OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE PAPER

6200 North Central Expressway NUMBER 0 TC 2 6 7 6

Dallas, Texas 75206

Wave Force Coeff i c i ents from Pipe I I ne Research

in the Ocean
[Jy

Robert A. Grace and Steven A. Nicinski. U. of Hawaii

THIS PAPER IS SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

~ ©Copyright 1976 . .
Offshore Technology Conference on behalf of the American Institute of Mining, M,etallurgical, and Pe~roleum
Engineers, Inc. (Society of Mining Engineers, The Metallurgical Society and Society of Petroleum. Engmee~s),
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, American SocIety
of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronics En-
gineers, Marine Technology Society, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, and Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Eighth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Tex., May 3-6, 1976. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words. Illustrations
may not be copied. Such use of an abstract should contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by
whom the paper is presented.

ABSTRACT obtained our first data in May. Nine sep-

The first yearo~ a two-year r€search
program called~Pipeli~~ ~urvival un~er~Oceap~_
Wave Attack has b.een comp:Leted~_~cAtes-t ~p:i,p~ _
rig was designe~. fabricated and placed inthe
ocean.. This rig featured a 17-1!2-foot-long
section of 16-inch-diameter steel pipe sup-
ported by. and 3 inches above. a base com-
posed of steel channels andT beams. - The
base was 16 by 8 feet in plan and-4-l!2
inches deep. Stability of the whole arrange-
ment on the sea floor wa~ increased by using -
concrete slab inserts with the base and by
filling the end parts of the pipe with steel
chain. A 39-1/2-inch-long -test section, ~ - --
towards the center of.the pipe and supported_
by two steel rons an which strain gages had
been placed. w8.§useslas the force sensor.
One rod gave horizontal forces. the other
vertical ones. - -
The test site was in 37 feet of water
1400 feet from the coastline adjacent to
Honolulu and near the fishing and tour boat
harbor called KewalaBasin. The coast faces
towards the southwest. and there is consid-
erable swelLarising from Southern Hemi-
sphere winter storms Jhat I01.PJ2ears ¥ong_ ~his
stretch between approximately March and July
of each year. We place,:dc0l!!' _test§ltructure
in the ocean in mid-AprU of 1975 and
arate expeditions yie1ded many hours of
data, and the best of these has been used
for this paper. ~ave:periods of 12 to 20
seconds were involved and heights to 7 feet.
Two other structures besides the test
pipe rig were placed at the test site. One
small.base mounted a pipe onto·which a velo-
city sensor was clamped. A large base com-
posed of steel.I beams mounted a vertical
mast the top part of Which tilted up during
data-taking and down when data were not
being measured. A wound-wire resistance
wave gage was affixed at the top of this
mast when deployed.
Cables from the various measuring de-
vices came aboard the project boat. a 31-
foot catamaran with 12-foot beam. and into
an enclosed cabin forward where recorders
and associated e~uipment we~e housed. Fower
was provided by a gasoline-driven alternator.
Data were proce~sed to yield values of~
drag. lift. and vertical and horizontal
inertia coefficients. Where possible. CQr-_
relations of the values obtained with certain
wave parameters were carried. out. The data
are plotted and summarized herein. The
force coefficients discussed arE of two types
---those associated with the measured
 WAVE FORCE COEFFICIENTS FROM
682 PIPELINE RESEARCH IN THE OCEAN
kinematics, and those .derived from kinematics
predicted by theory. It is believed that the
former class is of more interest to the
researcher and the latter of more use to the
designer. Suggested curves for the use of
the submarine pipeline desjgner are p~esented,
some special features of t:b.edata ar~ dis-.
cussed, and the future course of the research
project is charted.
INTRODUCTION
There have been various ocean experi-
ments conc.erned with wave forces on circular
cylindrical piles [e.g. Wiegel, Beebe and
Moon (1957),- Dean and Aagaard (1970)], but
the writers were not aware of any investiga-
tions concerning wave-induced forces on cir-
cular cylindrical pipes near the sea floor
when this study was initiated in September,
1974. This paper is in~partJl. summary of
the first year's work for tteproject,
named Pipe~ineSurvixal_vnder Ocean Wa~e
Attack ,planned to extena. through two
compJ"ete years.
A small grouP ..0f researchers at the~__
University of Hawaii, on the Island of Oahu,
has conducted various engineering experi~
ments in the ocean since 1967 [Grace and
Casciano (1969)]. Work has been done at
several sites, located in water depths
ranging from 25·~0 40 feet, near the fishing
and tour boat harbor knovn as Kewalo Basin.
A new site in 37 feet of.water, 1400 feet
from shore, was·chosen for this investiga-
tion. This location featured a relatively
flat .area, ·on moderately hard coral rock,-
that was large enough for the planned.
installation.
The coastline in the vicinity of the
site runs appro~~mately northwest-southeast
so that (northeast) trade wind waves are
small at the te·s't site. Although from time
to time trade wind-generated swell refracts
into the site area, the important test waves
arrive as swell from Bouthern Hemisphere
winter storms -- between about March and
July of each year. Such swell is typifie.d
by low deep water heights ~nd long periods,
the latter in the range of 12 to 20 seconds.
The largest wav~ height measured during our
experiments was 7 feet . Although, much
larger wave height~ ca~_be obtained on
another stretch of Oahu coastline receiving
swell from the much closer Northern Hemi-
sphere winterstorml?. '¥~J2Te~f~rx:edl'or-;;;c;-':'--;c
mostly logisticalreasoristo carry out the
planned work closer to our home base.
The Southern Hemisphere swell approaches
the Hawaiian Islands from directions ranging
from approximateIyl70 to 215 0 true [e.g.
Snodgrass, ~e~ al. (1966)]. After refraction
OTC 2676
of the swell in towards the test site this al-
ready small band is further narrowed. Sinceit
had been decided .§:. priori to carry out at
least the first year and a half of the project
with the pipe broadside to the approaching
swell, it was possible to use a test setup
without an adjustable-orientation feature.
A decision made early in the project was
that data recording would be done on site.
- .....
A 31.foot catamaran with 12-foot beam, ample
diving and working room, and an enclosed
cabin forward suitable for instrumentation,
was obtained for project use.
TEST SETUP
A steel pipe 16 inches in outside dia-
meter, with approximately 1/4-inch wall thick-
ness, was located. A test rig was designed
and fabricated in-house. In this setup the
pipe, 17-1/2 feet long Qve;raIl;was mounted on
and 3 inches above a flat. base measuring):6
by 8 feet in plan and 4-1/2 inches deep.
This base, consisting of steel angles and ~
beams, so that concrete slabs could be .in-
serted in it once on the sea floor; was c.ori-
sidered necessary to prevent movementof.the
pipe system under anticipated test wave
action. Air weight of this ba\>e with con-
crete inserts was 10,000 Ibs.
A 39-1/2-inch length of the pipe was
set up as a test section. This section was
supported from the two flanking pipe.lengths
which were ~ixed to the base. See Figure 1.
Chain was placed inside the anchored pipe
lengths to increase the stability of the·
test setup. The test section was designed
to be neutrally-buoyant in sea water.
Two Micro-Measurements strain gages
were affixed to opposite faces towards one
-. end of each support ~od and thoroughly water~
proofed. Wires from these gages connected
with Electro Oceanics underwater~pluggable
connectors through a Hotsplicer cable junc-
tion. The gages were oriented so that hori-
zontalforces were sensed by one pair, ver-
tical forces by the other. Provision was
made for removing the rods and yet main-
taining the test section in place by welding
mating eyes on the inside of the matching
ends of the test and fixed pipe sections ..
The test section was held in this manner when
the piRe-base assembly was placed in the
ocean on April 12, 1975. Another two weeks
were re·Cluired until this system was
completely readied, however.
The final touches to the wave-measuring
system for the project were also applied
during this time. This system consisted of _
a base made of steel I beams that supported
a 20-foot length of heavy-wall 3-inch pipe.· ..
OTC 2.616 ROBERTA. GRACE and STEVEN A. NICINSKI
A tilting wave mast, made primarily of
2-inch pipe, was pinned l:l,t the tOIl of t-his
pipe. A counterweight of concrete blocks
plus chain balance-dihe mast, and a buoy-
ancy tank when blown or filled-with water
C
allowed the mast to rise or fall respec-
tively. The top of the mast was graduated
for visual observations but also designed
to mount a 15-~oot-Iong Plessey wave staff
which uses a spirally-wound nicrome wire as
the sensor. The wave mast base was placed
near one end of the test pipe setu£.
Another steel base was positioned near
the other end or the pipe. From thi§ base
extended a horizontal 1_1/2-inch pipe upon-
which a Bendix current meter used for velo-
city measurements was mounted. This meter
has a 4-inch-diameter duct housing a three-
bladed propeller.~_Magnets at the tips of
these blades close~a reeQ switch in-a water~
tight chamber alongsi~e the duct.
For data recording it was planned that
one Sanborn 321 ~fid one Sanborn 322 two-
channel chart recorders would be used. The
former, which sUIJJl1ie.s a ._c. power tQ. Xull
or half bridges, removes the carrier from
the signal and then records that signal,
was used for the two channels of pipe force
data. Onechannelbl'-the d.c. -32Trecor-der_
would be used for the pulse _output of a
battery-velocity sensor combination, the
other to record the output of the signal
conditione.:r::us.e:d .with. the WEl.ve sta,:U' and,._ i t_s_
associated oscillator.
. Throughout th~ nine _.separaj;e data- __
gathering sessions involve~in the first
year's work all syst.ems but one worked satis-
factorily. The Plessey wa~e-staff system
was a bitter disappoi.ntmen_t, never once
working as designed..On only one occasion
were we able to. obtain continuous wave data
-- that only by hooking up the staff as part
of _a potentiQmeter setup. .Thus most of our
processed data are of the form afforce
coefficients associated with measured.water
motion rather than data inferred from a
measured surface history through ~ wave
theory.
CALIBRATION AND DATA PROCESSING
Tests in the laboratory confirmed the
eCluivalence of allf'our (two spares) strain
gagerocts made up·fo-r ~pr~oJ e~t use. - The --
force calibration in the sea was then car-
ried out on any data-taking day as follows.
Three curved lead blocks weighing 74 lbs
in salt water were placed on the test sec-
tion and then removed. ~is calibrated
the vertical force trace. The horizontal
calibration was effected by paralleling
683
the same resistor across one gage of each of
; the vertical and horizontal half bridges.
The pUlse rate for the Bendix current
meter is such that a rate of 3 pulses per
second corresponds tQ I knot. We verified __
this calibration in towing tests in the labo-
ratory (for steady speeds). The power
supply-readout supplied by Bendix for use
with the ducted current meters had never
worked adeCluately for us in the past and was
left on the shelf throughout this undertaking.
A dry cell supplied IJower. Pulse times were
read for any wave of interest. These were
translated into between-pulse times, a series
that was smoothed, then translated into flow
velocities using the trapezoid rule. The
time of change in flow direction was easily
judged by eye, and the velocity trace in this
area was faired in between crest and trough
velocities to either side~
The calibration of the wave staff when
in potentiometer mode was effected 15ynoting
on the chart record the water surface level
according to the wave mast at any selected
time plus by providing a short across the
staff at selee.teci points when it was hauled
back aboard the project boat.
Synchronization of the two chart records
was assured by connecting together the marker
jack inputs of both recorders, then having
the timer of one instrument drive both
markers. Coded .):)larks were also fed onto both
timer traces from time to time by an
observer •
HORIZONTAL FORCES-
The Morison eCluation,- generally used to
determine wave-induced forces on structures
(in our case pipes) is written
where F = total horizontal -force, Fn= drag
force, Fr.= inertia force. The two force
components are in turn given by the eCluati~ns,
F
D
riCp
D
CD
2
(DJI-) lulu
"2 (DJI-) lulu
(2a)
(2b)
and
2
C± p[CE )JI-] U (3a)
F- -
I
L r
2
P [("t ).] U (3b)
The terms in these eCluations are as follows:
D = pipe diameter; JI- = pipe length; p =
density of flowing liquid (water); u = hori-
zontal velocity predicted by theory;
 WAVE FORCE COEFFICIENTS FROM
a
-r
PIPELINE RESEARCH IN THE OCEAN OTC 2676

U = measured horizontal ~elocity; ii.

= hori- Equation (6), suitable for the designer, can.
zon-talacceleration predicted by theory; be rewritten as follows in a form more useful

7/12
fi= measured horizontal acceleration; C’ = to the researcher.
= ,,tpue,,
“theoretical” drag coefficient; C

[1
drag coefficient; C’ = “theoretic%” inertia F (cp*-
max .c;+——
coefficient; C1 = “tyue’~inertia coefficient. 2 Cd 2 umuT/D ‘
It follows from equations (2) and (3) that ~ (DR)umax
the peak force component.scan ??g~$t??? .. =2 c; u T
_— max
— .... (7)
c; .... (4a) 2 C; L D.
FDmax or
{ CD .... (4b) .... (8)
Y=c;+c’x, c’x~c;
and
I&
F1max
c1
I
P .[(
4 )1:
2*
max
.... (5a) where
y.
F
max
(9)
{ .... (5b) : (DL)u~ax ““““..
CI P [(
.? R ‘max
)1
~, _ (+)2
The kinematical quantities umax and -~ .... (lo)
fimu can be determined according to various
2

wave theories from a given wave height H,
wave period T, water depth d, and distance
up from the sea floor to the point- in ques-
tion S. The available theories range in
complexity from the reasonably simple Airy
[Ippen (1966)] to the involyed stream func-
tion theory [Dean (1965), Dalrymple (1974)].
Despite being relatively uncomplicated, how-
ever, .Airy theory provides excellent predic-
tions of near-bottom peak water velocities
under waves. It will be used exclusively
in this paper $0 o.btai.n$heo?e$tc.alfo?ce
coefficients. =. , zero --not necessarily”at the point of maximum
De-signersusse~quations. (ka) a~.d.(.5a).,
with what they feel are appropriate values
of the force co-efficients,to predict the.
force exertecton the structure (pipe) .,
during the passage of a specified design
wave. Researchers are forced to-use the
same two equations ugless they .mea:urs.the=
kinematics, in which case they can deter-
mine the true force coefficients from the
measured forces. That ca,nbe done most
easily by selecting wave phases for which
one of U Qr C is zero. But any researcher
obtaining force data and coefficients for
measured kinematics must remember that the
ultimate use of force coefficients is for
the designer. They must then be compatible
with the kinematical predictions of a
selected wave theory.
[1
and 2
x= ~u .... (11)
ma;T/D
A simple linear regression line through X,
Y data then yields estimates of C~ as well .
as C+ (from C’).
TRUE HORIZONTAL INERTIA COEFFICIENT
Inertia coefficients were obtained at
the instant the velocity was (apparently)
acceleration._ A ssmple of size 48.yield-ed .
a mean value C1 = 1.93 and a coefficient of
variation of 22.8%. The inertia forces at
the point of zero velocity varied from 19.1
to 70.1% of the totaI peak force for the
waves analyzed for inertial effects. The
average proportion was 45.4%.
Let the acceleration at the instant of
zer$ velocity be O* and the peak acceleration
be Umax. The ratio fi*/fimaxvaried f~om 49
to 100% with an average of 91.5% and a coef-
ficient of variation of”13.1%. Since this
ratio, which provides a crude estimate of
what proportion of the peak inertia force
occurs at the time of zero velocity, is so
high, we can readily conclude that the
overall peak forces on the pipe are drag-
force-dominated as one might have suspected.

In the Airy wave theory it can be A plot of individual CI values versus

shown that
~2c~~ 2 Reynolds number NR = Umax D/v displayed no
discernible trends. The denominator for NR
F
max = ‘Dmax
2 cl
1+
[(
u
~~~
T
)1 3 is the kinematic viscosity ofwater.

IT I
.— max .... THE FLOW
(6)
2C~ 5 D
lJ
Whenever data were being recorde~ on the
boat, it was always obvious that the peak
horizontal force preceded the development of
the peak velocity by 1 to 2 seconds. See
OTC 267’6 .- ROBERT A. GRACE and STEVEN A. NICINSKI
Figure 2. Initial suspicions that in$rtial _
effects were surprisingly large were laid
to rest by the type of reasoning outlined
in the last few paragraphs. For all waves
processed, when-the velocity peaked (at a
value that often persisted for a second or
more), the horizontal force drOpQe8 Tap~~Y.
For a con”stantvelocity and thus zero accel-
eration, there are two possible explanations
for this behavior. The one which we prefer
is that the real drag coefficient is dropping
rapidly as time progresses -- or equivalently
as the water part_iclestravel a longer
distance s.
The other possibility is that the
measured velocity history 4 feet off one end
of -the pipe ~- on its centerline, is not
represent_ativeof.the real flOw.inCiGent
on the pipe. This coulQ_oc:cur because the
pipe would be subjected to its owm wake flow
which, retarded initially in the lee of the
pipe, would be swept back oyer-the_pipe
before.”theUnperturbed wave-induced water
motion. Incidentally, this means that the
pipe is bathed in a highly turbulent flow
field. With our measuring techniques we are
unable to proye or disprove t_hiS_peyfect$Y _.
viable alternative. We will, however,
largely ignore it in what_follows..
TRUE DRAG COEFFICIENT. — —
We have processed 66 separate waves
(both troughs and cnests) to yield Figure- 3
which shows the manner.in which CD decreases
with s/D. Each wave yielded from 1 to 4
points depentiingupon the.length of ?ke__ .-
constant-velocitiyinterval. AllpoAntsder&red
are plotted. The’inertia contribution was,
of course, zero over this time spa?!. __
The drag coefficient value presented
in an instantaneous one -- Q an overall one
as successfully used, for example, by
Sarpkaya (1975). The data trend conforms
to that found, albeit for overall CD values,
by other researchers such as Sarpkaya. But
the curve for instantaneous values is
shifted to the left with respect to the one
for overall values.
The points plotted in Figure_3.haye ..=.
been.coded in terms of both Reynolds number
and Umax/g. It is recognized that NR is a
parsmeter of,&portance._tir_force coe&f3~____ .=.
cients for unsteady flow cases wherein velo-
city effects (rather than acceleration ones)
dominate [Rance (1969), Qean and Aagaard
(1970)].. The paraet~r=umax/g gives.some
indication of the manner in which a parti-
cular segment of”flow is initiated. That
this can be important has been analytically
demonstrated for the circular cylinder, for
685
example, by Collins and “Dennis (1973) for
impulsive accelerations and given by Sarpkaya
and Garrison (1963) for constant accelera-
tions. In our particular case, both NR and
fimax/gapparently play minor roles; it is
s/D that really matters. (There is, inci-
dentally, some correlation between NR and
s/D.) Much of the scatter in CD values for
any specific s/D may be due to the imprec-
ision in assigning the real s as discussed
earlier regarding.wake effects.
AVERAGE VALUES OF TRUE HORIZONTAL
FORCE COEFFICIENTS
The force and velocity histories shown
in Figure 2 were digitized at 0.2-second
intervals and fed into the computer where
the concurrent acceleration rekord was deter-
mined. Let a mbdel for F be
F’ = iDu[u\ +il U ● ... (12)
The coefficients CD and <1 were chosen such
that F’ was the least squares best fit to
F, and this trace is plotted in Figure 2.
Thes~ coefficients translated into ‘?D= 1.119
and CI = 2.023. The horizontal force
resulting from the velocity trace in Figure 4
(not shown) was also ana&yzed in this way --
yielding CD = 1.124 and CI = 2.026. The
inertia coefficient found here is in bo~h
cases quite close to the average value CI = :
1.93 noted earlier. The &Fag coefficient
val~es fall very clo%e to-the average value.
of CD”= 1.lZ!5from the Figure 3 data.
COEFFICIENTSFROM MAXIMUM HORIZONTAL FORCES
Data from 65 waves were organized into
X,l!pairs: see Equations (9) and (11). A
regression line through these datayielded
The theoretical
C~ = 1.50 and C~=2,57.
inertia coefficient is one third more than
the true inertia coefficient -- reflecting
the fact that Airy theory underestimates
true water particle accelerations near the
sea floor under.ocean waves [Grace (1976)1.
The drag coefficient falls in the general
range of values obtained for measured velo.- .:
cities (Figure 3), but the fact that it is
also”one third higher than the average value
(1.125) is somewhat surprising since Airy
theory does a satisfactory job at predicting.
true peak velocities near the bottom under
waves [e.g. LeM<haut6, et al. (1968)].
Acceleration-prediction errors must have
exerted some influence over the value of the
intercept [Equation_(7)].
The quantity X in Equations (8) and (11)
used in the analysis above is obtained from
the square of, in part, a ratio of
 WAVE FORCE COEFFICIENTS FROM
686 PIPELINE RESEARCH IN TIIEOCEAN OTC 26j

theoretical,acceleration to velocity-squared. where CL = “true” lift coefficient; Cl =

Beating this in mind, a plot was made o~, “theoretical” horizontal-vertical inertia
coefficient; CA = “true” horizontal-vertical

[1
= F .. - -- fimWD2 inertia coefficient. A1l..theother terms
c max
max versus ~ = — have been defined earlier. Note that C~
~ (DL)U~ax u’ (or CA) has no apparent theoretical justifi-
max
cation whereas C; does.

Although there was a clear tendency” for Cmax Peak component values are
to increase with increasing.$ according to.
a mean line approximately given by c; : (Dl) U:ax . . . . (20a)
‘Lmax =
c =1.26_+_2.58 $0”65, { CL Q (D!L)U:ax ....(20b)
max 2
0.02 s$s2!0, ““ ;,,, (13) and
cl p [($) ~ ‘ima~ .... (21a)
there was considerable scatter in the data. 2
‘Amqx = .
This was also true of a plot of Cmax versus { CAP ~~)~ ‘max .... (’lb)
s/D. [

Equations (17), (20a) and (21a) are equiva-

VERTICAL FORCES
lent to (l), (ha) and (5a). Thus estimates
of C’ and Cl for Airy theory kinematics can
One formulation used for vertical
be ok tained from measured force data using-
forces on a pipe is
the sane regression approach as for the
horizontal forces, See Equations (8)
P=PL+P .... (14)
z through (11).
where
TRUE VERTICAL FORCE COEFFICIENTS

and Figure 5 presents CL data as a func-

tion of s/D. Dimly discernible in the mass
of points from 33 waves is a tendency for
where PL = lift force; PZ =.Vertical inertia the lift coefficient to drop off with
fore.c,Cfi= !’theor.etical’’–lift
coefficient; increasing s/D up to a limit -- at which
point CL increases and then again subsides. .-
c~ = “theoretical”.vertical inertia coeffi-
This conforms to a tendency shown by Sarpkaya
cient; ~ = vertical acceleration predicted
‘bytheory. All other terms have been pre- . (1975) to applyto circular cylinders away
from a boundary and is discernible in the
viousl.ydefined. Although Equation (14) has
vertical force trace in Figure 4.
been.useful in .dealing.with pipes occupying
an appreciable_portio_n_o< the=.ater co.!~.. . ...
and usually at some distance from the bed This $double-bounce~ behavior of the
[e.g. Yamamoto, et..al.“(1973), Garrison, vertical fo~ce trace fs the reason that a
et al. (1975)1 it is not”convenient for ogr . vertical force equivalent to Equation (12)
purposes. Very close to the.bed under long for horizontal forces is ineffectual. The
waves ~ is virtually zero. ‘In fact, equivalent equation,
accord@g to
— stream furictiontheory, the
WmaxD
ratio ~ for oti test waves has a
~gg
maximumv lue of 0.03. We prefer, under
our class of situation to write
was used for the data in Figure 4 as a
P = PL..+PA *,., (17) trial, but the fit was very poor.

c; : (D!L)u’ ~. t, (18a) The coefficient CA was evaluated~ for

where P = ‘ 28 waves, at the instant of zero horizontal
L velocity, The average was 0.32 with a coef-
{ cL2 ~ “(D!LU2 ‘ ““:,.;“— (18b)
-. ficient of variation of 100%. A plot Of CA
values versus NR did not demonstrate .any
correlat~on between the two pam.meters,
_—- 2676
OTC ,- ROBERT A. GRACE and STEVEN
COEFFICIENTS FROM MAXIMUM VERTICAL FORCES
A regression line ”through lift force
data in appropriate .fo~rn..gayeCL ; 0.56 afid
and CL =_2.18. Data from 65 waves were
employed in this analysis.
DISCUSS1ON . ___.._..__.. .; _...___
.....—______
We believe that we have measured wave
heights to a 20-to-l-error acc~acy of
*0.2 fe~t. Since the average’wave height
use-din this work is 4.78 feet (range 3,2
to 7.0 feet) the resulting average 20-to-l-
relative error..isabout 4%. It is felt
that the wave force differences along the
trace are quite accurately known. The
maximum difference in calibration factor
for any single data-taking day amounted to
only 7%. What was a problem with the force
data was the precise line of zero force.
We experimented with several approaches,
including excitation-polarity-changes, and
finally c-a.me
‘Tipwith a bulky shield arrange-
ment that fits over the test section. But
this was after.the first year’s data-taking.
Our best technique >efore this .shi.~1$was
developedwas-to scan t~e velocitY data
record near any wave being analyzed.for a
time when either (preferably) a pro~eller
blade was stationary over the reed switch
for an appreciable length of time or there
was an absence of pulses. The force oppo-
site this time was then taken as indicating
zero. Getting zero for -the yertical force
traces was comparatively easy, an~we feei ‘ “’- waver procedure. At some point, at the least.
a 20-to-l absolute err-orof.fl lb is ap~ro-
pri.atei It was hatiderto get zero for the
horizontal force (because of the higher
coefficients) and we are of the opinion
that a 20-to-l absolute error of A3 lbs
is valid. The minimum (maximum) force
values overall ‘are as follows: F ~ - 19.7
Ibs (83.5 lbs); ‘Dmax - 7.51bs (f3.51bs);
‘Ima - 9.0 lbs (25.OlbS); Pmax - 15.4
(61.6111s); %max - 0.8 lbs (33.0 lbs);
‘Amax - 1.0 lbs (6.O_lbs).
There are three types of error in the
velocity traces. We ran our velocity and
record chart records slightly too slow for
really’excellent accuracy in reading the.
time between pulses and estimate a 20-to-i
absolute error of 30 milliseconds in our
times. Although this error could conceiv-
ably make a relative error o.f18% in the
smallest-measured between-pulse time, 0.17
seconds, it is doubtfhl that anything
approaching thiserqor..was involved since we
smoothed a jagged ptilset“ime_hist-oryin-the
vicinity of crests and tro~hs be”fore com-
puting the actual velocity history by the
trapezoidal rule.
. . . A. NICINSKI ~q~
“.
I
- As has been commented before, we worked -
our velocity traces from two sides (crest and
trough) in towards the zero velocity area.
The intervening zone.was.faired in between
the two crest and trough traces. Herein lies
a somce of two errors that are largely
indeterminate -mwlz, th.e.locationof zero velo-
city and the slope “of the velocity trace --
the acceleration. We believe that the dis-
persion in the two inertia coefficients is
largely due to errors stemming from these
causes.
The actual and least squares force
traces in Figure 2 tiisplaydifferences at the
peaks. These discrepancies could be closed’- ‘
by heavily weighting errors in the vicinity
of maxima when carrying out the least squares
procedure: See Sarpkaya (1976).
All our data are associated with narrow
. band swell -. that ocean wave category that
comes closest to the ‘periodic wave trains
upon which deterministic wave theor,ies (such
as the Airy) are based. Because of the vir-
tual uniperiod nature of our swell, even
though thereare ample differences intermsof
height amongst its Individual members, we have
had no,misgivings about adopting a determi- ._
nistic rather than a stochastic (probabilistic)
wave model. In fact we would still follow the
same tack even if the energy content of the
wave train were smeared across a substantially
broader frequency band. Our approach is con-
. sistent with the coastal engineers ‘design
for a broad wave spectrum, stochastic and/or
spectral approaches to wave force problems
must be considered. Such techniques take
various forms [e.g. Brown and Bergman (I-967),
Schiieller=andShah (1972)]. It canbe
argued, however, that rather than con-
sidering the force coefficients to be
either constants or random variables
in such approaches, that their hydrody-
nanical variability be considered:
INERTIA COEFFICIENTS IN PREDOMINANTLY
INERTIA FORCE SITUATIONS
There are some design situations in
which the amplitude-of water particle-motion
is smaller than approximately half.of the
pipe_dismeter. This can occur, even ~or
large design waves, because of.very large
pipe sizes. In such cases,”where tlieflow
has not separated from the pipe, it is
natural to think of inertia coefficients
derived from ideal flow. Figure 6.presents
a plot, resulting from such an analysis,
wherein Dalton and Helfinstine (1971) show
the manner in which the inertia coefficient
drops off’with i,nc??easing
pipe clearance
expressed as the pipe-wall separation
 WAVE FORCE COEFFICIENTS FROM
688
.+.
DTDT?TT~T?2
RWC!T?ARFU
.U.UL.”
distance d~vided by the p~pe diameter, ma
curve is asymptotic to the value 2,00 appro-
priate for a cylinder far from the influence
of a wall. Yamamoto, et al, (1973) reported
that theoretical horizontal and vertical
inertia coeff~cients are the same.
In an experiment independent of wave
action we attempted to verify this curve. A
steel plate m-otited on plywood shims around
its edges was placed under the test section.
The test section was then struck several
times in the horizontal direction and then
several times in the vertical. A high chart
speed was maintained on the recorder on the
boat so that an accurate measure of the
natural period of the pipe @ either direc-
tion, and for the particular clearance being
used, could-be obtained-from the vibration
history of the test section.
The natural (horizontal) period of a
spring-mounted body immersed in F liquid is
given by the equation
C1m
T =-”2’rr~ !!*! (23)
n. F Since Airy theory adequately predicts peak
where m-is the mass of the neutrally-buoyant
pipe and k is the effective spring constant
of.the mounting arrangement. Since both of
these-quantities were known and Tnwas mea-
sured, the inertia coefficient could be
obtained fr-omthe equation
k ‘n 2 ,.,,
C,z =_=; ~ (24)
. ( ),
The results are shown alongside the
theoretical. curve in Figure 6. We conclude
that this cur~e can be used with confidence
to determine CI or,CZ in those design situa-.
tions where p$pe sizes and wave conditions
mean that inertia effects are predominant.
DESIGN FORCE COEFFICIENTS IN CASES
OF VELOCITY FORCE DOMINATION . twenty-fold ratio for CL at low and higher s/D
Our wave and wa~e force data were -
obtained for a relative pipe clearance of
about 0.2 and for Reynolds ‘numbers in the
105 to 4 x 105 range. The pipe was broad- ‘“”
side .tothe waves. Based on measwrememts,
our best estimate of the relative roughness
of the test pipe i.s2.5 x 10-3. Hoyeyer,
we believe we..canmake suggestions con-. “_
cerning submarine pipe design situations
which would normally involve relative
roughnesses higher than ours and Reynolds
numbers an order of magnitude larger’than
thosegiyenabove. It has been sho@foT steady
flow [Guven, et al. (>975)] that circtiar
cylinder relative roughnesses an orde~ cxCmag-”
nitude lar-gerthan 2.5 x 10-3 cause only a
4% increase in supercritical drag coefficient.
OTC 2676
U
TRT VT.TI? CM-1711111
..J.l$..J.LU!.L, ”.L .,. .!..- ““a.
I
We shall assume a similar situation exists in
our case. Justification for proposing use of
our results to substantially higher Reynolds
numbers can be taken primarily from the work
of Beattie, —et al. (1971) whose plots of CD
versus NR for both rough and smooth pip?s on.
the bottom in steady flow appear flat from
NR = Y x 105 to 2 x 106, the upper limit of.
their measurements. The (higher) constant
value in the rough pipe.case.wa? 0.7.
The fact that the curve in Figure 3 is
asymptotic to a figure of.0.7, the same value
as obtained by Beattie, — et al., leads to a
another situation which apparently permits us
to extend our results for h/D z 0.2 to other
relative clearances. It was found by Jones
(1971), in steady flow experiments on pipes
at various clearances, for NR up to 5 x 105,
that one curve of CD versus NR would do for
any clearance between 0.00 and 0.16 and for
varying boundary roughnesses. On the basis
of this finding, then, coupled with those
outlined in the previous paragraph, we are
proposing the line in Figure 3 as a CD design
curve for-pipes at any relative clearance.
near-bottom velocities unde~ waves [e.g..
LeM6haut6, et al. (1968)] CDcanbe substi- ..
tuted for CD in Figure 3 with apparently
minor error.
Based on our experimental value of
C: = 2.57, we suggest, through proportioning
accordingto the theoretical curve in Figure_
6, that the design horizontal inertia coef3i-
cient for zero pipe clearance be 4.0 and that
C+ values for other clearances be obtained
according to Figure 6 considered in relative
terms.
Whereas CD values for low s/D can be up
to about four times the final value for high
s/D, something that could have been approxi-
mately anticipated on the basis of work by
Sarpkaya and Garrison (1963) among others, the
values is, we feel, an important and unex-
petted.test result. The dispersion in indi-
vidual CL values and the apparent upturn for
higher s/D makes it difficult to suggest a
design curve for h/D = 0.2. Since relative
clearance strongly influences lift coefi?i-
cients [e.g. Jones (1971)] it is even_further
out of the question at this point to make
statements about CL for other relative clear-
._ antes. Although we have not plotted a sug-
gested line on Figure 5, a design curve for
h/D z 0.2 could be taken through the upper
bound of the data as in Figure 3. Then CL
could be substituted for CL as was done with
drag coefficients.
Although we do not have great confidence
in the CA and Cl values obtained in our work,
OTC 2676 ‘ROBERT A. GRACE and”STE@i
we suggest for design C! = 3.0 for
A
h/D : 0.2.
All of the foregoing has been for pipes
oriented parallel to the wave fronts. For
pipes at other angles to the direction of
wave approach the curves of_Gracs C1971,1973)
canbeused in conjunction with coezf’icients
herein until better data become available.
It is obvious to us that considerable
research on wave-pipe interaction remains.
to be done despite the=apparent sat~atiOn
of the literature by material on wave-
cylinder (whether horizontal or vertical)
interaction.
SECOND YEAR OF PROJECT . . ~..-
The pipe clearance has-azreatlybeen ‘“–““
changed to 1/2 inch,_an_dthis condition Will
be used throughout testing in 1976. The
test pipe setup will remainat right angles
to the wave orthogonal until. such time as
we have collected a sufficient mass of force,
water motion, and surface.profile data for
that condition. It is doubtful that this
will be accomplished during the planned
second year and still le-avetime within the
favorable wave season for tests on another ‘-.
orientation. A third and a fourth year of
related work would require a.new so.u.rce
of
funding.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are very grateful.to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Sea Grant Programs, for providing
the bulk of the funding required for this
undertaking. Matching funds were provided
by the State of Hawaii primarily through
the Marine Affairs Coordinator’s Office.
The Sea Grant Director during the first
year of this project was Jack R. Davidson
and the Marine Affairs Coordinator is
John P. Craven. Work was done out of the
J.K.K. Look Laboratory of Oceanographic
Engineering, J.T. OtBrien, Director”.
The writers were only two members of a
sizable team involved in this project.
Every member of the group served a vital
function and it is with considerable grati-
tude that we record their names here:
Henry Ho, Shepard Williams, Frederick
Casciano, Charles Schuster, Joseph Castiel,
Michael Rayfuse, James Sands, Edward Noda, -
Elizabeth Leis, Edgar Bilderback, Arthur
Shak, Wilfred Ii. We are grateful for
timely advice from Professor T. Sarpkaya
of the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
California.
A. NICINSKI 689
REFERENCES
Beattie, J.F., Brown, L.P., and Webb,”-B.,
“Lift and Drag Forces on a Submerged Circular
Cylinder,” Offshore.Technology Conference,
Houston, Texas, April 19’71,Preprints, Vol. 1,
pp. 319-.328.
Bromi, L.J., and Bergman, L.E., “Tables of
the Statistical Distribution of Ocean Wave -
Forces and Methods of Estimating Drag and
Mass Coefficients,” U.S. Army, Corps of Engi-
neers, Coastal Engineering Research Center,
Technical Memorandum No. 24, oct. 1967.
Collins, W.M., and Dennis, S.C.R.; “Flow
, Past an ImpiilsivelyStarted Circular Cylin-
der,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, V01.-60,
1973, pp. 105-127.
Dalrymple, R.A., “A Finite Amplitude Wave on-
a Linear Shear Current,” Journal of Geophys-
ical Research, Vol. 79, No. 30, Oct. 20, 1974,
pp. 4498-4504.
Dalton, C. and Helfinstine, R.A., “Potential ..
Flow Past a Group of Circular Cylinders,’!
A.S.M.E. , Transactions, Journal of Basic
Engineering, Vol. 93D, Dec. 1971, pp. 636-642.
Dean, R.G., “Stream Function Representation
of Nonlinear Ocean Waves,” Journal of Geophys-
ical Research, Vol. 70, 1965, pp. 4561-4572.
Dean, R.G., and Aagaard, P.M. , “Wave Forces:- -
Data Analysis and Engineering Calculation
Method,” Journal of Petroleum Technology,
Vol. 22, No. 3, 1970, pp. 368-375.
Garrison, C.J., Gehrman, F.H., and Perkinson,
B.T., “Wave Forces on Bottom-Mounted Large
Diameter Cylinder,” A.S.C.E. , Journal of the
Waterways, Harbors and Coastal Engineering
Division, Vol. 101, No. WW4, Nov. 1975, pp.
343-356.
Grace, R.A., “The Effects of Clearance and
Orientation on Wave-Induced Forces on Pipe- ‘
lines: Results of Laboratory Experiments,”
University of Hawaii, Look Labo-ratoryof ;:
Oceanographic Engineering, Technical Report
No. 15, April 1971.
Grace, R.A., “AvailableData for the Des-ign
of Unburied Submarine Pipelines to Withstand
Wave Action,” Preprints, First Australian
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Sydney,
May 1973, PP. 59-66.
Grace, R.A., “Near-Bottom Water Motion Under
Ocean Waves,” paper accepted for Fifteenth
Conference on Coastal Engineering, Honolulu,
Hawaii, July 1976.
 WAVE FORCE COEFFICIENTS FROM
con PIPELINE RESEARCH IN THE OCEAN
Grace, R.A., and Casciano, F.M., “Ocean Wave
Forces on a Subsurface Sphere,” A.S.C.E. ,
JournaL of the Waterways and Harbors ”Di~i-
~, Vol. 95, No. WW3, Aug. 1969,
PP. 291-317. ‘ ~,
Guven, O., Patel, V.C., and Farell, C.,
“surface Roughness-Effects on the Mean
Flow Past Circular .Cylinders,” The Univer-
sity of Iowa, IIHR Report No. 175,
.
May 1975.
WwXAJ~, Editor, Estuary and Coastline
Hydrodynamics, McGray-Hill Book Co.
.—-———.— —— Inc.,
-.
New York, N.Y., 1966.
. Thirteenth Coastal Engineering Conference,
Jones, W.T., “Forces-on Submarine Pipelines ---
from Steady Currents,” A.S.M.E. , Paper =“ ..
No. 71-UnT-3, 1971.
LeM6haut6, EL, Divoky, D.; and Lin, A.,
“Skallow Water Waves: A Comparison of -.
Theories and Experiments.=!’
Proceedings,
Eleventh Conference on Coastal Engineering,
London, England, Sept.=1968, Vol. 1,
pp. 86-107,
Rance, P.J., “TheInfluence of Reynolds
Number-on Wave Forces,” Proceedings,
Symposium on Wave ActTon, Delftt Keth&lan&~
July’1969, VO1. 4, Paper 13.
Sarpkaya, T,, ‘tForceson Cylinders and $pheres
in a Sinusoidally Oscillating Fluid,”
A.S.M.E., Paper’”No.75-APMW-2T, 1975. –
OTC 2676
-..
Sarpkaya, T., (Ivorta Shedding and%esis- .
tance in Harmonic Flow about Smooth and
Rough Circular Cylinders at High Reynolds
Numbers, u Naval pos~graduate Scho:l, .
Feb. 1976.
.
Sarpkaya, T., and”Garrison, C.J., “Vortex
Formation and Resistanc~:in Unstea@ Flow;”
A,s.M.E. , Journal of Applied Mechanics, - .
..-
Vol. 30, Sei-iesE, No. 1, March 1963,
pp. 16-24.
Schtieller,G,T, and Shah, H,C., “A Pr.obabi-
listic Approach to Determine Wave Forces
on Ocean Pile Structures,~iProceedings
Vancouver, Canada, July 1972, PP.
1683-1701.
Snodgrass, F.E,, et al,, ~’Propagation.
of ~~
Ocean Swell ac&oss th-ePacific,’rPhiloso- .-.
phical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London; Vol. A259, 1966, PP.’431-497.
Wiegel, R.L. Beebe, K,E., and Moon, “J.,
‘tOceanWave Forces on Circular Cylindrical
Piles, N A.S.C,E, , Jounal of the-Hydraulics
Division, Vol. 83, No, HY2, 1957, Paper..ll99.
Ys.nmnoto,T,, Nath, J.H,, and Slotta, L.,
“Wave Forces on Horizontal Submerged Cyl-
inders,” Oregon State University, Engine-ering
Experiment Station, Bulletin No. 47,’
April 1973.
 l’+
———
—-
~ wing pipe section

s
<t-’e’ ‘ection+
. .
/filledwith chain

~ I‘2- 1/4”4
.. —- —--— —— --.——.————— -—
1/2” : k
II
1/1”
Ill I II
II
. II
. . 3/4”
Il--
-----------~ -1---- --
-------- --------- .-.
7
16”
\.

II
I I 3/4” L \
.-
1 _______ ------- d-+ L. L-.––. --––+
1 .
3“ -3/4”
4 \
!!!
(
I /
straingage rod su~port re~ovable cover

FIG,1- PIPESETUPAT (kJEEND OF TEST SECTICN,

... . . _,_ —._ _

c
)=
g., .

-1

-2

-.
-50

-1.+ -=--
-60

FIG,2- FORCEAND VELUTY TRACESFOR WAVES O%& THROWH C&640,

—— .J .

—
 LEGEND:
2.8 \
1.1
CD
2.6
\
\
~\
2.0 x
to
lo5
2.1 to 3,1to
3.0XI05 4.0x105

1 \ 0.016-
0 + v

2,4 - ‘\ \ 0.030

o.031- ~
x A
h, 0.045

2.2 - o
\ 0.046- ●
v A.
0
\\ 0.060
o
2.0 -
x ‘\\
1.8 -
+ \
i- ‘\ tentative
0
ox .!? \
\\ design curve
1,6 - x; +
x x A ‘1’
\
1.4 -“
0
+
i-
A* -!- -\

‘+ %x”>
++ AA .
1.2 - +0 *XX.++ ~
%
+* A ‘\
1.0 -
x
+.$**
$+ k&~AV+*’+
+’\
W + ‘~++++ * ~xA &
+ x “AA
0,8 - x
x+ ‘X:*
x A A
x+
+x
0.6 - x. A
A
0.4 -

0.2 -

00 ~
1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
s/D
OP COEFFICIENT
kPENDENCE ON RELATIVE
DISTANCE
OF WATER
R%li
iiwEL#

-301 I-3
FIG,4- FORCE
MUIVELCKITY
TRACES 09-803 m 09-810.
FORWAVES
 LEGEND ‘
2.0
CL
1.8
x
o
1.6 0.031- ~
x A
0.045
1.4 A
0.046- . v A
0,060
+
1.2 o +
A
o
I.0 x
+
0.8 Xo
x +

A
0.6 +V
A A A
x A A
A
0.4 xv
XAXA
A
A

x +x AA A
v A
0.2
x
0.0 A
x
I I I I I I
-0.2
() 1,0 2.0 3.0 4.o 5.o 6.o
s/D

FIG,5- LIFTCOEFFICIENT
VARIATION
WITHRELATIVE
DISTANCE
OF WATERPARTICLE
TRAVEL,
 34
●
I I I I

.
32
●

cI

28
●
L
.
theoretics curve ._..

26●
.

‘ 24 ,

I
●

22●
.
,,
I I I 1
20 . .

● 0.00 0.10 ‘ 0.20

..

FIG, 6- 95%CONFIDENCE
INTERVALSFORINERTIA COEFFICIENT
DETERMINATIONS
(HEAVY LINE- HORIZONTAL,
LIGHTl-INE- VERTICAL)t