Marine Structures 9 (1996) 745-758

© 1996 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0951-8339/96/$15.00
ELSEVIER 0951 -8339(95)00023-2

Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Calculation of

Hydrodynamic Loads on Offshore Truss Structures

O v e T. G u d m e s t a d a & Geir M o e b

aStatoil A/S, Forus, N-4035, Stavanger, Norway

bNTH, Trondheim, Norway
(Received 14 December 1994; accepted 24 June 1995)

ABSTRACT

The ctwrent American Petroleum Institute's recipe [API RP 2A WSD, Recom-

mended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore plat-
forms, working stress design. AP1, USA, 1993.]for calculation of hydrodynamic
loads on offshore truss structures is compared with the corresponding North Sea
Design Practice, as given by the rules of Det Norske Veritas. Most emphasis is
put on the hydrodynamic coefficients and the estimation of design current as these
issues are identified to be particularly critical
Use of the updated AP1 (1993) recommendations in which the drag coefficient
for roughened cylinders is increased from a minimum of O.6 (AP11991) to 1.05
(AP! 1993) and where current is included, could lead to a general increase in the
estimated load level on slender offshore structures [Petrauskas, C., Heideman,
J.C. & Berek, E.P., Extreme waveforce calculation procedure for the 20th edition
of AP1 RP 2A. OTC paper 7153, In Proc. OTC 1993, Houston, Texas, 1993,
pp. 201'-211].
The main emphasis with regard to the impact of the new API recommendations,
howew,r, is that a consistent approach is provided to the calculation of lO0-yr
directhmal loads. This includes taking into account the effect of marine growth on
force coefficients, modifying the wave kinematics for directional spreading, and
considering current blockage effects, conductor shielding effects, and joint occur-
rence of wave height and current (i.e., using the associated current as being repre-
sentative of the current that would lead to the lO0-yr load).
It is concluded that a consistent approach, such as that underlying the new API
RP 2A (1993) re&'pe, is preferable to the current North Sea Design Practice [Det
Norske Veritas, Environmental conditions and environmental loads. D N V classi-
fication notes 30.5,1991. ] in thisfield, and thus that the North Sea Design Practice
should.be updated. This relates in particular to selection of hydrodynamic coeffi-

745
746 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe

cients. Measurement programmes to obtain full scale global force data simulta-
neously with wave and current data are furthermore recommended.
© 1996 Elsevier Science Limited.

Key words: wave forces, hydrodynamic coefficients, offshore truss structures,

API Recommended practice.

1 INTRODUCTION

The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is developing a

new world-wide code for offshore structures, supported by USA (API), U K
(Health and Safety Executive, HSE), Norway (Norwegian Petroleum Direc-
torate, NPD) as well as other countries, w Part 1 (General principles) of this
code has already been completed. Currently extensive work on steel jacket
structures is underway. In connection with this effort, it is necessary to select
the load recipe to use for the calculation of environmental loads.
The state-of-the-art for estimating hydrodynamic loads on truss structures
(jackets), assuming quasi-static behaviour, is to use a regular design wave
and Morison's equation, 13 involving the following features:
--wave height and corresponding period, and a current velocity;
--wave particle kinematics and current velocity profile;
--values of hydrodynamic coefficients.
Since the first API RP 2A appeared in 1969, and the first NPD Regulations
and DNV Rules were issued a few years later, design guidelines have undergone
changes. However, the state-of-the-art, sea load calculation recipe for jacket
structures has remained practically the same over the last 10-15 years. The API
approach introduced in 19771 and the so-called standard North Sea Practice for
jackets 6 were relatively close until API introduced its 20th ed., 3 with substantial
changes in the recommended design practice. In view of this, it is seen prudent
to summarise the API changes, to discuss the background for these changes,
and to point to the need for harmonisation of the API RP 2A recommendations
and North Sea Design Practice, see Table 1.

2 THE API CHOICE OF H Y D R O D Y N A M I C COEFFICIENTS

The present API procedure for the calculation of hydrodynamic loads on

slender offshore structures is described in API RP 2A. 3'4'17 The main
differences between the present and the previous API procedures 2 are given
in Table 2.17 It should be noted that the previous versions of API RP 2A 2
refer to DNV 6 for determination of hydrodynamic coefficients for non-
circular cross-sections and for vertical forces on conductor guide frames
 Calculation o f hydrodynamic loads
Parameters for Calculation of Deterministic Hydrodynamic Loading
1tern
Wave kinematics
Wave kinematics factor
Shielding filctor
Current velocity
Hydrodyn. coefficients
Wave hei#tt
20th vs 19th Edition of API RP 2A Wave Force Procedures 2' 3,4 and Gulf of Mexico Meto-
Consideration
Wave force procedure
Current
Current blockage factor
Wave period
Wave kinematics factor
Force coefficients
Conductor shielding
factor
Marine growth
Gulf of Mexico metocean
criteria
747
TABLE 1
AP1 (1993) 3,4 North Sea Design Practicez
Stokes/Stream function As API
Include, if directional Normally not included
spreading
To be calculated To be calculated
100 year wave + current 100 year wave in comb
load with 10 year current
High drag coeff, value Low drag coeff, value
Lower inertia coeff, value Higher inertia coeff, value
About 1 m lower than for
previous API
recommendations 2
TABLE 2
cean Criteria 17
19th ed. 2 20th ed. 3' ~
Not included Included
Not applicable Factor of 0.7-1.0 applied to current.
Value depends on number of legs
and wave direction
Unmodified Doppler effect used
Not applied Factor is 0.88 for hurricanes and
0.95-1.0 for extratropical storms
Ca = 0"6--1-2 For drag dominated forces
Cm = 1.3-2.0 Ca (smooth) = 0.65
Ca (rough) = 1.05
Cm (smooth) = 1.6
Cm (rough) = 1.2
Not applied Function of spacing/diameter ratio
(Factor = 1.0)
Mentioned Value of 1-5in used to 150ft depth
for Gulf of Mexico
Omnidirectional Directional with current, function of
wave longitude and water depth
748 O. T. Gudraestad, G. Moe

(Sections 2.3-16.2 and 4, respectively). For global horizontal forces it was

required that a platform in the Gulf of Mexico or other US waters was
designed for a certain minimum force level, the reference force level (Section
2.3.4g2). This force level was to be achieved by using the reference level wave
height, Morison equation with Ca = 0.6 and Cm = 1-5 (for 6 ft outer diame-
ter, and larger Cm for larger outer diameter), zero storm current, and
appropriate wave theory. Consequently, if one believed that a lower wave
height was appropriate, then it was still required that the same force level be
achieved by increasing Ca, using a storm current, etc.
The updated API Recommended Practice is based on a consistent treat-
ment of all variables involved in calculating hydrodynamic load. For a
review of selection of wave kinematics models, see Ref. 9. A considerable
increase in hydrodynamic loads results from the use of updated hydro-
dynamic coefficients and inclusion of current, especially if load reducing
factors, such as shielding, blockage, etc. 17 are not considered. It should be
noted that API 3'4 now assumes that the wave and current loading are based
on a joint probability assessment aiming at obtaining the 10 -2 per year
environmental loading. 1° Since real ocean waves are directional and irre-
gular, the selection of the regular wave to use in such analyses may still,
however, be a matter of some controversy.
Quantification of load differences found by utilizing the 1993 vs the 1991
edition of API RP 2A (i.e., 20th vs. 19th) has been discussed by the API Task
Group on Wave Force Commentary. 18 Whether or not the new API recom-
mendations lead to higher or lower forces depends on previous practice and
the wave direction. Impact on steel weight for Gulf of Mexico jackets
depends on the amount of optimization one might perform with respect to
directional criteria. Also, for every one % increase in force, the increase in
steel weight is about 0.25-0-20%. For the Gulf of Mexico, the Task Group 3'4
also came up with revised wave heights which were on the order of 1 m lower
(for depths > 150 ft) than those determined in accordance with the 19th ed. 2
The net effect on forces was a significant increase in the principal wave
direction in deep water, but in some cases broadside forces were lower than
found from the 19th ed. For shallow water, the effect is dependent on struc-
ture location because the current is spatially variable. For the North Sea,
sensitivity studies indicate that the 100-yr force can be significantly lower
depending on the choice of wave kinematics factor and associated current
than that determined using current U K practice utilizing the 50-yr wave
height and 50-yr current criteria. 18
For static regular wave analysis, global platform wave forces can, accord-
ing to API, 3'4 be calculated by the Morison's formula with particle kine-
matics taken from a so-called design wave, in combination with prescribed
force coefficients. The design wave is usually determined in two steps. In the
 Calculationof hydrodynamicloads 749

first step (called long term statistics) the highest significant wave height and
its associated period are predicted from field data, usually based on averages
of 20 rain periods, registered at 3 hour intervals. The use of individual storms
may be a better strategy, however, since these may be assumed to be statis-
tically independent events. 15'21 In the second step (short term statistics), the
expected amplitude al of the highest wave for such an extreme seastate is
estimated, assuming linearity, so that the higher peaks will be Rayleigh
distributed. For predictions of surface geometry, second order terms may be
added, increasing the peaks and decreasing the depths of the troughs, relative
to the linear estimate, but the particle velocities seem to be better predicted
on basis of the linear amplitude al. An adjustment factor to account for
wave directionality is a useful concept and is included in the API recipe
which, however, also recommends the use of a regular nonlinear design
wave, e.g., a Stokes 5th order wave. An approach that may prove more
advantageous is to predict the wave form and the particle kinematics from
the statistically based new-wave. 2°' 12
API recommends the following drag and inertia values for unshielded
circular cylinders:
Smoot]~ cylinders: Ca = 0.65, C,, = 1.6
Rough cylinders: Ca = 1.05, C,n = 1.2.
These values are said to be appropriate for
- - the case of a steady current with negligible waves;
or

- - t h e case of large waves with UmoTapp/D > 30

where
Umo = maximum horizontal particle velocity at storm mean water level
under the wave crest from a two-dimensional wave kinematics
theory 9
Tapp = apparent wave period
D = platform leg diameter at storm mean water level.
For wave dominant cases with UmoTapp/D < 30, the hydrodynamic coeffi-
cients for nearly vertical members are modified by 'wake encounter'. Such
situations may arise with large diameter caissons in extreme seas or ordinary
platform members in lower seastates (typically considered in fatigue analysis).
Further details as to selection of Ca and Cm in accordance with the recent
API recommended practices are given in Refs 3 and 4, comm. C3.2.7.
For dynamic analysis, the API procedure 3'4 recommends time history
methods based on simulated random waves. Frequency domain methods
750 o. T. Gudmestad,G. Moe

may be used for the global dynamic analysis, provided the linearization of
the drag force can be justified.
The hydrodynamic coefficients developed for use with individual determi-
nistic waves can, according to API, also be used for random wave analysis
(either time or frequency domain) of fixed platforms by using:
--significant wave height
and
--spectral peak period
to calculate K, the Keulegan-Carpenter Number. 3'4

3 H Y D R O D Y N A M I C C O E F F I C I E N T S R E C O M M E N D E D BY D N V

The DNV rules 6' 7 represent North Sea Design Practice for the calculation of
hydrodynamic loads on offshore truss structures. These suggest tentative
values of Cm for different cross-sectional shapes. For circular cylinders the
value amounts to 2-0. It is in particular noted that DNV call for use of the
selected Cm value in 'Conjunction with the acceleration of water particles as
calculated using an appropriate wave theory' (see also Ref. 23).
The selection of Ca values should, according to Ref. 6, take into account
the variation of Ca as a function of:
- - Reynold's number, Re;
--Keulegan-Carpenter number, Kc;
- - r o u g h n e s s number kr/D where kr is the effective roughness height
and D the diameter of member, kr/D = 10 -2 in the absence of more
reliable data for marine growth);
- - v a r i a t i o n of cross-sectional geometry.
Tentative values for the drag coefficient for a circular cylinder of varying
roughness in steady flow are shown in Fig. 1, while tentative values in the
supercritical regime in steady flow for some in-service marine roughnesses
are given in Fig. 2. Note that the following values of surface roughness k,
could be used in the determination of the drag coefficient:
k, (metres)
Steel, new uncoated 5 x 10-5
Steel, painted 5 x 10-6
Steel, highly rusted 3 x 10-3
Concrete 3 x 10-3
Marine growth 5 x 10-3-5 x 10-2
 Calculationof hydrodynamicloads 751

1.4

1.2

1.0

o= 0.s

~ 0.6
[kdDxl0-3f 3.1 V ~"¢, ~ " °-"°"
~ 0.4 L L
I 2/"z.
,(
1.4 , , .°.."
0.2
~ I I I II I1 I SIm~ltil(kr/D"~';)
I , , 1 I I I
105 106
Reynold's number (Re)
Fig. 1. The drag of sand-roughened cylindersin steady uniform flow.

D N V 6 finally state that 'hydrodynamic drag coefficients for a rough

cylinder in oscillating flow are subject to approval in each case'. For a
smooth cylinder in oscillating flow, Ref. 6 states that the drag coefficient
should not be less than 0.7.
It should be noted that the marine growth should be included in the esti-
mate of the member diameter. In order to reduce the outer diameter and to
use the drag coefficient applicable for smooth members, Statoil decided to
use antimarine growth coating on their Veslefrikk jacket which was installed
in the Northern North Sea. 5
D N V updated their relevant document in 1991. 7 The updated document

1.4

: : .,"

1"2t Szechenyi ~ u ~, • :-',

1.0
,
v
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....:.: :+..................
0.8 .... .-...... :-.:::::~:~:ff~.,~.: ................ ::::::::!: :iiiii?i: '

......... Range of 'in service' marine

o 0.6 1, roughness ,.]
106<Re<6x106
[q 5xl0s<Re< I 5x104<Re<6x106
g04 i 0.j 6x106 :[.~
Achenbach ! t
0.2 Sand NMI
Simulated marine roughness
0 I I I I I I II1 I I I I I Ill[ I i i i i n iJ
10 -4 10-3 10-2 i0-I
Relative roughness (kr/D)
Fig. 2. Drag of rough cylinders at high Reynolds numbers in steady uniform flow.
752 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe

takes into account new information as follows (utilizing member diameters

which include growth thickness):
- - it allows the use of Cm values other than 2.0 provided that the chosen
values can be justified. Cm values for circular cylinders with in-service
marine roughness should, however, normally not be less than 1-8.
It can thus be seen that DNV in general prescribe higher C,~ values than
the new API recommended practices. 3'4
For selection of Ca values, it is stated that 'Hydrodynamic drag coeffi-
cients for circular cylinders in oscillatory flow with in-service marine rough-
ness should normally not be less than 1-1. The drag coefficient for a smooth
circular cylinder in oscillatory flow should not be less than 0-7'.
DNV's tentative values for the drag coefficient as a function of Keulegan-
Carpenter number Kc for smooth and marine growth covered circular cylinders
for supercritical Reynold's numbers are given in Fig. 3. The figure is valid for a
free flow field without any influence of a fixed boundary.
The drag coefficient for steady current is equal to the asymptotic value for
oscillatory flow for Kc equal to infinity. For combined wave and current
action, the increase of Kc due to the current may be taken into account.
If a deterministic wave analysis based on the 100-year design wave is used
to calculate global loads, a reduction in the drag coefficients may, however,
be appropriate. In such cases the drag coefficient for circular cylinders is not
to be taken as less than Ca = 0.6, where no, or moderate marine growth is
considered and Ca = 0.7, where marine growth is considered.

1/20 , ~
1.5
1/100 . . . . , N ~

.~ 1.0
k/D< 1 / 1 0 0 0 0 ~ "'°",,. .................
(smooth) ~
U

0.5

Diagram based on logarithmic interpolation

between k/D = 1/20 and kiD = 1/ 10000
I I I
0 I0 20 30 40
K¢

Fig. 3. Drag coefficient ca as function of Kc for cylinders in waves. Re > 5.10-5. 7

 Calculation of hydrodynamic loads 753

Note that this reduction should not apply to the design o f individual
members.
Reference 7, furthermore, allows for the introduction o f group effects
(shielding and blockage etc.). It should also be noted that the effect o f
marine growth on appurtenances such as anodes, etc. should be considered
when selecting effective diameters and drag coefficients. Standard industry
practice :is to increase the drag coefficient by 7-10% to account for anodes.
F r o m the above it can be concluded that the drag coefficients recom-
mended by D N V in general are consistent with the API recommended prac-
tices, except for the acceptance o f using a Cd value of 0.7 for rough members
in global deterministic wave analysis. If this value is used together with
group effects (blockage and shielding) and the best estimate o f wave and
current kinematics based on joint probability calculations, the global force
for a slender offshore structure m a y be substantially less than found by using
the recent API recipe. 3'4 Note, however, that it is not North Sea Design
Practice 1:o consider joint probability o f waves and currents.
A brief comparative analysis o f the loading on a riser platform located in
82 m water depth in the North Sea has been carried out using the input values
given in ".Fable 3. The results o f this analysis are presented in Table 4.

4 N P D ' s A P P R O A C H TO S E L E C T I O N O F H Y D R O D Y N A M I C
COEFFICIENTS

The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate 16 in a c o m m e n t a r y to Section 26 state

that 'Simplified deterministic analysis based on commonly used hydro-
dynamic coefficients, m a y be used for structures, water depths, environ-

TABLE 3
Input Values for Comparison Analysis

Structural system Jackets riserplatform

Water depfla 81.7 m (lowest astronomical tide)
Wave height 27.0 m
Wave period 14.5 s mean, 12.5-16.5s (90% interval)
10 year return current 0 m-32.5 m elev. 0.55~/s
32.5 m-52.5 m elev. 0"55m/s-0.65m/s (linear extrapolation)
52.5 m-wavecrest 0-65m/s-l.0m/s (linear extrapolation)
Joint current with 100 yr wave 0.25m/s
Marine growth + 2 m to 40 below MWL 100mm
40 m below MWL to bottom 50 mm
North Sea kinem.factor 0.95
Current blockage factor 0.85
754 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe

TABLE 4
Sensitivity Analysis for Calculation of Loads on a North Sea Jacket Riser Platform

Base shear Overturning

load moment
North Sea standard practice 16-5 s wave period 100% 100%
API hydrodyn, coeff. 123% 118%
+ A P I wave period 14.8 s 113% 115%
+ A P I current 0-25m/s 92% 96%
+Kinematics factor 0.95 83% 87%
API recipe results API, 19933,4 83% 87%

mental conditions etc. if extensive experience shows that the method is

applicable'.
In the Guidelines concerning loads and load effects, Ref. 16 in paragraph
4.3.3.1 b states that:
-- If Kc is greater than 2, the wave load can be calculated by means of
the Morison formula, with Ca and Cm given as functions of the
Reynold figure Re, the Keulegan-Carpenter figure Kc and relative
roughness.
According to present North Sea Design Practice, the 'commonly used
hydrodynamic coefficients' means the coefficients recommended by DNV 6' 7
(and previously referenced by API2). A clarification of the NPD rules with
respect to those updated coefficients presently recommended by API 3'4 is
urgently recommended, taking into account that:
--there has been no damage to offshore structures in the North Sea
resulting from possible inadequate calculation of hydrodynamic load-
ing
- - the new API recommendation practices 3'4 contain a consistent proce-
dure for calculation of hydrodynamic loads utilizing consistent values
of wave kinematics s and shielding/blockage etc. together with the most
appropriate hydrodynamic coefficients
-- the new API recommended practice assumes that the wave plus current
load is found by use of joint probability assessments for wave and
current, while N P D require use of a combination of a wave with annual
probability of exceedance of 10-2 with a current having an annual
probability of exceedance of 10-1 for an ultimate limit design code
check
- - a n y change in North Sea Design Practise be calibrated with today's
inherent safety level in mind, to estimate the safety level for present and
new structures.
 Calculation of hydrodynamic loads 755

5 ASSF,SSMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MOST RELEVANT

CODES

The preferred codes are those which use consistent values for all para-
meters in the load recipe. To use conservative estimates of wave plus
current kinematics in combination with low drag factors for deterministic
analysis is not considered consistent. In order to assess the safety margins
that result when using the latter approach, a full calibration is necessary
for any new concept and any new application (waterdepth, etc.). API, on
the other hand, suggest an approach which is considered to be consistent.
This facilitates application to new concepts and new conditions and also
makes code modification easier and is believed to be a good argument for
selecting the new API RP 2A recommendations 3 as the most relevant code
for estimating hydrodynamic loads on truss structures.

6 ASSESSMENT OF U N C E R T A I N T I E S IN ESTIMATE OR
H Y D R O D Y N A M I C COEFFICIENTS

In view of the very large difference between the API recommended hydro-
dynamic drag coefficient for rough members (Cd = 1-05) and the standard
North Sea deterministic global design practice ( C d = 0 . 7 for rough
members), key attention should be focused upon resolving the major differ-
ences between the input to the load calculation recipes.
In probabilistic analyses using state-of-the-art values for all parameters
together with best estimate of parameter uncertainties, the uncertainty in the
API reconamended hydrodynamic coefficients could be established by revi-
siting data from relevant model tests. For the drag coefficient a variation of
less than 10% is expected.

7 LATEST RESEARCH RESULTS ON USE OF MORISON'S

EQUATION A N D SELECTION OF H Y D R O D Y N A M I C
COEFFICIENTS

A review of the use of Morison's equation with discussion of the selection of

hydrodynamic coefficients was presented by Moe & Overvik. 14 Recent
research 22 on marine roughened cylinders also supports the use of the API
recommended drag factor. The use of Morison's equation is in general
supported even though some reluctance exists concerning some details such
as:
- - the automated selection of the 100 year wave and associated period; 11
756 o. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe

- the uncompromizing adherence to a vector form of Morison's formula,

-

based on instantaneous (free field) wave particle velocities and accel-

erates and current particle velocities. (Note that wake formation under
unidirectional wave and current is unclear);
- - no special treatment of horizontal members parallel to the wave front.

8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is concluded that the new API recipe 3' 4 for the calculation of hydrodynamic
loads on truss structures uses state-of-the-art values for hydrodynamic coeffi-
cients as well as for other parameters influencing the load recipe. North Sea
Design Practice for global deterministic analysis 7 combines a low drag factor
with conservative estimates of wave kinematics and current.
It is strongly recommended that the most relevant values for all the para-
meters influencing the estimation of loads on offshore truss structures are
used. Following this recommendation it will be necessary to carry out careful
full scale measurements of global force data simultaneously with wave and
current measurements to identify the design (10 -2 per year) loading as well
as the wave plus current wave kinematics level which should be used in
conjunction with proper hydrodynamic coefficients. It is recommended that
North Sea practice be changed to incorporate such measurements and most
relevant hydrodynamic coefficients. Dramatic increases in design loads are
not expected, although the total loads at certain locations may increase
above the design values in current use.
Any attempt to utilise the low drag coefficient normally used in the North
Sea Design Practice in combination with the other parameters of the API
recipe, 3 i.e., wave kinematics factor, low current value, current blockage and
shielding, i.e., parameters from different recipes, may result in an under-
estimation of design loads potentially leading to unsafe structures, and this
must by all means be avoided.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express thanks to Professor T. M o a n for his

interest in the ongoing work and for his initiative within the ISO organi-
sation to harmonise API recommended practice and N o r t h Sea Design
Practice for calculation of hydrodynamic loads on truss structures.
Furthermore, the authors express thanks to C. Petrauskas for valuable
comments and to J. I. Dalane who carried out the riser platform
comparison analysis.
 Calculation of hydrodynamic loads 757

REFERENCES

1. API RP 2A, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing

Fixed Offshore Platforms, 9th Edition, API, USA, 1977.
2. API RP 2A, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms, 19th Edition, API, USA, 1991.
3. API RP 2A WSD, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, Working Stress Design, 20th Edition,
API, USA, 1993.
4. API RP 2A LRFD, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, Load and Resistance Factor Design, First
Edition, API, USA, 1993
5. Baerheim, M. & Fossan, T.I., Weight optimization of the Veslefrikk jacket.
OTC paper 6189, In Proc. OTC 1989, Houston, Texas, 1989, pp. 689-700.
6. Det Norske Veritas, Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of
Offshore Structures, Appendix B, Loads, DNV, Norway, 1977.
7. Det Norske Veritas, Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads, DNV
Classification notes no. 30.5, DNV, Norway, 1991.
8. Gudmestad, O.T., Measured and predicted deepwater wave kinematics in regu-
lar ancl irregular seas. Marine Struct., 6 (1993) 1-73.
9. Gudmestad, O.T. & Karunakaran, D., Wave kinematics models for calculation
of wave loads on truss structures. OTC paper 7421. In Proc. OTC 1994, Hous-
ton, Texas, 1994, pp. 413-424.
10. Heideman, J.C., Hagen, O., Cooper, C. & Dahl, F.E., Joint probability of
extreme waves and currents on Norwegian shelf. J. Waterway, Port, Coastal &
Ocean Engng, 115 (1989) 534--546.
11. Haver, S., On the joint distribution of heights and periods of waves, Ocean
Engng, 14 (1987) 359-376.
12. Jonathan, P., Taylor, P.H. & Tromans, P.S., Storm waves in the Northern Sea.
In Proc. Boss '94 conference, MIT, 2 (1994) pp. 481-494.
13. Morison, J.R., O'Brian, M.P., Johnson, J.W. & Schaaf, S.A., The forces
exerted by surface waves on piles. Petroleum Trans., AIME, 189 (1950) 149-
157.
14. Moe, G. & Overvik, T., The use of the Morison equation, a review of field
measurements. In Proc. of E&P Forum Workshop, Wave and Current Kine-
matics and Loading, FIP, Paris (1989) pp. 305-332.
15. Nolte, K.J., Statistical methods for determining extreme seastates. In POAC
1973, pp. 705-742.
16. Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Regulations Concerning Loadbearing Struc-
tures in the Petroleum Activities with Guidelines Concerning Loads and Load
Effects, NPD, Stavanger, Norway, 1994.
17. Petrauskas, C., Heideman, J.C. & Berek, E.P., Extreme wave force calculation
procedure for the 20th edition of API RP 2A. OTC paper 7153. In Proc. OTC
1993, Houston, Texas, 1993, pp. 201-211.
18. Petrau,;kas, C., 19th vs 20th ed. forces. Private communication, Oct. 1994.
19. Thomas, G.A.N. & Thorp, G., The upstream oil and gas industry's initiative in
the development of international standards. SPE paper 23325. In Proc. Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conf., Singapore, February 1991, pp. 127-136.
20. Tromans, P.S., Anaturk, A. & Hagemeijer, P., A new model for the kinematics
758 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe

of large ocean waves--application as a design wave. In Proc. ISOPE Conf.,

Edinburgh, 1991, pp. 64-71.
21. Tromans, P.S., Efthymiou, M., Van de Graaf, J.W. & Taylor, P.H., Extreme
storm loading on fixed offshore platforms. Publication 1102, Shell Research,
Rijswijk, The Netherlands, 1992.
22. Wolfram, J., Jusoh, I. & Sell, D., Uncertainty in the estimation of fluid loading
due to the effects of marine growth. In Proc. OMAE, Vol. II, 1993, pp. 219-228.
23. Zelt, J., Gudmestad, O.T. & Skjelbreia, J.E., Fluid accelerations under irregular
waves. Appl. Ocean Res., 17 (1995) 43-54.