Table 3 Criteria for platform assessment

C1

Seakeeping

Formation behind breakwater

(Wang et al. 2008);(Wang and Tay 2011);(Suzuki et al. 2006);(Ko 2015)

;(Miszewska et al. 2020);(Wang 2017); (Díaz and Soares 2021)

Individual platform performance

Platform area ratio to adjacent platform

Connection to area ratio

Superstructure loads on platforms

C2

Modularity

Dynamic expandability of urban configurations

(Dong et al. 2020);(Kizilova 2019);(Tsaltas et al. 2010);(Ko 2015); (Endangsih and Ikaputra 2020)

(Stankovic et al. 2021);(Drummen and Olbert 2021); (Cundy and Rollett 1981);(Gomez-Jauregui et al. 2021);(Piatek 2016);(Wang et al. 2008);(Wang and Tay 2011);(Suzuki et al. 2006)

Compatibility and forced design decisions

C3

Zoning and Circulation

Optimum usable space to area ratio

(Cubukcuoglu et al. 2016); (Wang et al. 2008);(Wang and Tay 2011);(Suzuki et al. 2006);(Tsaltas et al. 2010);

(Piatek 2016);(Cundy and Rollett 1981);(Gomez-Jauregui et al. 2021); (Stankovic et al. 2021);(Drummen and Olbert 2021)

Circulation qualities

C4

Feasibility

Platform size on construction time, complexity, and mobility

(Piatek 2016);(Chen et al. 2021);(Ko 2015);(Wang et al. 2008);(Suzuki et al. 2006);(Dong et al. 2020);(Wang and Tay 2011);(Endangsih and Ikaputra 2020)

;(Miszewska et al. 2020);(Díaz and Soares 2021); (Wang 2017)

Efficient cost per square meter

Complexity and speed of assembly and disassembly