Prediction of wave impact loads on Ship-type Offshore Structures in Steep Fronted Waves

Arjan

Voogtan i Bas Buchner

MA tIN
Wagen in gen. Netherlands

ABSTRACT
Steep fronted waves can induce extremely large impact pressures on the
huil of moored ship-type offshore structures. Several incidents
confirmed that these loads can result in significant damage to the bow.
As part of the SAFE-FLOW Joint Industry Project these loads werc
investigated with a dcdicatcd series of model tests. Dctailed analysis of
the results gave important insight in the wave impact hydrodynamics, It
was observed that the local steepness of the waves has a large influence
on the magnitude of the occurring bow slams and that the siamming
could be characterised as a wave crest phenomenon. Thercfore high
pressures can be experieneed in the upper bow and forecastle. The
paper first presents the test philosophy, set-up and dedicated
measurements. Then the developed prediction method and its results
will be discussed in detail.
KEY WORDS: 21 order waves; steep waves; FPSO; bow slam;
equivalent pressure; dynamic response; prediction
INTRODUCTION

Keveral incidents in recent years have revealed iat wave impact

'oading is an important issue for moored floating production systems.
Wave impact damage has been experieneed by both the Foinaven and
Schiehallion FPSOs.
Impact loading differs from other types of wave loads by their very
short rise time. The rise times, defined as the time from the application
of the slam UU the peak in the loading, are in the order of milliseconds.
The pressures resulting from the large impact loads are often described
with a slam cofficint times the fluid density and the velocity squared.
Most of these slam coefficients are based on drop tests in which a
structure is dropped in the water with a known velocity. Campbell and
Weynberg (1980) derived these coefficients for a cylinder.
The magnitudes of the slam coefficients provided in literature differ
significant and for application for the wave loading problem the impact
velocities need to be known. Ochi and Tsai (1984) define this velocity
proportional to ie phase speed of the wave. Highest loads can be
expected in breaking or broken waves and De Haas (1999) showed that

Paper No. 2004-JSC-343

Voogt

for these steep fronted waves the phase speed differs significantly from
lincar theory. To describe steep waves more accurately Kjeldscn (2000)
provides a number of parameters that describe the local profile of the
waves, which influences the slam loads.
The present paper was developed withtn the SAFE-FLOW project
(SAFE-Floang LOading by Waves), which is initiatcd in response to
encouragement by the UK Health and Safety Executivc (HSE)
following earlier joint research, such as the JIP 'F(P)SO Green Water
Loading'. completed in 1997 (Buchner, 2002). lts main objective was
to investigate water impact loading hazards in detail. The research team
included a number of specialist European-based companies in this field.
Approximately 49% of the SAFE-FLOW research budget is provided
by the European Community under the 'Competitive and Sustainabie
Growth' Program (1998-2002), while the oier 51% is provided by
industrial sponsors including oil companies, ship builders, classification
socicties and consultants.
Based on model tests carried out for both a free floating FPSO and a
fixed schematic bow a prediction tooi (BowLab) is developed which
will bc discussed in iis paper.
EXPERIMENTS
The effects of wave impact on extemal surfaces of an FPSO have been
evaluated. Measurements have been made of:

Impact pressures for local design of the shell.

Pressures on large areas of panel.

Forces or impulses for large components of ship structure.

As part of the project MARIN performed 2 series of model tests at
scale 1:60 in deep water:

Model tests on free floating Schiehallion FPSO

Model tests on a highly instrumented fixed simplified bow

The tests on free floating Schiehallion FPSO focussed on the motions
of the FPSO, the local relative wave motions at the bow and the local
pressures and sectional loads at the bow. An example for a significant
slam is shown in Figure 1.

Page 1 of 9

jjll.

_iltt_

^JtXi.

^ZL

__EI1.

0^ 0^ & 0^ 0^
<& 0^ 0^ <P 0
0^ 0^ 0^
0r
^ss^

(&*L

ta

0^0^
^ o . ^&a_

Qia

Figure 3: Bow model with pressure celts (right) and force panels (left)

Figure 1: Bow impact event on free floating Schiehallion model

nn these tests in irrcgular seas the incident wave data. vessel motions
and resulting relative motions, bow pressures and stnictural response
are measurcd. The measurements are visualised in Figure 2 which
shows both the undisturbed and disturbed wave fronts and the
dimensions of the instrumented bow segments.

It was found that the magnitude of the wave impacts at the front of the
bow are dominated by the wave characteristics (namely the local wave
steepness), rather than by the motions of the ship relative to the waves
(relative wave motions). Further the maximum pressures are measured
close to the crest of ie incoming waves. An example of a steep wave
front reaching the bow structure is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Steep wave approaching the bow structure

DESIGN METHOD

Figure 2: Visualisation of measured wave fronts

The tests showed that more detailed load measurements were necessary
and that an investigation was needed into the relation between the
incoming waves and these loads. This resulted in the model tests on a
highly instrumented fixed simplified bow.
The bow was instrumented with a large array of pressure transducers
and 3 force panels (Figure 3). The test program, also making use of
extensive video recordings, was designed such that it was possible to
determinc the correlation between undisturbed wave shape and the
impact pressure time traces. From these tests inegular sea incident
wave data and bow pressure results are available on a fixed schematic
bow structure with varying rake and plan angles.

Paper No. 2004-JSC-343

Voogt

To calculate the probability of wave impacts on any given vessel

structure, at any given elevation, a prediction method for the simulation
of the water surface and the occurrence of wave impacts was created in
SAFE-FLOW. To allow this simulation to accurately predict wave
impacts, it was necessary to consider the following:

What are the most significant wave parameters that can be

used to determinc when a slam will occur and what
magnitude it will be?

How can the probability of occurrence of these parameters be

predicted numerically with sufficint accuracy to represent
real seas?

What are the temporal and spatial variations of pressure on

the huil during the resultant impact event?
Evaluating the available results from all model tests performed within
SAFE-FLOW, it was decided to deveiop a method that split up the
problem in two main problems (Figure 5).

2 of 9

The rclation between the local wave characteristics and the

magnitude (and other characteristics) of the wave impact, the
lower line in the figure.
The position of the impact based on the related ship motions,
the upper line in the figure.

spatial wave
profile

The combination results in a localised impact with specific properlies,

resulting in the struciural response of a local structure with its specific
structural propcrties.

motion
RAOs

WF ship
motions

location

bow slam
proporties

<f$\h

vertical free surface velocity

velocity

Figure 7: The vertical free surface velocity (dt/dl) is related to the local
wave steepness (d/dx) by the wave celerity

impact
select
geometry

The local free surface steepness is linearly related to the free surface
vertical velocity (d/dt) through the wave celerity. Though this is
strictly truc only for linear waves and on a wave to wave basis, given
free surface continuity and according to Cauchy's intermediate value
theorem. thcrc are values of and such that the rclationship is verified
for a wave that results from a sum of elementary components.

emplrical
relations

Figure 5: Load-response prediction methodology

Pfo predict the probability with which structural responscs occur within
one selected sea state, BowLab uses the different building blocks
described in the sections betow.
Wave Steepness

The rclationship between the maxima in die vertical free surface

velocity (d/dt) and the impacts is shown in Figure 8. It shows the
traced impacts (circles) versus the time traces of the vertical surface
velocity. The impacts occur at the same moment as the maxima in the
vertical free surface velocity.

The local wave steepness (d/dx) can bc determincd from

measuremcnts of the wave elevations in an array of probes. An example
is shown in Figure 6, which shows the spatial wave profile for
successive steps in time. The time step between the different Unes is
0.31 seconds and die distance between ie probes 6 'meter allwing for
an accurate derivation of the local wave steepness.

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1
-

1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

I
1
1
1
1

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1800

1600

Time [s|
Figure 8: The traced impacts (circles) versus the time traces of the
vertical frce surface velocity
Second Order Wave Model

Figure 6: Visualisation of the local wave steepness (d/dx) based on the

measurements of the wave elevations in an array of probes
The combined spatial and temporal information of the sea state needed
to derive the local wave steepness is not gencrally available (in full
scale data and model tests). Therefore the vertical free surface velocity
is preferred as input to the model. The vertical free surface velocity
(d^/dt) is related to the local wave steepness (d/dx) by the wave
celerity (Figure 7)

Paper No. 2004-JSC-343

Voogt

In steep waves that cause the bow impact, linear theory clearly under
predicts the wave steepness. The most suitable meiod of simulating
the water surface to give a reasonable probability of vertical free
surface velocity was found to be second order wave theory, as
described by Sharma and FJean (1981) for instancc. Applying second
order wave theory results in an improved prediction of d^/dt, as shown
in Figures 9 and 10 for the basin waves applied.

3 of 9

15 measured-

It is observed that up to a certain vertical free surface velocity no

impacts occur. Above ths threshold level. the probability increases
linearly with the vertical free surface velocity up to the probability of

2"d order
10 linear \

F
" 5

100%.

Wave Characteristics and the Relation with Slam Magnitude

Beside the slam probability. the slam magnitude is of vital importance.
After analysis of all data, it was decided to relate the slam imputse (I).
the area under the load time trac, to vertical free surface velocity
(dC/dt).

dffdt
/ ' ' ' linear
2nd order
measured

-5
-10

6
10
12

1165

1170

time [s]
Figure 9: Measured. first order and second order wave time trac

Figurc 12 shows the measured impulses versus the corresponding

venical free surface velocities. For different velocity bins the mean and
Standard deviation of the occurring impulses is added to the figure.
resulting in straight lines.
0
CA

10u

^N.

nt

\
\
1

Maximu

01 LU

!10'

10 0

. . *
*
***

Q.

LUI

measured
linear

second order

*^S.

* ' '

^
^

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
wavevelocitv Cdz/dtl in m/s

Figurc 10: Probabilities of exceedance of vertical free surface velocity

It is clcar that the second order theory is not capable to describe the
asymmetry in the measured non-linear wave. However within the
accuracy of Lhe present design tooi ths is not considered a critical
aspect and the distribution of the vertical free surface velocities do
match the measured non-linear distribution rcasonably well.
To estimate the probability of an impact at a certain vertical free
surface velocity, the percentage of impacts occurring were counted for
bins of vertical free surface velocities (Guedes Soares, et al. 2004). An
example is given in Figure 11.
Mtrin. 403001-403005. gaug* RELM V I

Vertical free surface velocity

Figurc 12: The measured impulses versus the corresponding vertical

free surface velocities
The relation is independent of the sea state and holds for a schematic
flat plate bow. Within the design method the mean fit is used as a
maximum that can occur. For more realistic curved bow shapes the
loads are reduced as describcd in the next sections. The spreading
around this mean can be used as input to the derivation of the load
factors in a first principles reliability approach.
Other wave impact characteristics. such as rise time, decay time, spatial
extent and the effect of the bow shape are later applied to this local
impulse on a flat plate to determine the resulting structural response.
Position of Impact Related to Crest Height
Besides the probability of the impacts, the position of the impacts, their
characteristics (magnitude, characteristics in time, spatial extent, effect
of bow shape) and resulting structural responses are important. In the
SAFE-FLOW project a complete methodology has been developed to
derive this (Voogt, 2004).

to

12

mpUud** of dtriwti

In the model an array of pressure transducers was installed. In total 5

columns of each 8 sensors were availablc for the analysis. From the
repeated wave tests it was found that large spreading can occur on the
time trac of the pressure in exactly reproduced waves. Therefore the
impulse of ie slam is calculated with an integration of the pressure
over its duration. The magnitude of the impulses is plotted for a column
of transducers (Figure 13).

Figure 11: Probability of impact versus vertical free surface velocity

(from Guedes Soares. et al., 2004)

Paper No. 2004-JSC-343

Voogt

4 of 9

1.
2.

i measured impulses
on array of
pressure sensors

schematic bow
Figure 13: Defmition of slam centre (H) with respect to cresl height (C)
of incoming undisturbed wave
From this column of measured impulses the slam centre (H) can be
defined as the leve! above the free surface with the maximum impulse.
This height can be compared with the crest height of the corresponding
incoming wave (C). Figure 14 shows this comparison for the crest
heights of the undisturbed waves compare to the slam centre.

3.
4.

An estimatc of the linear part of the wave train is given. In

practice, a good first guess is the measured wave train itself.
With a Discrete Fourier Transform (DIT) the amplitudes and
phases of the linear estimatc are determined.
The corresponding second-order sum- and difference
frequency wave is determined and added to give an estimate
of the total wave.
The difference between the estimated wave and the measured
wave is determined. If this difference is larger than a certain
pre-defined value, the difference is added to the linear
estimate and the scheme is repeated from point 2 onwards.

The sum and difference-frequency waves are not determined for the
entire, theoreiical frequency range. Boih are restricted to the frequency
range |0, camax], where the cut-off frequency ojmax depends on the
wave spectrum. A second-order fit is not rcalistic above the cut-off
frequency since iird- and higher order effects are bound to occur. The
exact formulation for the cut-off frequency (or cut-off wave number) is
taken from Stansberg (1998).
After the scheme has converged, the linear amplitudes are known and
the response to this linear wave can be calculated. The table below
shows a comparison of the Standard deviations from the calculation and
the measurements for a head seas condition.
Table 1: Measured compared to calculated linear ship response
Linear calculation
Measurement
Wave [m|
3.62
3.63
Surge [m|
1.00
0.96
heave [m|
1.50
1.32
pitch [degl
2.04
2.26
A good comparison between measurements and linear calculations is
found, which is confirmed in the time traces in Figure 15.
Ta 205001

Figure 14: Slam centre (H) on horizontal axis versus crest height (C)
1300

Due to the adopted method the impact height above the waterline is
sampled with the distance between the rows of the transducers. For
each impact with the slam centre at the third row from above a
histogram of corresponding crest heights is shown with a small inset to
the graph. It is clear that some spreading occurs but that most of the
fcrest heights do corrcspond to the slam centre. The comparison with the
Fvave heights of the incoming undisturbed waves show that most slam
loads occur relatively close to the wave crest. This is consistent with
the observation that the maximum velocity occurs close to the crest
front of the incoming wave.
Position of Impact Related to Ship Motions
The previous section showed that the slam centre occur close to the
crest of the undisturbed non-linear wave. However for the design of a
bow panel in a floating structure, aiso the ship motions should be taken
into account. To check the assumption that these motions in steep
waves can still be described with linear diffraction theory, the model
tests reported with a floating model (Voogt, 2001) werc analysed
further.
An iterative procedure has been developed that fits a linear wave and ts
second-order contributions to a measured wave train. The procedure
works as follows:

Paper No. 2004-JSC-343

Voogt

1190

1200

1390
(*1

Figure 15: Time traces of measured vessel response compared to

calculated response assuming linear motion response
Even for these large differences between the linear wave and me
measured wave, the linear wave is sll capable to describe me major
part of the ship response. Therefore the following procedure is
implemented to determine the location of the impact:

For a time trac of the linear wave the motions of the vessel
are calculated.

5 of 9

With this linear wave non-linear wave components can be

calculated and added to the time traces.
Combining the time trac of the non-linear wave and the
linear ship motions gives a relative wave motion in front of
the vessel.
From these relative motions the slam centre can be
determined if a slam occurs.

From fixed schematic bow model:

Figure 16 visualizes the procedure. The yellow ship is moving on the

blue linear seas. While the red line indicates the second order wave
which determines the impact size and location.

Immersion
Velocity

Impact &j
locatioi*^

Measured
pressures at
different heights
up the bow

time Isl

Figure 18: Derivation of pressure front or immersion velocity from the

measured array of pressure transducers on the schematic bow

^ i

"igure 16: The position of the wave impact on the bow is determined
by the linear motion response combined with the second order cresl
height
Bow impact characteristics
So far the method focussed on the local impact pressures on the bow
and on its position. However, to design the plating and stiffeners in the
bow area iis is not always sufficint to deierminc an accurate response
-with resulting stresses.-The monitoring on the. Schiehallion. bow
(Hodgson, 2003) allows for this comparison between pressures and
stresses. Bascd on these results the pressurc duration, immersion
velocity and spatial extent are considered critcal (Figure 17).
JJaia a_lrea(ly_dcscnbcd_
Impulse
! Magnitude

For some impacts the pressure front travels upward over the plate,
while oicrs occur more instantaneous ly. If we determine the time
between the impacts over the height of the flat plate differences of 0.0
to 0.3 seconds can be found for two adjacent transducers. This
corresponds to a velocity of 10 m/s and higher. For comparison the
time derivative of the water level against the plate is determined, which
has a maximum of approximately 16 m/s. Up to immersion velocities of
100 m/s the pressure time trac of the slam show the traditional shape
(progressive slams), above this velocity only short sharp
(instantaneous) slams occur.
Different immersion velocities tend to occur at comparable values of
vertical free surface velocity. Therefore the probability disiribution of
the immersion velocities is determined. This disiribution is independent
of the slam size. The average disiribution is shown in Figure 19. This
figure shows two types of slams:

The blue bars on the left result in slams that progress over Uie
bow. The duration of the resulting load time tracs on a bow
segment are direct related to these velocities.

For velocities above 100 m/s (the red bar) an instantaneous

slam occurs. The duration of the resulting load time trac is
independent off the target size and thus independent of the
immersion velocity.

Immersion
Velocity
Spatial
Extent

Target type

Structural Response
Equivalent Press ure

Slam type

10

20

30

40

90

oo

ro

ao

so

lmmrakvtfKly{rr*l

Figure 19: The probability disiribution of the immersion velocities

Figure 17: Bow impact characteristics

Spatial Extent

Immersion velocity
From the measured array of pressure on the schematic bow the pressure
front or immersion velocity can be derived. This velocity is defined
based on exceedancc of half the maximum value for each transducer, as
shown in the Figure 18. This choice of exceedance level makes the
computer program capable of dealing with each slam and gives a better
esdmate then the exceedance of a threshold level. Sometimes this
threshold level is exceeded due to the hydrostatic pressure only
resulting in unrealistic small pressure front velocities.

Paper No. 2004-JSC-343

Voogt

For the schematic bow with the large number of pressure transducers
the spatial extent is derived by integrating the bow pressures downward
from the maximum slam over increasing areas, with steps of 1.5 metre.
For the instantaneous and progressive slams this resulted in the
following curves:
Instantaneous: The whole pressure time trac decreases wiih
the integral over the area. This type of impulse is recognized
as an instantaneous slam. The decrease of the pressure
depends on ie size of the pressure front and drops down fast
during integration (Figure 20).

6 of 9

Progressive: The rise time increases while the pressure

impulse remains relatively constant. This second type of
impulse progrcsscs along the structure. Due to the pressure
integration the rise time increases with the size of the area
and the impulse remains approximately the same (Figure 21).
1

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

Time (s)
Figure 20: Time traces of instantaneous stam for increasing panel sizes

3.1

3.

3.3

3.4

3.5

3,8

3.7

3.5

Time [s]

Dynamic response
The previous sections focussed on the bow impact loading. Howevcr,
for the evaluation of ship-type offshore structures, die structural
response under this impact loading determines wheier a structure is
able to survive a certain event. It is a characteristic of bow impact
loads, particularly instantaneous slams, that pressure loads are applied
very quickly. Dynamic response of the structure is therefore iikely.
requiring that dynamic amplification be included in any design
calculations,
The structural evaluation of bow slam loading and structural response is
in principle a coupled hydra elastic problem. These coupled effects are
Iikely to be most important when die natural period is longer than twice
the duration of ie slam. The full coupled problem has not been
invesiigated in die present project. Instead a simplified approach has
been used.
With the rise and decay time (and their characteristics) of the slam and
the natural frequency of the structure the dynamic response can be
calculated with a single degrec of freedom mass spring system.
Excluding hydro-elastic effects, the structural response can be
described with the equation of motion in which a constant damping,
added mass and mass are assumed.
For a typical large local slam die rise and decay times are about 10 ms
and for a panel natural period of about 1/10 sec the DAF will be 0.96
(Figure 23). This DAF smaller than 1 occurs if the structure has a long
period and does not have time to respond to me impact load before it
starts to reduce.

Figure 21: Time traces of progressive slam for increasing panel size
Pressun

For each calculated impact die time traces for instantaneous and
progressive slanis "are scaled to represent die correct impulse and
immersion vclocity. Widi the resulting curves and the location of the
slam centre the equivalent static pressure on a specified panel can be
determined.
The width and curvature of the panel can result in a reduction of the
equivalent static pressure. For very small panel width die results can be
considered two dimensional and multiplication of the pressure with the
width of the panel gives the design load. For larger panels the curvature
of the bow becomes important. Even for a flat plate die average
pressure reduces with the width of the panel due to local wave effects.
An empirical formula is Fitted through the measurements performcd in
Klasgow and documented in Barltrop and Xu (2004). Since one would
expect ie curved bow factor to be always less than die flat plate value,
the pressure for a curved plate is limited to die fiat plate value. The
resulting factor between the local pressure and the pressure average
over the width of the plate is shown in Figure 22.

Pmax
Pmax/2

Figure 23: Example of a DAF smaller than 1

For each combination of rise time, decay time and natural period die
DAF can bc calculated. The result is summarised in the design diagram
in Figure 24.

ao

Figure 22: Pressure reduction factors for curved panels

R I Mttme/ Natural period

10'

Figure 24: Design diagram with example of DAF of 1.66

Paper No. 20O4-JSC-343

Voogt

7 of 9

An example is provided in Figure 24 for a stiffened panel with an

immerscd natural frequency of 20 Hz and bow slam rise and decay
times of 0.01 and 0.03 seconds. The rise time divided by the natural
period is 0.2, reading the graph vertical to the inclined line with the
correct ratio between the decay half time and the rise time of 3, results
in a dynamic amplification factor of 1.66.
RESULTS
With ie BowLab program the position and dimensions of the target
panel can be varied and the resulting pressures in different waves can
be compared.
Figure 25 shows the effect of the wave steepness on the slam loads. The
results show the most probablc maximum equivalent pressures for a
panel of 1 m wide and 2 m hcight. The panel centre is located 8 m
above the mean surface Ie vel. Up to a significant wave height of 5
metres no slams occur on the specified panel as the waves do nol reach
the panel. Above this value the loads increase with the wave height
when ie wave period is kept constant as the wave steepness increases.
The figure shows both the load and response representing respectively
the static and dynamic pressure averaged over the panel.

SUMMARY
Bow impact loading on floating offshore structures is related to steep
waves occurring in random seas. Although new numerical methods do
give promising results, they still need significant further development,
integration and validation before they can be used to predict the bow
slam loads as a whole wilhin a reasonable timeframe.
Therefore in iis paper a design evaluation method was proposed. to
predict die bow slam loading problem from ie input (scatter diagram)
to the output (predictcd load and response levels) based on a clear
description of the bow slam physics. The method is based upon second
order wave meory describing the wave steepness and an empirical
relation between the wave steepness and ie local impact. The position
of this impact follows from a coupled time domain analysis of the ship
motions. The method assumes long crested waves which are considered
a worst case scenario.
In future work the prediction of the wave steepness can be improved
with higher order wave models and the inclusion of wave spreading.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

MPM pressures in 30 hexas stom shows the edecl of waw heighl

bc a peak period of 10s on small panel (hxb2x1m)8 mabow MSL
_ 2000 1

Sijjlcanl wave height |m]

Figure 25: Increase of equivalent pressures with wave height

The tooi can also be used to check the sensitivity of the loads on the
panel position. Figure 26 shows the results for a 2 m high, 1 m wide
structural panel within a 30 m radius bow structure. In these
calculations, an Hs = 12 m, Tp = 10 s sea state has been processed for a
peakedness of 1 and a duration of 3 hours, The centre of this structure
is shifted trom 1 to 21 m above MSL with steps of 2 m.
The results indicate that most probable maximum (MPM) equivalent
fcaressures up to 1600 kPa (160 m head of sea water) can occur once in a
" hour sea state, when the panel centre is close to the significant wave
hcight above the MSL (close to the maximum crest height in the wave).
25-,

The SAFE-FLOW project (SAFI-FLOating offshore stmctures under

impact loading of shipped green water and Waves) is funded by the
European Community under the 'Competitive and Sustainable Growth'
Programme (EU Project No.: GRDl -2000-25656) and a group of 26
industrial participants (oil companies, shipyards, engineering
companies, regulating bodies), The participants are acknowledged for
their interesting discussion of the results during the project and ie
permission to publish the present paper. The authors are solcly
responsible for die present paper and it does nbt represent the opinion
of the European Community.
The authors thank Trevor Hodgson (Galbraii Consulting), Carlos
Guedes Soares (IST), Ricardo Pascoal (IST), Tim Bunnik (MARIN),
Nigel Barltrop (NAME of Glasgow and Strathclyde), Ed Ballard
(PAFA) and Sandy Fyfe (PAI;A) for the cooperation in the SAFE
FLOW project, resulting in the method presented in this paper, which is
in detail reported in Buchner, Hodgson, Voogt (editors, 2004).
REFERENCES
Buchner, B., 2002, "Green Water on Ship-type Offshore Structures".
PhD-thesis Delft University of Technology
Buchner, B., Hodgson T., Voogt, A.J. (editors), Ballard, E., Barltrop,
N., Falkenberg, E-, Fyfe, S., Guedes Soares, C , Iwanowski, B.,
Kleefsman, T., 2004, "Summary report on design guidance and
assessment mcthodologies for wave slam and green water impact
loading", MARIN Report No. 15874-1 -OE, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Barltrop, N and Xu, L., 2004, "Wave Slap Loading on FPSO Bows'\
Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering of Glasgow &
Strathclyde Universities (NAME)

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Equi\ralent Pressure [kPa]

Figure 26: Effect panel position above Mean Surface Level (Hs=12m)

Paper No. 2004-JSC-343

Voogt

Campbell I.M.C and Weynberg P.A., 1980, "Measurements of

parameters affecting slamming", Wolfson Unit for Marine
Technology Report No. 440
Guedes Soares, C , Pascoal, R., AntSo, E.M, Voogt, A.J. and Buchner
B. 2004, "An approach to calculate the probability of wave impact
on an FPSO bow", Proceedings of the 23" International

8 of 9

Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

(OMAE2004), ASME, New York, paper OMAE2004-51575.
Haas, P.C.A.de, 1999, "Phenomenology of breaking waves". WL Delft
Hydraulics
Hodgson, T and Barltrop N., 2003, "BP Schiehallion fiill scalc
monitoring, January 2000 to January 2003", Atkins Report No.
4574032-ES-03. Issue 01, Aberdeen. UK.
Kjeldsen, P.S., 2000 "A sudden disaster in extreme wavcs"
Proceedings ofRogue Waves Conference, Brest France, Page 19-36
Ochi, M.K and Tsai, C. H., 1984, "Prediction of impact pressure
induced by breaking waves on vertical cylindcrs in random seas",
JApplied Ocean Research, 6, pp 157-165

Paper No. 2004-JSC-343

Voogt

Sharma. J. N. and Dean, R. G., 1981. "Second-Order Direconal Seas

and Associated Wave Forces", J. Soc. Petroleum Engineering, 4,
pp 129-140.
Stansbcrg, C. T., 1998, "Non-Gaussian lixtremes in Numerically
Generaled Second-Order Random Wavcs on Deep Water",
Proceedings of the Eight International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference
Voogt, A.J., 2001, "Discussion Problem Identification, SAFE-FLOW
project", MARIN Report No. 15874-l-OB, Wageningen, The
Neierlands.
Voogt, AJ., 2004, "Prediction of Wave Impact Loading, SAFE-FLOW
project". MARIN Report No. I5874-1-SMB, Wageningen, The
Nethcrlands.

9 of 9