Proceedings of the ASME 2017 36th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2017
June 25-30, 2017, Trondheim, Norway

OMAE2017-61406

WAVE-IN-DECK IMPACT LOADS IN RELATION WITH WAVE KINEMATICS

Jule Scharnke∗ Rene Lindeboom Bulent Duz

MARIN MARIN MARIN
Wageningen Wageningen Wageningen
The Netherlands The Netherlands The Netherlands
j.scharnke@marin.nl r.lindeboom@marin.nl b.duz@marin.nl

ABSTRACT Newer platforms will usually be designed with an air gap

Breaking waves have been studied for many decades and
are still of interest as these waves contribute significantly to the
dynamics and loading of offshore structures. In current MARIN
research this awareness has led to the setup of an experiment to
determine the kinematics of breaking waves using Particle Image
Velocimetry (PIV). The purpose of the measurement campaign
is to determine the evolution of the kinematics of breaking fo-
cussed waves. In addition to the PIV measurements in waves,
small scale wave-in-deck impact load measurements on a fixed
deck box were carried out in the same wave conditions. To inves-
tigate the link between wave kinematics and wave-in-deck impact
loads, simplified loading models for estimating horizontal deck
impact loads were applied and compared to the measured im-
pact loads. In this paper, the comparison of the model test data
to estimated loads is presented.
INTRODUCTION
To ensure margin against overload failures, design recipes
for offshore structures typically require control of two limit
states: a) Ultimate limit state (ULS) and b) Accidental limit state
(ALS). ALS is traditionally meant to cover accidental type of
loading, i.e. loads caused by explosions, fires and collisions.
The Norwegian rules, however, require that ALS is applied also
for environmental loads. Characteristic ALS loads are defined
as loads corresponding to an annual exceedance probability of
10−4 .
∗ Address all correspondence to this author.
sufficient to avoid wave impacts with a 10−4 annual probability
crest. The challenge lies in older platforms designed prior to
2000, where a negative air gap may be experienced. The loading
from a wave impact event can be very large and is very difficult
to predict numerically.
Wave impacts can be critical for local structural details as
well as global structural integrity. The incident with one fatality
on the COSLInnovator in the North Sea in December 2015 has
shown how critical these loads can be for the safety on board. In
platform design it is therefore essential to have a good estimate of
extreme wave impact loading, if air gap exceedance is expected.
In DNV-GL’s Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205 [1]
estimation techniques for wave-in-deck loads are described and
are compared to CFD simulations with Stokes 5th order regular
waves in [2]. Simplified load prediction models together with
CFD simulations with Stokes 5th order regular waves are the
most common techniques applied in wave-in-deck analysis. In
recent years a lot of work has been carried out in the development
of models for more realistic extreme waves and design methodol-
ogy, for instance within the framework of Joint Industry Projects
(JIPs) such as the CresT JIP [3] and its follow-up project, the
ShorTCresT JIP [4].
Extensive work on simplified loading models for the estima-
tion of vertical deck loads in comparison with model tests and
simulations were carried out as part of the WaveLand JIP (Phase
I & II) and is described in [5], [6], [7] and [8].
However, in horizontal impact loads, the horizontal wave
particle velocity is a main contributor to the impact load. There-

1 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Figure 1: MODEL TEST SETUP IN MARIN’S DEMONSTRA-
TION BASIN (DB).
fore, in order to be able to properly estimate horizontal impact
loads, it is essential to have a good understanding of the con-
tributing wave kinematics. This can be a challenge, especially
in very steep and breaking waves, where theoretical models typ-
ically underestimate wave kinematics.
In current MARIN research this has led to the setup of an
experiment to determine the kinematics of breaking waves with
Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV). The purpose of the measure-
ment campaign was to determine the evolution of the wave kine-
matics of breaking focused waves. In addition to the PIV mea-
surements in waves, small scale wave-in-deck impact load mea-
surements on a fixed deck box were carried out in the same wave
conditions. To investigate the link between wave kinematics and
wave-in-deck impact loads, simplified loading models for esti-
mating horizontal deck impact loads were applied and compared
to the measured impact loads, taking into account PIV measure-
ment results as input for the horizontal particle velocities. In this
paper, the comparisons of the model test data to estimated loads
are presented.
The results presented in this paper are based on one wave
condition only, as further PIV data is not currently available.
Further PIV measurements will be performed this year for other
wave conditions.
TEST SETUP
The PIV measurements and wave-in-deck impact load mea-
surements were carried out in MARINs Demonstration Basin
(DB). The wave flume consists of 4 sections (3 x 1.5 m and 1
x 0.8 m) with a total length of 5.3 m. The width of the flume is
0.3 m. A flap type wave generator (single flap) is mounted on
2 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Figure 2: FIXED PLATFORM DECK INSTALLED IN
DEMONSTRATION BASIN FOR WAVE IMPACT MEA-
SUREMENTS.
one side of the flume. On the opposite side a beach and foam
structure are placed to reduce the reflections of relatively long
and short waves respectively.
The measurements were carried out in three phases. First the
undisturbed wave was measured using a dedicated wave probe
setup. Then the wave kinematics where determined through PIV
measurements. Finally impact loads on the deck box were mea-
sured with the same wave conditions. For the wave calibration
5 wave probes were installed in the DB from the wave flap up
to the centre line of the PIV section. The locations of the wave
probes are shown in the top figure of Fig. 1. The calibrated wave
conditions are described in the following section.
To measure wave-in-deck impact loads, a deck box was in-
stalled in the PIV section of the DB as shown in the bottom figure
of Fig. 1. The deck box was 0.315 m long, 0.28 m wide and 0.21
m high. It was instrumented with 18 pressure cells on the front
plate (see Fig. 2) and a 6 component force frame to measure the
global impact loads. The deck box was mounted on a separate
frame built around the wave flume to avoid contact and interac-
tion with the side walls of the flume.
Apart from the wave height and impact load measurements,
high speed videos were recorded both of the undisturbed wave as
well as the wave impact on the fixed deck box (see e.g. Fig. 3,
Fig. 12).
All data presented in this paper is given at model scale.
However, considering the calibrated crest heights, deck box di-
 Table 1: OVERVIEW OF UNDISTURBED WAVE MEASURE-
MENTS.

Description ζmax ζmax Frequency Type of

specified measured range breaking
Figure 3: CALIBRATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS,
NON-BREAKING TO BREAKING FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. [m] [m] [s]

Focused Wave 1 0.075 0.093 0.5-3 non-

breaking
Focused Wave 2 0.0775 0.99 0.5-3 spilling
Focused Wave 3 0.08 0.103 0.5-3 spilling/
overturning
Focused Wave 4 0.1 0.113 0.5-3 overturning

top. In the measured wave elevation at WAVE 3 it can be ob-

served that the trough before and after the crest are symmetric,
which is a clear indication that the wave is fully focused. In the
bottom figure at location WAVE CL the wave has just passed the
focusing point and an asymmetry in the troughs around the crest
can be observed.
The focusing waves presented in this study are based on the
function for the Fourier spectrum given in Eqn. 1. The frequency
range (ωstart and ωend ) used to define the Fourier spectrum are
Figure 4: PROPAGATION OF FOCUSED WAVE IN DEMON- given in Tab. 1. More details regarding focusing wave generation
STRATION BASIN. is given in [9].

mensions and selected air gap, a scale of approximately 1:250

may be assumed. 27(ω − ωstart )(ω − ωend )2
|F(ω)| = (1)
4(ωend − ωstart )3

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Long-crested focused waves are calibrated with varying
steepness from non-breaking to fully overturning. The spatial
shape of the calibrated wave conditions is shown in the high
speed video snapshots presented in Fig. 3.
A focusing wave is defined as a superposition of waves con-
sisting of subsequent wave frequencies with increasing propaga-
tion speeds. All wave components are superposed in such a way
that they meet in time and space at the so-called focusing point.
After the focusing point, due to dispersion the individual compo-
nents diverge in opposite order.
An example of a focusing wave is given in Fig. 4. The wave
is propagating from the reference wave probe WAVE REF in
front of the wave maker shown in the top figure, to wave probe
WAVE CL in the PIV section of the flume, shown in the bottom
figure (see Fig. 1 for the locations of the wave probes). The fo-
cusing point is near wave probe WAVE 3, third figure from the
For the PIV measurements the focusing point of the cali-
brated waves have been set at the centre line of the setup.
To check the repeatability of the generated waves, the cali-
brated focused waves were repeated three times. In Fig. 5 three
repeat measurements of the undisturbed wave measurements of
Focused Wave 3 are presented at three wave probe locations,
Wave CL, Wave 2 and Wave 3. In Tab. 2, the maximum crest
heights per repeat measurement and wave probe are given. Based
on the time traces presented in the figure and the values in the
table, it can be concluded that the wave conditions repeat very
well, with only small variations in the crest. This is very impor-
tant, as a good repeatability of the wave is crucial, since the PIV
results are based on an average of a number of measurements,
as described in the PIV section of this paper. Possible errors in
the PIV measurements resulting from the small deviations in the
crest are discussed in [10] and [11].
The effect of the small variations in the crest height and its

3 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Figure 5: COMPARISON OF REPEAT MEASUREMENTS Figure 6: COMPARISON OF REPEAT MEASUREMENTS OF
OF UNDISTURBED WAVES AT WAVE PROBE WAVE CL, IMPACT LOADS.
WAVE 2 AND WAVE 3.

Table 3: MEASURED IMPACT LOADS PER REPEAT MEA-

Table 2: MEASURED CREST HEIGHTS PER REPEAT MEA- SUREMENT OF FOCUSED WAVE 3.
SUREMENT OF FOCUSED WAVE 3.

Measured wave elevation [m] Measured impact load [N]

Repeat Repeat
Mean
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 Mean

Wave CL 0.103 0.101 0.102 0.102 Deck height 1 -9.304 -9.167 -9.342 -9.539 -9.364 -9.343
Wave 2 0.102 0.101 0.101 0.101 Deck height 2 -4.504 -4.929 -5.111 -4.754 -4.906 -4.841
Wave 3 0.099 0.099 0.098 0.099

to these additional wave conditions.

effect on the measured loads is presented in the next section and
in the discussion part of this paper.
IMPACT LOAD MEASUREMENTS
For the wave impact load measurements the calibrated
waves described above were used and rerun with a fixed plat-
form deck box installed in the wave flume (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
The deck box was installed at two deck heights above the still
water line, at 0.08 m and 0.09 m.
In this paper only impact loads with Focused Wave 3 are
presented and discussed, since the wave kinematics derived from
the PIV measurements are known for this condition only. Addi-
tional PIV measurements are planned in 2017 to determine the
kinematics of other wave conditions. The study of the impact
loads in relation with the wave kinematics will then be extended
Each impact load measurement was repeated 5 times. The
time traces of the 5 impact measurements with Focused Wave 3
are shown in Fig. 6. The measured minimum horizontal impact
load of each repeat measurement and the mean of the 5 measure-
ments is given in Tab. 3. In Fig. 6 and Tab. 3 it can be observed
that in general the impact measurements repeat quite well, with
small variations of the extrema. Furthermore, small time shifts
in the signal of the impact measurements can be observed, which
may be a result of small time shifts in the flap motions and thus
in the wave generation.
In addition to the variation with each repeat measurement,
in Tab. 3, it can be observed that the measured impact loads with
deck height 2 are reduced by approximately a factor 2 with re-
spect to the impact loads measured with deck height 1. This is
consistent with a reduction of approximately a factor 2 of the air
gap exceedance from approximately 0.02 m to 0.01 m. This im-

4 Copyright © 2017 ASME

plies that the contribution of the wave kinematics on the impact
load remains constant for both deck heights and the change in
impact load is mainly driven by the change in wetted deck area.
This observation will be discussed further in this paper in the
comparison of the measurement result with the simplified load-
ing model.
High speed videos were recorded of each impact measure-
ment. A selection of snapshots of a deck impact with Focused
Wave 3 is shown in Fig. 12.
SIMPLIFIED LOADING MODEL
For estimating horizontal wave-in-deck forces the momen-
tum method according to DNV’s Recommended Practice DNV-
RP-C205 [1] is applied here. A summary of the applied equa-
tions is given below. For a more detailed description of the
method please refer to [1].
The horizontal deck load Fh can be calculated by the follow-
ing formula:
dMa,x 1 particle velocity, acceleration and vorticity, especially for very
Fh = Ma,x u̇ + u + ρcCD Bu|u| (2)
dt 2 steep and breaking waves. An attempt to capture the wave kine-
where
ρ mass density of water [kg/m3 ]
c instantaneous vertical wetted length [m]
B horizontal deck width [m]
u instantaneous horizontal particle veloc- [m/s]
ity in undisturbed wave
Ma,x lateral added mass [kg]
CD drag coefficient [−]
The lateral added mass is estimated based on:
2 2
Ma,x = ρc B (3)
π recording cycle is shifted by 10 ms to capture the accelerations.
As can be seen in Eqn. 2, in the estimation of horizontal
deck loads three components play a role: slamming, drag and
inertia. The slamming and drag components are governed by the
horizontal wave particle velocity in the crest. Since the velocity
is so dominant as contribution in the overall load, it is essential to
have an appropriate input for a reasonably good horizontal load
estimate. In this case the horizontal particle velocities are taken
from the PIV measurements. The instantaneous vertical wetted
length c is the maximum crest height. In this case c was derived
from the undisturbed wave measurements as given in Tab. 2.
The loads are calculated at three locations based on the
undisturbed wave measurements and the PIV measurements, at
the locations of wave probes WAVE 3, WAVE 2 and WAVE CL.
5 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Table 4: OVERVIEW OF PIV PARAMETERS.
Parameter Specification
Trigger rate 7 Hz
Mode Double frame mode
Time between pulses 0.004 s (1/4 window pixel shift at crest)
Resolution per image 2048 x 2048
Pixel depth 8 bit
Lenses 50 mm
Seeding Polyiamide 50-60 µm
PIV MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTING WAVE KINE-
MATICS
The water particle velocities play an important role in the
impact of a wave against a structure and the resulting impact
load. However, it is not straight forward to determine the water
matics is made with co-planar 2D PIV making use of the princi-
pal of phase locked averaging.
Phase locked averaging is the principle of averaging un-
steady instantaneous flow fields such as a wave field. In case
of a breaking wave the source of the highest variability is found
in the wave face at the moment the wave has reached the steep-
est point after which the wave starts spilling leading to complex
vortical structure with air entrapment.
In Tab. 4 the parameters of the PIV setup as used in this study
are listed. In Fig. 7 a schematic overview of the PIV test setup
is given. The accelerations of the flow are found by numerically
differenting two consecutive velocity fields. A time resolution of
7 Hz is too low to capture the accelerations. Therefore, the 7 Hz
For each time instance 20 image pairs were taken to compute
an average and gain insight into the statistical variation of wave
kinematics.
The following procedure was followed:
1. The distribution of the seeding particles was checked. If nec-
essary, the particles were redistributed.
2. A wave file is loaded by the wave generator and PIV system
is set to standby.
3. The PIV system is set to internal triggering at a maximum
frequency of 7 Hz.
4. The first PIV trigger also triggers the wave generator after
which the calibrated wave signal is generated by the wave
flap.

Figure 7: 2D CO-PLANAR PIV SETUP WITH A LASER
AND LIGHT OPTIC SYSTEM TO GUARANTEE AN OPTI-
MAL SETUP TO CAPTURE KINEMATICS OF BREAKING
WAVES.
5. At the PIV cross section several time instances of the evolu-
tion of the wave are recorded.
6. Between each PIV recording 5 minutes of waiting time are
allowed to let the dynamics of the water particles vanish.
7. Steps 1 to 6 were repeated 20 times.
8. A time delay between the trigger signal of the PIV system
and the wave flap signal is introduced to shift the 7 Hz PIV
recording cycle and be able to capture the acceleration of the
flow.
9. The procedure is started again from step 1.
For the PIV measurements Focused Wave 3 was selected,
a steep spilling breaking, which is slightly overturning. In the
future the PIV measurements will be extended to also capture
the wave kinematics of the other near-breaking to breaking wave
conditions.
A summary of the results of the PIV measurements is shown
in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9. The wave is propagating from left to right.
In the figure on the left the wave crest is close to wave probe
position Wave 3, in the figure in the middle close to wave probe
position Wave 2. The wave reaches its highest point at x = 0 m, at
the location of wave probe Wave CL, shown in the figure on the
right. At the first time instance the wave is shown propagating
towards its highest point before the onset of spilling. At the sec-
ond time instance the wave starts to spill. Once the wave reaches
its highest point at the time instance shown in the right figure the
wave starts to overturn.
The horizontal particle velocities are gradually increasing
towards the highest point of the crest. The largest horizontal ve-
locities were measured at position Wave CL (highest crest, right
figure in Fig. 8). The horizontal velocities are gradually decreas-
6 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Figure 8: EVOLUTION OF THE HORIZONTAL VELOCITY
FIELD OF A BREAKING WAVE AT THREE INSTANCES IN
TIME. THE WAVE PROPAGATES FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
Figure 9: EVOLUTION OF THE VERTICAL VELOCITY
FIELD OF A BREAKING WAVE AT THREE INSTANCES IN
TIME. THE WAVE PROPAGATES FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.
ing again after the wave has started spilling. Once spilling has
started the vertical velocity profile is changing in the wave crest
resulting in a more chaotic velocity profile (see right figure in
Fig. 9).
At the highest point maximum horizontal particle velocities
of 1.090 m/s are reached. An overview of the maximum horizon-
tal velocities at different locations in the wave flume are given in
Tab. 5.
More details of the PIV measurement results and a compar-
ison with numerical simulations are presented in [10] and [11].
For comparison with the PIV results and the resulting load
estimates, the horizontal particle velocities have also been cal-
culated based on Stokes 5th order wave theory with crest height
and periods based on the calibrated wave conditions. The Stokes
5th order particle velocities are calculated according to [12]. The
resulting horizontal particle velocities and load estimates are pre-
sented and discussed in the following section.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
In this section the results of the measured impact loads in
comparison with the estimated loads are presented and discussed.
In in the top figures of Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 the time traces of
the measured wave elevation are shown. In the bottom figures the
time trace of one of the five repeat measurements of the wave-in-
deck impact load measurement are shown in combination with
the estimated loads based on the measured wave elevation and
kinematics derived from the PIV measurements. In Fig. 10 the
results of deck height 1 are shown, in Fig. 11 the results of the
Figure 10: MEASURED IMPACT LOADS IN COMPARISON
WITH ESTIMATED IMPACT LOAD BASED ON UNDIS-
TURBED WAVE MEASUREMENTS AT THREE LOCA-
TIONS, DECK HEIGHT 0.08 M.
impact measurements with deck height 2.
The values of the undisturbed wave measurements (mean of
three repeat measurements) and the horizontal particle velocities
used for the estimation of the impact load are given in Tab. 5.
In Tab. 6 the resulting mean impact loads are given in compar-
ison with the measured impact load (mean load of the 5 repeat
measurements).
Based on the results presented in the two figures and tables,
the following observations can be made:
• As a result of increasing crest height and increasing horizon-
tal particle velocities, the load estimates are also increasing
from wave probe location Wave 3 to wave probe location
Wave CL.
• The variation in the crest heights of the three repeat mea-
surements results in small variations of the estimated impact
load (three markers in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11 per wave location).
• The peak of the horizontal impact load occurs at the same in-
stance in time as the maximum crest at wave probe location
Wave 2.
• This appears to be very consistent with the estimated loads,
as the load estimated at wave probe location Wave 2 (red
markers) result in the best match with the measured impact
load.
• The timing of the impact load with respect to the undisturbed
wave measurements, as well as the match with the load esti-
mates is consistent for both deck heights.
• The measured and estimated loads are reduced by approx-
7 Copyright © 2017 ASME
Figure 11: MEASURED IMPACT LOADS IN COMPARISON
WITH ESTIMATED IMPACT LOAD BASED ON UNDIS-
TURBED WAVE MEASUREMENTS AT THREE LOCA-
TIONS, DECK HEIGHT 0.09 M.
imately a factor 2 for the deck height 2. This is consistent
with a reduction of approximately a factor 2 of the air gap
exceedance from approximately 0.02 m to 0.01 m. This im-
plies that the contribution of the horizontal particle veloci-
ties to the horizontal impact load does not change over the
wetted deck area. This is consistent with the PIV results pre-
sented in Fig. 8. In this figure it can be seen that the highest
horizontal particle velocities occur over a vertical distance of
approximately 0.025 m and are rather uniform towards the
front of the wave crest. Thus, based on the impact load re-
sults and the PIV results, it is justified to apply the maximum
velocities of the PIV results over the entire wetted deck area
in the simplified loading model instead of an integration of
the velocity profile over the vertical wetted length.
• The horizontal particle velocities calculated based on Stokes
5th order theory are clearly lower than the particle velocities
resulting from the PIV measurements. As a result of the
lower Stokes 5th order particle velocities the load estimates
are significantly lower than the loads estimated with the PIV
measurement results as input.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
Wave-in-deck loads were measured at a small scale, in com-
bination with undisturbed wave measurements and PIV measure-
ments of the same wave conditions. The undisturbed wave mea-
surements and the PIV measurement results were used to esti-
Table 5: WAVE PARAMETERS OF FOCUSED WAVE 3 USED Table 6: MEASURED IMPACT LOADS IN COMPARISON
FOR ESTIMATION OF IMPACT LOAD. WITH ESTIMATED IMPACT LOADS.

Mean Mean

Max crest Wave CL [m] 0.102 Deck height

Max crest Wave 2 [m] 0.101 1 2

Max crest Wave 3 [m] 0.099 Measured impact load [N] -9.343 -4.841

Horizontal particle velocity PIV CL [m/s] 1.090 Estimated load PIV CL [N] -10.829 -5.675

Horizontal particle velocity PIV 2 [m/s] 1.002 Estimated load PIV 2 [N] -8.698 -4.433

Horizontal particle velocity PIV 3 [m/s] 0.937 Estimated load PIV 3 [N] -6.476 -2.910

Horizontal particle velocity Stokes 5th CL [m/s] 0.826 Estimated load Stokes 5th CL [N] -6.657 -3.391

Horizontal particle velocity Stokes 5th 2 [m/s] 0.819 Estimated load Stokes 5th 2 [N] -6.052 -3.031

Horizontal particle velocity Stokes 5th 3 [m/s] 0.799 Estimated load Stokes 5th 3 [N] -4.805 -2.136

mate the impact loads with a simplified loading model.
The estimated loads match well with the measured loads
with the PIV results at the impact location as input. A com-
parison with horizontal particle velocities based on Stokes 5th
order wave theory shows a clear underestimation of the impact
load. The results suggest, that the impact loads can be prop-
erly estimated, if all wave parameters such as crest height and
horizontal particle velocity are known at the location of impact.
This however, requires undisturbed wave measurements as well
as extensive PIV measurements or numerical simulations with
properly tuned wave conditions to determine the wave kinemat-
ics (see [11]).
The results presented in this paper are based on one wave
condition only, as further PIV data is not available at this point.
The work on the PIV measurements will be extended this year
and the results can hopefully be confirmed also for other wave
conditions.
REFERENCES
[1] DNV-GL, 2014. “Environmental conditions and environ-
mental loads”. In Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C205.
[2] Brodtkorb, B., 2008. “Prediction of wave-in-deck forces on
fixed jacket-type structures based on CFD calculations”. In
Proceedings of the ASME 27th International Conference on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. OMAE2008-
57346.
[3] Buchner, B., Forristall, G., Ewans, K., Christou, M., and
Hennig, J., 2011. “New insights in extreme crest height
distributions”. In Proceedings of OMAE 2011 30th Inter-
national Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic En-
gineering. OMAE2011-49846.
[4] Hennig, J., Scharnke, J., Swan, C., Hagen, Ø., Ewans, K.,
Tromans, P., and Forristall, G., 2015. “Effect of short-
crestedness on extreme wave impact - summary of find-
ings from the joint industry project ’ShorTCresT”’. In
Proceedings of ASME 2015 34th International Conference
on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. OMAE2015-
41167.
[5] Stansberg, C., Baarholm, R., Fokk, T., Gudmestad, O., and
Haver, S., 2004. “Wave amplification and possible deck im-
pact on gravity based structure in 10−4 probability extreme
crest heights”. In Proceedings of OMAE04 23rd Internation
Conference of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering.
OMAE2004-51506.
[6] Baarholm, R., 2005. “A simple numerical method for eval-
uation of water impact loads on decks of large-volume off-
shore platforms”. In Proceedings of OMAE2005 24th Inter-
nation Conference of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engi-
neering. OMAE2005-67097.
[7] Baarholm, R., 2009. “Experimental and theoretical study of
three-dimensional effects on vertical wave-in-deck forces”.
In Proceedings of ASME 2009 28th Internation Con-
ference of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering.
OMAE2009-79560.
[8] Scharnke, J., and Lafeber, W., 2016. “A study on simpli-
fied loading models for vertical wave-in-deck loading”. In
Proceedings of the 26th International Ocean and Polar En-
gineering Conference. ISOPE2016-TPC-1108.
[9] Schmittner, C., Scharnke, J., Pauw, W., van den Berg, J.,
and Hennig, J., 2013. “New methods and insights in ad-

8 Copyright © 2017 ASME

 vanced and realistic basin wave modelling”. In Proceedings
of ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering. OMAE2013-11445.
[10] Lindeboom, R. C. J., Scharnke, J., and Duz, B., 2016. “De-
termination of wave kinematics in breaking waves mak-
ing use of particle impact velocimetry”. In Proceedings
of NATO Science and Technology Organisation, Applied
Vehicle Technology Panel. STO-MP-AVT-246.
[11] Duz, B., Lindeboom, R. C. J., Scharnke, J., Helder, J.,
and Bandringa, H., 2017. “Comparison of breaking wave
kinematics form numerical simulations with PIV measure-
ments”. In Proceedings of ASME 2017 36th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering.
OMAE2017-61698 (Draft submitted).
[12] Fenton, J. D., 1985. “A fifth order stokes’ theory for steady
waves”. In Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean
Engineering, pp. 216–234.

9 Copyright © 2017 ASME

Figure 12: HIGH SPEED VIDEO IMAGES OF WAVE-IN-DECK EVENT WITH FOCUSED WAVE 3, DECK HEIGHT 0.08 M.

10 Copyright © 2017 ASME