
H4.2 design in 10 s waves. From about 12 to 17 s the performance is no
worse than the old Aker H3 design.
5.2. Second order motions
In addition to the first order motions (reactions to the frequency of
the incident waves), floating vessels are also susceptible to so called
second order effects, including steady and slowly varying wave drift
forces. There is significant low frequency wave group energy at periods
over 40 s, and this can be close to the semi-submersible natural periods
of pitch and roll. This may have consequences for station-keeping and
also for motions such as pitch and roll.
These second order effects are difficult to observe and predict op-
erationally, as they occur at such long periods. They can cause occa-
sional unexpected motions with amplitudes in excess of the underlying
trend. Surge is a highly damped motion with low frequency peaks fol-
lowing a strongly non-Gaussian process. One consequence is that the
extreme peaks are much larger than for a Rayleigh distributed process
with the same standard deviation.
During the 1980s, one aspect of these second order effects had been
observed in model tests and calculations (Atlar, 1987) whereby a semi-
submersible can take on a steady tilt angle in regular head seas. It is
only relatively recently (Voogt et al., 2002; Voogt and Soles, 2007) that
the existence of these effects has been observed at full scale.
A series of model tests found that this steady heel angle increased
for shallower vessel drafts (i.e. pontoon top near the surface – ref.
Table 21) and increased current speeds. Increasing the vessel static
stability was found to reduce or eliminate the steady list angle.
Furthermore, vertical forces on the pontoons can cause roll motions
in head seas (Voogt and Soles, 2007) which is counter intuitive to crew
expectations. Increasing static stability can reduce such motions but not
eliminate them. Voogt and Soles (2007) report model test results and
real-world experience of low frequency roll motions of a drilling semi-
submersible occurring in short period head seas combined with current.
The motions had a period near the vessel natural roll period, suggesting

776
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Fig. 17. Quadratic Transfer Function for Surge Wave Drift Force – Aker H3.2 old design and new design.

Table 22
Number and capacity of mooring lines.
Mooring type No. of mooring lines Line size Nominal Line MBL (t) No. x MBL (t)

Floatel Reliance N/A (DP only) 2 (harbour use) – – –

Floatel Superior, Floatel Endurance Wire 8 76 mm 490 3920
Wire 10 83 mm 580 5800
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph Chain 10 70 mm 510 5100
76 mm 610 6100
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus Wire 12 90 mm 640 7680
Neptuno, Atlantis N/A 4 (harbour) – – –
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus Chain 10 76 mm 612 6120
Safe Nova, Safe Vega Wire 10 96 mm 750 7500
OOS Tiradentes N/A (DP only) None – – –

they are due to low frequency forcing. It was found that by changing the
vessel heading 30–45° these roll motions could be completely removed.
Roll and pitch motions from these second order effects can be ad-
versely affected by low static stability characteristics (ref. Table 18).
One report of model test investigations of the phenomena (Voogt et al.,
2002) states that a “disadvantage of very low initial stability is increased
sensitivity to the energy in wave groups at a frequency close to the natural
period in pitch and roll. This means that although the roll and pitch natural
periods are far removed from normal wave periods and therefore roll and
pitch resulting from normal waves will be small, roll or pitch may be severely
increased due to the natural period of wave groups. Such an increase was
observed in the model tests.”
The details of one sudden motion incident involving a modern de-
sign drilling semi-submersible offshore Norway have been published
(Browne, 2013). It has been found with some vessels that the vessel's
thrusters and dynamic positioning system can be used to reduce roll and
pitch motions (Jenssen, 2010).
Robust initial stability is one solution to some of the above problems
and this can be obtained by large column dimensions. However, this
introduces issues related to second order effects on station-keeping, so
that careful compromise is required.
5.3. Effect of second order forces on station-keeping
The new semi-submersible designs also appear to be more suscep-
tible to horizontal excursion caused by second order wave drift forces.
These can excite the natural period of the mooring or thruster system.
Resonant motions and hence large amplitudes can occur as a result of
modest input forces.
The modern generation designs have four columns, typically square
in cross section (with rounded corners), having lengths and breadths in
the range 13 m–14 m. This may be compared with the circular section
columns of the older designs, which had diameters in the range
8 m–10 m for the corner columns, and smaller for the intermediate
columns.
Fig. 17 compares the quadratic transfer function for horizontal wave
drift in the surge direction, for an old and a new design semi-sub-
mersible. It can be seen that the new design has a very much larger
response in wave periods around 8 s. These wave periods are common
in the North Sea and elsewhere.
When analysed together with a wave energy spectrum, the mean
surge wave drift force is considerably higher (by a factor of around 3)
for the new vessels than for the older slender column designs. One study
in waves of 7 m Hs shows horizontal forces of 50 tonnes compared to 15
tonnes (at 12s Tp) and 80 tonnes compared to 27 tonnes (at 8s Tp).
The difference between the old and new designs is less severe in the
sway direction for understandable reasons of column numbers and hull
geometry (the older designs presented a larger number of columns in
the sway axis). Nevertheless, in a 7 m Hs seastate the newer designs can
attract horizontal forces around 33–50 tonnes (increasing with reducing
wave period), some 50% higher than the older slender column designs
(22–35 tonnes).

777
J. MacGregor et al.
Fig. 18. Configuration of 3 mooring windlasses on single drive shaft.
These characteristics have implications for the selection of the best
location of the gangway during design, and the selection of the most
appropriate heading (when possible) during operation, in order to
minimise horizontal excursions which consume the gangway stroke.
Some of the new designs appear to move less in a transverse direction,
and so are best positioned beam on to the waves, and the gangway is
probably also best positioned in a transverse rather than longitudinal
direction.
6. Mooring
6.1. Design basis
Most of the new vessels have their origin in dynamically positioned
designs. Mooring has been something of a secondary consideration in
some of the projects, and some have no offshore mooring capability
installed. Indeed, without thruster assistance some of the new mooring
designs would not be adequate for harsh environment operation when
subjected to the latest mooring analysis codes.
Table 22 shows the number and strength of mooring lines fitted on
each of the vessels.
The North Sea rigs generally have to comply with the requirements
of ISO code 19001-07 Annex B2 Table B2 (ISO, 2013). This requires
consideration of two line broken cases (in 10 year return weather),
whereas previously only single line failure was generally considered in
mooring design. In addition, modern analyses are conducted with
generally increased line factors of safety, longer metocean return per-
iods, and the methods account more fully for relevant effects such as
line dynamics and 2nd order motions which might have been neglected
in the past. These requirements pose increased challenges for the
mooring system design, and 8 point systems will be unsuitable for
mooring close alongside fixed platforms. In practice, this has been the
case since at least the late 1980s, when NPD (Odland, 1990) and DNV
(Christiansen et al., 1994) required different factors of safety for such
moored operations, compared to open water drilling operations. At that
time, the more simplistic quasi-static analysis method was permitted.
6.2. Choice of chain or wire mooring
Wire moorings are generally quieter during retrieval/payout
778
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
operations than chain moorings, and this may be one reason why wire
has commonly been used for accommodation units in areas where their
drilling counterparts use chain. New DnVGL standards apply a fairlead
bending reduction factor for wire ropes which generally reduces the
strength that can be considered in a mooring analysis by about 15%
from the nominal/catalogue value.
Wire moorings result in a high centre of gravity for the mooring
lines when stored on the winches. This has been mitigated in some
designs (e.g. GustoMSC Ocean 500) by fitting the winches in recesses
below the main deck.
Chain moorings allow a smaller and lighter winch/windlass (no
need to carry multiple wraps of wire), and also the weight of the
mooring line is carried low in the vessel. However, chain mooring in-
troduces downflooding points near the deck edges of the vessel, and the
effect of a flooded chain locker on the GZ curve can prove problematic
when considering damaged stability.
6.3. Chain lockers
For those rigs opting to use chain instead of wire, the chain locker
capacity previously represented a substantial demand on space within
the pontoons and columns.
These volumetric demands have declined as mooring practices have
changed. Formerly, moored rigs carried their own anchors and a full
length of chain or wire (sometimes 1.5 km per leg). In the North Sea,
modern mooring practice is for the anchors and most of the mooring
line length to be laid in the field prior to the rig arrival. Anchor
handling vessels are then used to retrieve and connect the rig lines to
the pre-laid lines. Around 600 m of chain or wire is sufficient for the
handover and connection operations. This is one of the few areas where
the modern design requirement is less onerous than before.
For example, the Safe Notos design has 12 chain lockers, with a total
volume of about 450 m3. The older Safe Scandinavia was originally
designed for the same size of chain with 12 lockers, but required a
volume of 1640 m3.
6.4. Mooring winches
Most of the previous generation of semi-submersibles used hy-
draulically powered winches or windlasses. With the new generation,
J. MacGregor et al.
electrically powered winches have become more common.
The Safe Notos and Safe Eurus are fitted with four sets of electrically
driven chain windlasses, one at each corner. Two of the sets include 3
windlasses (Fig. 18) while the other two are installed with 2 windlasses,
with space and other provisions made for future upgrade to 3, to give a
12 point mooring system if required.
The 10 windlasses are rated for 76 mm R4 chain with a MBL of 612
tonnes, and have a parking brake capacity of 620 tonnes. Windlass
pulling capacities include 270 tonnes at 13 m/min (high load, low
gear), 108 tonnes at 28 m/min (high speed, low gear), as well as 42
tonnes at 86 m/min (high speed, high gear).
On the Safe Notos each corner of the vessel is fitted with a 690 kW
motor driving up to 3 windlasses on a common shaft. The electrical
system is arranged with frequency converters for variable speed, and
braking resistors for absorbing reverse power during payout. The
system is designed to allow multiple windlasses to work simulta-
neously.
The winches may be controlled from a console, located in the vessel
Central Control Room (Bridge), as well as from local controls placed in
four winch control cabins (one at each corner of the unit).
Other features associated with winches on a floatel include a deluge
system located above each windlass and a seawater washing system for
the chain. The deluge system is intended to minimise the risk of spark
ignition during rapid pay-out of the chain during an emergency. Release
of the chains on one side of the floatel is a technique which may be used
to move a moored vessel away from a fire/gas event on the client
platform by using the energy stored in the opposing chain catenaries.
Further separation distance may be obtained by powered winching.
6.5. Fairleaders and anchor bolsters
On the Safe Notos, each mooring line is provided with a seven
pocket self-aligning fairlead mounted on the column. The fairleads are
self-lubricating and designed for submerged operation. The fairleads
are capable of 180° travel, and arranged so that they may be locked in
position parallel to the column face to avoid swinging and banging
when not in use during transit and DP operations.
Compared with the older designs, the new vessels have shorter
columns, due to generally smaller air gap (Table 3a) and deeper pon-
toons (which gives reduced pontoon submergence - see Table 21).
These shorter columns make it more difficult to arrange mooring fair-
leaders sufficiently low while at the same time allowing the chain or
wire to depart at a sufficiently steep angle without hitting the anchor
bolsters (if fitted).
Some of the new vessels (e.g. the four Floatel vessels) have the
fairleaders placed very close to the operating draft waterline (or even
above in the case of Floatel Victory/Triumph). On some others the fair-
lead was moved lower from the designer's initial position, to about 2 m
below waterline.
This subject is relevant when considering the operations of supply
vessels alongside the floatel. These vessels are becoming larger and
deeper drafted, and mooring lines near the surface can restrict the room
for manoeuvre. This is a concern for operating draft only, as supply
boats are not allowed alongside at survival draft due the risk of damage
in excess of those considered in the damaged stability regulations.
The effect of the shorter columns on the relationship between fair-
leaders and anchor bolsters on the newer designs has been described
above. This geometrical problem is countered to a great extent by the
fact that many of the modern floatels are not fitted with anchor bolsters.
The older vessels had anchor bolsters fitted below all fairleaders, and
required to carry up to 3 anchors on the bolsters for insurance purposes
when in transit as they had no independent means of propulsion. The
new designs are generally well endowed with redundant propulsion
systems, and can thus argue to carry no anchor, or only one on a bolster
when in transit.
779
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
Table 23
Results of DP Simulations assuming co-linear environment.
Intact Loss of single Two thrusters
thruster unavailable
Wave height Hs (m) 11.6 9.6 8.6
Wave period Tz (s) 9.0 9.0 9.0
Wind speed (m/s) 38.5 32.1 29.2
Surface current speed (m/s) 0.46 0.46 0.46
Removal of bolsters has also been encouraged due to safety concerns
regarding the risk of a stowed anchor coming loose and damaging the
bolster and then the watertight hull. This was less of a concern on the
older permanently moored floatels (although such damage did occa-
sionally occur) as the anchors were usually off the bolster. With the new
floatels operating on DP for much of the time, stowed anchors would be
exposed to this risk for a greater percentage of time. A serious incident
occurred to one such vessel in the Norwegian sector (Andersen et al.,
2014) and this has acted as a catalyst to discourage anchor stowage on
bolsters on such vessels.
7. Dynamic station-keeping and propulsion
7.1. Dynamic positioning
All of the new vessels have a dynamic positioning capability, with
offshore spread mooring sometimes absent, or something of an after-
thought in some designs. This is in contrast to the previous generation
where mooring was the primary means of station-keeping and only a
very small number of vessels had a DP capability.
The principles of dynamic positioning are well presented elsewhere
and not repeated here. Most of the new designs have DP3 classification
and three engine rooms. For these vessels, that means a worst-case
failure mode involving loss of two thrusters (due to loss of one engine
room or switchboard room). The weather conditions for design vary
from case to case, but Table 23 presents the performance of one modern
design under various failure modes.
In addition, this vessel can hold station with one thruster failed in
conditions with high surface current (1.4 m/s), waves of 5.9 m H and
winds of 16 m/s (1 min average). These are requirements for floatels
operating on DP offshore Brazil.
These limiting weather conditions are calculated using well estab-
lished methods. However, it should perhaps be noted that the modern
drilling semi-submersible which experienced wave impact damage
offshore Norway in late 2015 (PSA, 2016) was subjected to a sudden
large excursion due to the horizontal impulse applied to the deck box.
Such events are not captured in DP simulation tools or onboard DP
predictors. This therefore makes it critical that DP vessels are not op-
erated in situations where a loss of air gap may occur and cause such a
dangerous loss of position. Fortunately, the DP mode allows floatels to
remove themselves from forecast severe weather conditions in a way
which moored semi-submersibles cannot.
7.2. Thrusters
To achieve the desired dynamic positioning capacity, all the new
vessels are fitted with thrusters of the fixed pitch type, driven by ver-
tically mounted variable speed motors, supplied from frequency con-
vertor drives. The previous generation of floatels employed variable
pitch constant speed thrusters. The fixed pitch type of thruster certainly
reduces the risk of failure due to mechanical or hydraulic system de-
fects, but the associated frequency converter drives introduce com-
plexity and potential new sources of failure.
To maximise commonality of spares, most vessels have opted for all
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 24
Station-keeping equipment installed.
DP class No. of thrusters Thruster rating (MW) Total thruster power (kW) Power – Operating Displacement (kW/t)

Floatel Reliance DP2 4 2.5 10,000 0.558

Floatel Superior, Floatel Endurance DP3 6 3.2 19,200 0.657
3.5 21,000 0.625
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph DP3 6 3.2 19,200 0.716
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus DP3 6 4.0 24,000 0.707
Neptuno, Atlantis DP3 6 3.7 22,200 0.665
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus DP3 6 3.7 22,200 0.665
Safe Nova, Safe Vega DP3 6 3.8 22,800 0.605
OOS Tiradentes DP3 6 3.8 22,800 –

Fig. 19. Results of speed and power trials – three hull designs.
thrusters sharing the same direction of rotation and the same propeller
blades. The thrusters are generally fitted with tilted nozzles to direct the
outflow away from the underside of the pontoons and so avoid loss of
thrust due to the Coanda effect.
The thruster powers installed are listed in Table 24, and related to
vessel size by means of a power/weight ratio.
The smaller 2500 kW thrusters of a previous generation projected
around 3.8 m beneath the pontoon, while the larger modern floatels
have thrusters projecting 5 m–5.4 m below the keel, and weighing
43–64 tonnes. These thrusters are too heavy to be handled by the on-
board cranes, unless a lifting capacity of more than the typical 50
tonnes has been installed.
Even if a suitable crane is in place to assist in thruster changeout
operations, the procedure for removing and reinstalling an underwater
demountable thruster on these vessels is time consuming and ex-
pensive, requiring the use of divers and heavy lifting operations inside
the thruster room. Due to the deep draft, these operations frequently
need to be carried out far from shore where exposure to weather is
increased.
Fig. 20. Collation of Speed Trial Results – versus function of speed and dis-
placement.
Although it is not easy to achieve on a semi-submersible design
equipped with six thrusters and only four columns, a design which al-
lowed the thrusters to be retracted vertically into the hull would be
potentially attractive. It could allow vessel berthing in a wider range of
ports, and save considerable time and cost when carrying out repairs or
planned overhauls. Some of the monohull DP drillships have employed
retractable thruster arrangements for many years (MacGregor et al.,
2001).
7.3. Speed performance
Speed trials results for transit draft are presented in Fig. 19 for
Designs 1, 2 and 3 with different pontoon characteristics as shown in
Table 25. For Design 1, results are given for the lead ship (1a) at 97.7%
of pontoon draft and a displacement of 27,082 tonnes, and for the
follow ship (1b) at 97% of pontoon draft and a displacement of 26,792
tonnes. A further set of results is given for 1b, trimmed 1° by the stern.

Table 25
Pontoon Proportions for Vessels subject to Speed Trials.
Length (m) Beam (m) L/B ratio Height (m) End shape - profile End shape – plan view Displaced volume (m3) Block coefficient

Design 1 (vessels 1a, 1b) 97.5 15.0 6.50 9.75 Flat top and bottom Elliptical 13,469 0.944
Design 2 95.0 14.0 6.78 9.00 Square with radius Square with radius corners 11,905 0.994
corners
Design 3 104.5 13.65a 7.66a 9.75 Square with radius Triangle 14,285 1.027a
17.55b 5.95b corners 0.799b

a
Excluding sponsons.
b
Including sponsons.

780
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 26
Results of turning trials.
Draft as % of pontoon Speed Tactical Diameter Advance (m) Transfer (m) Time to turn Notes
depth (knots) (m) (seconds)

Ocean Confidence (Ren et al., 131% 6.0 370 252 155 195 for 90° All 8 thrusters turned 45°
2001) 6.0 147 200 65 147 for 90° All 8 thrusters turned 90°
4.1 293 278 120 230 for 90° 4 thrusters turned 45°
3.8 130 160 52 160 for 90° 4 thrusters turned 90°
Design 1 97% 10.1 573 417 255 – 2 thrusters steering
7.7 582 378 240 – 2 thrusters steering
Design 2 96.4% 4.5 – – – 925 for 360°
4.3 – – – 731 for 360°
7.8 – – – 445 for 360°
7.3 – – – 371 for 360°
Design 3 98.5% 9.5 – – – 580 for 360°
10.0 – – – 659 for 360°

Table 27
Crash stop trials results.
Vessel Draft as % of Speed (knots) Time to Stop Time to Full Astern Distance
pontoon depth (seconds) (sec) travelled (m)

Ocean Confidence (Ren et al., 2001) 131% 3.8 68 – 108a

5.6 70 – 141a
6.7 74 – 160a
3.3 68 – 81a
3.6 67 – 86a
4.3 80 – 11a
Design 1 97% 9.4 46 121 112b
10.1 54 131 138b
Design 2 96.4% 9.3 64 – –
4.5 100 – –
Design 3 98.5% 8.6 68 – 206c

a
Ahead reach.
b
Track length.
c
To stop.

For Design 2, the results relate to a condition at 96.4% of pontoon
draft and a displacement of 23,526 tonnes. For Design 3, the results
relate to a condition at 98.5% of pontoon draft and a displacement of
28,770 tonnes.
With pontoons having length from 95 to 104.5 m, the Froude
Number at 10 knots is between 0.16 and 0.17. This is well below the
sharp increase in wave resistance which occurs at Froude numbers
above 0.4.
It can be seen that Design 3, with the more slender pontoon, re-
quires considerably less power than the other designs for the same
speed. The superior performance is more marked when one notes the
increased displacement which is being propelled for the lesser power.
There does not appear to be much performance difference between
Designs 1 and 2, although the following design differences are noted;
• Design 2 pontoons are slightly more slender than Design 1, despite
Design 1 having a more streamlined bow and stern shape
• Design 1 pontoons are deeper (more wetted surface) than Design 2
• Design 2 is less heavy than Design 1 in these conditions.
For Designs 1a/b, it can be seen that the second vessel required
considerably more power than the first, for reasons which are not fully
understood. When Design 1b was tested trimmed 1° by the stern this
gave much better results than the level trim test.
Fig. 20 combines the results for all vessels, by plotting required
thruster power against a function of displacement raised to the power
0.6667 (intended to represented wetted surface area) and speed raised
to the power 2.7. The correlation is not particularly good, but a clear
trend is evident.

7.4. Manoeuvring

At the same time as the speed trials reported above, manoeuvring

Fig. 21. Typical arrangement of three thruster pairs.
and crash stop trials were conducted on the new floatels. The six
powerful azimuthing thrusters mean that turning and stopping perfor-
mance is excellent.
In Tables 26 and 27, the results of these tests are compared with
those from the Ocean Confidence (Ren et al., 2001), a heavily modified
Aker H3.2 hullform (former floatel) fitted with eight 3000 kW

781
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Fig. 22. Typical connections between three sets of power generation/distribution and thrusters.

Table 28
Main generators.
DP2 or No. of Cylinder bore Engine No. of Generator rating Total power Power – Operating
DP3 engines (cm) layout cylinders (kWe) (kWe) Displacement (kWe/t)

Floatel Reliance 2 4 26 12 V 48 3900 15,600 0.87

Floatel Superior, Floatel Endurance 3 6 25 16 V 96 3680 22,080 0.76
26 16 V 96 4700 28,200 0.84
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph 3 6 26 12 V 72 3900 23,400 0.87
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus 3 6 26 16 V 96 5020 30,120 0.89
Neptuno, Atlantis 3 6 32 9L 54 4800 28,800 0.86
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus 3 6 32 9L 54 4800 28,800 0.86
Safe Nova, Safe Vega 3 6 32 9L 54 4750 28,500 0.76
OOS Tiradentes 3 6 5445 32,670 N/A

controllable pitch thrusters. That vessel was tested at a deep transit
draft of 10.5 m, with a displacement of 33,740 tonnes.
8. Power generation, electrical and automation systems
8.1. Overall system architecture
For the vessels intended to achieve DP3 notation, the balance be-
tween minimising equipment installation and station-keeping perfor-
mance was achieved by dividing the propulsion system into three equal
families (each with two generator sets, one switchboard room and two
widely separated thrusters). This allows 66% of the installed power to
remain available after the loss of any single space, without having to
rely on any complex cross connections in the electrical power and
cooling systems for the thrusters.
The thrusters are typically grouped in pairs according to the prin-
ciple in Fig. 21, so that loss of one distribution system will result in loss
of thrusters at opposite corners of the unit, thus minimising the re-
duction in station-keeping capacity. The cable routing and piping
routings to achieve these groups can be complex, especially considering
that there are two or four pump rooms in the pontoons, but three engine
rooms in the deck box requiring a separate supply of cooling water.
Fig. 22 illustrates one scheme for cable routing.

782
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 29
Comparison of electrical systems on three classes of floatel design.
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus Safe Notos, Safe Eurus Safe Nova, Safe Vega

Concept Generating Voltage 11,000 V 6,600 V 11,000 V

Other voltages onboard 690 V, 450 V, 230 V 450 V, 230 V 690 V, 450 V, 230 V
No. MV switchboard rooms 3 3 3
No. of LV switchboard rooms 0 (part of MV rooms) 0 (separated part of MV rooms) 3
Outer Bus Tie for Main switchboard ? No Yes Yes
Main generators 6 x 5950 kVA 6 x 6000 kVA 6 x 5938 kVA
Emergency/harbour generator None – 2 main generators are rated for emergency 1500 kW at 450 V 1540 kW at 690 V
duty
Switch board Number of sections 3 3 (with splitter CB in each) 6 (3 pairs)
Number of consumer sections in main 11 16 (plus 3 spares) 12
board
Thruster transformers 6 x 5000 kVA 6 x 4550 kVA 6 x 4500 kVA
11,000/690 V 6600/2200 V 11,000/690 V
Ship Service transformers 3 x 3500 kVA 6 x 3000 kVA 6 x 2800 kVA
11,000/690 V 6600/450 V 11,000/690 V
Other transformers 2 x 1000 kVA 4 x 1000 kVA None
11,000/690 V for winch VFDs 6600/710 V for winch VFDs
Spare capacity None 3 × 1250A CBs 3 cubicles
Notes Cranes fed from 450 V boards Winches fed from 690 V board

8.2. Main engines
The power to achieve the required station-keeping performance is
considerable, and this dominates the overall system load balance and
engine selection. Installed powers range from 20 to 30 MW, as shown in
Table 28.
One problem with such high installed powers is that normal DP
loads are much lower than the governing design case. In DP3 mode with
three pairs of engines, some clients will insist on 6 engines constantly
running to avoid temporary blackouts. In such cases the engines are
subjected to prolonged operations at low load.
The new floatels have selected a range of different medium speed
engines. The smaller bore 25 cm and 26 cm vee configuration engines
with 900 or 1000 rpm used in the earliest new vessels are a legacy from
the previous generation of floatels. These characteristics allowed en-
gines of higher power/weight ratio and a lower height, which were
important for the previous smaller semi-submersibles.
For example, a 5000 kWe generator set based on a vee configuration
26 cm engine would weigh 70 tonnes and be 3.7 m high, compared with
84 tonnes and 4.0 m for a 4800kWe inline set from the same maker but
based on a 32 cm and 720 rpm design. This is a difference of nearly 90
tonnes on a six generator installation.
However, these benefits came with a penalty in the form of higher
fuel consumption, and (in the new high power installations) a large
number of cylinders to maintain. The later vessels in the current gen-
eration opted for 32 cm bore inline engines, as they had sufficient
weight carrying capacity and height in the deck box to accommodate
them. This allowed a reduction in cylinder count from 96 to 54, and a
reduction in fuel consumption from c. 190 g/kW-hr to 176 g/kW-hr
under ISO conditions.
8.3. Electrical and automation systems
Table 29 illustrates the range of choices made in the configuration
of the main switchboard, and other choices such as selection of gen-
erating voltage, powering of mooring winches etc. Despite common
features such as six thruster transformers, quite substantial differences
may be observed in the number of sections and cubicles in the main
switchboard, and the number and capacity of the supply transformers to
the lower voltage systems.
The onboard marine equipment is monitored and controlled by in-
tegrated automation systems, with distributed I/O cabinets around the
vessel, a number of processing stations and distributed operator inter-
faces (VDU based).
On most of the vessels, the vessel automation system takes care of
the power management of the main generators and consumers, and is
supplied in an integrated package together with the DP control system.
Usually the fire and gas detection and emergency shutdown systems
(ESD) are supplied as part of the same integrated package. The HVAC,
crane and mooring winch installations are controlled by their own
dedicated systems, with interfaces to the ship's control network.
The DP sensors do not include the hydro-acoustic or taut wire sys-
tems normally fitted on construction vessels (although these may be
retrofitted), but focus on relative positioning systems including
gangway stroke sensor, Cyscan (laser referencing) and Radius (radar
scanning), as well as DGPS.

Table 30
Installed lifeboat capacity.
Lifeboat type Layout of boat No. boats Boat Total persons in Philosophy Capacity with one boat Capacity with one side
stations capacity boats out of service out of service

Floatel Reliance Davit 3 sides (2, 4, 4) 10 200%

Floatel Superior, Floatel Freefall 3 sides (4, 2, 2) 8 70 560 Alternative N+1 490 280
Endurance
Floatel Victory, Floatel Davit 3 sides (4, 4, 2) 10 100 1000 200% 900 600
Triumph
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus Freefall 3 sides (2, 3, 3) 8 70 560 Alternative N+1 490 420
Neptuno, Atlantis Davit 3 sides (4, 4, 4) 12 125 1500 200% 1375 1000
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus Davit 2 sides (4, 4) 8 125 1000 2 × 100% 875 500
Safe Nova, Safe Vega Freefall 3 sides (2, 3, 3) 8 70 560 Alternative N+1 490 350
OOS Tiradentes Davit 2 sides (5, 5) 10 120 1200 2 × 100% 1080 600

783
J. MacGregor et al. Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787

Table 31
Cranes fitted to Floatels.
Crane 1 Crane 2

Main hoist Whip hoist Main hoist Whip hoist

Floatel Reliance 120t x 15 m 16t x 49 m 25t –

30t x 47 m
Floatel Superior 50t x 30 m (20t x 55 m) 15t x 60 m 50t x 30 m (15t x 60 m) 15t x 60 m
Floatel Endurance 100t x 16 m 15t x 60 m 100t x 16 m 15t x 60 m
Floatel Victory, Floatel Triumph 120t (45.8 m boom length) – 64t (50.4 m boom length) –
Safe Boreas, Safe Zephyrus 50t x 26 m (48 m boom length) 14t x 56 m 50t x 16 m (56m boom length) 14t x 56 m
Neptuno, Atlantis 300t x 25 m 25t x 71 m 75t x 18 m 15t x 56 m
Safe Notos, Safe Eurus 300t x 12 m radius 15t (60 m boom length) 50t (55m boom length) 15t (60 m boom length)
92t x 45 m radius (55 m boom length)
Safe Nova, Safe Vega 70t x 35 m 15t x 50 m 40 t x 20 m (knuckle boom) 20t x 45 m
OOS Tiradentes 60t x 7.5 m (10t x 40.5 m) – 60t x 7.5 m (10t x 40.5 m) –

9. Other equipment
9.1. Gangway
The hydraulic telescopic gangway is the central operational piece of
equipment installed on these floatels. Most of the vessels have been
fitted with units having a mean length of 38 m and a stroke of ± 7.5 m.
The weather conditions sufficient to permit landing of the gangway
on the platform are typically a significant wave height of 3.5 m or less,
on a declining wind speed trend.
After landing, the gangway stroke is monitored and the telescopic
motions trigger a two stage alarm system, and eventually an auto-lift
function whereby the gangway is lifted and slewed away from the
landing platform in order to avoid damage. Stored energy in hydraulic
accumulators is used to accomplish these operations at high speed.
The first alarm is typically set at stroke of +5 m and -4 m and
triggers an audio-visual alarm on the navigation bridge (central control
room). The second stage alarm is typically set at +6.5 m and −5.5 m
(or ± 6 m) and triggers the audio-visual alarm on the bridge and in the
local gangway control cabin. An audible alarm and red flashing light is
activated at each end of the gangway to discourage further use. The
auto-lift is typically set at +7.5 m and −6.5 m (or ± 7 m).
In addition to the automated disconnect function, the gangway is
subject to management intervention depending on the frequency of
occurrence of certain motions, based loosely on a Rayleigh distribution
of extreme response. The gangway would be disconnected if two
movements exceeding 5 m occurred in 10 min, or on account of any
single stroke of 6 m or more. Similar criteria exist for the vertical an-
gular motions.
On all of the semi-submersible floatels in operation so far, the height
of the gangway pedestal can only be adjusted by dismantling and in-
serting/removing sections. This is frequently required when the vessel
moves from one client platform to another and can be a time consuming
and expensive operation. In the North Sea, some platforms are designed
for a large wave clearance and can be very high, whereas some FPSOs in
Brazil may have main deck heights similar to the deck of the floatel
which vary depending on cargo loading. On the Safe Notos, the
gangway pedestal and associated stair tower are designed in sections so
that the gangway can be landed at heights from 15.7 m to 32.2 m above
the operating draft waterline. Some monohull floatels (e.g. Edda Fides)
have telescoping pedestals to avoid this problem, and it would be
advantageous if a similar solution could be created for the semi-sub-
mersibles.
9.2. Lifeboats
Clearly, with large numbers of personnel onboard, the provision of
suitable lifesaving facilities is an important aspect in any floatel. The
standard used to calculate the number of lifeboat seats required varies
from vessel to vessel, as shown in Table 30. Some vessels have managed
to obtain exemptions so that the total number of lifeboat seats is not in
accordance with the IMO MODU Code (which requires 100% capacity
to remain available if all the lifeboats in any one location are lost or
rendered unusable), but is in line with the so-called N+1 philosophy.
The latter simply provides one lifeboat in excess of the number required
to accommodate all the personnel onboard. Such exemptions typically
require full compliance with IMO MODU Code when in transit (i.e.
restricted PoB), and a formal evacuation analysis for situations when
the full complement is onboard. On these new vessels, the freefall
lifeboats are supplemented by escape chute and raft systems.
9.3. Cranes
All the floatels are fitted with two deck cranes, usually of a modest
size, capable of handling stores to and from supply vessels. All of the
cranes are offshore type fitted with fast auxiliary/whip hoist to aid
these operations, and should be rated with a dynamic amplification
suitable for ship-to-ship service. Some of the floatels have one crane of a
larger load rating, to increase the possibility of assisting the client
platform owners with construction activities. These cranes are typically
not rated for subsea operations, and do not have heave compensation.
Table 31 summaries the size and rating of cranes fitted on the new
vessels, which do not differ significantly in performance from those of
the previous generation.
Almost all of the cranes selected are electro-hydraulic lattice boom
wire luffing type in order to save weight, respecting the weight sensi-
tivity of the semi-submersible concept. However, on Safe Nova/Vega
one of the cranes is a box section ram luffing type. The heavier weight
of this type was accepted in order to gain the improved dexterity and
controllability for deck load handling provided by the knuckle boom
feature included.
In addition to these main cranes, some of the vessels are fitted with

Table 32
Analysis of Installed Potable Water System components – various vessels.
Potable water pumps Hot water calorifiers Hot water circulating pumps

Typical installation sparing concepts 2 × 100% or 4 × 50% 2 × 100% or 4 × 50% 2 × 100%

Capacity of 100% system (average) 122 L per person per hour 10.3 L per person 22.5 L per person per hour
Total installed capacity (average) 290 L per person per hour 21.2 L per person 44 L per person per hour

784
J. MacGregor et al.
one or two small pennant handling cranes, to assist mooring operations
in deck areas where the main cranes cannot reach. This may be on
account of mooring winches being located underneath the helideck or
other reasons. A typical specification for such a pennant handling crane
would be an outreach of 18–20 m in order to reach the anchor handling
vessel. The required capacity of the crane at these radii is rather
modest, as the weight of a pennant wire should not exceed 2.5 tonnes,
but a suitable dynamic amplification factor should be included.
Such cranes do not require a cabin, and are usually arranged with a
telescopic or knuckle boom or both in order to minimise storage issues.
The main hoist should be single fall only (as is the case for the whip
hoist on the main cranes), and equipped with an automatic overload
protection system (AOPS). Also similar to the main crane whip hoists,
high speed operations are required; such as luffing in 60 s, hoisting with
an empty hook at 80 m/min and hoisting on load at 50 m/min.
9.4. Fresh water generation, sewage treatment and laundry equipment
On vessels with such high personnel complements, substantial and
reliable fresh water generation and distribution systems are essential,
despite the fact that the units are regularly serviced by supply boats
from shore.
Fresh water makers are typically of the reverse osmosis type, and
installed with a sparing concept of 2 × 100%, 3 × 50% or 4 × 50%.
The Floatel Superior/Endurance can generate 225 tonnes per day, while
the Floatel Victory/Triumph may produce 250 tonnes per day.
On the Safe Notos, three fresh water makers are installed, each with
150 tonnes/day capacity. Four potable water transfer pumps can take
suction from the four storage tanks at a rate of 35 m3/h per pump (the
pumps may operate in parallel to deliver 70 m3/hr).
Hot water calorifiers and hot water circulating pumps are equally
critical. These must be sized for peak demand at shift changes and meal
times, rather than the average consumption per day. Table 32 contains
typical sizing data extracted from analysis of a number of offshore
vessels – not only floatels.
Sewage treatment plant is equally important, and adequate re-
dundancy and capacity must be provided. A typical installation would
include 3 × 50% or 2 × 100% plant, with 100% based on the combined
black and grey water generated by the personnel onboard.
As a minimum, the equipment must comply with the IMO MEPC
159/55 amendment. Care is needed when specifying the plant to not
simply specify the numbers of personnel, but the total hydraulic load
and the total organic load per day. There are no rules specifying how
such load may be calculated, but useful guidance may be obtained from
the recommendations of the Federal Maritime & Hydrographic Agency
(BSH) in Germany and some of the manufacturers.
The laundry is a similarly important facility on such vessels, al-
though in Norway all laundry is sent ashore for processing and return
Table 33
Comparison of Key Volume Metrics for two different vessel designs.
Electrical installation Cable length installed (m)
Cable terminations
Average cable length (m)
Piping systems construction Pipe spools
Pipe system hydrotests
Compartment completion LQ spaces
Technical rooms
Tanks
Completion and commissioning Control system I/O loop checks
MC test packs
Commissioning test packs
Sea trials test memoranda
785
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
offshore. The laundry rooms occupy reasonably large areas in the ac-
commodation, as indicated in Table 7. A common basis for selecting the
number and capacity of washing machines is to calculate the total re-
quirement based on 2.5 kg per person per day. By then assuming that
each machine can deliver 9 or 10 wash cycles per day (allowing 80 min
per cycle) the number of machines required can be determined. Some
spare capacity is usually installed in case of breakdown. The number
and capacity of the dryers should match the washing machines.
10. Project execution
10.1. Contracting
As indicated in Table 1, all the new vessels were constructed in
Singapore and China, with two yards (Keppel, COSCO Qidong) deli-
vering 11 of the 14. None were built in Korea, probably because the
Korean yards were busy with other offshore projects during this period,
and they judged (correctly) that few of the accommodation vessel
projects would develop into a series of more than 2 units.
The period in which most of these vessels were constructed coin-
cided with a boom in construction of offshore vessels, and shipyard
capacity was severely strained. This meant that these floatel projects
had to compete for shipyard resources against other projects, often for
owners with long series of more valuable projects (e.g. drilling units).
All fourteen of the vessels were constructed under turnkey design
and build contracts with the shipyards. In the case of Floatel
International, and possibly the OOS Tiradentes, the shipyard had some
shareholding in the vessel owning company.
In the case of the five Floatel International vessels and the OOS
Tiradentes, the shipyard possessed the basic design capacity in-house or
via an existing joint venture. For the eight other vessels, the owner first
developed a basic design together with an independent design com-
pany. The bidding shipyards were then requested to quote on the basis
of that design. After contract, the basic designer then worked under the
control of the shipyard, with a scope of work which varied from project
to project.
10.2. Scope
Each of these vessels represents a substantial and complex project in
its own right. Some of the key project volume metrics are listed in
Table 33. Perhaps surprisingly, the cable and pipe statistics exceed
those of some drilling semi-submersibles built in the same yards during
the same period. The large numbers of cabins on the floatels have a
direct multiplying effect on the quantities of IT and entertainment
cables and domestic piping systems.
Vessel 1 Vessel 2
875,000 926,220
44,959 54,302
38.9 34.1
29,312 26,658
722 324
559 –
217 –
140 46 in columns
46 in pontoons
9289 10,837
5447 2662
314 270
– 117
J. MacGregor et al.
Fig. 23. Durations to delivery from contract and cutting steel.
Table 34
Durations from contract and steel-cutting to delivery.
12 accommodation semi-submersibles built in Singapore and China
Range
Contract to delivery (months) 25.8 to 38.9
Cut steel to delivery (months) 22.8 to 34.9
10.3. Construction method
All of the vessels were constructed by means of lifting the deck box
in large megablock sections on top of the already assembled pontoons
and columns. In the case of the projects in Singapore and COSCO
Qidong these operations were carried out using large floating cranes,
and the deck structure was typically erected in 3 or 4 megablocks
weighing 1000–1600 tonnes. In the case of the CIMC Raffles build, the
20,000 tonne capacity Taisun crane could be used to erect the upper
hull with a single lift.
With sufficient preparation it was sometimes possible to complete
the lifting of all four megablocks in four days. On at least one project
the dimensional control in prefabrication was so good that it was pos-
sible to call for the pre-welding fit-up inspection one day after the last
lift.
At Jurong Shipyard, the pontoons were placed afloat (by traditional
dynamic launching) and then placed in drydock where the bracings
were installed and the columns erected. Keppel Shipyard used a variety
of lower hull assembly methods, including a floating dock with erection
carried out by a floating crane. Keppel was able to make use of hull
elements supplied by subsidiary yards in South East Asia, with complete
pontoons towed from China and the Philippines, and other blocks de-
livered from these locations and Thailand.
At COSCO Qidong, the pontoons and columns were erected on land
and connected by the bracings, before the complete assembly was
carefully skidded onto a submersible barge from which it was then
undocked, ready for erection of the deck box.
The thrusters were installed immediately prior to sea trials, with the
vessel spread moored at a sufficiently deep water location away from
the shipyard. This meant that the vessel was practically unable to return
to the yard after completion of sea trials, so the construction and testing
had to be more complete at commencement of sea trials than might
otherwise be the case.
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
22 drilling semi-submersibles built in Singapore
Average Range Average
33.6 33.2 to 50.9 40.9
27.9 27.1 to 41.4 31.1
10.4. Durations
Fig. 23 shows the times from contract to delivery and steel cutting to
delivery for 12 of the vessels. The Nova and Vega are excluded from this
comparison as their construction was significantly delayed for a number
of reasons, including market conditions. Market conditions may also
have resulted in smaller delays to one or two of the other vessels.
Taken overall, there is no clear improvement between follow-on
vessels and first of class. The times from contract to delivery are
sometimes longer for the follow-on vessels, because these were some-
times contracted at the same time as the lead ship. Similarly, the times
from cutting steel to delivery for the follow-on vessels do not show a
clear improvement compared to the performance for the lead ship. This
can be due to capacity constraints and other priorities at the shipyards.
Table 34 shows that in Singapore the typical time from cutting steel
to delivery for a drilling semi-submersible was 31 months. This is 3
months longer than for the Singapore built floatels. From contract to
delivery, the drilling rigs took 6 months longer than the floatels. These
differences are primarily due to the extra time needed to deliver, in-
tegrate and commission the drilling equipment, which is more complex
than anything installed on the floatels.
11. Conclusions
After a hiatus of more than 20 years, a major fleet renewal pro-
gramme has been carried out in the offshore accommodation semi-
submersible industry. Despite a variety of owners, designers and ship-
yards being involved, the 14 new vessels display certain common
characteristics. The new designs offer greater comfort for the offshore
workforce by means of single or two person cabins. While significantly
larger and heavier than their 1970s/80s predecessors, the new designs
have relatively shorter columns and relatively greater waterplane area
to displacement ratios, which results in different hydrodynamic
786
J. MacGregor et al.
response. Whereas the previous generation focused on station-keeping
by means of mooring, the new designs are all capable of dynamic po-
sitioning operations, with mooring as an option. The paper reviews
principal design data on subjects such as internal volume and deck area,
weight estimation and stability, motions and station-keeping beha-
viour, resistance and propulsion.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are due to Prosafe Offshore for permission to publish the
paper. The views expressed are those of the authors alone and do not
represent those of any of the organisations mentioned in the paper. The
contributions of the many personnel from Prosafe, GVA, GustoMSC,
Jurong Shipyard and COSCO Qidong who participated in the realisation
of the projects which are the central topic of this paper are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Andersen, T.L., et al., 2014. The FLOATEL SUPERIOR loose anchor incident and its sig-
nificance for design and operation of semi-submersibles. In: OMAE Paper 2014-
23974, ASME 33rd International Conference on Ocean. Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, San Francisco.
Atlar, A., 1987. Towards the understanding of steady tilt phenomenon in semi-sub-
mersibles. In: 6th Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Symposium (OMAE
1987), Houston, Texas, 1987.
Browne, V.C., 2013. Assessment of Low Frequency Roll Motions on the Semi-submersible
Drilling Rig COSL PIONEER. Thesis. Norwegian University of Science & Technology,
Trondheim.
Burnell, A.J., 1975. Comparative performance of semi-submersibles in the North Sea. In:
Society of Petroleum Engineers paper 5292.
787
Ocean Engineering 172 (2019) 759–787
Christiansen, P.E., et al., 1994. Tender assisted drilling in the north Sea. In: OTC paper
7458, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.
Gallala, J.R., 2013. Hull Dimensions of a Semi-submersible Rig. MSc thesis. Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
ISO Code 19901-7, 2013. Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries - Specific Requirements
for Offshore Structures – Part 7: Station-Keeping Systems for Floating Offshore
Structures and Mobile Offshore Units. International Standards Organisation.
Jenssen, N.A., 2010. Mitigating excessive pitch and roll motions on semi-submersibles. In:
Dynamic Positioning Conference. Marine Technology Society, Houston.
Kanerva, M., et al., 2000. The Future of Ship Design by Deltamarin. MPI Group, UK
published by.
Lamas, M., Carral, L., 2011. Offshore and coastal floating hotels – flotels. Transactions
153 Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
MacGregor, J.R., et al., 2001. Detailed Design and Construction of DP Drillships for
Deepwater Operations. Transactions, Royal Institution of Naval Architects.
Odland, J., 1990. Mooring of the Veslefrikk B close to the wellhead platform. In: OTC
paper 6305, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.
Penney, P.W., Riiser, R.M., 1985. Preliminary Design of Semi-submersibles. Transactions,
North East Coast Institution of Engineers & Shipbuilders, vol. 101.
Pessoa, J.M., Moe, A.M., 2017. Air gap on semi-submersible MODUs under DnVGL Class –
Current and future design practice. In: OTC paper 27693-MS, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston.
PSA, 2016. Investigation of an Incident with Fatal Consequences on COSL INNOVATOR
30th December 2015. Petroleumstilsynet, Norway.
Ren, H.H., et al., 2001. Vessel capability sea trials for dynamically positioned mobile
offshore drilling units. In: Dynamic Positioning Conference, Marine Technology
Society, Houston.
Szalewski, P., et al., 2017. Horizontal wave impact loads on column stabilised semi-
submersibles operating in harsh environment. In: OTC paper 27774-MS, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston.
Tamaki, I., et al., 1984. Full scale measurement tests on the new semi-submersible
polycastle. In: OTC Paper 4731, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston.
Voogt, A.J., et al., 2002. Mean and low frequency roll for semi-submersibles in waves. In:
Paper No. 2002-JSC-285, ISOPE Conference, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Voogt, A.J., Soles, J., 2007. Stability of deep-water drilling semi-submersibles. In: 10th
PRADS Symposium, Houston.