Day 1

Paper 8

BOSTON
Organised by The ABR Company Ltd

Tugconomy: A New Approach to Value-Based Towage

Marinus Jansen (speaker/author), Rotortug BV, the Netherlands

SYNOPSIS

Tugconomy is a concept that describes a structured value-for-money framework for determining

performance space requirements for greenfield marine operations. Tugconomy aims to exclude
biases, both positive and negative, in order to provide operators and other stakeholders in
greenfield developments with a transparent development cycle. Studying different tug concepts
in competition during the development cycle, and including non-normal operations in the
process, will provide all stakeholders with a consensus on the ALARP towage solution for their
prospectiveprojects.

INTRODUCTION

associated with such risk levels involves multiple parties

and just as many disciplines.

Floating LNG (FLNG) projects rank among the most

complex and prestigious marine greenfield operations
worldwide. Seven FLNG import/export terminals are
currently approved and under construction globally,
with an additional six approved (but not yet under
construction) on the US East coast and Gulf of
Mexico. Twenty-two additional export-only terminals
are in various stages of development. LNG is rapidly
developing into an energy commodity independent from
offshore oil. Even if a strong correlation between oil
and gas prices persists and only 20 per cent of these
projects prove to be economically feasible, this would
mean eight to 10 LNG terminal projects going ahead in
the foreseeable future, in the US and Canada alone.

The design process is essentially a social

undertaking, where multiple parties, pooling their
cumulative knowledge and experience, engage in an
engineering process. For example, port developers
generally have the means and software capability to
optimise aspects such as bathymetry in port lay-outs,
yet developing towage services is often considered at
the back end of such engineering studies. Including
towage services development at a late stage tends to
limit design solutions to the scope of normal operations
only, while tug design concepts are over-influenced by
the past experiences both positive and negative of
involved parties.

Hazard and risk assessments on greenfield marine

LNG operations demand a structured front-end
development cycle, including assessment of towage
services. Such development cycles should preferably
be conducted in a transparent manner and provide
stakeholders with multiple options and towage
solutions. Extending the development cycle to include
non-normal operations, as well as studying different tug
concepts in competition, truly provides an as low as
reasonable and practicable (ALARP) towage service.

Including the development of towage services at an

early stage enables synergies between infrastructure
and towage service development. Efficient application
of available knowledge and resources at the early
development phase, defining the required performance
space, releases resources in the later stage to
include non-normal operations and create non-biased
comparative studies between tug concepts to find the
ALARP towage solution.

PERFORMANCE MATTERS

Developing a towage service at an FLNG greenfield

site is usually considered to come within the scope
of such an operations hazard and risk assessment.
Development teams for greenfield operations generally
aim at a pre-defined service level, with ALARP risk
levels. Evaluating the required performance space1
and bollard pull (as a subset of the performance space)

Tugboats are a tool at the pilots disposal. Pilots require

a tug to provide a vector within a reasonable framework
of time or response. How much of a force vector, or
what is considered a reasonable timeframe, is largely a
subjective matter. Industry consensus suggests a faster
vector response corresponds with a reduced vector
1

requirement, but quantifying one or the other mainly

relates to what technology is available and whether it
meets the functional requirements, rather than the other
way around: what is the functional requirement and
what technologies are available to meet this?

parameter: bollard pull. Tug deployment can be

considered with equally powerful tugs on a number of
positions with applicable impinged jet losses7 securing a
controlled berthing approach.
Tier II dynamic analysis includes ship dynamics in
the horizontal plane. Whereas tier I provides an outline
requirement presuming a dead assisted vessel, tier II
includes an assisted vessels inherent manoeuvrability
and controllability from propellers, rudders and bow
thrusters. Tier II analysis includes a range of scenarios
with wind fields, variable currents and banking effects
to create an understanding of required tug performance
space during the full harbour approach.

A tugboats principal purpose is to provide pilots

with additional controllability of the assisted vessel.
The extent of the required controllability depends
on predetermined operating windows, infrastructure
layouts, typical assisted vessels and risk policy for
harbour areas because how safe is safe enough?
What does that really mean and safe enough for
whom? What kind of procedures need to be considered
in case of non-normal operations?

Fast-time simulation tools can run many scenarios

within the tier II analysis scope. Fast-time simulation
programs MARIN Shipma (version 7.0) and others
(Figure 1) enable identification of benchmark
scenarios within a harbour or terminal operating
window. Such programs are often considered during
port developments, especially in relation to developing
layouts and bathymetry. Applying these programs to
develop effective performance space and functional tug
requirement is an underappreciated application of fasttime simulation, and enables effective use of TierIII
real-time simulation time and resources.

Multiple views from various stakeholders can be

expressed within the safety frame of operations: ship
owners, regulatory bodies, terminal operators, those
involved in tug (crew) safety. Generating consensus
between stakeholders involves finding the sweet spot
between available technology, operating psychology
and economics. Finding this sweet spot is what
Tugconomy is all about.
Tugconomy is a concept about value for money
for stakeholders in, and related to, towage services.
It is about finding towage solutions without a bias,
based on previous experiences, both good and bad.
Tugconomy believes in always looking for better
solutions and making efficient and effective use of
resources. It is about taking into account the operational
profile of a tug: intended application and operations,
asset lifecycles, contract term expirations and so on.
Tugconomy is about transparency and reproducibility
and therefore stands at the very basis of any towage
systems functional requirements.

CASE STUDY: GREENFIELD FLNG

Bollard pull is any tugs primary performance indicator

and a subset of tugs respective performance space.
Determining total bollard pull required to control an
LNG carrier or other assisted vessel is often subject to
discussion, with as many opinions as there are experts.
Tugconomy discards opinions, instead enabling a multitiered, transparent approach, enabling and including
expert views at every tier.

Figure 1: MARIN SHIPMA flow diagram

RISK ANALYSIS AND HAZARD

IDENTIFICATION

Acceptable risk is a key criterion in any professional

hazard identification and risk analysis. A reasonable
sub-question would be: Acceptable to whom? Most
risk analysis includes (maximum) likelihood and
consequence matrices. Within this paper we will focus
on operational risks in relation to a greenfield LNG
terminal project, yet the principle can be applied to a
range of marine operations (Table 1, opposite).

Tier I static analysis is a static desktop

spreadsheet calculation on the basis of the OCIMF (Oil
Companies International Marine Forum) and SIGGTO
(Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal
Operators) methodology2 +20 per cent3. Alternatively,
other methods can be applied to determine wind4,
current5 and wave6 forces finding guidance in dynamic
positioning methodology and literature. At this stage,
the main focus is a static situation where the assisted
vessel is controlled during a berthing manoeuvre.

A failure is here defined as a condition of nonserviceability of the operation. Within this scope,
environmental conditions and/or loads can exceed
the towage service capability (Figure 2, opposite),
prompting a suspension of marine operations. Three
types of failures can be identified in this manner, where

With a listed serviceability interval of the marine

operation and MET dataset, this enables anyone to
establish a basic tug requirement. At the very basis of
a tugs functional requirement is the static performance
2

KEY
Very Low: Acceptable level of risk.
Further analyses not needed.
Low: Acceptable level of risk
Medium: Represents a manageable
level of risk. Controls required,
implemented and verified.
High: Extensive risk controls must be
immediately implemented.
Very High: Stop activities unless risk
controls have been implemented and
the risk is reduced to a lower level.

Table 1: Example likelihood and consequence matrix

respective consequence ratings are self-evident. The
extent to which a temporary suspension of service
is acceptable must always be subject to a terminals
operator risk policy.

operators in their field, and why there is an increasing

focus on operator QHSE (quality, health, safety,
environment) qualifications, and risk awareness and
associated skill-levels among crews. Some hazards
and risks cannot be fully excluded because they are,
by their very nature, beyond our control, but we can
procure fit-for-purpose tugs designed to provide crews
with the tools to mitigate the consequences of this type
of failure.

Reversible, excess windage

T

ALARP is a term often used in the towage industry,

underlying the comparative nature of technologies
and procedures deployed in the field. Within this
framework, Tugconomy appeals to the reasonableness
and practicability of towage solutions. But perhaps the
principal underlying questions are: acceptable risk to
whom, and what are my options?

Non-reversible, allision with

terminal
T

Reversible, after repairs:

towline failure

Technology

Psychology

Figure 2: Towage service capability

ACCEPTABLE RISK POLICY

Economics

Acceptable risk is a comparative measure. FMEAC

(failure mode, effects and criticality) analysis should
ultimately benefit the decision-making process in the
development phase of marine greenfield operations. How
does one technology or tug concept compare to the other
and what details in tug design can benefit operational
safety? Creating value, by identifying key areas where
additional capital investment and operating expenses
provide value for money, appeals to decision-makers.

Figure 3: Technology, economics and psychology

Decision-making involves combining the above
disciplines (Figure 3) into acceptable towage solutions
ie, those providing the most effective vectors and
leverage to assisted vessels in a practicable manner.
Maximising berth availability, minimising operational
delays, securing safe work conditions and providing

Some failure modes can be mitigated by procedural

means. That is why you want to deal with expert
3

a cost-effective towage service capability, including

marketable assets (tugs) should be an integral
part of infrastructure developments considering a
towageservice.

of Tugconomy, all such functional requirements are

addressed and weighted providing competitive and
effective support services.

TUGCONOMY

Identifying performance space requirements and

benchmark scenarios in tier II fast-time simulations8
enables effective use of tier III real-time resources.
Real-time simulations can take 2hrs/run involving
a team of marine pilots and tug masters, often in a
consultancy capacity. Considering one weeks testing
amounts to 16-20 runs to test a range of scenarios,
resources are limited indeed. Running tier I desktop
and tier II fast-time simulation prior to such simulations
ensures key benchmark performance scenarios are
identified beforehand, and non-normal operations can
be considered.

TIER III A TOUCH OF ELEGANCE

Within the framework of Tugconomy, the question is

whether better solutions are available and, if so, to what
extent are they practicable? The Tugconomy concept
applies both to individual technologies and sub-system
designs, and includes tug concepts and designs, as
well as procedures designed to successfully deploy
tugs and react to unexpected events.
But Tugconomy is also about economics, with cost
breakdowns where crew expenses are a substantial
part of an operators cost base. Such a cost base, and
high-powered engines, inevitably create a drive for
fewer, but more powerful, tugs consequently altering
the towage operation/tug deployment and the towage
service failure modes.

Real-time simulations are where the human element

comes into the equation. Anticipating manoeuvres,
there is a lot to say in favour of including human skilllevels in that equation. Real-time simulations also
enable you to include non-normal operations as an
additional layer of complexity, and to compare suitability
of tug concepts for your operation.

Creating public support for terminal and/or port

infrastructure developments requires a structured and
transparent approach to how we go about managing
navigational risks in marine operations. The psychology
of a marine operation involves all stakeholders, ranging
from the not-in-my-back-yard neighbours to crews
and associated unions operating in front of a ULCC
at 8 knots, and US EPA-required additional emissions
controls for engines >2,000kW. In towage terms, that
means any tug of more than 60 tonnes BP. Exploring
and comparing multiple tug concepts appears to be
a sensible and transparent approach to covering
theseliabilities.

Tugconomy is about zeroing in on your towage

solution, increasingly defining and refining the
boundaries of a tugs performance space for ship and/
or tug-handling concepts. Marine pilots require vectors,
but act with caution in case of vector tugs. Vector
response and jet-impinged thrust phenomena are
tricky to grasp at best. Jet-impinged thrust losses, from
propeller wash impinging on the assisted vessels, can
range from 23-62 per cent9.

In particular, greenfield LNG developments favour this

unbiased approach to determining towage requirements
and define both the functional requirements and
technology meeting those requirements. Tugs often
provide myriad functional requirements within the
wider QHSE scope, with a differentiation between the
primary navigation risks and, for example, fire-fighting,
stand-by or oil pollution prevention. Within the scope

Auditing the simulation centres beforehand to ensure

that such physics phenomena are included appears
to be a sensible approach. Auditing subcontractors
and suppliers is becoming an increasingly common
phenomenon among global operators. Including
simulation requirements to provide and include new
tug concepts in their portfolio is a straightforward policy
which any simulation software provider can endorse.

Assisted vessel, Basic MET conditions,

Basic Bathymetry, Serviceability level
Tier 1 SIGGTO/OCIMF

Tier 2 Fast-time simulations

Scenario-driven
Tier 3 Real-time simulations, human factors
Non-normal operations
Towage solution
Figure 4: Towage in port development
4

NON-NORMAL OPERATIONS

secure greenfield developments and quantify expert

views while excluding human operator bias.

Limited resources, or more specifically available runs,

restrict the number of non-normal operations and
associated procedural actions to be explored. Nonnormal operations can be distinguished between general
failures, such as towline failures, and total blackouts.
Both can be mitigated by either split/double drums, or
turning around, using another winch (Rotortug) or using
24V back-up systems. There really is no differential with
regard to tug concepts in these circumstances, or it is a
differential that can be successfully simulated.

FOOTNOTES

All tugs have a fully-developed theoretical performance

space, indicating their respective towing capability,
Performance Matters A Case Study, Marinus Jansen,
Tugnology 15, London
2
Mooring Equipment Guidelines, 3rd edition, OCIMF, 2013
3
Tug Use in Port a practical guide, Hensen, Nautical
Institute, 1997
4
DNV-RP-C205: Environmental conditions and
environmental loads, October 2010
5
Modified strip-theory
6
Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures, Faltinsen, OM,
Cambridge University Press, 1990
7,9
SafeTug Offshore berthing operability methodology,
MARIN, January 2008
8
eg, MARIN SHIPMA programme
10
Force Technology: Tackling the Rotortug challenge, Jesper
Nielsen, International Harbour Masters Congress 2012
1

The other types of failure consider the tugs or

assisted vessels propulsion and steering system.
Considering two tug concepts to create a comparative
analysis further reduces the available runs to about four
or five per tug concept. The following list of scenarios
should be considered as a minimum:
Loss of steering assisted vessel.
Loss of propulsion assisted vessel.
Temporary (5 mins) loss of propulsion unit on centrelead fore tug.
Temporary (5 mins) loss of propulsion unit on centrelead aft tug.

Pursuing ALARP risk levels should by all means

include an analysis of different tug concepts. Rotortug
BV, the technical marketing company dedicated to the
development of the Rotortug concept, has supplied
tug design and trial data to a range of simulator
software suppliers as a policy for a number of years10.
Within this scope, the key issue is whether you can
afford not to review alternative tug concepts, and how
these might mitigate hazards in a marine operation.
Note: Tugconomy is not just about incorporating the
triple Z-drive Rotortug in the aforementioned analysis.
Other concepts, such as SDMs, are out there and
available and these successfully meet their intended
design criteria. However, some of these concepts may
lack versatility with regard to their intended application
and long-term operation after contract expiration.

CONCLUSION

Developing towage service functional requirements

includes many different stakeholders with as many
interests. Acknowledging that port development
includes social engineering (and design, by its very
nature, is a social process) and requires a transparent
and unbiased approach to stakeholders. Such bias can
be mitigated only by having multiple technologies and
tug concepts acting in competition, within the scope of a
marine operations development.
Within this framework, Tugconomy involves
a transparent design cycle, establishing a firm
performance space requirement and including nonnormal operations during the front-end development
phase thereby providing greenfield marine operations
with a cost-effective and ALARP towage solution.
Expert opinions alone are not sufficient to align
stakeholder interests and mitigate an operators liability.
Tugconomy provides a framework model to establish
5