Traditionally, the control point (CP) of a dynamically positioned vessel is located around its center of gravity (CoG). However, during offshore operations, other locations, such as the crane tip or gripper position, become more critical due to the load being located there. This thesis proposes shifting the control point from the CoG to an alternative location, specifically the gripper position, to minimize the DP footprint at this location. Minimizing the DP footprint at the gripper location could lead to smaller motion deviations at this critical point. Consequently, this could potentially improve the workability of the vessel, which in turn could lead to higher operational yields. Additionally, the risk of potential damage and unsafe situations offshore is mitigated.

The conventional DP system contains a Kalman Filter, to filter out the first-order motions, a P(I)D controller that calculates the demanded forces to keep the vessel in place, and a thruster allocation algorithm that distributes the demanded forces to all the thrusters in an optimized way.

A new design for a DP system with the control point at the gripper position for the Deepwater Construction Vessel (DCV) Aegir is presented and evaluated. Time domain simulations were performed with the Aegir containing its conventional DP system and with the Aegir containing the newly designed DP system. These time domain simulations were performed using Orcaflex, which contains a model of the Aegir. This model of the vessel is connected to an external Python code, that contains the DP system, including a thruster allocation.


As the new DP system at the gripper location has to cope with coupled equations of motion, it is equipped with a new Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) PD controller, that consists of a decoupling module and separate PD controllers for each DOF. To obtain state estimates for the second-order motions at the gripper location, the state estimates calculated by the Kalman Filter are translated to the gripper location.

The effects on DP performance were assessed by evaluating and comparing the motion responses in the horizontal plane and DP footprint at the gripper location of both models. Also, the thruster behavior and energy consumption of both models are compared. This was done for an incoming wave direction of 135 degrees, a peak period (Tp) of 8 seconds, and significant wave heights (Hs) from 1.0 m to 2.0 m with increments of 0.5 m. The wave spectrum used is a JONSWAP spectrum. As recommended by the classification society, three-hour simulations are performed for the so-called 'base case' sea state with Hs = 1.5m. However, due to the extensive simulation time only one-hour simulations were performed for the cases with Hs = 1.0m and 2.0m.

When comparing the motion responses, one of the most remarkable results is an improved yaw response for the gripper control point model in all sea states that are considered in this study. Further on, the motion responses for sway appeared to be bigger for the gripper control point compared to the center control point in Hs = 1.5m and Hs = 1.0 m. However, the differences in sway are observed to be marginal for Hs = 2.0m.

The results show that the DP footprint has slightly improved in the x-direction for the gripper control point model compared to the center control point model for the base case. The same observation is done for Hs = 2.0m, but the differences found between the models in Hs = 1.0m are marginal. Also, the DP footprint was observed to be slightly larger in the y-direction for Hs = 1.0m and Hs = 1.5m for the gripper control point.

The total thrust outputs as delivered by the DP system during the simulations were converted to power, by using the propeller diagrams (for DP-speed state) for the specific types of thrusters the Aegir is equipped with. From these results, it became clear that the gripper point control model consumes less energy in all tested sea states compared center control point model.

From the results presented in this study, it is concluded that the system itself has potential, but no hard conclusions can be drawn for the system in its current form. Problems were observed with the current thruster allocation algorithm from HES, which need to be explored in more detail and resolved. It is recommended to look into developing a stable working thruster allocation algorithm for both control point models, such that more accurate dynamic simulations can be performed and the system can be assessed under more sea states.