~OTC 1614

OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE

6200 North Central Expressway

Dallas, Texas 75206
THIS IS A PREPRJ1'iIT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

Cno i da I Wave Theory for App I i cat ion

To Offshore Structural Design

By
Gerald O. Mallery and George C. Clark, Continental Oil Co.

Copyright 1972

Offshore Technology Conference on behalf of the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, Inc., American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Institute o~
Chemical Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., Marine Technology Society, Society of
Exploration Geophysicists, and Society of Naval Architects & Marine Engineers.
This paper waS prepared for presentation at the Fourth Am:m8.1 Offshore Technology Conference
held in Houston, Tex., May 1-3, 1972. 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
Cnoidal wave theory has never been routinely employed for engineering design although several versions of the theory have
been advocated in the literature. The main
reason that cnoidal theory has not been used
is that the computations have been somewhat
complicated. The theory presented in this
paper was programmed specifically for engineering calculations. It can easily be combined with any general purpose structural
mechanics program for simplified application
to offshore structure design. This version
of cnoidal theory was obtained by differentiating Keulegan-Patterson's velocity potential. It predicts velocities close to laboratory measurements for large amplitude,
shallow water waves. The predicted vertical
velocity and both components of acceleration
differ from previously published results.
INTRODUCTION
The designers of offshore structures
must select a theory to predict water particle velocities and accelerations (kinematics) in order to calculate wave forces.
The choice of a suitable wave theory is

determined by water depth and design wave

height and period. Unfortunately, there
have been so few measurements of water particle kinematics, and those that have been
made are over such a small range of wave
parameters that it is often difficult to
know which theory to use in a specific design situation(l).
In intermediate and deep water, the
oil industry has employed, generally quite
successfully, Stokes' fifth order, stream
function, and linear theories. The research
reported herein was initiated in response to
design engineers' needs for accurate wave
theory to predict forces in large amplitude,
shallow water waves. In a study of such
waves, Le Mehaute, et al(2) state, "While no
theory was found exceptionally accurate, the
cnoidal wave theory of Keulegan and Patterson appears most adequate for the range of
wave lengths and depths studied." Dean has
shown that stream function theory fits the
boundary conditions(3) and data(4) quite
well. However, errors had been discovered
in the published equations of KeuleganPatterson cnoidal theory (5). Consequently,
i t appeared that improvements might be possible in the fit of cnoidal predictions to
shallow water wave kinematics measurements.

References and illustrations at end of paper.

--=--~---~~

~_.:-===-::~_.

CNOIDAL WAVE THEORY FOR APPLICATION TO OF~sHI 'K~,

O'l'r. H;1l..

J
[ d-]~ ,
(3)

In addition to making these improvements

in the theory, we developed this technique
specifically for the design engineer. Lee(6)
has stated, liThe complex equations involved
in cnoidal wave theory have prevented its
wide application for practical purposes."
Iwagaki (7) adds, lilt is very difficult for
engineers to deal with the cnoidal wave
theory for practical application . "
Similar statements appear in nearly every
paper discussing some aspect of cnoidal
theory. The reason for the difficulty in
applying the available cnoidal theories is
that they are generally presented as nondimensional graphs and tables of functions.
Consequently, computation of water particle
kinematics at the many positions needed in
the design of a structure is tedious, time
consuming, and subject to human error. Thus,
we wanted to develop a computer solution inputing only wave height and period and water
depth to be compatible with the commonly
used structural mechanics programs.

(Contd)
2d

(3)

dX 3

respectively
It is necessary to use additional relationships to define the unknown variables
in these equations (hz,k,L) in terms of the
known variables (H,T,d). These defining
equations are
k Z = _H_
H+ s

(H
L

~...

(4)

+ s) K(k)

(5)

s) K(k)

(6)

s) E(k)

I 3(Hl6d+
d

(h z

H - 3h z

s .

(7)

THEORY
The equations which were used are presented in Keulegan and Patterson (8) , and the
readers are directed to that manuscript for
the theoretical development. The nomenclature which is used is basically that used by
Keulegan and Patterson with some minor exceptions and is described in the table of
nomenclature.
The surface profile of a wave is described by

(1)

The horizontal and vertical velocities are

given by
Z

h
h
-u- ... ----+
Igd d .4dz

and

v
--=

Elimination of hz, s, and L from the above

equations yield the equation

d - H

+ :' [

2 - 3

~~l ]

z -=K.:...z~(;;:.k),. : :1.: . 6....:d=.-3--:;:k_

- 0
3 H TZ g

(8)

Equation (8) can be solved using nonlinear

solution techniques for the elliptic modulus,
k. This equation is equivalent to one presented by Wiegel(9, Eq. 2.163).
Equations (7) and (8) represent the
velocity of propagation of a wave height
element with respect to a fixed coordinate
system and correspond to wave staff observations. An alternate definition is available corresponding to the velocity of the
wave profile with respect to the center of
inertia of the fluid in the wave (Stokes'
second definition) (10). This velocity is
given by

Using this equation in place of Equation (7)

yields

av

-'"
at

~Igd
+1.
3

3 H T2 g

av
ax

-zs

where
y = d -

~ ~~~~

The particle accelerations are given

by the total derivatives of velocity with
respect to time. The horizontal acceleration is
Du = au + u au + v au
(12)
at
ax
az
Dt

The vertical acceleration is

av
av
av
az = -Dv
... -+u-+VDt
at
ax
az

-zlid

+1.

(13)

Using Equation (2) the appropriate terms for

the horizontal acceleration are

a2h
aXdt -

ah ah
ax

Wat

[[ } -~]

(11)

These equations can be solved for the elliptic modulus, k, by techniques similar to
those used for Equation (8).

[l}~ 2~']

[ d- 2dZ']'"h
""t_

5 2
_ 16 d k K2(k) _ 0 . . . . . . (10)

ax

I-943

CNOIDAL WAVE THEORY FOR APPLICATION TO OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL DESIGN

OTC 1614

a 2h
1
ax 2 - 2d 2

[:: r

[ d - 2d ] 8X4
'4
z2

a3h
W

(15)

The local accelerations are given by the

first of Equations (14) and (15).
To evaluate the velocities and accelerations, the first four partial derivatives
of the equation for the wave surface are required. The derivatives of the Jacobian
Elliptic function can be found in several
standard texts (11,12). For brevity sn( ),
cn( ), and dn( ) represent these functions
wi th an argtmlent 0 f
[ 2K (k) [

J: - t ] . k ]

in the following equations

ah .. - 4H ~
ax
L sn () cn () dn( )

K2 (k)
-8H ~

cn 2 ( ) dn 2 ( )

- sn'( ) dn'( ) - k'cn'( ) sn'(

;~ = Igd [_ j

::,h]

Using Equation (3) the terms for the

vertical acceleration are

(14)

a3h

~ = -64H

K3~k)
L
cn() dn( ) sn( )

[k' [ sn'( ) - cn'( ) ] - dn'(

):J

.944

CNOIDAL WAVE THEORY FOR APPLICAq )N TO OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL DESICN

OTC 161

function of depth and a weak function of

relative wave height (H/d). The minimum
period can be approximated by

(16)
(Contd)
r
a4h
p=

-128H~

6 k2 cnz( ) sn2( ) dn2( )

{L

.0

. . . . . . . . ..

(18)

g
This minimum period increases very slightly
as the relative wave height increases. Below this minimum period, this cnoidal solution does not exist. The significance of
the minimum period will be discussed in the
next section. The subroutine for the complete elliptic integrals and the Jacobian
elliptic functions were obtained from the
IBM Scientific Subroutine Package (13) and
were modified for accuracy at small values
of the complementary modulus.

k2 sn2( ) - cn2( )
1
[[
-7

- dn2( )

T=7K.

cn2( ) dn2( )

sn2( ) dn2( )

-k2sn20cn20

. . . . ..

(16)

1]
The mixed derivatives can be evaluated by
the following relationship

Once the elliptic modulus is obtained,

the wave length can be determined from
Equations (4) and (6), and the surface profile can be computed from Equation (l). The
velocities and accelerations of water particles within the wave can be computed from
the appropriate equations given above.
RESULTS

an h
an-1

at

=_Lanh
.
T

axn.

. . . . . . . . (17)

Equations (16) and (17) can be substituted into Equations (14) and (15) to
develop a single equation for each acceleration and Equations (2) and (3) for an
equation for each velocity. Performing
this substitution, we check the equation
given by Wiegel(9) for horizontal velocity
but are unable to obtain the final equations for vertical velocity and local
acceleration which he presents. For our
solution, we evaluated the derivatives of
the wave profile using Equations (16) and
(17).
In the program, Equation (8) or (10)
was solved for a value of the elliptic
modulus, k, using the Newton-Raphson
Iterative Technique. In reality, the complementary elliptic modulus, k, was used
because of the wide range of values which
can be obtained for a range of wave properties (1 > k > 10-40). TWO roots for
Equations (8) and (10) exist, and the root
at the smaller value of k is the desired
value. The physical significance of the
wave obtained from the other root is not
physically apparent. The waves computed
with Equations (8) and (10) had very
similar properties. Below a particular
value of period for a wave of otherwise
constant properties, the real roots cease
to exist. This value is primarily a

We have compared this version of

cnoidal theory with other theories and with
data from several publications. Space limitations prevent us from including all of
these comparisons. Consequently, we will
concentrate on a discussion of the range of
applicability of the theory and will compare
our predictions with the data presented by
Le M&haut6 et al(2).
There have been several investigationa
of the region of applicability of cnoidal
wave theories. For instance, Laitone(14)
concluded that it should not be used if the
wave length is less than five times the
depth and is superior to Stokes theory only
if the wave length is greater than eight
times the depth. Masch(15) adds that
cnoidal wave theory describes waves whose
lengths are between ten and fifty times the
water depth. Bretschneider et al(1) state
that cnoidal wave theory is applicable mainly if the wave length is greater than ten
times the depth. These references all indicate that cnoidal theory can be extended
beyond shallow water waves, which generally
are defined to have lengths greater than 200
times the depth(16). We conclude that until
comparison with data proves the contrary, a
wave theory may be applied over any range of
parameters where it will converge to a solution.

-.

OTC 1614

CNOIDAL WAVE THEORY FOR APPLICATION TO OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL DESIGN

As given Zn Eq. 8, we have found that

this theory will converge for periods greater
than approximately
74-.

This corresponds to deep water wave lengths

greater than about eight times the depth.
Thus, if a structure were to be designed for
100 feet of water, the design wave period
would have to be greater than about 12.3
seconds. In 50 feet of water, the minimum
period would be about 8.7 seconds, and in
25 feet of water, about 6.2 seconds.
The fact that the equations will converge to a solution does not necessarily
imply, however, that the results represent
a realistic description of a freely propagating gravity wave. Since the wave height
has little effect on the convergence range,
for instance, this theory will compute kinematics for completely unrealistic waves
based on a wave height to water depth crLterion. Unfortunately, breaking wave
criteria have not been firmly established.
The commonly quoted height to depth ratio
of 0.78 is misleading. The ratio is
actually a function of bottom slope, but
the wave theories are generally developed
assuming a horizontal bottom. It seems
reasonable then, to look for other stability criteria to assess when a wave begins to break and limit the region of
applicability based on the stability criteria. Two possible stability criteria
that have been proposed(l7) are the kinematic stability parameter (KSP) and the
dynamic stability parameter (DSP).
The KSP is the ratio of the maximum
horizontal particle velocity, Urn,under the
crest relative to the phase speed, u.
KSP=:

. . . . . . . . . . . ..(19)

It is argued that if KSP is greater than

1.0, the water particles are outrunning the
wave form, and consequently, the wave begins to break.
The DSP is the ratio of the maximum
vertical acceleration, Dv/Dt, at the surface to the acceleration of gravity, g,
DSP =

-~=
. . . . . . . .. .
g Dt

.(20)

If the DSP is greater than 1.0, the water

particles will leave the surface of the
wave and breaking will occur. Figure 1,

1-945

analogous to that given by Dean(17)~ shows

the breaking criteria for this cnoldal
theory. As was found before, the KSP is the
governing criterion. however, by this criterion, the cnoidal wave breaks when the wave
height to depth ratio is only 0.68, whereas
the commonly quoted values range from 0.73
to 0.87, and Dean found 1.0 for stream function theory. It is interesting to note that
on a horizontal bottom, Divoky et al(18)
were unable to generate waves higher than
about .6 of the water depth without breaking occurring. In investigating wave deformation, Street and Camfield(19) reported
waves only up to .59 to .65 of the water
depth on a horizontal bottom. These measurements are in good agreement with cnoidal
theory. However, measured maximum crest
velocities in breaking waves have generally
been significantly lower than the phase
speed(18), which leads one to question the
validity of the KSP as a breaking wave
criterion. We do not, however, recommend
applying this cnoi.daltheory where crest
velocities are predicted higher than the
phase speed.
The best test of a theorys applicability, of course, is to compare it with
measured data. The problem is to get good
wave measurements with which to compare the
theory. Shallow water wave kinematics
measurements have been reported by Le
M6haut4 et al(2), Iwagaki(7), Iwagaki and
Sakai(20), and Wiegel(9). In this paper,
we have chosen to compare our reeults with
Le M6haut6s data becauee many other
theories have been compared with it and
because the results have been verified by
independent experimentation(5,21). In
addition, we have compared our results with
other shallow water wave data, and the conclusions reported herein apply equally well
to the remainder of the data. Figures 2
through 9 show the results of our comparison with Le M6haut6s horizontal velocities
beneath the wave crest. For a discussion
of other theories fit to the data, the
reader is referred to the original paper.
We will confhe our discussions to the
Keulegan-Patterson (K-P) cnoidal theories.
We found I.tdifficult to compare this theory
to Le M6haut6s version due to the effect of
mass transport currents on the data and on
the two versions of the theory. During the
experiments, the wave tank was completely
closed allowing no mass transport for the
steady state condition. The K-P equations
presented herein, however, do predict a
significant mass transport in the direction
of wave propagation. The mass transport can

1-946

CNOIDAL WAVE THEORY FOR APPLICATION TO

_.DESIGN
.
-. OFFSHORE
.-.-- STRUCTURAL

be reduced to zero and the governtng equa?

tions still he satfsfied by subtracting a
current, uniform with depth, from the
velocity profile predictions. Le M&haut~,
et al, rather than solve the equations by an
iterative technique as done here, used measured values of the trough depth in their
version of the theory.
One cannot, from
their paper, compute how much, Tf any, of the
mass transport has been accounted for in
their predictions. Consequently, we have
reported our results both with and without
the mass transport included for comparison
with Le M6haut6s results. In the figures,
the curves labeled K-P* are our results
with mass transport included. Those labeled
K-P** have no mass transport. Le M6haut6s
predictions are labeled K-P. As can be
seen from the figures, with no mass transport, we tend to predict velocities too low
at the bottom and too high at the crest.
With mass transport included, our profiles
shift to the right and are very close to the
data at the bottom but even higher at the
surface. With no mass transport, this
theory has a relative average deviation from
the data that is essentially the same as
Le M6haut6s version for the eight cases.
If we include mass transport, our results
are about 18 percent worse than his. The
standard deviations of this theory from the
data are .290 with no mass transport and
.340 if mass transport is included.
The majority of the variance occurs
just beneath the wave crest where the theory
consistently predicts horizontal velocities
too high. As the relative wave height (H/d)
increases, the discrepancies become larger,
We may be able to significantly improve on
these results; however, with slight changes
in Keulegan-Pattersons solution to the
boundary value problem. They assume some
terms in the differential equations can be
approximated by the linear shallow water
approximation. They also discard all terms
above the order (H/d)2. Hendrickson
has formulated an approach that appears
more rigorous and, for one case at least,
predicted lower crest velocities than this
theory.
It was pointed out in the previous
section that vertical velocities and the
two components of local acceleration reported herein differ from those previously
presented in the literature. Figure 10
shows a comparison of measured and predieted vertical velocity at the point of
maximum vertical velocity in the wave.
Our predictions (labeled K-P*) fall very
close to the data and have a relative
average deviation of 35 percent from Le
M&haut&ts predictions (labeled K-P).

OTC 161

Since we did not have acceleration

data available$ we compared our predictions
with those previously published(23). These
pu~l?shed tables of functions yielded the
same horizontal water particle velocities
that we obtained. However, our vertical
velocity and two local acceleration conponents differed from theirs, as was to be
expected.
We have not included data on surface
profile, since our results are essentially
the same as obtained previously(2,22,23).
Cnoidal wave surface profiles have generally
matched shallow water wave data very well.
In order to use this theory for design,
the engineer must calculate forces from the
predicted water motion. This is normally
done using the well-known Morfson Equation
which includes empirically-derived drag and
mass coefficients. The drag and mass coefficient will vary depending on the wave
theory or more precisely on the predicted
velocities and accelerations. Unfortunately,
we could find no large amplitude, shallow
water wave force data. For smaller waves,
where force data was available,
this
theory so nearly matched Stokes fifth order
theory that the predicted coefficients did
not differ appreciably. However, if these
coefficients were applied to this theory for
waves nearer breaking, the predicted forces
near the surface under the crest would be
too high. Obviously, in order to do a more
accurate job of predicting forces for large
amplitude waves in shallow water, we need
wave and force data in that range. Laboratory and field studies will have to be
undertaken to obtain this data.
CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions reached in this
study may be summarized as follows:
1.

This theory was programmed specifically for oil industry application to the design of offshore
structures and does not rely on
graphs, tables of functions, or
measured data as have previous
cnoidal theories. Use of IBM
Scientific Subroutines for the
elliptic Integrals and Jacobian
elliptic functions have made
previously tedious calculations
routine and accurate. However,
there is still a need for shallow
water wave force data to use in
computing drag and mass coefficients.

(XiO~DALWAVE THEORY FOR Aj?PLIcATzoN TO OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL DESIGN

OTC 1614

I-947

For the eight waves presented here,

this theory predicts horizontal
velocities close to measurements
under the crest. The fit is excellent near the bottom. Near the
surface, for the large amplitude,
shallow water waves presented, the
horizontal velocity predictions
tend to be too high.

x
z
lo

3.

The predicted maximum vertical

velocity matched measurement
extremely well and had a relative
average deviation of 35 percent
from prevf.ouslypublished results.

4.

The predicted accelerations, though

not compared with data, also dif.
fered from previously published
values.

We would like to thank Continental Oil

Company for permission to present this paper.
Also, we extend our appreciation to Bob Dean
(University of Florida) and Dave Dfvoky
(Tetra Tech), who made several helpful suggestions, and Jim Hendrickson (Science
Engineering Associates), who gave us some
results of a cnoidal wave theory on which
he had worked.

5.

This theory predicts that on a

horizontal bottom a wave will
break if its height is 0.68 of
the water depth.

2.

UC

= distance from crest

= distance from bottom
= velocity of wave crest with respect
to fixed coordinate
= velocity of wave with respect to the
center of inertia (Stokes second
definition)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

REFERENCES
1.

Bretschneider, C. L., G. S. Pick and

J. 1. Collins, Gravity Wave
and Wave
Force Theory, MeasuremeW
and
. Data
Analysis: State of
the Art, Nesco
Report SN-9~~~h,
1965).

2.

Le M6haut6, B., D. Divoky, and A. Lin,

Shallow Water Waves: A Comparison of
Theories and Experiments, Proceedings,
Eleventh Conference
Coastal ~.
-Ch.
7, 1968.

3.

Dean, R. G., Relative Validities of

Water Wave Theories, Proceedings of
the ASCE Conference .
on Civil Engin~r.
~in the Oceans, San Francisco, Calif.
(Sept., 1967), pp. 1-30.

4.

Dean, R. G. and B. Le M6haut6,

Expertiental Validity of Watsr Wave
Theories, unpublished manuscript.

5.

Dean, R. G,, Personal Communications,

1969-1972.

6.

Lee, C. Y., Velocity and Acceleration

Fields in Cnof.dalWaves, M. S. Thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University
of Texas, (May, 1966).

7.

Iwagaki, Y., Hyperbolic Waves and

Their Shoaling, Proceedings, Eleventh
Conference on Coastal Eng~,
Ch. 9, 1968T

8,

Keulegan, G. H. and G. W. Patterson,

Mathematica~ Theory of Irrotational
Translation Waves, Journal of Research, National Bureau of Standards,
24, 1, (Jan. 1940), pp. 47-101.

NOMENCLATURE
All units must be consistent. The
elliptic modulus, elliptic functions, and
integrals are dimensionless.
a
= horizontal acceleration
x
a
= vertical acceleration
CI?() = Jacobian elliptic functions,
cosine amplitude
d
= still water depth
dn( ) = Jacobian elliptic functions,
delta amplitude
E (k) = complete elliptic integral of
second kind
= acceleration of gravity
:
= height of free surface above (below)
still water level
= distance from still water level to
hl
wave crest
= distance from still water level to
h2
wave trough
H
= wave height (hl + h2)
k
= elliptic modulus
k
= complementary elliptic modulus
(k =~)
= complete elliptic integral of
first kind
L
= wave length
sn( ) = Jacobian elliptic functions,
sine amplitude
= time
t
T
= wave period
U
= horizontal velocity
v
= vertical velocity
K (k)

I-948
9.

CNOIDAL WAVE THEORY FORAPPLICATION TO OFFSHORE STRUCTUIVILDESIGN

Wiegel, R. L., Oceanographical ~neering, Prentice Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1964,
pp. 40-53.

10.

Stokes, G. G., On the Theory of

Oscillatory Waves, Mathematical and
Physics
Papers, I, Cambridge University Press, 1880.

11.

Abramowitz, M. and I. A. Stegun, Ed.

Handbook of Mathematical Functions,
U.S. Bure~ of Commerce, 1964,
p. 567-626.

12.

Erdelyi, A., et al, Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol. 2., McGraw

Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953.

13.

Scientific Subroutine Package, IBM

Publication #H20-0205-3, 1968.

14.

Laitone, E. V., Limiting Conditions

for Cnoidal and Stokes Waves,
Journal of Geophysical Research,
67(4), (April, 1962), pp. 1555-1564.

15.

Masch, F. D., Cnoidal Waves in

Shallow Water, Proceedings, Ninth
Conference ~ Coastal Engineering,
Ch. 1, 1964.

16.

Kinsman, B., Wind Waves, Prentice

Hall, Inc., E~w~liffs,
N. J.,
1965, p. 133.

17.

Dean, R. G., Breaking Wave Criteria;

A Study Employing a Numerical Wave
Theory, Proceedings, Eleventh

OTC 1614

Conference on Coastal Engineering?

Ch. 8, 1968~
18.

Divoky, D., B. Le M6haut6 and A. Lin,

Breaking Waves on Gentle Slopes,
Journal of Geophysical Research~
vol. 75 {~9, (March 20, 1970)s
pp. 1681-1692.

19.

Street$ R. L., and F. E. Camfi.eld,

Observations and Experiments on
Solitary Wave Deformation,
Proceedings, Tenth Conference on
Coastal~,
Ch. 19, 1%6.

20.

Iwagaki, Y. and T. Sakai,

Horizontal Water Particle Velocity
of Finite Amplitude Waves,t
Proceedings, Twelfth Conference ~
Coastal Engineering, Ch. 19, 1970.

21.

Divoky, D., Personal Communications,

1971-1972.

22.

Hendrickson, J. A., Personal

Communications, 1971.

23.

Masch, F. D. and R. L. Wiegel,

Cnoidal Waves, Tables
of Functions,
Council on Wage Research, The
Engineering Foundation, University
of California, 1961.

24.

Agershou, H. A. and J. J. Edens,

Fifth and First Order Wave lforce
Coefficients for Cylindrical Piles,
Proceedings, Santa Barbara Specialty
Conference on Coastal Engineering,
ASCE, Ch. 1~1965
-J

NU

,-

.
NIv

,:

_.

N] u

:\

1=-1