1st Civil and Environmental Engineering Student Conference

25-26 June 2012

Imperial College London

Wave-in-Deck Loading
M.A. Libot

ABSTRACT

In this study a numerical scheme has been developed that expands the momentum flux formulation developed by van de
nd
Graaf et al. (1995) to include a variety of wave models, ranging from Airy to 2 order random wave theories. The scheme
is also capable of assessing a variety of parameters, the most important of which is the deck orientation relative to the
incoming wave event. This paper will highlight the key features of this scheme. This is followed by a comparison between
the experimental work and the numerical scheme, examining the effect of the wave model and of varying the orientation
of the deck structure with respect to the wave field. The study has found that the momentum flux formulation is an upper
bound solution to the wave in deck problem, and that it is of equal importance to ensure the correct wave theory is
employed to model the sea state.

1. INTRODUCTION UNOCAL platform was sheared from the jacket

The offshore industry is one in which the
boundaries of mankind’s understanding of the seas
is consistently pushed to the limit. Through
exploration in deeper waters as well as harsher
environments such as the Barents Sea and
potentially the Arctic Sea there has been a drive to
develop increasingly accurate and complex wave
models. These environments have led an
increased probability of offshore structures being
impacted by extreme wave events (Roos, 2011).
Consequently this needs to be accommodated for
in future design of offshore structures in order to
avoid potential wave-in-deck impacts. These occur
when the wave crest impacts the deck of the
structure. Furthermore, it has become increasingly
important to consider wave-in-deck loads when
reassessing existing offshore structures due to
recent developments in extreme wave modelling
as well as subsidence of existing fixed structures
due to extensive oil & gas extraction. Many existing
platforms have recently been found to have an
inadequate, or out-dated, air gap and hence there
has been increased interest from both the industry
and academia to enhance their understanding of
wave in deck impacts
Two methods for calculating wave-in-deck
loads exist; the component approach and the
silhouette approach. This present paper will
present a numerical scheme that extends and
adapts the momentum flux formulation presented
by van de Graaf et al. (1995), a silhouette type
approach. This paper also examines the validity of
the momentum flux formulation through
comparison to experimental work conducted in the
wave basin in the Hydrodynamics lab in Imperial
College.
1.1 Rationale
The potential dangers with which wave-in-
deck events are associated have been
demonstrated on numerous occasions. For
example, during Hurricane Hilda, the deck of the
1
due to wave crests impacting the deck horizontally
(Bea et al., 1999). Whereas for other loading
phenomena, such as jacket loads, there are
industry-wide standards, there is currently no
general consensus in the industry over how to
model these loads accurately.
Furthermore, there exist very few critical
reviews of the various wave-in-deck models, and
little work has been done on extending the problem
to incorporate 3D effects. The model presented in
this paper is the momentum flux formulation due to
its relative ease of application as well as sound
theoretical background.
Therefore, it is clear that there needs to be a
considered review of the momentum flux
formulation through experiments. In addition an
extension of the model to allow for a variety of
potential sea states is required. This will allow an
insight for other academics or persons interested in
further developing the momentum flux formulation
of its accuracy and its drawbacks, as well as
providing an approach to extending the problem to
a 3D environment.
1.2 Objectives
The main objectives of this paper are presented
below:
 Produce a numerical scheme that solves
the momentum flux formulation as
presented by van de Graaf et al. (1995).
 Extend application of the momentum flux
method to incorporate various wave
theories as well as a varying deck
orientation with respect to the wave event.
 Investigate the validity of the momentum
flux formulation through experimental work
in the Imperial College Wave Basin.
2. PREVIOUS WORK
There is no general consensus within the
offshore industry on which method to employ to
best calculate horizontal wave-in-deck loads. A
variety of models exist, some of which have been
more extensively examined than others (van Raaij
& Gudmestad, 2007). The analytical models which
have been published can be split into two broad
categories:
 Silhouette Approach – models based on
the definition of a projected area. Includes
those described in API, DNV and BSI
standards as well as the momentum flux
formulation.
 Detailed Component Approach – these
models examine loading on each individual
component on the topside structure. This
category includes the model proposed by
Kaplan (1976) as well as the Amoco and
Chevron in house models.
The silhouette approach can be sub-divided
into two categories; drag formulation and
momentum formulation. The method proposed by
van de Graaf et al. (1995) falls into the latter.
2.1 Drag Formulation
The models which fall under this category are
the simplest, and subsequently are the ones
proposed in the three industry standards; API, BSI
and DNV. The model proposed in API is based on
Morison’s drag load, but requires an empirical
constant 𝐶𝑑 based on the porosity of the deck
structure. The API model is given by:
2
𝐹 = 0.5𝜌𝐶𝑑 𝐴𝑢 (1)
Where 𝜌 is the density, 𝐴 is the wetted area
and 𝑢 is the horizontal particle velocity. It has been
shown by both Roos (2011) and HSE (2001) that
the API formulation is a good method of quickly
estimating the order of magnitude of a wave in
deck event but does not consider inertial, impact or
pressure gradient effects (HSE, 2001).
Furthermore, its inability to produce a time load
history means it is of little value when examining
dynamic response, something which carries great
significance when considering events of this
nature.
2.2 Detailed Component Approach
As described by its name, this approach
involves the calculation of the load on each
component individually. The major assumption
underlying these models is that there is no
interference between the components and the
wave. The general consensus is that the model
proposed by Kaplan (1976) is the most detailed of
the three previously mentioned. The loads on each
component are calculated using a Morison type
2
load, however an additional forcing term related to
the rate of change of the added mass is included:
𝑑
𝐹𝑖 = (𝑀 𝑉 ) (2)
𝑑𝑡 𝑖 𝑖
Where 𝐹𝑖 is the impact force on member i, 𝑀𝑖
is the added mass acting on member i, and 𝑉𝑖 is
the impact velocity on the member i. It should be
noted that work done using fully numerical models
has shown that the assumption of no interference
is flawed, causing the Kaplan model to be
conservative compared to the API model (Chen &
Yu , 2009). In addition, these methods are
computationally expensive.
2.3 Momentum Flux Formulation
The overarching principle behind the
momentum flux method is the instant and complete
dissipation of the horizontal momentum travelling
into the deck. In essence, this implies that the
portion of the crest of the wave that impacts the
deck is ‘shaved off’ (van de Graaf et al., 1995). A
critical advantage of the momentum flux method is
that it does not rely on any empirical factors or
coefficients to define the forcing on the deck.
Therefore it allows the formulation of a general
model which is applicable in various sea states and
different environments without the need of
calibration with different coefficients. Furthermore,
it allows for the calculation of the load time
histories, which are crucial to evaluating the
dynamic response. The equations that make up
the method are shown in eq (3) and (4).
𝜂
𝐹𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 (𝑡) = ∫ 𝜌𝑏(𝑢(𝑡) + 𝑢𝑐 )2 𝑑𝑧 (3)
ℎ
𝑥
𝐹𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 (𝑡) = ∫ 𝜌𝑏𝑣𝑢𝑑𝑥 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑣 > 0 (4)
𝑥
Where ℎ𝑑 is the height of the deck above
SWL, 𝜂𝑓 is the height of the crest impacting the
deck, 𝑏 is the deck width, the x co-ordinate of the
crest is defined by 𝑥𝑐 (𝑡) and the intersection of the
front of the wave with the deck is defined as 𝑥𝑓 (𝑡).
The face load is the load acting on the front face of
the structure and the base load is the load due to
the vertically transported horizontal momentum
coming through the base of the deck as shown in
figure 1.
Figure 1: Sketch showing face and base load components
taken from Roos (2011)

The momentum flux method is considered to
be an upper bound solution to the wave-in-deck
problem due to the assumption that all momentum
is instantaneously destroyed. This implies there is
no diversion of momentum in the form of run up,
something which is likely to happen in a real
environment.
3. NUMERICAL MODELLING
The main focus of this section is the
adaptation of the momentum flux formulation to a
numerical scheme. Although the initial work done
by van de Graaf et al. (1995) was limited to an Airy
wave train impacting normal to the deck, the
numerical scheme aims to incorporate a wide
range of wave theories and conditions as well as
deck orientations and inundations in an attempt to
predict the loading time history for wave in deck
events.
Another key limitation of the method as
proposed by van de Graaf et al. (1995) is the
definition of the deck co-ordinates, allowing only for
regular wave theory. Therefore, it was chosen to
change the co-ordinate system to accommodate
for random waves with any focus position a:
𝑎 ≤𝑥 ≤ 𝑎+𝐿
This paper will only present the main steps
involved in modelling the loads for a deck structure
with varying orientation to the wave field.
3.1 Face Loading
The face loading is relatively straightforward
to convert into a numerical scheme; all that is
required is the definition of a deck face as well as
the calculation of horizontal particle velocities. The
calculation of particle velocities can be done
through the use of any analytical or numerical
wave theory, or can be input from fully nonlinear
data obtained either empirically or numerically.
The first step is to define the deck grid. This
deck grid will also be used to calculate the base
loads. An example deck grid at an orientation of
22.5° is shown in figure 2.
0.4
0.3
Face 1
0.2
0.1
y (m)
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Face 2
-0.4
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
x (m)
Figure 2:Discretised 2D mesh of deck structure at 𝟐𝟐. 𝟓°
It is clear that the deck grid is rotated rather
than the wave field, which means the horizontal
particle velocities need to be resolved into
components perpendicular to the face. When
finding the total face load, the loads on face 1 and
face 2 are computed individually using trapezoidal
integration and subsequently summed. Due to the
nature of the scheme, it had to be ensured that
sufficient deck points were used to ensure
convergence. It was found that in the vertical
direction convergence was instantaneous,
whereas 30 points/m were needed to model
variation in the (𝑥, 𝑦) directions. The same is true
for the base load.
3.2 Base Loading
Although both face and base loads have been
incorporated into one scheme, they also exist
independently due to their nature. This is because
base loading is only prevalent in platforms which
allow the ingress of water through the base of the
deck. Therefore this component may not apply to
certain deck structures. The user therefore has the
option to choose what components of the loading
to investigate.
The scheme for the base load involves the
definition of a wave field which is 50% bigger than
the deck to allow for rotation. The wave field data
is then interpolated to the co-ordinates on the deck
(5) grid using linear interpolation to facilitate
calculations. For a given time 𝑡𝑖 the wetted points
(𝑥𝑚 , 𝑦𝑚 ) for which 𝜂(𝑡𝑖 ) > ℎ𝑑 are computed. An
example of the wetted base area for a directional
wave is given in figure 3.
40
30
20
10
Y (m)
-10
-20
-30
-40
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
X (m)
Figure 3: Position of directionally spread NewWave event
𝝈𝜽 = 𝟑𝟎° at t=0.6s for a rotation of 𝟐𝟓°
Each point in the wetted area is treated as a
‘square’ with an area of 𝑑𝐴 = 𝑑𝑥 ∗ 𝑑𝑦. The
horizontal and vertical particle velocities on each of
these ‘squares’ are then calculated. The face load
for each wetted point at 𝑡𝑖 is then calculated using
equation 5.
𝐹𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒 (𝑡𝑖 ) = ∑ 𝜌𝑑𝐴 ∗ 𝑢(𝑥𝑚 , 𝑦𝑚 , ℎ𝑑 , 𝑡𝑖 )
(6)
∗ 𝑣(𝑥𝑚 , 𝑦𝑚 , ℎ𝑑 , 𝑡𝑖 )
This is then carried out for all time steps to
generate the loading time history of the event.
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
3.3 Validation of Scheme
In order to provide a validation of the
numerical scheme, a comparison to the results of
an analysis on the NRA structure by van de Graaf
et al. (1995) is presented in figure 4.
3
 time scale of 𝑡𝑠 = 1: 10 were adopted. It should be
noted that no substructure was included to avoid
any diffraction effects. The loads were measured
through the use of four 5kN piezoelectric load
sensors (Kistler 9313) which measured the
horizontal load.

Airy Wave Theory Wave-in-Deck Total Load with time at  =0

9

7
Figure 7: Photograph of model deck structure
6
Load (MN)

5
4.2 Unidirectional Broadside Impact
4 The numerical scheme was adapted to
3 incorporate the dimensions of the model deck as
2
well as the input parameters for the waves used in
the wave basin. It should be noted that regular
1
wave theory was not considered due to the effect
0
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 of water ramping in the basin when regular wave
Time (s)
trains were run. Figure 7 presents a comparison
Figure 4: Comparison between van de Graaf et al (1995) st
between the load time histories predicted by 1
predicted loads and loads predicted by numerical scheme nd
order and 2 order random wave theory and the
one observed experimentally for an inundation of
4. COMPARISON OF NUMERICAL SCHEME 34mm.
TO EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Experimental Setup 8

All experimental work was undertaken in the

‘wave basin’ at the Hydrodynamics Laboratory in 7

the Skempton Building at Imperial College London. 6

The basin has a working length of 20m, a width of
12m and a water depth of 1. 5m as shown in figure 5

5. However, for the experiments undertaken, the

Load (N)

4
basin was equipped with a faux bed, reducing the
effective water depth to 1.265m. 3

0
31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.7 31.8 31.9 32 32.1 32.2
Time (s)
9

5
Load (N)

3
Figure 5: Layout of Wave Basin (Roos, 2011)
2
The deck structure used in the experiments
1
was a 0.5𝑚 ∗ 0.65𝑚 ∗ 0.12𝑚 structure made of
green acoustic foam. A photograph is provided in 0
31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.7 31.8 31.9 32 32.1 32.2
figure x. The bottom of the deck was situated at Time (s)

0.1m above SWL. A length scale 𝑙𝑠 = 1: 100 and a Figure 6: Comparison of load time histories for inundation of
34mm, (a) LRWT (red), (b) 2nd order random (red)
4
 For an inundation of approximately 34mm it
can be seen that the numerical scheme under
predicts the load when using linear random wave
theory. This would appear to be in contrast with the
notion that the method is conservative. However,
this concept is based on the implicit principle that
the kinematics associated with the event are
correctly modeled. Figure 8 shows that there is an
increase of 34% in crest elevation in the generated
wave event when compared to linear random wave
theory due to nonlinear terms. It is therefore
reasonable to assume that the kinematics will not
be correctly modelled when employing linear
random wave theory for the event described in
figure 7 (a).
14
12
10
8 0
6
4 linear random wave theory (blue), 2nd order random wave
 (m)
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
30 30.5 31 31.5 32 32.5 33 33.5
Time (s)
Figure 8: Surface elevation time-histories, η(t), for 1st Order
NewWave theory (black), 2nd Order NewWave Theory (red)
and Experimental results (blue) for input amplitude 0.1m
This is validated when modelling the same
nd
event with a 2 order random wave theory, as
shown in figure 7 (b). In this case, the numerical
predictions are in excess of the experimentally
observed loads, confirming the conservative nature
of the method. This is further highlighted when
considering figure 8. The wave event that causes a
34mm deck inundation has a crest elevation 24%
nd
higher than the one predicted by 2 order random
theory. Some of this is alleviated by the fact that
the wave used in the numerical scheme has an
input amplitude of 134mm, however the kinematics
are still underestimated in comparison to those
underneath the wave crest in the basin. This is in
contrast with what is shown in figure (b),
confirming the conservative nature of the
momentum flux formulation. This was also
confirmed throughout the experiments by the
presence of momentum diversion in the form of run
up, with the waves often splashing over the top of
the structure. This diversion of momentum implies
that not all the momentum is instantaneously and
totally dissipated.
4.3 Effect of Deck Orientation
(Unidirectional)
One of the main limitations of the van de
Graaf et al. (1995) method is that it can only deal
with broadside impacts. However, in a real sea
state the wave event is unlikely to strike the deck
perpendicular to its direction of travel. Figure 9
shows the trends associated with varying the deck
orientation relative to the wave field for both the
numerical scheme and the experiments conducted.
20
19
18
17
Peak Face Load (N)
16
15
14
13
12
11
10 20 30 40 50 60
Deck Orientation (deg)
Figure 9: Variation in peak face load with deck orientation,
theory#(green) and experimental results (black)
The effect of varying the deck orientation from
0° to 56.25° for an inundation of 56mm, with the
black line representing the experimental result is
clearly visible. It can be seen that the
experimentally observed loads show good
34 nd
correlation with 2 order random wave theory. It
should be noted that the experimental results are
originally higher than the numerically predicted
ones, only to drop below them as the deck
orientation varied from 0° to 56.25°. This is due to
an additional feature that is not modelled in the
momentum flux formulation method; namely the
diversion of momentum around the structure.
When impacting the face perpendicular to the
direction of the group velocity, the momentum can
only be diverted in the form of run up, but this is
limited. However, as the structure tends towards
45° the momentum can be diverted through both
run up as well as around the faces of the structure.
This causes the load to decrease with respect to
the numerically predicted peak load, and further
strengthens the argument that the momentum flux
formulation is an upper bound solution to the wave
in deck problem when modelled with the correct
wave theory.
It is also apparent that once the structure has
rotated past 45° there is a dramatic increase in the
peak load. This is due to face 2 (see figure 2)
becoming the dominant face, and due to it being
30% longer than face 1 the loads are expected to
be higher at 56.25° than at 33.75°.
4.4 Effect of Deck Orientation (Directional)
As with unidirectional waves, the effect of the
angle at which the wave enters the deck structure
is of importance to adequately model a real world
situation. The effect of deck orientation was only
5
investigated for the 𝜎𝜃 = 30° and an inundation of
56mm case due to time constraints, and the
variation in peak load with deck orientation is
compared to the numerical predictions in figure 10.
18
17
16
15
Peak Load (N)
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
0 10 20 30
Deck Orientation (deg)
Figure 10: Comparison of numerical scheme (blue) and
experiments 𝝈𝜽 = 𝟑𝟎° (green) with varying deck orientation for
a 56mm inundation
The trend of a decreasing peak load with
deck orientation tending towards 45° is also visible
with directional waves, but is much less
pronounced than with unidirectional waves. This
can most probably be associated with the
transverse components of the velocity, which are
zero in a long crested sea state, acting on the
more exposed face. Studies done on large offshore
structures by de St. Q. Isaacson and Sinha (1986)
have demonstrated that the transverse
components of the force are substantial and
increase with directional spreading. This can
explain the reason for the experimentally observed
loads being higher than the loads observed for the
same unidirectional effect. Although the
unidirectional waves also predicted an increase in
the peak load once the structure has rotated past
45°, the directional experiments show a larger
increase. These transverse components need to
be resolved through less of an angle on the long
face when it is at 56.25°, thereby increasing the
load. These transverse components have not been
included in the numerical scheme, leading to the
increase in peak load at 56.25° to be less defined.
This has also caused the numerically predicted
directional loads to always be lower than the
predicted unidirectional, although it was observed
in the basin that at 45° the 𝜎𝜃 = 30° produces a
higher peak load than the same unidirectional
event.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The two main conclusions drawn from this
study is that the choice of wave model is of great
significance and that the momentum flux
formulation correctly captures the load time trace,
even though it has been shown to be conservative.
The trends of decreasing peak load with changing
deck orientation between 0° and 45° have also
been corroborated by the experimental results.
The conclusion that the choice of wave theory
is of crucial importance is strongly linked to the
conclusion that the momentum flux formulation is
conservative in describing horizontal wave in deck
loading. All the waves produced in the basin have
been shown to require higher order terms than
nd
provided by 2 order random wave theory to
accurately match measured surface profiles.
However, for an inundation of 34mm the
momentum flux formulation over predicts the peak
load, indicating the conservative nature of the
model. Nevertheless, if the correct wave model is
not employed the scheme can provide a lower
bound to problem, something which is undesirable.
In conclusion, the momentum flux formulation
is conservative in nature, primarily due to the
assumptions of complete and instantaneous
momentum dissipation as well as 100% porosity of
40 50 60 the deck structure, but attention has to be paid to
the wave model employed.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to thank my
supervisor Prof. C. Swan for the opportunity to
conduct this work as well as the guidance he
provided throughout. Special thanks also need to
be given to M. Latheef and J. Haley for assistance
with technical and other queries. I would also like
to thank Bill and Dave, without whom I would not
have been able to conduct the laboratory
experiments.
7. REFERENCES
API, 2000. API RP2A-WSD: Recommended practice for
planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore
platforms - working stress design. 2nd ed. Washington
D.C.: American Society of Petroleum Engineers
Publishing Services.
Bea, R.G., Iversen, R. & Xu, T., 2001. Wave-in-Deck Forces on
Offshore Platforms. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, 123, pp.10-21.
Chen, H.-C. & Yu , K., 2009. CFD simulations of wave-current
body interactions including greenwater and wet deck
slamming. Computers & Fluids, 38(5), pp.970-80.
de St. Q. Isaacson, M. & Sinha, S., 1986. Directional wave
effects on large offshore structures. Journal of
Waterway, Port and Coastal Engineering, 112.
HSE, 2001. Offshore Technology Report OTO 2001 034:
Assessment of the effect of wave-in-deck loads on a
typical jack-up. Sheffield: HSE Prepared by MSL
Engineering on behalf of HSE.
Kaplan, P. & Silbert, M., 1976. Impact forces on platform
horizontal members in the splash zone. In Proceedings
of 8th Offshore Technology Conference, Paper No.
OTC 2498. Houston, Texas, 1976. Offshore Technology
Conference.
Roos, J., 2011. Wave-structure interaction: The effective
prediction of wave-in-deck loads. PhD Thesis. Imperial
College London.
van de Graaf, J.W., Tromans, P. & Vanderschuren, L., 1995.
Wave loads on decks. Offshore Structures Engineering
Newsletter, No. 10.
van Raaij, K., 2005. Dynamic behaviour of jackets exposed to
wave-in-deck forces. PhD Thesis. University of
Stavanger, Norway.
van Raaij, K. & Gudmestad, O., 2007. Wave-in-deck loading on
fixed steel jacket decks. Marine Structures, 20(3),
pp.164-84.
6
7