Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Review

A review of Very Large Floating Structures (VLFS) for coastal

and offshore uses
Miguel Lamas-Pardo a,1, Gregorio Iglesias b,2, Luis Carral a,3
a
University of Coruna, 15403 Ferrol, Spain
b
University of Plymouth, PL4 8 AA Plymouth, UK

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Very Large Floating Structures (VLFS) have sparked tremendous interest and been the focal point of
Received 20 September 2014 several articles. The Megafloat is particularly well known for coastal use. The aim of this article is to
Accepted 4 September 2015 review the concept of VLFS, showing how they are deployed for both coastal and offshore areas. For these
Available online 22 October 2015
offshore areas, the MOB project (Mobile Offshore Base) is the design that has been most fully developed.
Keywords: Although the Megafloat has been widely studied, attention should also be given to other VLFS for
Very Large Floating Structures offshore purposes. Among these is the MOB mentioned earlier, as well as other VLFS, including the
Mobile Offshore Base Pneumatic stabilized platform (PSP) or Versabuoy. These floating structures have been designed in
Floating harbour response to logistic developments, mainly to create floating harbours and airports, both on the coast and
Floating airport
offshore. They have a wide variety of functions.
Maritime urbanism
After providing an overview of each VLFS, the different models will be compared. Their advantages
and disadvantages will be assessed according to the depth in which they work and their proximity to
the coast.
Another comparison is then made between the VLFS and other floating structures that have already
been in use on the coast and offshore: pontoons, barges, ships and semisubmersible platforms.
It must be added that all of the VLFS are only at the design stage, with the exception of the Mega-
Float in Tokyo Bay, the only manufactured VLFS in existence.. These projects have not been carried out.
Nevertheless, they have inspired research on behaviour-related problems in VLFS design. One area in
particular is hydroelasticity.
For coastal waters, the increase in costs of real estate and the sensitivity towards the protection of
coastal areas will have an impact on the development of these structures in the 21st century.
Their use in open ocean water- offshore- requires further studies in order to lower the costs and to
offer more reliable solutions.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678
1.1. The VLFS: responding to the sustainable development of the sea in the 21st Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678
1.2. Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678
1.3. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679
1.4. Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679
1.4.1. Coastal VLFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679
1.4.2. Offshore VLFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679
1.5. Historic evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 679
2. Mega-Float . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680
2.1. Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680

E-mail addresses: mlamas@seasteading.org (M. Lamas-Pardo), gregorio.iglesias@plymouth.ac.uk (G. Iglesias), lcarral@udc.es (L. Carral).
1
Tel.: þ34 649033643.
2
Tel.: þ44 1752 586 131.
3
Tel.: þ34 609 224 026.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.09.012
0029-8018/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
678 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690

2.2. Constructive system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680

2.3. Stages of the research program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680
2.4. Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680
2.5. Technical challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680
3. Mobile Offshore Base, MOB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
3.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
3.2. Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682
3.3. Operational requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683
3.4. Propulsion system and DP alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683
3.5. Connectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683
3.6. Load Transfer System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684
3.7. Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684
3.8. Hybrid Mobile Offshore Base, by Aker Maritime ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684
3.8.1. Semisubmersible concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685
3.9. Joint Mobile Offshore Base, by McDermott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686
3.9.1. Nonlinear Compliant Connector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686
4. Pneumatically Stabilized Platform, PSP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686
4.1. Operational concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686
4.2. Modularity and construction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
4.3. Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
5. Versabuoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
6.1. Advantages and disadvantages of each VLFS design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 687
6.2. Comparison of each VLFS design with structures currently used for coastal and offshore development.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688
6.3. Final conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 689

1. Introduction 1.2. Definition

1.1. The VLFS: responding to the sustainable development of the sea A Very Large Floating Structure (VLFS) or Very Large Floating
in the 21st Century Platform (VLFP) is a unique concept of oceanic structure that
embraces a range of unprecedented parameters, as shown in the
In recent years, the demand for developable land around the table below (Suzuki et al., 2006):
coastal cities has increased significantly, for residential purposes as Their size and flexibility require special consideration in terms
well as industrial and logistic uses (Suzuki et al., 2006; Wang and of design, analysis, construction, assembly and operation. Apart
Tay, 2011). Highly congested areas are in need of further expan-
from the parameters shown in Table 1, the VLFS also have the
sion. Nevertheless, the land available on the coast is often fully
following characteristics:
developed; the sea is the only option for expansion. Dubai and
Singapore currently stand out in terms of coastal development.  Long design life: 50 years for the MOB and 100 years for a
Similarly, floating houses already exist in Holland. With more than
MegaFloat Float (Suzuki et al., 2006)
half of Holland's land surface below sea level, people from this  Low maintenance costs.
country have proposed the concept of floating towns. These  Durability and resistance to fatigue, key concepts in VLFS for
include green houses, shopping centres and floating residential
material selection, design and manufacturing.
areas (Fig. 1). There are also plans to develop floating airports and
ports both near the coast and in the open sea. The latter is mainly
for strategic reasons.
In cities, floating farms may make it possible to provide arable
land and food products for a growing human population. At the same
time, the integrity of the ecosystem is maintained (Wang and Tay,
2011). The New York Sun Works Center has built a sustainable
engineering science barge on the Hudson; this shows that city gar-
dens can be developed on a floating structure in a sustainable way.
Along similar lines, salmon-producing countries, such as Norway, the
US, Canada (Fig. 2) and Chile, have offshore farms to ensure a con-
stant supply of fresh fish (Per Heggelund, 1989)
With this technology, humans can populate the ocean surface.
Proposed by the architect Vicente Callebaut Bélgica (Fig. 3), the
Lilypad Floating Ecopolis (Wang and Tay, 2011) is a visionary
project to accommodate urban populations on an island in the
shape of a water lily. Pernice (2009) proposes other ideas for
floating cities.
However, the size of an airport and/or port is huge compared to
that of the existing floating structures, such as pontoons, barges,
ships and offshore platforms. Hence, the concept of Very Large Fig. 1. Visionary semi-aquatic town in the Netherlands,
Floating Structure (VLFS) comes into its own (Zhang et al, 2015). Source: Wang and Tay (2011).
 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690 679

However, as there are many types of VLFS, it makes more sense

to classify them by location:

I. Coastal VLFS.
II. Offshore VLFS.

1.4.1. Coastal VLFS

These can only be used in calm waters- often within a bay, cove or
lake-close to the coastline. Coastal VLFS proposals take on the pon-
toon design, as its simplicity is suitable for calm water areas. These
large floating pontoons have been called MegaFloats. However, due
Fig. 2. Salmon farms at Vancouver, Canada. to their small draft in relation to their length, they are also referred to
Source: Wang and Tay (2011). in literature as “mat-like” VLFS. Their structure is simple, with a
trunk that offers high stability, low manufacturing/maintenance costs
and easy repairs. Compared to other types of marine structures, they
are highly flexible, so elastic deformations are more important than
their movement as a rigid body. Thus, hydro-elastic analysis is key to
the design of pontoon-type VLFS; most VLFS studies focus on this
analysis: (Mamidipudi and Webster, 1994; Yago and Endo, 1996;
Utsunomiya et al, 1998; Kashiwagi, 1998; Ohmatsu, 1999; Wang and
Tay, 2011; Kim et al., 2014).

1.4.2. Offshore VLFS

In the open sea, the wave height precludes pontoon type VLFS.
Alternative geometries for offshore VLFS are therefore proposed.
At first glance, the semisubmersible type seems the most appro-
priate. This paper deals with the most representative examples:

– Mobile offshore Base (MOB).

– Pneumatically Stabilized Platform (PSP).
Fig. 3. Lilypad floating ecopolis. – Versabuoy.
Source: www.vincent.callebaut.org.
Varied in their format, the MOB has received the greatest amount
of attention. Although some authors (Andrianov, 2005; Watanabe et
Table 1 al., 2004a) consider floating platforms and rigs of the offshore
VLFS parameter ranges. industry as VLFS, there is a strong justification not to. They do not
Parameter Minimum Maximum exceed 1000 m in length, as specified by the leading researchers in
the field who defined the term VLFS (Suzuki et al., 2006).
Length 1000 m 10,000 m
Displacement 106 tons 107 tons
Cost $5000 million $15,000 million 1.5. Historic evolution

1.3. Applications
VLFS are designed primarily for floating airports and ports, for
calm waters on the coast or on open sea. However, there could be
other uses, including:
– Civil engineering: as bridges, water breakers and floating docks.
– Energy: as storage facilities for oil and natural gas, along with
wind and solar power plants.
– Military and intervention: as military and emergency bases.
– Recreation and residential areas: as casinos, amusement parks,
housing, floating hotels and even entire floating cities.
– Floating farms.
1.4. Types
Some authors (Andrianov, 2005; Watanabe et al., 2004a; Wang
and Tay, 2011) classify VLFS into two types according to their
geometry:
I. Pontoons.
II. Semisubmersibles.
The idea of the VLFS first appeared in the modern world after
the industrial revolution in the form of the floating island descri-
bed in the nineteenth century by the French novelist Jules Verne
(Verne, 1986). However the first one to be promoted in serious
terms was the Armstrong Seadrome from 1924 (Popular Science,
1934; Wang and Tay, 2011). Its stability was demonstrated in tank
tests and different versions of these platforms were put forward
until Armstrong died in 1955. Although this proposal was rejected,
industries and the academic community have started to carry out
research into VLFS technologies (Wu, 1984). Research into VLFS in
the last decade was carried out in two major projects. There was
the Mega-Float from Japan, a typical example of the pontoon-type
VLFS. Its counterpart in the US was the Mobile Offshore Base
(MOB), as the main representative of the offshore type. Other
efforts have been made, like the Pneumatically Stabilized Platform
or the Versabuoy, discussed below, or the Euphlotea (Englund,
2008).
Milestones in the development of VLFS are listed in Tables 2
and 3 below. Although both the MOB and Mega-Float programs
were initiated and carried out independently, their underlying
scientific principles and technological goals were structured in a
similar way. Furthermore, their research objectives coincided.
680 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690

Table 2
Milestones in the development of technologies for VLFS in the US (Suzuki et al.,
2006).

In the United States

1924–1955 The Seadrome by Armstrong and related concepts

1942–1944 Flight Deck of Civil Engineers Corps of the US Navy-SOCK
Project
1963C–130 Takeoff and landing demonstrations on the USS Forrestal
1960's–1970's Research Laboratory/University of the US Navy
1989–1996 Research sponsored by the NSF
1991 First International Workshop of the VLFS-University of Hawaii Fig. 4. Mega-float: schematic arrangement of elements.
1993–1996 Marine Technology Platform Program DARPA Source: Watanabe et al. (2004a).
1997–2000 Scientific and Technological Program of the Mobile Offshore
Base-office of Naval Research, ONR

Table 3
Milestones in the development of technologies for VLFS in Japan (Suzuki et al.,
2006).

In Japan

1950's Floating Cities concept in architecture and urban design

1960's Puppet drama “Hykkori Hyoutan Jima”
1973–1974 Floating Airport Proposed for Kansai International Airport Phase
construction, the structure of semi-submersible
1975 International Ocean Exposition in Okinawa-Aquapolis
1988 Kamigoto Oil Reserve: 390 m  97 m  2 m  5 units Fig. 5. Mega-float: structural design of the pontoon.
1994 Proposed Floating Landing Phase 2 Construction of Kansai Inter- Source: Shipbuilding Research Centre of Japan (2011).
national Airport, pontoon type floating structure
1995 Mega-Float/Technological Research Association of MegaFloat
1995–1996 TRAM Experimental Phase 1: 300 m  60 m  2 m
1996 Shirashima Oil Reserve: 397 m  82 m  2 m  8 units
1997–2001 Experimental Phase 2 TRAM: 1000 m  60–120 m  3 m Construction is carried out with modules made on land.
Experiment of landing and takeoff Between 100 and 300 m in length, these are assembled at sea with
2001–2005 RþD by the Shipbuilding Research Centre welds (Tori et al., 2000) (Figs. 5–8).
Proposed Airstrip Haneda International Airport. Combination of
old type and semisubmersible Pontoon

2.3. Stages of the research program

In Phase 1, a 300 m  60 m  2 m structure was built.

2. Mega-Float
The Japanese Mega-Float program, conducted by the Technical
Association of 17 shipbuilders and steel makers known as the
Technological Research Association of Mega-Float (TRAM), was
established in 1995 to carry out a joint research and development
project to create a large-scale floating structure.
2.1. Concept
As shown in Fig. 4, a Mega-Float:
In Phase 2, which began in 1998, TRAM initiated studies to
build a model of a Mega-Float airport. It was to be 1000 m in
length, 60 (120) m in beam, and 3 m in depth in Yokosuka (Tokyo
Bay) to experiment with landing and takeoff of small airplanes.
This airport was completed in 1998 and is currently the only
Mega-Float that has been built.
From these studies, TRAM concluded in 2001 that it was fea-
sible to build a 4000 m long runway for takeoff and landing at
Tokyo International Airport (Haneda).
The Department of Floating (Mega-Float) Structures is now
developing this technology in the Shipbuilding Research Centre of
Japan (SRCJ).

– Is a very large floating pontoon structure. 2.4. Application

– Has facilities for mooring/anchoring to keep the floating struc-
ture on site.
– Has an access bridge or floating road to access the floating
structure from land.
– Has a breakwater if the significant wave height is greater than
4 m. This is to reduce wave forces impacting on the floating
source.
2.2. Constructive system
The pontoon has a structure similar to that of a steel ship hull.
Proven to be strong and reliable, yet lightweight, this type of
construction has long been used in shipbuilding.
In addition to the real life example of the floating coastal air-
port, several studies were also conducted under the TRAM project.
These were in response to the need for floating bases with many
other functions to provide port, logistic and recreational facilities.
In terms of design, the Mega-float is better for benign conditions
than the Mobile Offshore Base (MOB). Moreover, its floating sur-
face is exploited the way land is used.
2.5. Technical challenges
From a technical point of view, there are still many challenges-
mainly hydrodynamic- in attempting to understand the
 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690 681

Breakwater

Tugging of a floating Mooring

unit Assembly of
a floating unit
Firm fixation,
with welding

Fig. 6. Mega-float assembly process.

Source: Tori et al. (2000).

Fig. 7. Mega-float: experimental Phases (left) and Phase 2 (right).

Source: Suzuki et al. (2006).

Fig. 8. Mega-float: proposed container terminal, left, and renewable energy plant, right.
Source: Suzuki et al. (2006).

Fig. 9. Overall response time under a static concentrated load for (a) conventional ships and (b) VLFS,
Source: Suzuki et al. (2006).
682 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690

movements of these structures. The greatest of these challenges is 3. Mobile Offshore Base, MOB
that, due to its large size, it is not possible to model this structure
as a rigid body. Thus it is necessary to allow for tolerances to 3.1. Introduction
flexion movements. The simplest model for a VLFS is a Floating
Elastic Plate. Indeed, most of the research on this model has had A Mobile offshore Base (MOB) was proposed under the VLFS
VLFS in mind (Suzuki et al., 2006; Andrianov, 2005). A further Mobile Offshore Base Science and Technology program to support
military operations wherever conventional land bases are not
problem related to this structure's dimensions is the complexity of
available. The MOB program was sponsored by the US Office of
the computer calculations required (Watanabe et al., 2004b; Wang
Naval Research from 1997 to 2000 with a budget of $35M. It was an
and Tay, 2011).
open program that used international trade experts from 26
Fig. 9 below shows the differences in behaviour between a
companies, 16 schools and 11 government agencies (Palo, 2005).
conventional vessel with a rigid body and a pontoon type VLFS
with an elastic one when a concentrated load is applied.
3.2. Concept

The MOB consists of a modular floating base that can be

deployed to an area, thereby providing a landing/takeoff area and
maintenance, as well as supply and other advanced logistical,
support operations. With the MOB concept, the US could have a
base anywhere in the world within one month.
Designed to have virtually unlimited capacity, it was envisaged
by its creators as more than just a floating landing zone. The size of
a city, the structure would also be a floating military base where
ships could dock, as shown in Fig. 10.
After some time, however, it was decided to make this a multi-
unit structure with several self-propelled, semisubmersible type
modules that could be connected/disconnected as required:

– Length of each module: 220–500 m.

– Width of each module: 120–170 m.
Fig. 10. Conceptual illustration of Mobile Offshore Base.
– Number of modules: three to five.
Source: Popular Mechanics (2003).
– Total length of the module when completely aligned: up to
2 km.

These modules were connected/disconnected according to the

requirements:

 Transit: while in transit between operating locations, the mod-

ule is de-ballasted and travels with the pontoons on the surface
like a catamaran or any other semisubmersible vessel.
 Operation: when it reaches its destination, the pontoons are
ballasted/submerged below the surface, minimizing the
dynamic movements induced by the waves. At this point, the
modules are joined.

Other particulars:

Fig. 11. MOB, schematic view of the real proposal. – The operational decks are located above wave crests and have a
Source: Girard et al. (2001a). sufficient air-gap. In this way, waves never reach the deck.

On-Shore Computer:
Supervision Layer
Maneuver Coordination Layer
Sensor Fusion

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3

Stability and Control Stability and Control Stability and Control

Fig. 12. Simulations with three MOB modules in Berkeley's tank test.
Source: Girard et al. (2001b).
 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690
– The columns provide structural support and hydrostatic stability
against overturning.
– Alignment is maintained by means of Dynamic Positioning (DP)
thrusters, DP connectors or a combination of both.
With these data, it can be concluded that, in terms of geometry
and operation, it is similar to the semisubmersible offshore units
such as offshore semisubmersible flotels (Lamas Pardo and Carral
Fig. 13. Tests to evaluate hydro elastic connectors.
Source: Popular Mechanics (2003).
Fig. 14. Load Transfer System (LO/LO) between a MOB and a ship.
Source: Goodwin and Bostelman (1998).
Independent Semisubmersible Modules
Bechtel National Inc.
Kvaerner Maritime (Seabase Inc.)
Fig. 15. Other proposals for a Mobile Offshore Base.
Source: Pike (2005).
683
Couce, 2011). In fact, one of the MOBs proposed by Aker Maritime
ASA used offshore industry standards from Det Norske Veritas
(DNV) (Rognaas et al., 2001) (Figs. 11–14).
The MOB program ended in 2000, affirming the technical fea-
sibility of the idea. In year 2001, the Institute for Defence Analyses
estimated costs of between $5 and $8 billion for the MOB (approx.
$1500 million per module). It was therefore less cost effective than
alternative solutions, such as a combination of aircraft carriers and
support vessels for logistical issues (Pike, 2005).
3.3. Operational requirements
The MOB would be designed to meet operational and survival
conditions as follows (Remmers, 1999):
 Operating conditions: these would correspond to a significant
wave height of about 1.9 m, and concentrated wave periods of
about 9 s. Later versions were even more ambitious, aiming for
6 m, as discussed below.
 Survival conditions: The MOB would be required to bear wave
loads falling in the range of a significant wave height of 16 m
and periods in the range of 20 s.
3.4. Propulsion system and DP alignment
As mentioned, a dynamic positioning (DP) system would be
employed to keep each module properly oriented. Tests and
simulations with real models, along with virtual tank tests, had
shown good performance with this system (Girard et al., 2011a,
2011b; Borges de Sousa et al. 2001). A Multi-Module Control
Dynamic Positioning System (MMDPCS) was developed for this
purpose. In turn, these thrusters would serve to propel the module
in transit.
3.5. Connectors
Together with dynamic positioning, connectors were devel-
oped to keep the modules together. In another section of the text,
a pair of these from two of the proposed MOB will be reviewed.
Semisubmersible Modules with Rigidly Connected Semissubmersible
Flexible Hinges Modules
Brown and Root Inc.
684 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690

3.6. Load Transfer System

The MOB would also be equipped with cranes to lift containers

to/from ships docked alongside. The Division of Intelligent Sys-
tems of the National Institute of Standards and Technology estab-
lished requirements. The MOB concept needs to be developed to
guide the design of the load transfer between the MOB and the
supply vessels (Goodwin, 1998).

3.7. Proposals

In that period, MOB design proposals were meant to reduce

costs with a variety of material, including steel, concrete, or a
combination thereof. Its form would also be varied with single-
hull barges, catamarans or semi-submersibles. In the following
sections two of them are presented:

– Joint Mobile Offshore Base, by McDermott (Babcock and Wilcox).

– Hybrid Mobile Offshore Base, by Aker Norwegian Contractors AS.

In Fig. 15, three other proposals can be seen.

3.8. Hybrid Mobile Offshore Base, by Aker Maritime ASA

The Hybrid Mobile Offshore Base of Aker Maritime ASA (Aker

Solutions Group) is a hybrid MOB concept. It consists of a concrete
base and steel deckhouse. In these studies two different types of
MOB were developed:

a. A semisubmersible concept comprising four identical mod-

ules. The total length is approximately 1525 m. For this con-
cept, the following types were looked into: 1) pier, 2) barge, 3)
vessel, 4) catamaran and 5) semisubmersible type.
b. The second concept is a single structural unit consisting of a
central concrete 890 m in length with a steel cantilever
body of 317 m on each end. The total length of the unit is
1525 m.

Concepts 5) and b) are hybrids made with high strength, light

weight LWC60 degree aggregate concrete in the steel hull
and superstructure deck. It was concluded that fatigue is a
major pitfall for a concrete hull with a design life of 100 years
(Figs. 15–20).
The design criteria informing the design stage to establish the
best alternative solutions were those found in Table 4:
The concept a.5) hybrid, with a semisubmersible LWC60 grade
LWAC light-weight aggregate concrete for its hull and steel for the
superstructure, was selected as the most appropriate concept due
to the following advantages:

1) The geometry of the semisubmersible hull:

a. A semisubmersible has better seakeeping than other struc-

tures (Lamas Pardo and Perez Fernandez, 2011).
b. The concept can be optimized to have a relatively high speed
transit draft (Lamas Pardo and Carral Couce, 2011).

2) Because of its hybrid structure:

a. A steel superstructure is lighter than concrete and therefore

favourable with respect to depth and hydrostatic stability.
3) The advantages of high performance LWC60 grade concrete
(HPC) are (Peters, 2000; Lamas Pardo and Perez Fernandez,
2013):
Fig. 16. The five concepts studied by Aker Maritime ASA.
Source: Rognaas et al. (2001). a.1) Pier type, a.2) Barge Type, a.3) Vessel Type, a.4)
Catamaran Type, a.5) Semisubmesible Type (columnstabilized), and b) Single Module
with cantilevered body.
 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690 685

Fig. 17. MOB semisubmersible hybrid concept: four modules together (left) and a single module (right),
Source: Rognaas et al. (2001).

Fig. 18. Central and lateral connectors, plan view.

Source: Rognaas et al. (2001).

Fig. 20. Non-Linear Compliant Connector,

Source: Popular Mechanics (2003).

Table 4
Criteria for the MOB design.

Total minimum size 1525 m  152.5 m

Draft in shallow water transit 15 m approx.

Transit speed 10 knots approx.
Design life 40 years minimum
Acceptable limits for air operations in State of the sea 6; Hs¼ 6 m
landing/takeoff of aircraft
Limits of survival conditions Maximum pitch angle between mod-
ules: 1.5% (0.86°)
Hs¼ 15 m
Structural strength of the set
Airgap ¼ 25 m

 Modules can be transferred from the operating draft (36.5 m) to

the transit draft (15.7 m) in 31 h. The reverse operation takes
11 h.
 The area within each circular column is a separate floating
Fig. 19. (a) Joint Mobile Offshore Base with five modules.
Source: Popular Mechanics (2003), (b) Joint Mobile Offshore Base module. Source:
compartment. The area in the pontoons between the columns is
Menard and Mills (1998). divided into two compartments to provide adequate intact and
damage stability
a. Greater resistance to fatigue.
b. Low maintenance costs. 3.8.1.1. Connectors. The one central and two lateral connector
c. Robustness against accidental loads. systems between the four modules () is designed to absorb axial
forces, shear horizontal and vertical forces, and torsional moments
3.8.1. Semisubmersible concept or roll. However, it makes both pitch and yaw motions possible. To
The selected hybrid concept consists of four modules inter- reduce the forces on the connectors:
connected in operating conditions and the required 1525 (m) long
runway. Main features of each module are outlined in the Table 5 :  Wave directions are limited to745° relative to the axial
Other features: MOB axis.
686 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690

Table 5 4.1. Operational concept

Main features of the semisubmersible hybrid MOB.
Main features of each module
Overall Length
Beam (width) at the level of steel decks
Draft during aircraft operations
Draft, in transit during self-propelled transport, i.e., on the
pontoons
Aircraft landing/take off strip width, located on one side of the top
deck to allow for parking, loading and unloading on the other
side
Power of each of the eight (8) propellers
Speed
 Outside the operation situations, with significant wave height
47.5 m, the modules are disconnected so that each one works
individually.
The PSP uses indirect displacement, relying on trapped air pockets
that move water. Air pressure acting on the underside of the deck
381.0 m provides the primary buoyant force. The water in each cylinder moves
152.5 m
up and down, and the air pressure in the trapped air space changes.
36.5 m
15.7 m These spaces are connected by lines and pneumatic valves.
Thus, changes in pressure cause air movement between the cells.
61.0 m This dampens the waves and distributes their forces to reduce
peak loads on the structure (McMillan, 2002). If an air turbine is
6 MW hooked up to these lines, a wave generator is created. This prin-
8–10 knots ciple had already been developed since thirty years ago for the
“wave pump”; its description was first published in 1979 in the
Journal Sunnmørsposten, Norway (OWWE Ltd).

For the coupling process, the system that was used had already
been tested in the “Troll A” offshore project in the North Sea: ball
and socket.

3.9. Joint Mobile Offshore Base, by McDermott

The Joint Mobile offshore Base (JMOB) was a concept developed

in the late 1990s and patented (Menard and Mills, 1998) by
McDermott Technology Inc. It consists of five semisubmersible steel
propelled ships and a mile (1800 m)-long track connected with
non-load bearing structures, the Nonlinear Compliant Connector. A
lightweight, collapsible drawbridge allows for transfer between
modules.

3.9.1. Nonlinear Compliant Connector

McDermott Technology Inc designed the Nonlinear Compliant
Fig. 21. Module of cylinders in tank test and cylinder component.
Connector (NCC), a connection system specifically meant for the Source: Float Inc. (2006).
MOB. The hinged connection makes movement between two
semisubmersible modules possible. Its aim is to minimize the
forces interacting between two platforms and, at the same time, to
prevent longitudinal movement in the forward/reverse, drift and
heave (surge, sway and heave) positions. This is thanks to the
relatively large rotations in roll, pitch and yaw. By implementing
connectors that act as shock absorbing systems, rather than fixed
or rigid connectors, fewer fatigue problems may affect the super-
structure. With these relatively large rotations, the system was
unfortunately not suitable for an airport in which civil aircraft
operated.

4. Pneumatically Stabilized Platform, PSP

A VLFS created for the ocean must attenuate the waves. Semi-
submersibles structures, like the MOB, are ideal for this situation.
Nevertheless other technologies are also being developed. The
Pneumatically Stabilized Platform, (PSP), is one of the most
interesting ideas in recent years.
The PSP, designed by Float Inc. (San Diego, USA), is a type of
platform comprising a number of cylindrical components packaged
in a rectangular shape to form a single module. Each cylinder is
sealed at the top and open to the sea at its base; it contains air
slightly above atmospheric pressure. The PSP is like a platform in that
it can handle loads and attenuate the wave. It is built in concrete, Fig. 22. PSP, assembly operation.
very modular and easily configurable (Figs. 21–24). Source: Float Inc. (1999).
 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690
Fig. 23. Proposal of Float Inc. for the floating airport.
Source: Float Inc. (1999).
Fig. 24. Proposal of Float Inc. for the offshore harbour.
Source: Float Inc. (1999).
4.2. Modularity and construction
When the structure is being built, each cylinder is launched to
the water with a slab on its top. Post-tensioned cables are
used to help assemble the components to make up larger modules.
These modules can then be joined with others to form a
complete structural platform. This modularity is crucial to the
design).
4.3. Application
The PSP was originally designed so that an airport could be
built for San Diego (California) in the Pacific Ocean, three
miles offshore. In turn it would serve as a port for large ships,
connected by a tunnel to the coast. It would therefore be a truly
687
intermodal land-sea-air transportation centre. However, in 2003,
it was rejected for being too expensive, so it is still in the design
stage. The authors claimed that these floating intermodal centres
were the best alternative to continuing to build new ports and
airports on the coast. Figs. 23 and 24 show two proposals from
Float Inc. for an extension of the San Francisco airport and an
offshore port.
5. Versabuoy
The Versabuoy system is a patent from Versabuoy International
(Urbana, Illinois, USA). Its structure takes a similar form to that of a
spar type offshore platform. The platform is basically a rigid lattice
structure supported by buoys that are moored to the seabed by
taut lines through taut mooring. With the articulated connection
between the structure and buoys, independent rotation can be
induced by wave action (Versabuoy International). Fig. 25.
Spar type platforms are well-known for their good behaviour in
motion, with virtually no reaction to waves. The system has been
designed for fabrication and modular assembly, allowing for
expandability. This would be excellent for a VLFS. However, the
system requires tight mooring lines and it is subjected to con-
siderable vertical forces that need to be dealt with. Doing so does
not ensure success. Nor is it an easy task.
6. Conclusions
6.1. Advantages and disadvantages of each VLFS design.
The VLFS have two main advantages over traditional solutions
for land reclamation: cost and low environmental impact. Both are
explained below:
1. Cost: floating options have a lower cost when water depth start
to be considerable. Studies with floating docks (Fousert, 2006)
established the starting point as 30 m. Floating designs make it
easier and quicker to carry out:
a. The construction stage, so that economic benefits can be
reaped from the start.
b. Dismantling, in case the reclaimed sea area is required in the
future (Wang et al., 2008).
c. Expansion, as they are modular systems.
2. Environmental impact: the VLFS are friendly environmental
(Wang et al., 2008; Riyansyah et al., 2010), because:
a. They do not damage ecosystems.
b. They do not interrupt marine currents.
c. Permanent structures are not installed over the sea bed.
Moreover, VLFS enjoy other advantages:
 The structures are protected from seismic impacts (Wang et al.,
2008; Riyansyah et al., 2010) since they are inherently isolated
from the base.
 They remain unaffected by differences in soil consolidation.
 Their position on the water surface is constant and unaffected by
tides. Small ships and boats can dock more easily in any sea
conditions.
 When they are located in coastal waters, other marine facilities
for recreational activities like water sports may be raised around
the structure.
 If offshore mega-ports were created, larger vessels could pass
through. These economies of scale would mean savings. In turn,
more modest ports would benefit from the traffic that these vessels
would discharge into the mega-ports. These loads would then be
688 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690

Fig. 25. Layout and articulated connections in Versabouy design.

Source: Versabuoy (2011).

Table 6
Advantages and disadvantages of the different types of VLFS.

Advantages Disadvantages

Mega-Float Process for manufacturing and assembly easy and inexpensive. Suitable only for benign conditions in places like inlets and
bays.
Unlimited size (modular). Low mobility.
Capacity of positive load. Ingress of water on deck ("green water" effect). Elastic Flat
Plate theory only cursorily developed.
Mobile Offshore Base (MOB) Mobility. Payload is limited, as is the case with all semisubmersible
vessels.
Suitable for all types of water: Large internal movements: danger of fatigue in the structure.
-Deep and shallow waters. Connector technology still experimental.
-Benign and harsh (conditions good behaviour at sea). High construction and operational costs.
Pneumatically Stabilized Plat- Manufacturing and installation process simple and inexpensive, Experimental technology in its most basic principles: indirect
form (PSP) although not as simple as that of the Mega-Float. displacement.
Suitable for all types of water, although inferior to the MOB in Joining technology with tensors in need of extensive further
extremely harsh water. development and study.
Unlimited size (modular). Low mobility.
Low or almost zero maintenance.
Versabuoy Great reduction in movements induced by waves. Large vertical forces.
Possibility of being expanded. Mooring system of complicated lines.
Modular system and assembly. Without mobility.
Experimental technology.

shared out among smaller vessels on their way to ports much closer
to their final destination, thus increasing short-sea-shipping.
The Table 6 summarises the advantages and disadvantages of
each of the VLFS presented in the paper.
mooring system design (Wang and Tay, 2011), methods for miti-
gating the hydroelastic response (Watanabe et al., 2004b; ISSC,
2006; Gao et al, 2011; Kim et al., 2014)) and connector designs,
(Riyansyah et al., 2010; Gao et al., 2013). These will have to com-
plement the basic engineering principles already in use.

6.2. Comparison of each VLFS design with structures currently used

6.3. Final conclusion
for coastal and offshore development.

In this article, the conceptual design for semisubmersible

It is interesting to note that there are similarities between the
platforms being studied for existing accommodation vessels or
flotels (Lamas Pardo and Carral Couce, 2011) and the VLFS, still in
experimental phase. These are outlined in the following table:
Therefore the accommodation vessel or flotel industry uses the
same basic engineering principles that are behind the VLFS being
developed. One concern for the future of VLFS is that the area
required for any floating airport or harbour- their main use-is
bigger. New research studies must be developed on issues such us:
hydroelastic response, structural integrity (functionality and safety
criteria) and drift forces for mooring system design (Wang and Tay,
2011). Moreover, new technologies must cover the following aspects:
structures made in concrete, such as the hybrid MOB from Aker
Maritime ASA, stands out among all the other possibilities.
“Semisubmersible” and “concrete, will be key points for Very Large
Floating Structures in future offshore developments. Indeed, con-
crete will continue to be used in marine structures (Lamas Pardo
and Perez Fernandez, 2013).
In terms of class and regulations, there is still an unresolved
issue (Kim et al., 2014). It must be determined if VLFS are con-
sidered a vessel, offshore facility or something else. How this is
resolved depends on the various international regulatory bodies,
like the IMO and other bodies involved with environmental and
maritime concerns. Of course, each VLFS will have its own features
and purpose and this will influence classification.
 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690
The cost of shore facilities is soaring, while there is growing
concern for the coastal environment. It seems natural that the
Floating structure that Floating hotel
best suits the purpose
Inner waters (coves, Pontoon Coastal flotel (Coastel)
bays) – benign
conditions
Offshore waters- Monohull with dampen- Monohull offshore flotel with anti-
intermediate ing system
conditions
rolling system
Offshore waters – harsh Semi-submersible Offshore semisubmersible flotel
conditions
option of offshore floating logistics facilities for ports and airports
will become more attractive. In the 21st Century there will
undoubtedly be significant developments in the field of VLFS: both
with previously considered solutions and completely different
concepts.
References
Andrianov, A.I., 2005. Hydroelastic Analysis of Very Large Floating Structures. Delft
University of Technology, Delft.
Borges de Sousa J., Hedrick, J., Girard A., Webster W., 2001. A ship maneuvering
control framework. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Rio de Janeiro, pp. 9. OMAE01/
OSU-5022.
Englund A. 2008. Euphlotea [on line, cited: 04/05/2011]. 〈http://www.euphlotea.
org/E/Default.aspx〉.
Incorported, Float, 1999. San Francisco Floating Runway Expansion Proposal. Float
Inc, San Diego.
Float Incorported, 2006. Float Incorported. [on line, cited: 02/05/2011]. http://www.
floatinc.com/.
Fousert, M., 2006. Floating Breakwater.Theoretical study of a dynamic wave
attenuating system. Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences (PhD Dis-
sertation). Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Gao, R., Tay, Z., Wang, C., Koh, C., 2011. Hydroelastic response of very large floating
structure with a flexible line connection. Ocean Eng. 38 (2011), 1957–1966.
Gao, R., Wang, C., Koh, C., 2013. Reducing hydroelastic response of pontoon-type
very large floating structures using flexible connector and gill cells. Eng. Struct.
52 (2013), 372–383.
Girard A., Borges de Sousa J., Hedrick J., Webster W., 2001a. Simulation enviroment
design and implementation: an application to the mobile offshore base. In:
Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering. Rio de Janeiro. pp 9. OMAE01/OSU-5021.
Girard, A., Empey, D., Borges de Sousa, J., Spry, S., Hedrick, J., 2001b. An Experi-
mental Testbed for Mobile Offshore Base Control Concepts. University of Cali-
fornia at Berkeley, Berkeley.
689
Very Large Floating Structure VLFS
Mega-Float
Pneumatically Stabilized Platform, PSP
Mobile Offshore Base
Goodwin, K., Bostelman, R., 1998. Cargo Container Transfer Requirements for the
Mobile Offshore Base. Intelligent Systems Division, National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology, United States Department of Commerce, Gaithersburg,
Maryland, p. 26.
ISSC, 2006. Report of special committee V I. 2 “Very Large Floating Structures”. In:
Proceeding of the16th International Ship and Offshore Structure Congress.
Southampton, United Kingdom.
Kim, J.-G., Cho, S.-P., Kim, K.-T., Lee, P.-S., 2014. Hydroelastic design contour for the
preliminary design of very large floating structures. Ocean Eng. 78 (2014),
112–123.
Lamas Pardo, M., Carral Couce, L., 2011. Offshore and Coastal Floating Hotels: Flo-
tels. International Journal of Maritime Engineering. The Royal Institution of
Naval Architects, London.
Lamas Pardo, M., Pérez Fernández, R., 2011. El comportamiento en la mar de
estructuras flotantes. Anales de Mecánica y Electricidad. Asociación de Inge-
nieros de ICAI, Madrid, p. 2011, January–February.
Lamas Pardo, M., Pérez Fernández, R., 2013. Offshore concrete structures. Ocean
Eng. 58 (2013), 304–316.
Mamidipudi, P., Webster, W.C., 1994. The motions performance of a mat-like
floating airport. In: Faltinsen, O., Larsen, C.M., Moan, T., Holden, K., Spisdoe,
N. (Eds.), Hydroelasticity Mar Technol., 1994. AA Belkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 363–375.
Menard, S, Mills, T., 1998. Joint Mobile Offshore Base. McDemott Technology, Inc.
World Intellectual Property Organization, New Orelans, PCT/US98/14718.
McMillan, C., 2002. Implementing the Beyond the Horizon Strategy-A Systems
Approach to Seaport Security. Float Inc, San Diego.
Ohmatsu, S., 1999. Numerical calculation method of hydroelastic response of a
pontoon-type VLFS close to a breakwater. In: R.C. Ertekin J.W. Kim (Eds.), Pro-
ceedings of the 3rd Int Wksp VLFS. University of Hawaii at Manao Honolulu,
Hawaii, USA, 2, pp. 805–811.
Palo, P., 2005. Mobile offshore base: hydrodynamic advancements and remaining
challenges. Mar. Struct. 18, 133–147.
Per Heggelund, O., 1989. Salmon farming in Washington: the issues and the
potential. Pacific Northwest Executive, January.
Pernice, R., 2009. Japanese urban artificial islands: an overview of projects and
schemes for marine cities during 1960s–1990s. J. Arch. Plann (Trans of AIJ) 74
(642), 1847–1855.
Peters, M.L., 2000. Mechanical Properties of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete. Brite
EuRam III, The European Union, Cuijk, The Netherlands, p. 50, ISBN 90 376 0198 7.
Popular Mechanics, 2003. Military joint mobile offshore base. Popular Mechanics.
690 M. Lamas-Pardo et al. / Ocean Engineering 109 (2015) 677–690
Popular Science, 1934. Uncle Sam ask to build floating ocean airports. In: Popular
Science. February 1934, New York, Bonnier Corporation, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 106.
0161-7370.
Pike, J., 2005. GlobalSecurity.org. GlobalSecurity-Military. [on line, 27/04/2005,
cited: 03/05/2011]. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/mob-
gallery.htm.
Kashiwagi, M., 1998. A b-spline Galerkin scheme for calculating the hydroelastic
response of a very large floating structure in waves. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 1998
(3), 37–49.
Riyansyah, M., Wang, C., Choo, Y., 2010. Connection design for two-floating beam
system for minimum hydroelastic response. Mar. Struct. 23 (2010), 67–87.
Remmers, G., 1999. Mobile offshore base: a sea basing option. In: Proceedings of
Third International Workshop on Very Large Floating Structures. pp. 1–7.
Rognaas, G., Xu, J., Lindseth, S., Rosendahl, F., 2001. Mobile offshore base concepts.
Concrete hull and steel topsides. Mar. Struct. 14 (1), 5–23.
Shipbuilding Research Centre of Japan-SRCJ. Shipbuilding Research Centre of Japan-
SRCJ. [on line, cited: 02/05/2011]. http://www.srcj.or.jp/html/megafloat_en/
whatmega/whatmega.html.
Suzuki, H., Bhattacharya, B., Fujikubo, M., 2006. ISSC committee VI.2: very large
floating structures. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Ship and Offshore
Structures Congress. Southampton, UK, vol. 2.
Tori, T., Hayashi, N., Nana, H., Ohkubo, H., Matsuoka, K., 2000. Development of a
Very Large Floating Structure, July 2000: Nippon Steel Technical Report No. 82.
pp. 12. UDC 627.352.7.
Utsunomiya, T., Watanabe, E., Taylor, R., 1998. Wave response analysis of a box-like
VLFS close to a breakwater. OMAE98-4331.
Versabuoy International. [on line, cited 01/05/2011] http://www.vbuoy.com/
indexgoogle.html.
Verne, J., 1986. The Floating Island (The Pearl of the Pacific). Sampson Low, Marston
& Company, London.
Wang, C.M., Watanabe, E., Utsunomiya, T., 2008. Very Large Floating Structures.
Taylor and Francis, New York, p. 2008.
Wang, C., Tay, Z., 2011. Very large floating structures: applications, research and
development. Proc. Eng. 14 (2011), 62–72.
Watanabe, E., Wang, C.M., Utsunomiya, T., Moan, T., 2004a. Very Large Floating
Structures: Applications, Analysis and Design. Centre for Offshore Research and
Engineering- National University of Singapore, Singapore, CORE Report No.
2004-02.
Watanabe, E., Wang, C.M., Utsunomiya, T., 2004b. Hydroelastic analysis of pontoon-
type VLFS: a literature survey. Eng. Struct. 26, 245–256.
Wu, Y.S., 1984. Hydroelasticity of Floating Bodies. Brunel University, UK.
Yago, K., Endo, H., 1996. On the hydroelastic response of box-shaped floating
structure with shallow draft. J. Soc. Nav. Arch. Jpn. 1996 (180), 341–352.
Zhang, H., Xu, D., Lu, C., Qi, E., Hu, J., Wu, Y., 2015. Amplitude death of a multi-
module floating airport. Non Linear Dyn. 79 (4) 2015.