See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271850315

Application of wave models to fatigue

assessment of offshore floating structures

Conference Paper · March 2015

DOI: 10.1201/b18179-43

CITATIONS READS

0 91

3 authors:

Tao Zou Miroslaw Lech Kaminski

Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
4 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 114 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Xiaoli Jiang
Delft University of Technology
25 PUBLICATIONS 80 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sloshel JIP View project

PhD Tau Zao View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tao Zou on 11 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Application of wave models to fatigue assessment of offshore floating
structures
T. Zou & M.L. Kaminski & X.L. Jiang
Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands

ABSTRACT: Offshore floating structure design requires long-term sea states data in order to make fatigue as-
sessments. However, measured wave data may be limited at the designated sea area. The development of
measurement and hindcast technology has enhanced long-term atmospheric data availability in most sea areas.
This paper couples a wave model-SWAN to the atmospheric model of the ERA-interim project. Sable field
wind data from ERA-interim project is combined to produce six-hourly sea states which permits fatigue as-
sessments for FPSO- Glas Dowr. Validating this methodology requires comparing this fatigue assessment re-
sults to the fatigue damages which are calculated based on the sea states from the wave model of ERA-interim
and buoy-measurement. The result indicates that this methodology has merits, but still requires further im-
provement.

1 INTRODUCTION The development of measurement (especially sat-

Offshore floating structures designs estimate long-
term fatigue damage consumption using wave cli-
mate data, as represented by the distribution of sig-
nificant wave height (Hs) and zero crossing period
(Tz) (DNV, 2010). These sea states data is obtained
through past measurements and is assumed to repre-
sent the wave environment the offshore structure is
expected to encounter.
A spatially or temporally limitation of these
measurement is that site-measured wave data is not
always available in oil fields or the amount of wave
data is not enough for the fatigue assessment. In ad-
dition, more and more researchers have realized that
the effect of climate change on sea states should not
be neglected and both average sea states and extreme
sea states cannot be considered stationary. Young et
al. (2011) analyzed a 23-year database of global
wind speed and wave height, and estimated a linear
trend for both extreme events and mean conditions.
Others developed a variety of different joint distribu-
tions based on the empirical relationship among
wave variables like wave height or wave period (Bit-
ener-Gregersen & Haver, 1991; Repko et al. 2004).
Nonetheless, these researches all need improvement
for making fatigue assessments as they only focus on
wave height change. In addition, wave height, period
and direction are all the key elements for fatigue as-
sessment. Change of wave period and wave direction
should also be identified.
ellite observation) and hindcast technology has made
global atmospheric data available for the past 50
years. Related reanalysis projects include ERA-
interim which addresses the global atmosphere cov-
ering the data-rich period since 1979 and continuing
in real time. The atmospheric model is coupled to an
ocean-wave model (WAM), which can output wave
data at the nodes of its 1.0°x1.0° latitude/longitude
grid. By analyzing the wind data variation, wave
models can simulate the changing trend of wave
height, wave period and wave directions
Challenges remain for this project. First, the
ERA-interim resolution is too coarse. Within these
1.0°×1.0° latitude/longitude “boxes”, all the wave
parameters are assumed to be uniform. The area of
this “box” is obviously too big for fatigue assess-
ment. Offshore floating structures are designed to
work in one particular location for certain years. In
order to make an accurate fatigue assessment, a
higher resolution is required. Second, ERA-interim
still requires validation. Caires and Sterl (2003) vali-
dated the reanalysis result of ERA-40 (ERA-interim
is an updated project based on ERA-40) against buoy
and satellite measurements over 17 sea areas along
the coast of North America. The results show that in
terms of significant wave height the satellite and
buoy observations compare well with each other, and
that the ERA-40 values of Hs slightly overestimate
low (<1.5m) values of buoy measurement, and un-
derestimate high values by more than 20 percent.
Durrant et al. (2009) made a similar comparison us-
ing the same buoy measurements but different satel-
lite data. They concluded that the satellite data (Ja-
son-1) was performing consistently throughout the
range of wave heights and required no correction.
Nonetheless, there is still no global validation of
ERA-interim.
This research simulates sea states in a certain area
with a wave model and an atmospheric model in or-
der to make fatigue assessment for offshore floating
structures. The main sea state characteristics are de-
fined as significant wave height, mean up-crossing
wave period and wave direction. Atmospheric data
(wind data) from ERA-interim projects is used. The
six-hourly sea states in Sable field of South Africa
(35.25°S/21°E) are simulated by SWAN wave mod-
el. In order to validate this methodology, the corre-
sponding fatigue damage is calculated and compared
with the fatigue damages calculated based on the sea
states from ERA-interim’s wave model and buoy-
measurement.

2 DATA SOURCES

This research applied the ERA-interim project wind

and wave data (Dee et al. 2011). ERA-Interim is a
global atmospheric reanalysis from 1979, continu-
ously updated in real time. The atmospheric model is
coupled to an ocean-wave model (WAM) resolving
30 wave frequencies and 24 wave directions at the
nodes of its reduced 1.0°×1.0° latitude/longitude
grid. Observations of ocean wind speeds from volun-
tary observing ships (VOS), buoys, and satellites
were assimilated in the reanalysis (Semedo et al.,
2011). This project provides a six-hourly global en-
vironment database at all nodes, including wind
speed, wave direction, significant wave height, mean
wave period, wave direction, wind speed or other
characteristics of wind and waves.
Because the main fatigue damage source is from
wave loads represented by the distribution of Hs and
Tz (DNV, 2010), their windsea and swell distribu-
tions must be identified. Spectral partitioning is
highly recommended to isolate windsea and swell
characteristics. WAM wave model computes the
two-dimensional wave spectrum for a given wind
based on its water surface interaction and define it as
the windsea component of a mixed spectrum. As the
spectrum of a mixed sea has already been identified
by integrating the energy balance equation, the
mixed spectrum remainder is termed swell.
Buoys are widely accepted as the most reliable
wave measurements. In this paper, Sable field meas-
urement data was collected by MARIN with a direc-
tional buoy from July 2007 to December 2008 (Aal-
berts et al. 2010), and the measured waves were
partitioned using an inverse watershed algorithm to
isolate peak domains in directional wave spectra.
(Hanson et al. 2010; Hanson, Phillips, 2001)
Figure 1. Plot of Hs distribution in Sable field at 12:00, 3rd Ju-
ly 2007 (The mesh size is 500m)
SWAN is a third-generation wave model for ob-
taining realistic wave parameter estimates from giv-
en wind, bottom and current conditions. The model
is based on the wave action balance equation with
sources and sinks. Based on the theory of wind-wave
interaction, wave-wave interaction and white-
capping, SWAN can simulate the generation,
growth, propagation and dissipation of waves on any
scale (Holthuijsen et al. 2007). This research simu-
lates waves in a 68km×83.25km sea area with a
500m mesh size. Wind data at each grid point result
from the interpolating ERA data in order to improve
the resolution. The waves at these boundaries can be
estimated in two ways: one is the results of another
model run with a coarser resolution; while the other
is by observations or reanalysis projects (such as
ERA-interim project). Based on the six-hourly wind
data and boundary conditions, the corresponding sea
states are simulated. Part of the simulated sea area
with 5km×1km (100×20 grids) is displayed in Fig-
ure1.
3 DATA VALIDATION

In order to validate ERA-interim reliability, the

buoy-measured data from MARIN is compared with
the corresponding spatio-temporal data from ERA-
interim. ERA-interim cannot output the exact sea
states in a particular location but rather can only
provide data representative of the whole correspond-
ing 1.0°×1.0° “boxes”. In this paper, the ERA-
interim data is actually the result of interpolating
those sea states at four nearest nodes.
From July 2007 to December 2008, there are
1,525 six-hourly sea states measured by buoy in Sa-
ble field and 1,850 sea states from ERA-interim. The
comparison of windsea data is shown in Fig.2a. The (a)
solid lines are obtained through the least square
method with corresponding dash lines standing for
95 percent confidence interval (95%CI). As shown,
the scatter of ERA is much smaller than the buoy-
measured data. In the lower region (Hs<0.5m and
Tz<3s), the data from ERA-interim is dominant due
to the buoys’ minimum wave height threshold
(0.5m). In other regions, almost all the ERA points
are located within the 95%CI of MARIN data. In
Fig.2b, the swell probability density contours are
plotted. These two contours have similar shape and
size. In addition, the centers are quite close to each
other. All indication are that these two datasets have
the similar probability distribution within the low Hs
range (0-6m). The more extreme sea states (Hs>6m) (b)
Figure 2. Comparison of wave data from ERA-interim and
in the buoy-measured data indicates that EAR-
MARIN
interim reanalysis model does not simulate extreme
events. Only 10 percent of the sea states are plotted
in Fig. 2b in order to simplify the plot, but all the sea
states are used to make the contours. The yellow re-
4 FATIGUE CALCULATION
gions indicate the limit of wave steepness (H/L
˃0.07). All the sea states falling in these regions are
In ultimate strength analysis, the extreme loading
omitted in this paper.
condition always corresponds to extreme sea states,
As a reanalysis project, the ERA data should not
whereas the other relatively moderate sea states are
be expected to agree with buoy-measured data 100
not so important. (Bitner-Gregersen & Skjong 2011)
percent. Possible reasons for the differences are: the
However, in fatigue damage calculation, each sea
resolution of ERA-interim is 1.0°×1.0° lati-
state should be taken into account.
tude/longitude and an interpolation is used, whereas
This paper utilizes SWAN wave model to simu-
a buoy only measures one spatial point; different
late the sea states for floating structure fatigue as-
wave partitioning methods and human errors can
sessment. wind data input is from ERA-interim. In
both reduce the degree of agreement. The compari-
order to validate this methodology, the monthly fa-
sons indicate that the reliability of ERA-interim’s
tigue damage was calculated with three different da-
sea states data is acceptable.
tasets at the same hotspot of a FPSO-Glas Dowr,
which was working in Sable field from July 2007 to
October 2008. These three datasets of six-hourly sea
states include data from ERA-interim wave model,
buoy-measured data and SWAN-simulated data. Part
of these data are shown in Table 1as an example.
These three datasets are all for the same spot of Sa-
ble field (35.25°S/21°E) and cover the same period
(from July, 2007 to October, 2008).
Table 1. Example of sea states from buoy-measurement
______________________________________________
Date Windsea
________________ Swell
_________________
Hs Tz Direction Hs Tz Direction
[m] [s] [ º] [m] [s] [ º]
______________________________________________
07070102* 0** 5.0 191 3.8 7.3 205
07070108 0 5.0 191 3.5 7.5 206
07070114 0 5.0 196 3.6 8.0 205
07070120 0 5.0 200 3.4 8.3 211
07070202 0 5.0 208 2.9 8.2 216 Figure 3. The calculation process of Bluefat
07070208 0 5.0 200 3.4 8.3 227
07070214 0 5.0 214 2.4 8.2 216 Table 3.The functionalities of Bluefat
__________________________________________________
07070220 0 5.0 269 2.2 7.3 263
Functionality Bluefat
07070302 0.5 2.8 132 2.1 8.7 271 Non-linear roll damping Linearization
… … … … … … … Input RAO database 2-D diffraction (Seaway)
08103112 0 5.0 205 2.3 7.1 228 Radiation/diffraction Empirical method 3D
*The format of date is: yy/mm/dd/hh Load combination Standard deviation (DNV method)
**Wave heights (<0.5m) is displayed as 0m Calculation method Spectral
Short-term distribution Rayleigh
The Floating Production Storage and Offloading Tank pressure Method Method DNV
system (FPSO) is a vessel used for offshore oil and Intermittent wetting method Method DNV
gas exploitation. There are two types of FPSOs in
terms of mooring system: spread-moored and turret- __________________________________________
moored. A spread-moored FPSO is positioned by
several mooring legs which can maintain the vessel According to the Bluefat calculation shown in
in a fixed orientation. Turret-moored FPSOs (like Figure 4, the monthly fatigue damage with those
Glas Dowr) are designed to allow FPSOs to rotate three datasets have the same seasonal trend. Monthly
depending on the direction and strength of waves, fatigue damage is high during winter and low during
currents and winds. summer. SWAN and ERA fatigue lines fit well with
The details of Glas Dowr and the coordinates of each other. However, the average fatigue of SWAN
the hotspot are listed in Table 2. All the fatigue cal- line is higher than buoy line. They are only close to
culations are carried out by the fatigue damage cal- each other at those “peak” months (such as
culation program-Bluefat. The software is suitable Nov.2007 and Sep. 2008).
for fatigue calculations in the deck, side shell and
bottom structure. (Aalberts et al. 2010) The calcula-
tion process of Bluefat, which requires the short term
statistical input, in this case six-hourly sea states for
both wind waves and swell separately, is shown in
Figure 3. The related functionalities are listed in Ta-
ble 3.
Table 2. The details of Glas Dowr and the coordinates of the
hotspot
______________________________________________
Length Breadth Mean Draughts
_________ __________ ____________
m m m
______________________________________________
Glas Dowr 232 42 12.99
______________________________________________
Figure 4. The calculation result with three datasets (ERA-
X Y Z
interim wave model, buoy-measured data and SWAN-simulated
_________ __________ ____________ data)
m m m
______________________________________________
Hotspot 112.85 18.3 21.31
______________________________________________ Comparison with the ERA-interim wave dataset
reveal no SWAN dataset accuracy advantages. How-
ever, calculating fatigue damage just by inputting
wind data is obviously more promising. First, the
wind measurement technology has been developed
much further than wave measurement. Second, dur-
ing the design of floating structures, the expected sea
states should be estimated; however, because of cli-
mate change, past sea states are less accurate predic-
tors of future sea states. Thus, the wave change trend
must be predicted. Predicting wave trends still re-
quires more development, whereas more research
has been done in the field of wind change, rather
than wave change (Zou et al. 2013). As a result, by
predicting the wind change trend, the sea states that
floating structures may encounter can be estimated
with a wave model, such as SWAN.
Such a methodology still requires improvement,
as the calculated fatigue damage doesn’t fit the dam-
age calculated by the buoy measured data very well.
One reason may be that the wind data in Sable field
is only the result of interpolation. That indicates di-
rectly-measured wind data may improve the accura-
cy of fatigue calculation. In addition, the SWAN da-
taset and the buoy-measured dataset used different
wave partitioning methods. This may also result in
the fatigue calculation difference.
5 CONCLUSION
This paper has presented a methodology, in which
offshore floating structures fatigue damage can be
calculated without directly inputting wave data. This
methodology first simulates the sea states in Sable
field with SWAN wave model by inputting the wind
data from ERA-interim project. Then, the fatigue as-
sessment for FPSO- Glas Dowr is made. In order to
validate this methodology, this calculation is com-
pared with the fatigue damages which are calculated
based on the sea states from ERA-interim and buoy-
measurement. The comparison indicates that this
methodology has its own advantages: firstly, during
the process of fatigue damage, the sea state data is
required. However, with the help of wave models, if
the wave data is limited, the wind data can take its
place. Second, by predicting the wind change trend,
designers can estimate the effect of climate change
on floating structures’ fatigue consumption during
their service life. It should be noted that the method-
ology still requires further improvement before it can
guide any engineering activity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the financial support from
Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC).
REFERENCES
Aalberts P., Cammen J. & Kaminski M.L., 2010. The Monitas
system for the Glas Dowr FPSO, Offshore Technology
Conference (OTC 2010), Houston, USA.
Berrisford P., Dee D., Poli P., Brugge R., Fielding K., Fuentes
M., Kallberg P., Kobayashi S., Uppala K. & Simmons A.
2011. The ERA-interim Archive, European Centre for
Medium Range Weather Forecasts, United Kingdom.
View publication stats
Bitner-Gregersen E.M. & Skjong R. 2011. Potential impact on
climate change on tanker design, Proc. 30th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE 2011), Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Bitner-Gregersen E.M. & Haver S., 1991, Joint environmental
model for reliability calculations, Proceedings of the First
International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
(ISOPE 1991), Edinburgh, UK.
Caires S. & Sterl A. 2003. Validation of ocean wind and wave
data using triple collocation, Journal of Geophysical
Research, v.108, issue c3, 403-427.
Dee D.P., Uppala S.M., Simmons A.J., Berrisford P., Poli P.,
Kobayashi S., Andrae U., Balmaseda M.A., Balsamo G.,
Bauer P., Bechtold P., Beljaars A.C.M., van de Berg L.,
Bidlot J., Bormann N., Delsol C., Dragani R., Fuentes M.,
Geer A.J., Haimberger L., Healy S.B., Hersbach H., Hólm
E.V., Isaksen L., Kållberg P., Köhler M., Matricardi M.,
McNally A.P., Monge-Sanz B.M., Morcrette J.J., Park
B.K., Peubey C., de Rosnay P., Tavolato C., Thépaut J.N.
& Vitart F. 2011.The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration
and performance of the data assimilation system. Q.J.R.
Meteorological Society, 137, 553-597, doi: 10.1002/qj.828.
DNV. Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures, Det Norske
Veritas, 2010, Classification Note 30.7.
Durrant T., Diana J., Greenslade M. & Simmonds I. Validation
of Jason-1 and Envisat Remotely Sensed Wave Heights,
Journal of Atmospheric Oceanic Technology, v.26, 123–
134.
Hanson J., Lubben A., Aalberts P. & Kaminski M.L., 2001. Wave
Measurements for the Monitas System, Offshore Technology
Conference (OTC 2010), Houston, USA.
Hanson J. & Phillips O.M., Automated Analysis of Ocean
Surface Directional Wave Spectra, Journal of Oceanic
Technology, v.18, 277–293.
Holthuijsen L. H. 2007. Waves in oceanic and coastal waters,
New York, Cambridge University Press, 305-361.
Repko A., Van Gelder P.H.A.J.M., Voortman H.G. & Vrijling,
J.K., 2004. Bivariate description of offshore wave conditions
with physics-based extreme value statistics, Journal of Ap-
plied Ocean Research, v.26, 162-170.
Semedo A., Sušelj K., Rutgersson A. & Sterl A., 2011. A
global view on the wind sea and swell climate an variability
from ERA-4, Journal of Climate, v.24, 1461–1479.
Young I.R., Zieger S. & Babanin A.V., 2011. Global trends in
wind speed and wave height, Journal of Science, v.332, 451-
455.
Zou T., Jiang X.L. & Kaminski M.L., 2014, Possible Solutions
for Climate Change Impact on Fatigue Assessment of Float-
ing Structures, The International Society of Offshore and Po-
lar Engineering (ISOPE 2014), Pusan, South Korea.