Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328

www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

On the estimation of Morison force coefficients and their predictive

accuracy for very rough circular cylinders
J. Wolfram 1,*, M. Naghipour 2
Department of Civil and Offshore Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, UK
Received 28 August 1998; received in revised form 7 July 1999

Abstract
This paper makes an assessment of the various method that may be used to analyse experiment data on the force experienced by a circular
cylinder in waves and combined wave and current flows to estimate drag and inertia coefficients for use in Morison’s equation. Most of the
widely used techniques are considered together with a weighted least squares approach for time domain analysis. A set of data obtained from
experiments on heavily roughened circular cylinders of diameters 0.513 and 0.216 m in the Delta wave flume at De Voorst in Holland in
waves and simulated current has been analysed in turn by all these techniques. The experiment data was split into two halves. The first was
used for the analyses and the second was used to assess the predictive accuracy of Morison’s equation. Using the force coefficients obtained
from the different analysis techniques corresponding predicted force time series were constructed using the particle kinematics measured in
the second parts of the data sets. These predicted time series were then compared with the corresponding measured force time histories. The
root mean square error and the bias in the estimation of maximum force in each wave cycle are used as measures of predictive accuracy and
as a basis for comparing the efficiency of the different analysis techniques. It was found that the weighted least square method generally gave
the best predictive accuracy, but only by a small margin. q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Morison’s equation; Surface roughness; Keulegan–Carpenter numbers; Hydrodynamic force coefficients

Nomenclature KDp linearised drag term

KM inertia term
CD drag coefficient N number of observations
Cf frms =…0:5rDu2rms †; total force coefficient Nw number of waves of above average height
CM inertia coefficient R Dean’s reliability ratio
D cylinder diameter Re denotes real part of function
ef error term Sx …v† one-sided energy spectra
E mean square error Sxy …v† cross-spectral density of x and y
E‰xŠ expectation of x t time
f Morison force T time period of wave cycle
fe estimated or predicted Morison force u horizontal wave particle velocity
fm measured Morison force um maximum horizontal water particle velocity in
frms root mean square force wave cycle
g acceleration
p due to gravity urms root mean square horizontal wave particle velocity
i 21 u_ horizontal wave particle acceleration
Im denotes imaginary part of function uv amplitude of horizontal wave particle velocity at
k index of weighting term and roughness height frequency v
KC …um T=D†, Keulegan–Carpenter number U uniform steady current velocity
KD drag term m mean value
r density of water
s standard deviation
* Corresponding author.
v wave frequency
1
Total Oil Marine Professor of Offshore Research and Development. kxl time average of x
2
Formerly PhD student at Heriot-Watt University. uxu modulus of x
0141-1187/99/$ - see front matter q 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0141-118 7(99)00018-8

Downloaded from http://www.elearnica.ir

312 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328
1. Introduction
The domain of Morison’s equation [28] covers cylinders
with diameters up to around 20% of wavelength. Thus the
hydrodynamic loading on jacket structures and many other
cylindrical components such as pipelines, risers and umbi-
licals fall within the Morison regime. When assessing the
maximum hydrodynamic loading on a jacket structure the
designer will usually have at his disposal the estimated
maximum wave height and corresponding period for the
structures proposed location and estimated values of CD
and CM to use in Morison’s equation. He may well wish
to have a measure of the error or uncertainty associated
with this prediction particularly if doing a structural relia-
bility assessment or a risk analysis. The sources of uncer-
tainty, or error, in the predicted maximum force can be split
into three parts. The first is associated with the prediction of
the extreme wave and its characteristics, including height,
period and surface profile. The second is associated with the
prediction of the particle kinematics beneath the wave
surface in the field of the structure; and the third is asso-
ciated with the predictive accuracy of Morison’s equation
given the force coefficients chosen.
This paper is primarily concerned with the last of these
sources of error. It is not practically possible to dissociate
the modelling error intrinsic to Morison’s equation from that
associated from the force coefficients used within it; and
here they are considered together. There has been a consid-
erable volume of experimental research undertaken to esti-
mate the force coefficients in Morison’s equation. The early
results obtained from small scale experiments and in steady
flows have now been largely discarded in the light of results
from larger scale experiments, at more appropriate
Reynolds numbers, in oscillatory and wave flow regimes
(e.g. Refs. [1,33,15]). Cylinder surface conditions more
representative of the marine growth coverage found
offshore have also been used in some experiments (e.g.
Ref. [37]). Notable experiments undertaken offshore to
measure forces in the Morison regime include those at the
Christchurch Bay Tower off the south coast of England [5]
and at the Ocean Test Structure (OTS) in the Gulf of Mexico
[22]. Whilst these are, in principle, the most realistic experi-
ments, the resulting force coefficients show considerable
scatter associated with the difficulties of accurate simulta-
neous measurements of force and particle kinematics at the
same location in uncontrollable conditions. As a result of all
these activities, there are available in the literature, values of
CD and CM for a variety of surface roughness conditions and
Keulegan–Carpenter numbers. However there are few
measures of their predictive accuracy when used in Mori-
son’s equation.
This paper addresses the question of predictive accuracy
of Morison’s equation and its relationship with the analysis
method used to obtain force coefficients from experimental
data. This has been done in the context of a particular set of
data obtained with two heavily roughened circular cylinders
of diameters 0.513 and 0.216 m, that have been tested in
long-crested random waves in the Delta wave flume at De
Voorst in Holland. The experiments were at a large scale
with Reynolds numbers up to 5 × 105 and both cylinders had
a surface roughness coefficient …k=D† of 0.038 that is typical
of the hard fouling conditions found in the North Sea. These
experiments are described in more detail in Section 2.
The data from each random wave experiment has been
divided into two parts. The first has been used for the deter-
mination of force coefficients in the context of Morison’s
equation by a variety of different methods that are listed in
Section 3. The different method produced somewhat differ-
ent force coefficients from the same set of data. In each case
these force coefficients have then been used in Morison’s
equation to predict the force time history for the second half
of the set of data based on the particle kinematics measured
in this part of the data. These force predictions are then
compared with the measured force time histories and the
discrepancies used as measures of predictive accuracy.
The two halves of each data set had the same nominal
JONSWAP spectrum (Joint North Sea Wave Project) (as
described in the Section 2) but in each case the actual
sample wave spectra and the individual time series for the
two halves were quite different i.e. there is no repetition in
the time series. Thus the tests of predictive accuracy were
independent of the analysis process to a much greater degree
than when the analysed time series is refitted with a recon-
structed time series using Morison’s equation. Ideally the
data used for testing predictive accuracy should be obtained
from a number of quite different wave spectra and the fit to a
variety of different force time series examined. Unfortu-
nately such experimental data were not available.
In order to estimate the predictive accuracy a measure is
needed of how well the predicted force maps onto the
recorded force. One measure would be the root mean square
error normalised by some function of the magnitude of the
recorded signal. This would measure the quality of the
mapping at all points of the time series. However it is
the maximum magnitude of the force involving a single
extreme wave that is of interest in the ultimate limit-state
design assessment. In the fatigue limit-state it is the range of
the force produced by each wave that is of concern. Thus the
measure of predictive accuracy used here is based on the
difference between the measured maximum fm and
the predicted maximum force fe in each wave cycle.
In a statistical sense a good estimator should be unbiased
and of minimum variance. Thus two parameters may be
used to assess how well a predicted force time series
compares with the corresponding measured force time
series. The chosen non-dimensional parameters are the
normalised mean error (MNE) or bias and root mean square
error (RMSE):
100 X
Nw
…fm †i 2 …fe †i
MNE ˆ …1†
Nw iˆ1 …fm †i
 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328
wave maker carriage
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of fixed and mobile cylinders in the large wave flume.
and
v
u Nw  
u 1 X …fm †i 2 …fe †i 2
RMSE ˆ 100t ; …2†
Nw iˆ1 …fm †i
where Nw is the number of waves of above average height.
As these parameters can be unduly influenced when fm is
small and the absolute error is large it was thought desirable
not to consider small waves and their corresponding forces
when predicting the measured time series. For jacket type
offshore structures the ultimate loading involves very large
waves and most of the fatigue damage also occurs in larger
waves; and so the ability to predict the forces due to small
waves is of little practical interest. Therefore it was decided
to see how well the measured force due to waves of above
average height could be predicted.
The Keulegan–Carpenter number (KC—defined in the
nomenclature) for the tubular members of an offshore struc-
ture varies not only with the height and period of each wave
but also with the diameter of the various members and their
location relative to the free surface. In the design of offshore
structures it is usual to ignore the variation of hydrodynamic
coefficients with KC and simply to use the same single
values for the drag and inertia coefficients for the whole
structure. That approach is reflected in the analysis under-
taken here where the emphasis has been on determining a
single mean value for each coefficient from each random
wave experiment. It is these single values that are then used
in the prediction of the force time histories. Furthermore,
variations of force coefficients with KC are not readily
discernible from frequency domain analysis of random
wave data. As one of the objectives of the study was an
assessment of the relative merits of the various time domain
and frequency domain analysis techniques a common basis
for comparison was required and hence the mean values of
CD and CM have been used. The other objective was to give
some measure of the uncertainty and bias involved in using
Morison’s equation for the prediction of in-line forces that
would be helpful in structural reliability calculations and
structural assessments and therefore following typical
design practice was desirable.
Section 2 of the paper describes the experiments that were
undertaken in the Delft Hydraulics Laboratories (DHL) long
wave flume at De Voorst in Holland as part of an EC/
EPSRC funded project. Section 3 overviews the various
methods for the prediction of force coefficients from experi-
mental data. Section 4 looks in detail at the time domain
analysis approaches and Section 5 at the frequency domain
313
fixed pile
beach
techniques. Section 6 presents a discussion of the results
from the analysis of the experimental data using the various
approaches and their associated limitations. Finally some
conclusions are drawn.
2. Description of the experiments
During September and October 1993 a series of experi-
ments were undertaken to examine the wave loading on two
large scale circular cylinders in the Delft Hydraulic Labor-
atory’s Delta wave flume in the Netherlands (DHL). This
flume is 230 m long, 5 m wide, 7 m deep and during the
tests, was filled with water to a depth of about 5 m. The
waves were generated by a programmable, hydraulically
driven, piston type wave-maker and their energy was dissi-
pated at the other end of the flume through the use of a 1:6
sloping concrete beach. This facility is capable of generat-
ing regular and random waves with a range of periods of
about 3–10 s and wave heights up to about 2 m over most of
the range of periods.
For the random wave experiments the JONSWAP [12,21]
spectrum was used and the results presented in this paper are
for experiments in long crested random waves with a signif-
icant wave height of 1.5 m and a peak period of 5.9 s.
During the random wave experiments occasionally indivi-
dual wave crests over-topped the flume implying a wave
crest elevation of more than 2 m. The larger waves were
visibly non-linear with more sharply peaked, and sometimes
breaking, crests.
For simulating the effects of current and combined wave/
current flows the flume is equipped with an 8 m by 6 m
towing carriage that can attain a steady velocity of 1 m/s
and runs on a set of rails on the top of the flume walls. The
maximum towing distance is dependent upon the test set up.
For these experiments the carriage speeds were ^ 1 m/s
(for the larger cylinder) and ^ 0.5 m/s (for the smaller
cylinder) and the towing distance was approximately
110 m. Fig. 1 shows a schematic longitudinal section of
the flume with a cylinder mounted on the moving carriage,
a fixed cylinder, the beach and the wave-maker.
The two vertical cylinders used for the experiments had
base diameters of 0.21 m (small) and 0.5 m (large) and were
mounted in turn on the towing carriage and at fixed loca-
tions in the flume. Both cylinders were manufactured from
stainless steel and were covered with the roughness pattern
that was originally developed by Wolfram [38] which has
been shown to simulate well the effect of hard marine
314 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328

small pile large pile

5
MWL MWL

4 1.5m
2 2.5m
3

2 5m 7m 1

Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of cylinders in the flume showing the force sleeve positions.

growth. This roughness consists of a pseudo-random
arrangement of three different sizes of right square pyramids
which in each case have heights of the same dimensions as
the base. The roughness elements were cast in fibreglass on
semi-circular cylindrical shells which were strapped around
the cylinder giving an effective roughness ratio …k=D† of
0.038 and corresponding effective diameters for the large
and small rough cylinders of 0.513 and 0.216 m, respec-
tively [26]. The schematic general elevation of the cylinders
and location of the force sleeves in the cross sections of
flume is shown in Fig. 2.
Measurements of the wave force time series for both
cylinders were obtained using strain-gauged force measur-
ing sections, each half a diameter in length and capable of
measuring both the in-line and transverse forces. The small
cylinder had five forces sleeves; one centred 0.5 m above
the mean water level (MWL) and four with centres at
distances of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 m below the MWL as
shown in Fig. 2. The large cylinder had two forces measur-
ing sleeves centred at distances of 1.5 and 2.5 m below the
MWL. The measurements at the force sleeves at position 2
(see Fig. 2) on both the small and large cylinders were used
for the analyses described in this paper. These sleeves were
sufficiently close to the water surface to give reasonably
large measured forces but were always submerged during
the experiments ensuring continuity of the force measure-
ments.
When mounted on the carriage the cylinder was rigidly
fixed to the carriage at the top and had a horizontal plate
rigidly attached at the bottom. Braces were fitted between
the cylinder and the bottom support so that the estimated
natural frequency of the system as a whole was about 4 Hz.
This frequency is some 16 times higher than the highest
wave frequency tested but sometimes some vibration energy
was input to the cylinder by the motion of the carriage and
was evident in the force signal traces [26].
The ambient flow velocity was always measured at the
longitudinal location of the cylinder and at the elevation of
force sleeves using either electromagnetic flow meters
(EMF) or perforated ball velocity meters. (PVM). The
EMF meters are very sensitive to magnetic fields and the
output signals had to be filtered to reduce noise. The EMF
meters were generally used except for the large mobile
cylinder and for the upper force sleeves on the small fixed
cylinder where PVMs were used. The original form of the
PVM was first used by Bishop [7] in wave force investiga-
tions at the second Christchurch Bay Tower. These instru-
ments have also been used to measure particle velocities in
three-dimensions in waves at laboratory scale by Chaplin
and Subbiah [16]. The signals from the PVMs represent the
Morison-type forces on the ball and these have been cali-
brated in oscillatory flow. The wave surface elevation was
also measured continuously at the same sections of the wave
flume as the axes of the cylinders using surface-following
capacitance-type wave probes. The analogue voltages from
the flow meters, wave probes and load cells were digitised
using an A/D converter at a sampling frequency of 40 Hz.
The errors associated with the measurements of force,

Table 1
Details of all experiments analysed (R is Dean’s reliability ratio and KC is Keulegan–Carpenter number)

Run no. Current (m/s) Pile diameter (mm) No. of waves R KC

Min Mean Max Min Mean Max

1 0 513 291 0.03 0.74 1.46 0.2 5.5 17.5

2 1 513 130 0.72 3.79 15.5 1.92 13.5 25.3
3 21 513 102 3.22 5.66 24.8 1.43 17.4 32.3
4 0 216 286 0.08 1.72 3.21 0.4 12.8 37.9
5 0.5 216 152 0.99 3.63 6.0 0.75 21.8 45.9
6 2 0.5 216 141 0.63 5.18 10.5 1.92 22.9 57
 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328 315

16 S (ω) (second part of data) Run1

14
S (ω) (first part of data)

S (ω) (m 2 sec)
12

10

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 3. Comparison between surface elevation spectra in the two halves of the random wave experiment for the fixed large pile.

water particle velocity and wave surface elevation have not The authors discuss below all the techniques that have been
been quantified explicitly in a formal manner. But the proce- used, at least to their knowledge. However they have not
dures used are well established and the techniques have considered approaches which seek to modify the form of
been employed for over ten years satisfactorily. It is consid- Morison’s equation, using systems identification and other
ered that the measurement errors are small compared to the techniques, by the addition of further terms (see for example
predictive errors that are the subject of this paper. Refs. [34,39]). Such modified forms of Morison’s equation
The details of the six experiment runs considered here are are still the subject of research and are not currently used in
given in Table 1 from which it can be seen that there were practice.
experiments with a current in the wave direction, with a The various techniques considered here can be cate-
current opposing the wave direction and with no current gorised according to type and those that have been used in
for both the small and large cylinders. The currents were the present study are identified as Method 1, Method 2, etc.
achieved by translating the cylinder on the moving carriage in the following list.
either away from the wave-maker (i.e. current in the wave
1. Time domain techniques:
direction) or towards the wave-maker (i.e. current opposing
the wave direction). Several such translations needed to be Wave by wave analyses
patched together to produce a complete run of 10 min
Fitting at maximum velocity and acceleration (Evans)
duration for each experiment condition. The experiments
Fourier averaging
with the stationary cylinders were nominally of 30 min
duration. Bearman, Chaplin et al. [2] (Method 1)
While the two cylinders and their roughness patterns were Klopman and Kostense (Method 2) [24]
geometrically similar, the current speeds were not in exactly
Ordinary least squares (Method 3)
the same scale relationship and, as the same spectrum was
Weighted least squares
used throughout, all the experiments are distinctly different
rather than being scaled up (or down) versions of one Whole record analyses
another. The small cylinder was originally introduced into
Mean square method (Bishop and Shipway)
the programme to extend the range of KC investigated. The
Ordinary least squares (Method 4)
time series corresponding to the wave spectrum was simu-
Weighted least squares (Method 5)
lated by a sum of 200 sinusoidal components so the first and
Method of moments (Pierson and Holmes) (Method 6)
second halves of each experiment run were independent and
had significantly different sample spectra; as can be seen 2. Frequency domain techniques
from Fig. 3 which is a typical example.
Linear models (i.e. with a linearised drag term)
Cross spectral density (force and particle velocity)
3. Overview of methods for estimating force coefficients (Method 7)
Cross spectral density (force and surface elevation)
A wide variety of approaches have been used to analyse (Method 8)
experiment data to determine drag and inertia coefficients. Least squares fitting to force spectrum (Method 9)
316 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328
Non-linear models
Cubic drag model of Bendat and Piersol [3] (Method
10)
In wave by wave analysis CD and CM are assumed constant
over each wave cycle and the output of the analysis can be
presented as a plot against KC. The alternative is to assume
that CD and CM are constant over the whole record and to
analysis this as a single entity. In this latter case no explicit
measure of the variance CD and CM is obtained. In random
waves the resultant average values of CD and CM obtained
from these two approaches will be different even if essen-
tially the same analysis technique is used. This is because in
the former case each wave has an equal weighting when
finding the mean whereas in the latter case the influence
of each wave on the outcome will be proportional to its
wave period (or more specifically the number of data points
within the wave cycle).
The frequency domain analysis methods all use the entire
record and use spectra and cross spectra in various ways to
estimate the force coefficients. In some cases the force coeffi-
cients are obtained as functions of frequency and in others as
single values. Most of the analysis techniques examined here
involve linearisation of the drag term. However one non-linear
approach involving a cubic expansion is examined.
Most of the methods listed above use the velocity time
series measured beside the force sleeve on the test cylinder
to estimate particle kinematics. Occasionally, both offshore
and in the laboratory this is not available and the particle
kinematics must be estimated directly from the surface
elevation by a wave theory. Method 8 in the above list
incorporates this directly in the analysis but this additional
aspect could be included in any of the methods using
random linear wave theory as discussed later. Most of the
methods have been extended to include the effects of a
steady current of uniform depth-wise profile and the corre-
sponding expressions for the coefficients are also presented
in the following sections.
Theerrorassociatedwithanyestimateofthe forcecoefficient
will depend in part on the assumptions implicit in the analysis
technique used. It will also depend upon the data and whether
these are well or poorly conditioned for resolving CM and CD.
Dean [19], in the context of least squares time domain analysis,
suggested that much of the scatter in the reported coefficients
canbedue topoorlyconditioneddata.Hepresenteda criteria for
evaluating the suitability of data for determining CM and CD in
either time or frequency domain analysis. This involves
calculating the following ‘reliability ratio’
s
2 ku4 l
Rˆ ; …3†
pD ku_ 2 l
where kl indicates time averaging of the enclosed quantity
over the wave cycle. He showed with a particular example
that if the mean square error is of the order of 10% of the
measured force, then the error in estimated values of CM and
CD can be on the order of 85 and 50%, respectively. Dean
suggested that data will be well-conditioned for evaluating
both CM and CD together when 0:25 , R , 4 and for CM
only when 0 , R , 0:25 and for CD only when R . 4. The
mean and range of the reliability ratio for all the experi-
ments analysed here are presented in Table 1 and as will
be seen later some of the data are poorly conditioned for the
estimation of CD and some for CM.
4. Time domain analysis techniques
The general form of Morison’s equation for a vertical
cylinder adapted to allow for the presence of a current U
is given below together with its shorthand form.
f ˆ 0:5CD rD…u 1 U†u…u 1 U†u 1 0:25CM rpD2 u_
_
ˆ KD …u 1 U†u…u 1 U†u 1 KM u: …4†
Here f is the Morison force, r is water density, CM and CD
are the drag and inertia coefficients, respectively, and u and
u_ are the horizontal components of water particle velocity
and acceleration, respectively. In the absence of current the
term U is removed.
4.1. Wave by wave analyses
The simplest approach is to find the points of zero accel-
eration where the corresponding force is purely drag and
calculate CD directly. Similarly at the points where the velo-
city is zero the force will be purely inertial and CM can be
calculated (e.g. Ref. [20]). However this approach uses very
little of the data and may be subject to significant errors if
there is noise on the velocity and force time series. It is not
widely used and is not considered here.
Keulegan and Carpenter [23] introduced a method to find
the inertia and drag force coefficients in each cycle using
Fourier or time averaging [13]. This basic approach is
widely adopted and methods based on it have been devel-
oped and used by Bearman et al. [1,2], Bishop [6], Klopman
and Kostense [24] and Davies [18].
In the method used by Bearman et al. [2] for the case
without current, Morison’s equation is multiplied by u and
the time average taken over a wave cycle. Assuming that the
time-averaged cross product kuul _ is zero over a wave cycle
this yields the following expression:
kful
CD ˆ 3
: …5†
0:5rDkuuu l
Similarly multiplying Morison’s equation by u; _ taking the
time average over each wave cycle and assuming kuuuuul _ is
zero yields:
_
kf ul
CM ˆ : …6†
0:25rpD2 ku_2 l
The approach implicitly assumes that the velocity and accel-
eration time series are orthogonal. On essentially the same
basis Klopman and Kostense [24] modified this approach
 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328 317

and multiplied Morison’s equation first by uuuu and then by u_ yields better results. So although these terms are, generally,
before time averaging to give the following pair of comparatively small they do have some effect and as they are
equations. readily calculated there is a little point in not including them.
The least-squares approach can be applied in a wave by
kfuuuul
CD ˆ …7† wave analysis or to a whole record or, indeed, in the
0:5rDku4 l frequency domain. In the time domain CD and CM are chosen
and to minimize the sum of the squares of the difference
between the measured and the estimated force at each
_
kf ul measurement point. This yields two simultaneous equations
CM ˆ …8†
0:25rpD2 ku_ 2 l that can be solved to give the following expressions:
_
Here term just the term kuuuuul is assumed to be zero. P P P P
fuuuu u_ 2 2 f u_ uuuuu_
Both of these Fourier averaging approaches can easily be CD ˆ P P P ; …13†
0:5rD{ u4 u_ 2 2 … uuuuu† _ 2
}
extended to include the effect of a uniform steady current U.
However the time averages considered above to be zero will P P P P
no longer be so and the pair of equations obtained after time _
f u_ u4 2 fuuuu uuuuu
CM ˆ P P P …14†
averaging must be solved simultaneously. The equivalent 0:25rpD { u_
2 2 4 _
u 2 … uuuuu† 2}

expressions for Eqs. (5) and (6) are then found to be:
The corresponding equations for the case when there is a
kf …u 1 U†lku_2 l 2 kf ulk…u
_ _
1 U†ul steady uniform current are obtained simply by substituting
CD ˆ …9†
0:5rD…ku…u 1 U†u3 lku_ 2 l 1 k…u 1 U†u…u 1 U†uul†
_ U 1 u for u on each occurrence of u in the Eqs. (13) and
(14). The least-squares method can be applied to any length
CM ˆ of time series. There need not be a whole number of waves
or even a whole wave cycle.
_
kf ulku…u 1 U†u3 l 2 kf …u 1 U†lku…u
_ 1 U†u…u 1 U†ul If a single wave cycle P is considered then for, say, the
particle velocity …1=N† u ˆ kul; and similarly for all
0:25rpD2 …ku_2 lku…u 1 U†u3 l 2 ku…u
_ 1 U†lku…u
_ 1 U†u…u 1 U†ul†
other time averages over a wave cycle. Thus Eqs. (13) and
…10† (14) are seen to be identical to Eqs. (11) and (12) when U ˆ
For Eqs. (7) and (8) they become: 0; for wave by wave analysis. Furthermore, if the second
terms in both the numerators and denominators of Eqs. (13)
kf …u 1 U†uu 1 Uulku_ 2 l 2 kf ulk…u
_ _
1 U†u…u 1 U†uul and (14) are considered negligible then these equations
CD ˆ
0:5rD……k…u 1 U† lku l 2 …kuu 1 Uu…u 1 U†ul†
4 _2 _ †
2
become the same as those used by Klopman and Kostense;
…11† Eqs. (7) and (8) above.
In the least-squares approach all data points in the
_
kf ulk…u _ 1 U†uu 1 Uul
1 U†4 l 2 kf …u 1 U†uu 1 Uulku…u measured force time series have an equal influence on the
CM ˆ determination of CD and CM. This may be thought a limita-
0:25rpD ……ku_ lk…u 1 U† l 2 …kuu 1 Uu…u 1 U†ul†
2 2 4 _ 2†
tion when there is little interest in predicting forces close to
…12†
zero and much more interest in predicting maximum forces.
In the derivation of Eqs. (9)–(12) no assumptions or restric- To ensure more emphasis is given to finding force coeffi-
tions have been placed on the velocity or acceleration time cients which will predict maximum forces accurately a
series or their time averages. Hence the shape of the wave is weighted least-squares approach where the weights are
unrestricted and it will be noticed that when U ˆ 0 (i.e. there is related to the magnitude of the force can be adopted. Thus
no current) these equations are different from the correspond- at each point in the time series the difference between the
ing Eqs. (5)–(8) in that there is a second term in both the measured and predicted force is multiplied by f k , where k is
numerator and the denominator of Eqs. (9)–(12). These a positive index. This means that those parts of the time
terms involve the time averages which Bearman et al. [2] series where the measured force is small have very little
and Klopman and Kostense [24] assumed were zero in their influence on the estimated values of CD and CM but when
approaches. More interestingly it is found that Eqs. (11) and the magnitude of the force is large the influence is consider-
(12) are identical to those obtained using a least-squares able. The expressions for the force coefficients when there is
approach and as will be seen later the least-squares approach a steady current U then become:
P P P P
f 2k f …u 1 U†uu 1 Uu f 2k u_2 2 f 2k f u_ f 2k …u 1 U†uu 1 Uuu_
CD ˆ P 2k P P ; …15†
0:5rD{ f …u 1 U†4 f 2k u_ 2 2 … f 2k u…u _ 1 U†uu 1 Uu†2 }
P P P P
f 2k f u_ f 2k …u 1 U†4 2 f 2k f …u 1 U†uu 1 Uu f 2k u…u
_ 1 U†uu 1 Uu
CM ˆ P 2k 2 P 2k P 2k …16†
0:25rpD { f u_
2 f …u 1 U† 2 … f u…u
4 _ 1 U†uu 1 Uu†2 }
318 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328

Table 2
Values of CD and CM from the analysis methods in the random waves for a fixed large pile—Run 1

Method of analysis CD (mean) s cd CM (mean) s cm MNE RMSE

Time domain: wave by wave

1. Bearman et al. [2] 1.55 1.01 2.04 0.17 5.28 11.57
2. Klopman and Kostense [24] 1.38 1.11 2.04 0.17 6.78 12.31
3. Ordinary least-squares 1.88 1.54 2.08 0.15 1.32 11.41
Time domain: whole record
4. Ordinary least-squares …k ˆ 0† 1.57 – 2.04 – 5.08 11.51
5. Weighted least-squares k ˆ 1 1.54 – 2.14 – 1.23 10.82
Kˆ2 1.52 – 2.22 – 2 1.64 11.28
Kˆ3 1.50 – 2.28 – 2 4.18 12.24
6. Method of moments 1.73 – 2.06 – 2.78 11.08
Frequency domain
7. Cross spectra—force and particle vel. 1.41 0.40 1.93 0.44 11.03 14.70
8. Cross spectra—force and surface elevations 1.57 0.69 1.95 1.08 8.70 13.24
9. Least-squares fit to spectra 2.26 – 1.87 – 1.94 14.54
10. Cubic model of Bendat and Piersol 1.42 0.58 1.93 0.44 10.93 14.63

For a wave by wave analysis, in the limit when k is very
large, CD and CM will be found such that the reconstructed
time series exactly matches the original but only at the
points of maximum and minimum (maximum negative)
force. However when predicting the maxima and minima
for a different time series large values of k are found to
produce poor results. When k ˆ 0 then this method clearly
becomes the same as the simple least squares method.
As the wave by wave analysis usually involves simple
averaging of the force coefficients found in each wave cycle
some of the weighting effects will be reduced and very large
waves will have no more influence on the final outcome than
very small ones. So in the study here the authors have
applied this approach predominantly to whole experiment
records.
4.2. Whole records time series analysis
Some techniques require the variability of irregular
waves in a whole time series to work at all. One such is
the mean square method developed by Bishop [6] and
Bishop and Shipway [7] to analyse the data collected in
the offshore experiments at the Christchurch Bay Tower.
This approach involves estimating moments from the data
and then using a regression analysis. It is useful where cycle
by cycle analysis is not possible due to an unknown phase
lag between the force and velocity measurements; as
occurred at the Christchurch Bay Tower experiments.
However with scatter in the data it can lead to some negative
estimates of CD, as discussed by Davies [18], and it is not
used here. The techniques used in this study for whole
record time domain analysis are the weighted least-squares
approach (outlined above) and the method of moments.
In the weighted least-squares approach the authors have
used various values of k in Eqs. (15) and (16) and have
found that this can be optimised in an iterative manner to
give a minimum predictive error in the peak force regions.
Results for various values of k from 0 (corresponding to
ordinary least squares) to three are presented in Tables 2–
7 and for these sets of data a value of two gives, on average,
the best results.
The method of moments was introduced by Pierson and

Table 3
Values of CD and CM from the analysis methods in the random waves for a mobile large pile—Run 2

Method of analysis CD (mean) s cd CM (mean) s cm MNE RMSE

Time domain: wave by wave

1. Bearman et al. [2] 1.32 0.37 1.49 0.56 15.18 16.69
2. Klopman and Kostense [24] 1.32 0.36 1.50 0.57 15.54 17.01
3. Ordinary least-squares 1.51 0.37 1.72 0.72 2.82 8.44
Time domain: whole record
4. Ordinary least-squares …k ˆ 0† 1.42 – 1.59 – 8.74 11.50
5. Weighted least-squares k ˆ 1 1.44 – 1.82 – 7.29 10.49
kˆ2 1.44 – 1.98 – 6.26 9.85
kˆ3 1.45 – 2.13 – 5.36 9.35
6. Method of moments 1.46 – 0.53 – 7.80 11.01
Frequency domain
8. Cross spectra—force and surface elevations 1.10 0.49 2.34 1.31 24.81 25.55
9. Least-squares fit to spectra 1.14 – 2.32 – 22.6 23.4
 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328 319

Table 4
Values of CD and CM from the analysis methods in the random waves for a mobile large pile—Run 3

Method of analysis CD (mean) s cd CM (mean) s cm MNE RMSE

Time domain: wave by wave

1. Bearman et al. [2] 1.45 0.33 1.36 0.62 1.28 7.50
2. Klopman and Kostense [24] 1.44 0.32 1.37 0.60 2.06 7.60
3. Ordinary least squares 1.54 0.30 1.69 1.81 2 4.84 9.14
Time domain: whole record
4. Ordinary least squares …k ˆ 0† 1.48 – 1.55 – 2 0.89 7.55
5. Weighted least squares k ˆ 1 1.47 – 1.62 – 2 0.14 7.40
kˆ2 1.46 – 1.63 – 0.34 7.36
kˆ3 1.45 – 1.64 – 0.69 7.36
6. Method of moments 1.55 – 1.68 – 2 5.54 9.58
Frequency domain
8. Cross spectra—force and surface elevations 1.43 0.05 1.43 0.27 2.40 7.68
9. Least squares fit to spectra 1.55 – 1.68 – 2 5.54 9.58

Holmes [32] and used by Muga and Wilson [29]. It starts by Tung and Huang [35] found:
assuming that the velocity and acceleration, u and u; _ are m1
independent normal random variables with zero mean. KD ˆ …19†
2s2u ‰…1 1 g2 †Z…g† 1 gz…g†Š
Then expressions are obtained for the expected values,
E‰f 2 Š and E‰f 4 Š from Morison’s equation in terms of KD and
and KM and the moments of u and u: _ These expected values s
m22 2 KD2 s4u …3 1 6g 1 g4 †
are then estimated with the means of the square and the KM ˆ ; …20†
fourth power of the measured force, denoted here by m 2 s2u_
and m 4, and the resultant pair of simultaneous equations is in which m 1 is the mean value
R of the measured force, g ˆ
solved to yield the following expressions: m u = su and Z…g† ˆ g0 z…x† dx and z…g† ˆ
s …2p†20:5 exp…20:5g2 †:
m2 2 3KM su
2 4
As well as the assumption of a normal distribution for
KD ˆ …17†
s2u_ wave particle velocity and acceleration, the method of
moments also requires long records and significant irregu-
and larity to allow the accurate estimation of the higher
moments. However the method is robust in that any
v
u unknown phase lags between force and velocity measure-
u …m 2 3m2 †0:5
KM ˆ t 4 p 42 …18† ments will not influence the results provided the time series
78su_ is long enough.
A few points can be made to summarise the time domain
For the corresponding case of a co-existing steady current analysis techniques. The least squares method requires no

Table 5
Values of CD and CM from the analysis methods in the random waves for a fixed small pile—Run 4

Method of analysis CD (mean) s cd CM (mean) s cm MNE RMSE

Time domain: wave by wave

1. Bearman et al. [2] 2.05 1.44 1.91 0.40 2 18.3 27.76
2. Klopman and Kostense [24] 1.95 1.34 1.91 0.40 2 13.5 23.75
3. Ordinary least squares 1.95 1.34 1.91 0.40 2 13.5 23.75
Time domain: whole record
4. Ordinary least squares …k ˆ 0† 1.61 – 1.93 – 2.30 15.41
5. Weighted least squares k ˆ 1 1.55 – 2.22 – 0.83 14.48
kˆ2 1.51 – 2.35 – 2 1.56 14.79
kˆ3 1.49 – 2.57 – 2 4.43 16.14
6. Method of moments 1.46 – 2.45 – 0.92 14.47
Frequency domain
7. Cross spectra—force and particle vel 1.74 0.15 1.70 0.52 5.67 16.95
8. Cross spectra—force and surface elevations 1.66 0.51 2.31 2.4 2 5.14 16.25
9. Least squares fit to spectra 1.85 – 1.84 – 2 7.81 20.03
10. Cubic model of Bendat and Piersol 1.28 0.66 1.85 0.51 21.93 24.73
320 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328

Table 6
Values of CD and CM from the analysis methods in the random waves for a mobile large pile—Run 5

Method of analysis CD (mean) s cd CM (mean) s cm MNE RMSE

Time domain: wave by wave

1. Bearman et al. [2] 1.53 0.35 1.56 0.42 2 6.11 13.75
2. Klopman and Kostense [24] 1.47 0.34 1.56 0.44 2 2.48 12.14
3. Ordinary least squares 1.60 0.28 1.61 0.48 2 10.9 16.85
Time domain: whole record
4. Ordinary least squares …k ˆ 0† 1.48 – 1.74 – 2 3.88 12.62
5. Weighted least squares k ˆ 1 1.44 – 2.07 – 2 2.34 11.98
kˆ2 1.42 – 2.22 – 2 1.83 11.80
kˆ3 1.41 – 2.31 – 2 1.83 11.79
6. Method of moments 1.71 – 2.56 – 2 22.3 26.4
Frequency domain
8. Cross spectra—force and surface elevations 1.23 0.67 2.19 3.03 10.53 14.67
9. Least squares fit to spectra 1.47 – 1.59 – 2 2.26 12.06

specific assumptions concerning the data and can be applied categories; those that involve the linearisation of Morison’s
to any waves regular or irregular, linear or non-linear, and to equation, and those that are non-linear in some way. Three
a record of any (sensible) length. The Fourier averaging of the former type and one of the latter are considered here.
methods require whole wave cycles and assume that velo- Not considered here are models that depart from the original
city and acceleration time series are orthogonal. The method form of Morison’s equation by adding additional terms.
of moments further requires that the velocity and accelera- There have been many such attempts to improve Morison’s
tion time series are zero mean random processes with Gaus- equation most recently using systems identification
sian distributions. Finally the weighted least squares techniques (see for example Refs. [34,39]).
approach allows emphasis to be placed on force maxima All the frequency domain techniques assume that the
at the expense of smaller values of force. water particle velocity is a random Gaussian process
The data analysed here were obtained in waves that were which, in the absence of current, is also a zero mean process,
significantly non-linear and in some cases sufficiently steep and further, that uuuu in the drag term can be approximated
to have breaking crests (like real storm waves!). The results by a polynomial yielding:
of the analysis for the six experiments are shown in Tables r
2–7 and, not surprisingly, show that the analysis methods 8
uuuu ˆ usu …21†
making fewer assumptions give better predictive accuracy. p
As accuracy is measured in term of ability to predict as the linear approximation, and
maxima it is not surprising that the weighted least squares (r"   #)
gives on average (see Table 8) the best results. 2 u 1 u 3
uuuu ˆ usu2
1 …22†
p su 3 su

5. Frequency domain methods as the cubic approximation. See Refs. [3,9,10,11] for more
details. In the presence of a uniform current a similar poly-
Frequency domain methods may be divided into two nomial fitting procedure can be used and then the mean of

Table 7
Values of CD and CM from the analysis methods in the random waves for a mobile large pile—Run 6

Method of analysis CD (mean) s cd CM (mean) s cm MNE RMSE

Time domain: wave by wave

1. Bearman et al. [2] 1.04 0.34 1.56 0.46 14.99 17.31
2. Klopman and Kostense [24] 1.05 0.32 1.56 0.46 14.17 16.64
3. Ordinary least squares 1.16 0.25 1.76 0.81 4.38 10.71
Time domain: Whole record
4. Ordinary least squares …k ˆ 0† 1.21 – 1.74 – 1.06 10.06
5. Weighted least squares k ˆ 1 1.21 – 1.86 – 0.35 10.25
kˆ2 1.21 – 1.94 – 0.14 10.34
kˆ3 1.21 – 1.94 – 0.06 10.34
6. Method of moments 1.15 – 2.99 – 2 0.10 12.58
Frequency domain
8. Cross spectra—force and surface elevations 1.80 0.81 1.63 0.50 2 44.0 46.2
9. Least-squares fit to spectra 1.21 – 1.74 – 1.06 10.06
 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328 321

Table 8
Values of CD and CM from the analysis methods in the random waves (averaged in the six runs)

Method of analysis %MNE %RMSE CD (mean) CM (mean)

Time domain: wave by wave

1. Bearman et al. [2] 10.19 15.76 1.49 1.65
2. Klopman and Kostense [24] 9.09 14.91 1.44 1.66
3. Ordinary least squares 5.56 12.83 1.42 1.80
Time domain: whole record
4. Ordinary least-squares …k ˆ 0† 3.66 11.44 1.46 1.77
5. Weighted least-squares k ˆ 2 2.03 10.90 1.51 2.04
6. Method of moments 6.57 14.19 1.51 2.05
Frequency domain
8. Cross spectra—force and surface elevations 15.93 20.6 1.47 1.98
9. Least-squares fit to spectra 24.14 30.80 1.82 1.79
Averages 10.14 16.67 1.54 1.86

the water particle velocity is no longer zero but equal to the where Su …v† is the one-sided spectral density function of the
current speed U. This yields [10,14] input i.e. measured particle velocity and Suf …v† is the cross-
spectral density of the input and output i.e. measured parti-
uuuu ˆ s2u ‰…1 2 g2 †…2Z…g† 2 1† 1 2gz…g†Š
cle velocity and measured force.
1 2su ‰g…2Z…g† 2 1† 1 2z…g†Šu …23† Borgman [11] proposed another type of linear cross-spec-
tral density model for use when particle kinematics have to
for the linear approximation where the various terms have be inferred from the wave surface elevation. Linear random
been defined above after
pEq. (20). If the current is zero then wave theory and the linear dispersion relationship are used
g ˆ 0; and z…g† ˆ 1= 2pand the expression above reduces to establish time series for the wave particle kinematics
to the linear approximation in Eq. (21). from the wave surface elevation time series. The cross spec-
tra in the expression below (obtained by Borgman) are then
5.1. Linear models computed.
r
There are a variety of related analysis methods based on 8
Shf …v† ˆ K s S …v† 1 KM Shu_ …v†: …28†
the use of spectra and cross spectra that have been devel- p D u hu
oped by Borgman [9,11] and Bendat and Piersol [3] among
Each of the cross spectra in this equation has a real and
others. The first considered here involves the cross-spectra
imaginary part yielding two equations that can be solved
of measured force and wave particle velocity and is the
simultaneously to provide the following expressions for
linear counterpart of the non-linear model considered in
the force coefficients as functions of frequency:
the Section 5.2. In the linear model Morison’s equation
becomes; r !
p 2 Chu_ Qhf 2 Qhu_ Chf
r CD …v† ˆ ; …29†
8 8 rDsu Chu_ Qhu 2 Qhu_ Chu
_ 1 KD
F…t† ˆ KM u…t† _ 1 KDp u…t†: …24†
s u…t† ˆ KM u…t†
p u !
By assuming random linear wave theory an expression is 4 Chf Qhu 2 Chu Qhf
CM …v† ˆ : …30†
obtained linking Morison force and wave particle velocity. rpD2 Chu_ Qhu 2 Qhu_ Chu
Taking Fourier transforms the corresponding frequency
domain expression is found with force and velocity linked Here C and Q indicate the real and imaginary parts of cross-
by the transfer function Huf …v† from which the force coeffi- spectra in Eq. (28).
cients can be estimated as follows: In the case where there is current as well as waves then
r Eq. (28) may be written as:
2
KDp …v† ˆ rDCD …v† s ˆ Re‰Huf …v†Š …25† Shf …v† ˆ 4…z…g† 1 uguZ…g††KD su Shu …v† 1 KM Shu_ …v†; …31†
p u
and the drag coefficient is then given by:
pD2 Im‰Huf …v†Š !
KM …v† ˆ CM …v† ˆ : …26† Chu_ Qhf 2 Qhu_ Chf
4 v CD …v† ˆ
1
:
The transfer function Huf …v†can be estimated from (see for 2rDsu …z…g† 1 uguZ…g†† Chu_ Qhu 2 Qhu_ Chu
example Refs. [4,31]): …32†
Suf …v† The presence of the current does effect the equation for the
Huf …v† ˆ …27†
Su …v† inertia coefficient.
322 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328

Although they may not appear so at first sight Eqs. (29)
and (30) are very similar to Eqs. (25) and (26) and this
method (denoted as Method 8) is quite similar to the one
above (Method 7). In both methods the drag and inertia
coefficients are obtained as functions of frequency, rather
than Keulegan–Carpenter. Here the results have been aver-
aged over the frequency range from 0.1 to 0.4 Hz (where
from Fig. 3 most of the energy is seen to lie) to provide
single values of CD and CM to be used in the prediction
study. The predictive accuracy of these two methods may
be judged from the results presented in Tables 2–7 and
summarised in Table 8. Overall both are seen to be signifi-
cantly poorer than the time domain approaches.
Borgman [11] also proposed a least-squares frequency
domain method for determining force coefficients using a
linear model based on the following equation for power
spectral densities.
8KD2 s2u
Sf …v† ˆ Su …v† 1 KM
2
Su_ …v†: …
p
The spectra for the particle kinematics can be obtained
from the surface elevation or, alternatively, they may be
computed more directly, and usually more accurately,
from the velocity time series. However for the analysis
here they have been computed from the wave surface eleva-
tion time series.
The coefficients KM and KD are estimated such that the
predicted force spectrum Sf …v† from Eq. (23) is the best
least squares fit to the measured force spectrum. This yields
the following equations:
kinematic time series. In this respect the method is similar
to those of Bishop [6] and Pierson and Holmes [32] and
hence may be useful when there is an unknown phase lag
between force and velocity measurements. However the
overall the predictive accuracy of this method (Method 9)
is seen to be poorest of all in Table 8.
5.2. Non-linear models
Non-linear frequency domain models have been consid-
ered theoretically by Bendat and Piersol [3]. These were
applied to small scale experiments by Vugts and Bouquet
[36], and to large scale experiment data, obtained in the De
Voorst wave flume, by Bliek and Klopman [8]. More
recently non-linear extensions to Morison’s equation have
been considered by Worden et al. [39], among others, using
systems identification techniques applied to a variety of
experiment data.
33† The model considered here is shown in Fig. 4 and was
originally developed by Bendat and Piersol. It uses a cubic
approximation in which the terms Tl …v† and Tn …v† represent
the transfer function of the linear and non-linear parts of
Morison’s equation. To restrict this model to the usual Mori-
son form Tl …v† is considered to be purely imaginary (i.e.
with 908 phase), corresponding to the inertia term and Tn …v†
purely real corresponding to the drag term. The case for
doing this is discussed by Vugts and Bouquet. The corre-
sponding form of Morison’s equation is then:
_ 1 KD1 u…t† 1 KD2 u…t†3 ;
f …t† ˆ KM u…t† …37†

X
N X
N X
N X
N
Su …vi †Su_ …vi † Su …vi †Sf …vi † 2 S2u …vi † Su_ …vi †Sf …vi †
iˆ1 iˆ1 iˆ1 iˆ1
2
KM ˆ !2 ; …34†
X
N X
N X
N
Su …vi †Su_ …vi † 2 S2u …vi † S2u_ …vi †
iˆ1 iˆ1 iˆ1

X
N X
N X
N X
N
Su …vi †Su_ …vi † Su_ …vi †Sf …vi † 2 S2u_ …vi † Su …vi †Sf …vi †
KD2 ˆ …p=8† iˆ1 iˆ1
!2
iˆ1 iˆ1
; …35†
X
N X
N X
N
Su …vi †Su_ …vi † 2 S2u …vi † S2u_ …vi †
iˆ1 iˆ1 iˆ1

where N is the number of discrete frequencies at which the where

spectrum is computed from the time series. Note that in this
single value of each of the force coefficients is obtained. CM rpD2 3as2u CD rD aC D r D
KM ˆ ; KD1 ˆ ; KD2 ˆ
When there is a current in addition to waves then Eq. (33) 4 2 2
may be shown [25] to take the form:
and
S…v† ˆ 16…z…g† 1 uguZ…g†† 2
KD2 s2u Su …v† 1 2
KM Su_ …v† …36† r
1 2
aˆ :
3 su p
where the terms have the same meaning as in Eqs. (19) and
(20). The corresponding pair of equations for the force coef- The corresponding frequency domain expression is found to
ficients, similar in form to Eqs. (34) and (35), is readily be
obtained. In this method it is worth noting that no account
is taken of the phase between the force and particle F…v† ˆ ivKM u…v† 1 KD a…3s2u u…v† 1 up3 …v†† …38†
 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328
u(t)
Fig. 4. Non-linear model for Morison’s equation after Bendat and Piersol.
where up3 …v† is a triple convolution of u…v† with itself (see
Refs. [3,39] for full and interesting discussions of this and
related models). CM can be estimated directly from the
imaginary part of the transfer function in exactly the same
way as described for Method 7 using Eqs. (25) and (26)
above.
To estimate CD the non-linear term must first be estimated
and to do this accurately requires a long time series; as noted
by Vugts and Bouquet and Bliek and Klopman. There are
various possible procedures for obtaining the estimate (see
Ref. [8]) and the one used here is that described in Bendat
and Pierson [3]. Briefly the velocity cubed time series is
Fourier transformed and the corresponding spectral density
Su3 …v† found. Then the following expression is used to esti-
mate Tn …v† :
Sf …v† ˆ a2 uTn …v†u2 {27s4u Su …v† 1 Su3 …v†};
whence
KD …v† ˆ Re‰Tn …v†Š:
The variation of these force coefficients with frequency is
seen to be significant in Figs. 5 and 6 for the large and small
cylinder, respectively, in the case where there is no current.
It is interesting to note the variation of CD with frequency is
quite different for the two cases reflecting, perhaps, the
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
CD and CM
3 CD
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 0.05
Fig. 5. Variation in CD and CM with frequency using the non-linear model (Method 10) for Run 1.
323
Tl n(t)
f(t)
Σ
ασ 23
Σ Tn
u3 α
different ranges of KC at each frequency. However as can
be seen from Tables 2 and 5 there is no improvement in the
predictive accuracy. As a result the authors did not consider
it worth applying this non-linear model to cases where
current was present. The extension to the case with current
is explained in Bendat and Pierson [3].
The frequency range over which the averages for CD …v†
and CM …v† are computed will affect the predictive accuracy,
as is obvious from Figs. 5 and 6. It is interesting to note that
for a given cylinder diameter KC is directly proportional to
wave amplitude and thus the square root of the wave energy
spectral density; if the random wave is considered as the
sum of sinusoidal waves with one wave for each elemental
frequency range. So the variation of KC with frequency is
directly related to the spectral shape and the same KC values
will occur twice, once at the low frequency end and once at
…39† the high frequency end. In principle some weighted average
could be used to reflect this fact and also the distribution of
energy in the wave spectrum. However the authors have not
…40† done this as they consider that generally frequency domain
methods are not really worth pursuing in the context of
estimating the Morison force coefficients. To summarise,
the frequency domain methods make more assumptions
than the time domain methods. Most notable is the linear-
isation (or cubic approximation) of the drag term. In addi-
tion all frequency domain methods assume random linear
CM
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Frequency (Hz)
324 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328

3.5
CM
3

2.5
CD and CM
2

1.5

CD
1

0.5

0
0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Frequency (Hz)

Fig. 6. Variation in CD and CM with frequency using the non-linear model (Method 10) for Run 4.

wave theory, and it is seen in the time domain methods
when this assumption is relaxed predictive accuracy
improves. Finally the variation of CD and CM with frequency
is of no apparent practical value; indeed it is a nuisance. It is
therefore not surprising that time domain methods appear to
have greater predictive accuracy.
6. Discussion of the results
The principal objective of this paper is to examine the
efficiency of the various method of analysis rather than to
present an extensive set of experiment data and so only a
subset of a larger programme of experiments are considered.
The results of the other experiments in the same programme,
on smooth cylinders and those with slight roughness are
presented in Ref. [27].
Before examining the efficiency of the various methods
for estimating CD and CM from random wave data it is
interesting to look at some plots of the total force coefficient
Cf (defined in the nomenclature) against KC. The results
obtained with no current are shown in Fig. 7 for the small
cylinder. The inference that can be drawn is that at low KC
without current a large number of correspondingly small
waves are needed to estimate a mean value of Cf with statis-
tical accuracy. Importantly, given the scatter in Cf at low KC
then there will be at least similar scatter in CD and CM
irrespective of how the total force is split into the corre-
sponding component parts. Interestingly the effect of intro-
ducing a positive current is to reduce not only the scatter in
Cf at low KC values but also its average magnitude as can be
seen from Fig. 8. A negative current reduces the average
magnitude even further and across a wider range of KC as
can be seen in Fig. 9. Similar effects are observed for the
large cylinder.
Dean’s reliability ratio R is shown for the large and small
cylinders, respectively, in Figs. 10 and 12. The correspond-
ing plots of CD and CM (estimated using least squares wave
by wave analysis) against KC are shown in Figs. 11 and 13.
These clearly show the effect of the reliability ratio upon the
scatter in the estimated force coefficients. For example the
generally higher R values for the smaller cylinder are
reflected in greater scatter in the corresponding CM values
when compared to those for the larger cylinder. So not only
is there scatter from wave to wave in the total non-
dimensional force, but the data are often not well conditioned

45
Run4
40
35
30
25
Cf

20
15
10
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
KC

Fig. 7. Variation of Cf with KC in the random waves for the fixed small pile.
 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328
8
7
6
5
Cf
4
3
2
1
0 10
Fig. 8. Variation of Cf with KC in random waves for the mobile small pile, U ˆ 10:5 m=s.
to allocate this total force into component parts. Thus irre-
spective of the analysis method employed to predict CD and
CM the scatter endemic in the data ensures that there will
inevitably be uncertainty in the estimates found.
Tables 2–7 show the mean values of CD and CM obtained
using the various analysis methods for the six experiment
runs. The standard deviations quoted for the wave by wave
analyses (Methods 1–3) express the wave to wave variabil-
ity; whereas those for the frequency domain analyses (Meth-
ods 7, 8 and 10) express the variation with frequency across
the range from 0.1 to 0.4 Hz. Also shown in these Tables are
the corresponding mean bias and standard error when these
coefficients are used for predicting the second, unanalysed,
part of the measured force time series. There are several
points worth noting about these results.
1. Irrespective of the method of analysis both CD and CM are
reduced by the presence of a current. Interestingly the
larger reduction occurs for the larger pile when the current
is in the same direction as the waves but the reverse is
true for the small pile. It is not immediately clear why
this should be the case but it is worth remembering that
the range of KC is quite different for the two piles and
hence so will be the effects of wake re-encounter when
the wave flow reverses in each wave cycle. For the wave
by wave analysis methods it is noticeable that the stan-
dard deviation of the CD reduces significantly in all cases
with the addition of current but for the CM values the
reverse is true. This may be explained by the increased
8
7 Run6
6
5
Cf
4
3
2
1
0 10
Fig. 9. Variation of Cf with KC in random waves for the mobile small pile, U ˆ 20:5 m=s.
325
Run5
20 30 40 50
KC
magnitude of the drag term relative to the inertia term
when a current is present and thus the proportional reduc-
tion in any relative error when estimating it from the total
force. Turning to predictive accuracy few clear trends
occur. The RMSE tends to reduce somewhat in most
cases when current is added but the bias (MNE) shows
no particular trend.
2. In the time domain, the wave by wave analyses give
similar results as would be expected in light of the simi-
larity among these methods highlighted in Section 4. The
least squares method (Method 3) comes out slightly
ahead overall (but not consistently so) in terms of predic-
tive accuracy as might be expected as it makes fewer
assumptions. Given the improvement seen in the whole
record analysis by weighting the least squares it was
decided to do a wave by wave analysis using this
approach, with k ˆ 2; and the results are summarised
in Table 8; from which it is seen to be generally superior
to all the other methods. The time domain, whole record,
least squares analysis yields similar results to the least
squares wave by wave analysis. However the method of
moments (Method 6) is seen to be significantly poorer
and for the small fixed pile gave a bias of 2 22% and a
standard error of 26.4%; a plausible explanation for
which is beyond the authors.
3. The frequency domain methods generally give poorer
predictive accuracy than the time domain methods.
This can be explained by the additional assumptions impli-
cit in approximating the drag term and the necessarily
20 30 40 50
KC
326 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328

1.5
R = 0.74 (average for all data) Run1

R 0.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
KC

Fig. 10. Variation of Dean’s reliability ratio R with KC for the fixed large pile.

arbitrary choice of spectral width over which to average
the frequency dependent force coefficients. It is surpris-
ing that the cross spectral method involving the surface
elevation (Method 8) is marginally better than the one
involving the water particle velocity (Method 7) for both
the fixed cylinders (see Tables 2 and 5), as particle kine-
matics predictions from surface elevation using linear
theory are often poor. When a current is present the latter
approach is seen to give very variable results (see parti-
cularly Table 7) implying a lack of numerical robustness.
The frequency domain least-squares approach suffers in a
similar, but more extreme manner (see Table 7 again). In
this case the high frequency cut-off was found to have a
significant effect upon the denominators in Eqs. (34) and
(35).
4. The introduction of a non-linear term into the frequency
domain analysis makes little difference for the large pile
case as can be seen in Table 2; whereas for the small pile
the result is a very distinct decrease in predictive accu-
racy both in terms of RMSE and bias. This may, in part,
be due to the relative short length of the records of
around 15 min or 140 waves. However the results
obtained by Bliek and Klopman and Vugts and Bouquet
with addition of non-linear terms were not much more
encouraging than those obtained here; despite in the
former case of having a record length of 189 min.
The results presented here are for very rough cylinders.
The question arises would similar results for predictive
accuracy have been obtained with smooth cylinders. In the
authors’ view the ranking of the analysis methods would not
have been altered because this is largely dictated by the
assumptions and approximations implicit in each of the
methods as discussed above. The predictive accuracy
would probably be similar, but not the same. Even at the
largest scale so far employed for model experiments on
smooth circular cylinders in random waves there is doubt
concerning the flow regime. Particularly in the smaller
waves there is the possibility that the flow is not fully turbu-
lent throughout the wave cycle. This is likely to lead to

6
1< KC< 18, mean(KC)= 5.5, mean(CD)= 1.88, Run1
4
CD

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
KC

3 1< KC< 18, mean(KC)= 5.5, mean(CM)= 2.08, Run1

2
CM

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
KC

Fig. 11. Variation of CD and CM obtained using wave by wave least square method (Method 3), with KC in random waves for the fixed large pile.
 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328 327

3.5
R= 1.72 (average for all data) Run4
3

2.5

2
R
1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
KC

Fig. 12. Variation of Dean’s reliability ratio R with KC for fixed small pile.

greater uncertainty in the prediction of peak forces, particu- 7. Conclusions

larly when all the data are used in the analysis.
One of the problem facing someone undertaking a
risk assessment or a structural reliability calculation
for an offshore jacket structure is to estimate the
uncertainty in the wave/current loading predicted by
Morison’s equation. The values of MNE and RMSE
quoted in Table 8 probably represent the lower
bounds of the uncertainty that it is possible to achieve
currently. One problem with laboratory experiments is
that in order to achieve acceptably high Reynolds
numbers the range of KC is lower than that which
occurs in practice so there is inevitably some extrapolation.
However this error is thought to be small (particular for the
small cylinder data considered here) as at large KC drag
coefficients generally approach their steady flow values
asymptotically.
Space does not permit presentation and discussion of all
the results obtained from the analyses undertaken and the
reader is referred to Ref. [30] for further details.
6
1< KC< 38, mean(CD)= 1.85, mean(KC)= 12.8
4
CD
It is clear that the method used to analyse experimental
data in terms of Morison’s equation has a significant effect
on both the force coefficients obtained and their predictive
accuracy. It is found that no single method is consistently
better under all circumstances but on average the wave by
wave weighted least squares method gives both the lowest
bias (2%) and root mean square error (11%) as can be seen
in Table 8. The other time domain analysis methods whilst a
little poorer worked reasonably satisfactorily. The
frequency domain techniques were found to be less satisfac-
tory and, on occasions, were not robust and so are not
recommended unless there are particular reasons for their
adoptions.
The force coefficients obtained by the various methods
varied significantly but there was a clear trend which
showed that the addition of current significantly decreased
the drag coefficient and to a lesser extent the inertia coeffi-
cient. For KC values above around 10 use of mean values
Run4

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
KC

3 1< KC< 38, mean(CM)= 1.92, mean(KC)= 12.8 Run4

2
CM

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
KC

Fig. 13. Variation of CD and CM, obtained using wave by wave least square method (Method 3), with KC in the random waves for a fixed small pile.
328 J. Wolfram, M. Naghipour / Applied Ocean Research 21 (1999) 311–328
for drag and inertia coefficients (about 1.7 and 2, respec-
tively) for heavily marine roughened cylinders in waves
without current seems reasonably satisfactory. When
current is present both coefficients should be significantly
less.
References
[1] Bearman PW. Wave loading experiments on circular cylinders at
large scale. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Behaviour of Offshore structures, Trondhein, Norway, Tapir, 1988:
471–87.
[2] Bearman PW, Chaplin JR, Graham JMR, Kostense JK, Hall PF, Klop-
man G. The loading on a cylinder in post-critical flow beneath peri-
odic and random waves. Behaviour of Offshore Structures 1985:213–
25.
[3] Bendat JS, Piersol AG. Decomposition of wave forces into linear and
non-linear components. Journal of Sound and Vibration 1986;
106(3):391–408.
[4] Bendat JS, Piersol AG. Random data, analysis and measurement
procedures, 2. New York: Wiley, 1986.
[5] Bishop JR. Wave force investigation at the second Christchurch bay
tower, Summary report, NMI R177, OT-O-82100, 1984.
[6] Bishop JR. The mean square value of wave force based on the Mori-
son’s equation, NMI R 40, also OT-R-7811, 1978.
[7] Bishop JR, Shipway JC. Wave force coefficients from the second
Christchurch Bay Tower, NMI R 178, also OT-O-82101, Part 1, 1984.
[8] Bliek A, Klopman G. Non-linear frequency modelling of wave forces
on large vertical and horizontal cylinders in random waves, BOSS’88,
1988: 821–40.
[9] Borgman LE. Spectral analysis of ocean wave forces on piling. Jour-
nal of the Waterways and Harbours Division, Proceedings of the
ASCE 1967;93(WW2):129–56.
[10] Borgman LE. Ocean wave simulation for engineering design. Journal
of the Waterways and Harbours Division, Proceedings of the ASCE
1969;95(WW4):557–83.
[11] Borgman LE. Statistical models for ocean waves and wave forces.
Advances in Hydroscience 1972;8:139–81.
[12] Chakrabarti SK. Technical note: on the formulation of Jonswap spec-
trum. Applied Ocean Research 1984;6(3):175–6.
[13] Chakrabarti SK. Hydrodynamics of offshore structures, New York:
Computational Mechanics Publications, 1987.
[14] Chakrabarti SK, Johnson JG. Random wave–current interaction—
theory and experiment. Proceedings of the 14th International Confer-
ence on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering (OMAE),
vol. I/A, Offshore technology, 1995:25–36.
[15] Chaplin JR. Non-linear forces on horizontal cylinders in the inertia
regime in waves at high Reynolds numbers. Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Behaviour of Offshore structures, 1988:
505–18.
[16] Chaplin JR, Subbiah K. Velocity measurements in multi-directional
waves using a perforated-ball velocity meter. Applied Ocean
Research 1994;16:223–34.
[18] Davies MJS. Wave loading data from fixed vertical cylinders, OTI 92
558, 1993:89.
[19] Dean RG. Methodology for evaluating suitability of wave and wave
force data for determining drag and inertia coefficients, Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Behaviour of Offshore Struc-
tures, Trondheim, Norway, 1976:40–64.
[20] Evans DJ. Analysis of wave force data, Offshore Technology Confer-
ence, paper number OTC 1005, 1969.
[21] Hasselmann K, et al. Measurements of wind-wave growth and swell
decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP).
Deutschen Hydrographischen Zeitschrift, A 1973;27–95.
[22] Heideman JC, Olsen OA, Johansson PI. Local wave force coefficients.
Proceedings of the Speciality Conference, Civil Engineering in the
Oceans IV, 1979;2:684–99.
[23] Keulegan GH, Carpenter LH. Forces on cylinders and plates in an
oscillating fluid. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Stan-
dards 1958;60(5):423–40.
[24] Klopman G, Kostense JK. The loading on a vertical cylinder in
random waves at high Reynolds numbers, Water wave kinematics,
Proceedings of NATO Advanced Workshop on Water Wave Kine-
matics, Molde, Norway, (NATO ASI Series E: Applied Sciences),
178. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 1989. p. 679–700.
[25] Li YC, Kang HG. Wave current forces on slender cylinders. Proceed-
ings of the 11th International Conference of Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering (OMAE) 1992;1:117–25.
[26] Mackwood PR. Wave and current flows around circular cylinders at
large scale, LIP Project 10D, 1993:27.
[27] Mackwood PR, Bearman PW, Graham JMR. Wave loading data from
fixed vertical cylinders with simulated hard marine fouling, HSE
Report OTH94 438, ISBN 0-7176-0999-5, 1995.
[28] Morison JR, O’Brien MP, Johnson JW, Schaaf S. The force exerted
by surface wave on piles. Transactions of the American Institute of
Mining and Metallurgical Engineers 1950;189:147–54.
[29] Muga BJ, Wilson JF. Dynamic Analysis of Ocean Structures
1970:134–50.
[30] Naghipour M. The accuracy of hydrodynamic force prediction for
offshore structures and Morison’s equation, PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt
University, Edinburgh, 1996.
[31] Newland DE. An introduction to random vibrations and spectral
analysis, 3. New York: Longman, 1993.
[32] Pierson WJ, Holmes P. Irregular wave forces on a pile. Journal of the
Waterways and Harbours Division, Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1965;91(WW4):1–10.
[33] Rodenbusch G, Gutierrez CA. Forces on cylinders in two-dimensional
flows, Technical progress report, BRC 13-83, Shell Development Co,
1983.
[34] Standsby PK, Worden K, Tomlinson GR, Billings SA. Improved
wave force classification using system identification. Applied Ocean
Research 1992;14:107–18.
[35] Tung CC, Huang NE. Interactions between waves and currents and
their influence on fluid forces, BOSS’76, 1976:129–43.
[36] Vugts JH, Bouquet AG. A non-linear, frequency domain description
of wave forces on an element of a vertical pile in random seas, Beha-
viour of offshore structures. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1985.
p. 239–53.
[37] Wolfram J. A novel underwater hydrodynamic experiment facility
and first results with marine growth covered cylinders, Part B, Trans-
actions of Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London, 1992.
[38] Wolfram J. Marine fouling and fluid loading, Final Report on Project
FLE6, MTD Programme Fluid Loading in Offshore Engineering,
1987.
[39] Worden K, Stansby PK, Tomlinson GR, Billings SA. Identification of
non-linear wave forces. Journal of Fluids and Structures 1994;8:19–
71.