See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301418852

Metocean Design Criteria for Deep Water Offshore Systems

Conference Paper · May 2015

DOI: 10.1115/OMAE2015-41108

CITATIONS READS

3 1,072

3 authors:

Michele Drago Matteo Mattioli

Saipem S.p.A. Saipem S.p.A.
40 PUBLICATIONS   379 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Federico Quondamatteo
Saipem Singapore
2 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Probabilistic assessment of weather stand-by for sequences of off-shore installation operations with vessel motion limiting conditions and multi partition seastates
View project

Subsea Life of Field View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michele Drago on 11 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2015
May 31-June 5, 2015, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada

OMAE2015-41108

METOCEAN DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DEEP WATER OFFSHORE SYSTEMS

Michele Drago Matteo Mattioli Federico Quondamatteo

Saipem S.p.A. Saipem S.p.A. Saipem S.p.A.
Fano, Italy Fano, Italy Fano, Italy

ABSTRACT beside accounting for the FPSO movements, are subject to the
In the last decades the off-shore hydrocarbon extraction loads of the waves orbital velocities near the surface and of the
industry has extended its field of activities in very deep waters current along the whole water column.
up to more than 2000 m. Extraction and production systems Currents can be very variable in intensity and directions
can vary between complete subsea development with export when moving through the water column. In deep waters, they
pipelines to on-shore treatment plants and surface development can be driven by different forcing actions at different layers,
by means of surface units (SSFU) connected to subsea wells by possibly presenting density stratifications which could lead to
risers and anchored by mooring systems which extend through current intensifications typical of density interface. This results
the whole water column. For exclusively subsea developments, in a very complex environment to be defined in term of
including sealines, the metocean design data and criteria to be metocean conditions to be applied for the design. In particular,
developed and the applicable methodologies to derive them are normal and extreme conditions of the various variables (wind,
well established. Univariate theory is usually applied in order waves, current at various level in the water column) shall be
to quantify the risk of failure due to (extreme) sea conditions. defined together with their inter-correlation.
The surface developments and the connections through the
water column (e.g. risers, moorings) are newly challenging
aspects. They could suffer from severe damages due to the
occurrence of critical combinations of different variables
during a single sea storm:: thus, it may be important to
consider the joint occurrence of different forcing conditions
(i.e. multivariate analysis).
The present manuscript provides a simplified methodology
in order to carry out a sensible multivariate analysis of the
contemporary data such as wind, waves and current.
Three different cases are analyzed: i) the correlation of
Fig. 1 – Example of deep water extraction and production
extremes of different variables (wind, wave and current), ii) the
systems
extreme profiles of current and iii) the current profile climate.
A practical case study is illustrated throughout the paper.
In many off-shore structural design problems, univariate
statistics is usually applied to quantify the risk of failure due to
INTRODUCTION
extreme conditions: frequently used models are the Generalized
FPSO and deep water moored extraction and production
Extreme Value, the Generalized Pareto, and the Weibull
systems (see Fig. 1) are complex structures subject to the
distributions, However, in general, the (dependent) variables
contemporary action of wind waves and current which drive
which characterize sea storms are several: for instance, the
the heading analysis, the operability, the mooring concept and
significant wave height, the wave period, wind, current and
dimensioning. Export risers connecting wells to the FPSO,

1 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

directions which represents key variables when dealing with practical and very general applications. It uses the the join
off-shore dynamics, occurrence methods of two environmental variables taking into
Correlation of extremes for various return periods of all account, with a simplified approach, also the directions.Three
variables for assessment of maximum loads and construction of different cases, are analyzed:
current profiles accounting for intensity and direction i) the correlation of extremes of different variables
variability along the water column for fatigue analysis of risers (wind, wave and current),
and mooring systems are the most challenging aspects. ii) the extreme profiles of current
A possible way to investigate this correlation during iii) the current profile climate.
normal conditions is the response based approach, eventually
extrapolating the responses to the extreme values for any return
period to be considered for the structural design. This approach ENVIRONMENTAL SCENARIO
has been analyzed in Mattioli et al. (2013) and requires the The contemporary time series of wind, waves and current at
analysis of many different wind, waves and current various levels along the water column extracted from the
combination cases which shall be representative of all the TAMOMS database (Oceanweather 2010) for a Tanzania off-
possible significant occurrences. This approach could be very shore location, coordinates: Lat. 6.8125 South, Long. 40.1250
onerous when the cases to be analyzed exceed some hundreds East, water depth around 1000 m (see Fig 2) have been used as
and the calculation of the response is not trivial. basic data.
A different approach is the load based approach which
requires the definition of the combined wind, waves and
current extreme cases to be considered. In this case the
statistical analysis effort is moved from the results (responses)
to the inputs (loads).
Suitable strategies for performing multivariate design are
among others: i) Theory of Copulas (see, e.g., (Joe, 1997;
Nelsen, 2006); ii) Joint Probability model as shown in
Vazquez-Hernandez et al. (200) and Nerzic et al. (2007) and iii)
Inverse-FORM contour.
The main problem with these approaches is that it is not
an easy task to take into account all possible statistical
dependences among all random variables representing the
intensities and directions of the environmental actions. The
majority of the available models are made of conditional
distributions dependent only on two environmental parameters
and not taking into account directions. In absence of
contemporary time series of the variables to be considered
conservative guidelines instructions are applied (e.g. the Fig. 2 – Location of analysis (red circle)
combination 100 years return period of wind and waves and 10
years return period for current for subsea pipeline systems, Dir Hs (m)
DNV 2012). When contemporary time series are available, the (°N) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Tot.
methodology to assess the correlation between variables is well 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
known in theory, but in practice, when their directionality is of 30 0.00 0.00 2.11 3.03 0.42 0.02 0.00 0.00 5.57
relevance, the statistical analysis of the large number of 60 0.00 1.49 11.83 2.17 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.55
possible combinations makes this assessment, and later its 90 0.00 2.97 8.28 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.71
application, very difficult. 120 0.00 1.79 25.90 23.78 2.10 0.09 0.00 0.00 53.66
Lacking a standard approach, different operators applies 150 0.00 0.16 2.59 7.55 2.64 0.40 0.07 0.00 13.41
different assumptions and approaches in different projects, 180 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.10
from more simplified and conservative to more complex and 210 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
less onerous from a structural integrity point of view. This 240 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
obviously leads to different design solutions and reliability. A 270 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
general guideline will be very useful when approaching 300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
multivariate analysis for the assessment of the metocean design 330 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
conditions for deep water systems. Tot. 0.00 6.42 50.73 36.99 5.23 0.54 0.08 0.00 100.00
In the present paper a simplified methodology to assess the Tab. 1 – Wave climate at analysis location (direction is coming
correlation between variables and the definition of directional from)
correlations is described. The proposed approach is suitable for

2 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

Dir Ws (m/s) (2005), De Michele et al. (2007); Jonathan et al. (2010);
(°N) 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Tot. Corbella and Stretch (2012); Dong et al. (2013); Ewans and
0 0.01 0.49 0.99 1.05 0.33 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.89 Jonathan (2014), Salvadori et al. (2014), Heffernan, J.E., Tawn,
30 0.02 1.24 5.04 6.68 2.79 0.28 0.01 0.00 16.06 J.A. (2004) and references therein.
60 0.07 1.76 3.75 1.55 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.28 Having a number of variables which can be more or less
90 0.07 2.01 4.64 1.48 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.32 intercorrelated, the description of their distribution can be
120 0.08 2.49 10.99 7.31 0.73 0.02 0.00 0.00 21.62 performed both considering each variable singularly (marginal
150 0.03 1.53 10.41 16.49 4.79 0.22 0.00 0.00 33.48 analysis) or analyzing the correlation between each of them
180 0.04 0.46 1.58 3.31 2.83 0.88 0.07 0.00 9.17 (correlation analysis). To be noted that the correlation between
210 0.02 0.17 0.14 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.40
a variable U1 and a variable U 2 could be not unique, i.e. the
240 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17
270 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 conditional probability fU2|U1 (U1 ,U 2 ) of U 2 given U1 could be
300 0.01 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16
not equal to the conditional probability fU1|U2 (U1 ,U 2 ) of U1
330 0.01 0.14 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30
Tot. 0.42 10.59 37.78 37.95 11.75 1.43 0.08 0.00 100.00 given U 2 . The correlation could be strong or weak in one way
Tab. 2 – Wind climate at analysis location (direction is coming and weaker or stronger in the other. As an example it is
from) sufficient to mention the wind and wave case. Large waves
generally needs large winds, but large winds do not necessarily
Dir Uc (m/s) implies large waves as it is the case of very short duration
(°N) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 Tot. perturbations (squalls) or winds with incoming direction from
0 0.48 3.14 9.42 16.31 9.58 3.19 1.18 0.48 0.04 0.02 43.85 land and locations to too far off-shore.
30 0.40 0.59 0.42 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.46
The marginal distribution of each variable does not need to
60 0.23 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39
be described as both theory and methodology are well known.
90 0.21 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30
120 0.24 0.21 0.12 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62
It is sufficient to remember that for what presented in the
150 0.15 0.19 0.28 0.35 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 following, the marginal distributions of each variable,
180 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 omnidirectional and for directional sectors, have to be assessed.
210 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 The methodology for correlation analysis is here presented
240 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 for two generic variables. It can be repeated for correlating all
270 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 the desired variables. It solely requires the availability of a long
300 0.22 0.53 0.40 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 enough time series of contemporary U1 and U 2 variables.
330 0.47 2.89 9.96 16.43 12.99 5.85 1.50 0.22 0.04 0.01 50.37
Tot. 2.87 7.93 20.67 33.29 22.71 9.05 2.68 0.70 0.08 0.02 100.0 Let’s assume that the first variable U1 , namely the
Tab. 3 – Surface current climate at analysis location (direction marginal variable, has a distribution fU1 (U1 ) which can be any
is going to) one of the usually applied probability distribution for metocean
variables (e.g. Weibull, Log-normal, Lonowe, Gumbel etc.).
A summary description of the wave, wind and superficial The correlation between first variable U1 and variable U 2 ,
current directional climate is presented respectively in Tab. 1,
Tab. 2 and Tab. 3. It is possible to observe that the wave namely the dependent variable, can be described by a
climate is strongly directional with waves mainly coming from conditional probability distribution fU2|U1 (U1 ,U 2 ) . In the
Southeasterly and Northeasterly sectors, winds mainly coming present paper a 2-parameters Weibull has been assumed to
from Southeast but with a certain Northeast component, current describe the conditional distribution, but without losing
essentially going toward Northern sectors, with rare events of generality any other distribution could be applied:
South going strong current.
b U2 
b 1
 U  b

fU 2 |U1 (U 1 , U 2 )    exp   2    (1) 
JOINT PROBABILITY METHOD a a    a  
Off-shore structures are subject to the joint occurrence of where a and b provide the dependency on U1 variable and for
different variables which, if not properly accounted for in the
design, could exceed the design loads in case of critical simplicity can be assumed having a linear behavior as function
combinations. Moreover, fatigue analysis which do not take of U1 , but any other function properly fitting the data could be
into account contemporary actions of all variables, could used:
underestimate the long term fatigue damage. a  1U1   2          
Therefore, it is becoming more and more common to
b  1U1   2   (2) 
consider the joint occurrence of combined conditions: among
others, see Ferreira and Guedes Soares (2002); Repko et al.,

3 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

 Eqs. (2) provide for any values of U1 the correlated Obviously the fitting will define values for a and b, and
distribution of U 2 , i.e. the correlated value of U 2 for any consequently the related distribution, also for values of U1 not
probability fU2|U1 (U1,U 2 ) in the interval ]0,1[, eventually included in the considered time series or so low populated that
a statistical analysis would not be possible or reliable, i.e. very
randomly extracted, or its mean large and extreme values.
To have a complete analysis, the procedure shall be
 1 repeated considering as marginal each variable as
U 2  a  1     (3) 
 b fU |U (U1,U 2 )  fU |U (U1 ,U 2 ) .
where  is the Gamma function.
2 1 1 2

Fig. 3 shows the result of the fitting of the dependent

To be noted that in case of general reconstruction of variable wind speed by a 2-parameter Weibull distribution for
climate, random extractions of fU (U1 ) and fU |U (U1 ,U 2 ) are the 2 m Hs (marginal variable) class. The resulting a and b
1 2 1

required, while when dealing with extremes, once selected the parameters are respectively 8.212 and 6.853.
desired return period of the marginal variable U1 , the value of When couples of a and b have been obtained for any Hs
the correlated U 2 is automatically provided by mean value U 2 class, they have been fitted by a linear function (Fig. 4).
of the correlated distribution given by eqs. (2) and (3), In fact,
y = 3.3624x + 1.3653
any other different value would change the probability of 20

occurrence of the joint U1 and U 2 value, i.e. the selected 18

16
return period. To be noted that in case of complete correlation,
U2=Wind speed: a parameter
14
the mean value U 2 of the correlated distribution would coincide 12
with the extreme with the same return period of U 2 considered 10
8
as marginal variable.
6
The functions for a and b can be constructed dividing U1
4
in classes and analyzing the distribution of U 2 in each class. 2

This provides a number of a and b values each one 0

0 1 2 3 4 5
corresponding to a U1 value which can be realistically be U1 =Wave height (m)
assumed equal to the center value of the considered class. The y = 2.2805x + 2.2866
20
fitting of these a and b values provides the parameters of eqs.
18
(2).
16
U2=Wind speed: b parameter

14
Hs-W
Hs 2.000
0.99999 100
12
0.9999
10
5
0.999 3
1
10
0.99
8
0.90
6
0.80
0.70
4
CUMULATIVE PROBABILITY - WEIBULL SCALE

0.60
0.50
2
MEAN RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS

0.40

0.30 0
0.20 0 1 2 3 4 5
U1 =Wave height (m)

Fig. 4 – Fitting of a and b parameters as a function of Hs

(marginal variable) for wind speed (conditional variable)
0.010

EXTREME EVENTS CORRELATION CASE

Having available contemporary time series of
0.001
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 30.00
environmental variables, the analysis of the response and the
WIND SPEED (m/s) design of a system subject to extreme loads coming from
Ws
DATA PER YEAR 377.000
WEIBULL DISTRIBUTION
P(x)=1-Exp-[(x/A)^B]
different contributions can be faced by two different
DATA IN SAMPLE 4149.00 A = 8.212 B = 6.853
Linear Correlation = 0.99709
approaches.
The first is a response based approach, i.e. the response of
Fig. 3 – Fitting of wind speed (conditional variable) for Hs=2 the system to the various combinations of the environmental
m (marginal variable) variables encountered in the time series is analyzed. Then,
applying an appropriate extrapolation by proper probability

4 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

distribution, the response for any desired return period can be
assessed. This approach overcomes the problem to assess the
correlations between the various environmental variables, but
the number of cases to be analyzed could be very large,
sometime not manageable in case the response is not provided
by a simple formula but by a complex calculation or by a Finite
Elements Method numerical simulation.
The second is a load based approach, where the extreme
environmental cases to be applied for the response analysis
shall be defined a priori. This approach partially solves the
problem of the number of response analysis to be performed as
they are strongly reduced, but implies a significant statistical
effort to define all the extremes combinations, possibly too big
to be practicable. To be mentioned that the number of
correlated extremes cases, especially if direction has to be
considered, could be still too large for being manageable in a
complex response analysis.
In this section a simplified and manageable approach to the
definition of the extreme events for an extreme loads based
analysis is described.
For sake of simplicity, let’s limit the analysis to wind,
current and a single wave component, the total significant wave
height. Anyway, the same approach could be applied
considering two waves partitions, i.e. wind sea and swell. In
this case it is necessary to have a time series of waves which
includes the separation of the two components and wind sea
and swell shall be considered as two separate variables.
The number of correlation analysis to be performed is n!.
Hence, without considering directional sectors, they are 6 for
three variables, wind, waves and current, and 24 for four
variables, wind, wind sea, swell and current. It is worth to
remind that a complete directional analysis would be possible
in theory, but almost impossible in practice as the correlation of
each variable in each directional sector with other variables in
all directional sectors would imply 36! (1041) considering 12
directional sectors or 24! (1023) considering 8 directional
sectors. Even if many of them would be superfluous, e.g. not
contemporary occurrence of extreme events of wind and waves
from opposite directions, the number would remain anyway so
large to prevent any analysis attempt.
Therefore, it is proposed to limit the correlation analysis to
the omnidirectional case, and to consider it as having general
validity, i.e. being applicable to any direction. This is not
necessarily true for all directions, but realistic for the
predominant ones.
To recover correlated extremes directionality from the
omnidirectional analysis, the following procedure is proposed.
It is not rigorous and complete like the full directional analysis,
which to any marginal directional extreme would provide
correlated extremes for each variable and for each direction but
would be not applicable as too onerous both for amount of
calculations and number of cases to be considered, but has the
undoubted advantage to be manageable and most likely
catching the extreme events providing the largest load on the
structures.
Correlation of directional extremes can be recovered
according to the following criteria and procedure:
1. for the marginal variable the directional extremes for
the selected return period are defined by the
directional marginal distribution
2. value of the correlated extremes of the dependent
variables to any directional extreme of the marginal
variable are defined according to the omnidirectional
correlation relationships which is assumed to have
general validity for all directions
3. possible directions to be associated to the correlated
extreme are defined checking the consistency with the
relevant directional extremes with the same return
period, i.e. correlated extreme cannot be larger than
the same marginal extreme with the same return period
and directions with lower extremes are neglected
4. beside the theoretic possibility of consistency of point
3., the realistic occurrence of correlated extreme from
the possible directions has to be checked searching
into the time series for contemporary occurrence of
large values of marginal and dependent variables from
the respective considered directions. This shall avoid
to include unrealistic correlations like wind and waves
from opposite directions which could be included
performing only the numerical check of point 3. In this
paper contemporary occurrence of extremes exceeding
the 80% quantile of the respective directional marginal
distributions, i.e. real contemporary occurrence of
large values of both variables, is proposed.
This above points shall be repeated considering each time
a different marginal variable.
The 80% quantile used in the described methodology has
been evaluated empirically for the test case time series as the
largest possible in order to have at least a correlated extreme to
the marginal directional extreme for each dependent variable.
Hence 80% is the value proposed in this paper, but obviously it
is a debatable value that would need to be assessed in a general
guideline (or the criteria to assess it).
The above procedure applied to the selected location
provide for the 100 years return period case the results showed
in Tab. 4, Tab. 5 and Tab. 6 respectively considering as
marginal variable wave, current and wind.
As usually happen, the strongest correlation is between
wave marginal and wind correlated, a good correlation exists
between wind marginal and wave correlated, even if lower than
the opposite, and a very low correlation exists between current
and the other two variables. This can be easily noticed looking
at the omnidirectional values. In fact, the wind extreme
correlated to the wave marginal is 14.68 m/s, which is not
much lower, actually very close, to the marginal wind speed
extreme of 14.78 m/s. This means that very strong winds are
always necessary for the occurrence of very large waves.
The difference between the wave correlated to the wind
extreme and the marginal wave extreme is a bit larger, being
respectively 3.54 m and 4.17 m, but still showing a good
5 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
correlation. This reflects the fact that in correspondence of very Return Period ‐ 100 years
strong winds not always very large waves are generated as this Wind Wave  Current 
depends also on fetch and wind duration. It is sufficient to Dir Ws Hs Dir. Uc Udir
consider the cases of wind blowing from the coast or for too (°N) (m/s) (m) (°N) (m/s) (°N)
short periods for a complete development of the sea, e.g. 0 12.52 2.84 30 0.98 90 ‐ 120
squalls. 0 ‐ 120
30 12.81 2.93 30 0.99 180
Return Period ‐ 100 years 0
Wave  Wind Current  60
Dir Hs  Ws Wdir Uc Udir 180
(°N) (m) (m/s) (°N) (m/s) (°N) 60 11.07 2.39 30 ‐ 60 0.95 330
0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 ‐ 30
30 90 10.03 2.07 90 ‐ 120 0.92 330
30 2.93 10.75 0 ‐ 60 1.14 90 ‐ 120 0 ‐ 30
330 120 11.87 2.64 120 ‐ 150 0.97 300‐330
60 2.45 9.2 0 ‐ 60 1.04 30 ‐ 120 0
0 ‐ 60 150 12.42 2.81 120 ‐ 150 0.98 300 ‐ 330
120 0
90 2.07 8.02 30 ‐ 120 0.96 330 180 14.56 3.47 150 ‐ 180 1.03 300 ‐ 330
0 ‐ 30 0
120 2.97 10.87 120 ‐150 1.15 300 ‐ 330 210 12.16 2.73 150 0.97 330
0 240 10.29 2.15 150 0.93 330
150 4.12 14.54 180 1.39 300 ‐ 330 270 7.25 1.23 60 0.86 0
180 4.11 14.49 180 1.39 330 300 7.44 1.29 60 0.87 0
210 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 330 10.55 2.23 30 ‐ 60 0.94 30
240 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. OMNI 14.78 3.54 1.03
270 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Tab. 6 – Correlated extremes. Marginal variable: wind
300 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
330 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. The correlation with current is instead scarce in both
OMNI 4.17 14.68 1.40 directions, i.e. considering current as marginal variable or
Tab. 4 – Correlated extremes. Marginal variable: wave correlated variable. In fact, compared to the current marginal
extreme of 2.50 m/s, both the correlated to wave and wind,
Return Period ‐ 100 years respectively 1.40 m/s and 1.03 m/s, are very low and close to
Current  Wave  Wind the typical values very often present in the area. The inverse
Dir Uc Hs Dir. Ws Wdir situation with wave and wind correlated to current extremes
(°N) (m/s) (m) (°N) (m/s) (°N) shows very low values on respect to the wave and wind
0 2.46 2.08 120 ‐ 150 7.96 30 ‐ 210 marginal extremes, being 2.09 m for wave and 8.00 m/s for
30 wind.
90 ‐ 120 Considering the directionality, it is possible to note that
30 1.25 1.71 30 ‐ 120 6.86 330 wind and waves extremes consistently tend to be aligned, or at
60 ‐ 90 least coming from adjacent sectors, while current extremes are
60 1.38 1.75 150 6.97 30 ‐ 60 generally uncorrelated and almost always go toward northern
90 1.50 1.79 30 ‐ 60 7.09 0 ‐ 30 sectors according to the general climate (see Tab. 1, Tab. 2 and
120 1.33 1.73 30 ‐ 90 6.93 0 ‐ 30 Tab. 3).
150 1.97 1.93   7.52
To be mentioned that even if the number of resulting
180 1.03 1.64   6.66 30 ‐ 60
combinations is still large, many of them can be disregarded by
210 0.68 1.54   6.34 30 ‐ 60
engineering judgment as obviously providing a lower load than
240 0.63 1.52   6.29 30
others or while obtaining results from response analysis for
270 0.44 1.46 120 6.12
300 1.44 1.77 120 ‐ 150 7.03 120 ‐ 180
some cases and improving knowledge about the system
0 behavior. For example, in case current is not a driving factor
330 2.38 2.05 90 ‐ 150 7.89 60 ‐ 240 but a sort of second order load all the cases in Tab. 6 can be
OMNI 2.50 2.09 8.00 disregarded having very low wind and waves on respect to Tab.
Tab. 5 – Correlated extremes. Marginal variable: surface 4 and Tab. 5. Hence, the number of cases to be analyzed can be
current strongly reduced and made compatible with complex structural
analysis.

6 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

EXTREME CURRENT PROFILES CASE
The same correlation methodology applied for the
correlated extremes of wind, waves and current can be applied
for the assessment of the current profile extremes, which differ
from the profile of the extremes at different levels as they do
not necessarily occur at the same time, i.e. extremes at different
levels could occur at different time.
In this paper only the omnidirectional extreme current
profiles case is considered. For the directional extreme current
profiles components, the same procedure can be applied to the
current speed components along any directional sector.
The number of levels to be considered could be rather
large, depending on water depth and current variability.
Considering 10 levels, the number of correlations analyses to
correlate each level with all the others would be 10x9=90 (see
Fig. 5 – case A). This can be simplified considering only the
correlation of each level with the above and below one, which
reduces the number of correlation to 8x2+2=18, namely one
descending and one ascending correlation sets (see Fig. 5 –
case B).
levels 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. This procedure will provide 10 different
extreme profiles, each one with the extreme of the marginal
level equal to the same return period extreme of the single level
analysis.
In case of complete or strong correlation between two
levels, when one of the two is considered as marginal, the other
one will be equal or very close to the extreme with the same
return period when considered as marginal.
For the considered location, using 7 levels, the results for
the 100 years return period case is shown in Tab. 7 in numerical
format and in Fig. 6 in graphical format. For each extreme
profile, which is different from the profile of the marginal
extremes, one value falls on the profile of the extremes, while
the others belonging to the same correlated profile are more or
less distant from this profile depending on how strong is the
correlation with the adjacent level. It is possible to observe that
the extremes close to the surface are strongly correlated, always
presenting a similar behavior, while moving toward the
seabottom levels they become more and more independent,
sometimes correlated with the adjacent level.

A B WD (m) 1 10 50 100 250 500 750

Uncorr. 2.69 2.50 2.12 1.93 1.70 1.27 0.99
1° to others 2° to others Descending Ascending Correlated
1° level 1° level
1 2.69 2.46 2.08 1.72 0.94 0.56 0.25
10 2.61 2.50 2.11 1.74 0.95 0.56 0.26
50 2.28 2.14 2.12 1.75 0.96 0.56 0.26
2° level 2° level 100 2.14 1.99 1.97 1.93 1.05 0.61 0.28
250 1.82 1.64 1.62 1.54 1.70 0.94 0.43
500 1.58 1.38 1.36 1.26 1.24 1.27 0.58
750 1.54 1.33 1.31 1.21 1.16 1.16 0.99
3° level 3° level Tab. 7 – Profile of the marginal 100 years return period
extremes compared with the extreme correlated profiles.

n° level n° level

n * (n‐1) correlations 2 * (n‐1) correlations

Fig. 5 – Level to level correlations

The only difference from the procedure of the extreme

events correlation case is that after selecting the marginal
variable, i.e. the current speed value at a certain level, the
correlated current speed values of the two adjacent levels, one
for top and bottom levels, are determined directly by eqs. (2)
and (3), while the values at the other levels are obtained by
substituting in eq. (2) the value of the adjacent level found by
correlation using the proper ascending or descending Fig. 6 - Profile of the marginal 100 years return period
correlation set. For example, assuming level 4 as marginal, extremes compared with the extreme correlated profiles.
values at levels 3 and 5 will be assessed using respectively the
ascending and descending correlations of level 4, values at THE CURRENT PROFILE CLIMATE CASE
levels 2 and 1 will be assessed using ascending correlations The assessment of the current profile climate is necessary
respectively of levels 3 and 2, values at levels 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 for fatigue analysis of the risers connecting the seabottom
will be assessed using descending correlations respectively of wellheads to the FPSO and of its mooring. The assessment

7 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

shall be based on the availability of an at least 1 year long time
series of current data at various level along the water column.
For purpose of quantification let’s assume 10 levels. In theory
such data could be available from current hindcasting models,
but it is notorious that reliability of current models rapidly
decreases moving to deeper and deeper waters. Hence, a time
series of measured data, at least 1 year long, is always
recommendable. Eventually, measurements could be used to
validate/calibrate available hindcasting models.
The direct use of the measured time series for climate
assessment, i.e. the direct use of the measured profiles for
fatigue analysis, would be not conservative as not including
events, or not including a sufficient number of events, with
return period larger than 1 year. In fact, in some cases most of
the cumulated fatigue could derive from larger events and not
from the main body of the climate. Hence, the reconstruction of
the current profile climate for a desired return period, as well as
it is normally done for fatigue analysis with waves and bottom
current for pipelines (DNV, 2012), is necessary for a reliable
design. Differently from pipelines, considering that waves and
bottom current are almost completely uncorrelated, risers and
mooring chains are subject to contemporary current loads along
the entire water column which cannot be considered
uncorrelated.
Current speed at various levels can be more or less
correlated, depending on magnitude of current speed itself,
direction and height along the water column. Obviously it is
reasonable to assume that the current speeds at different levels
close to the surface are more correlated and shows the largest
values and gradients, while close to the bottom current speed
should be slower and more uniform. Hence, the 10 layers
should be not uniformly spaced, but more concentrated toward
the sea surface.
In theory it would be possible by statistical analysis to
correlate the current speed at any level with the current speed at
all the other levels, which considering 12 directional sectors for
each layer would implies 10x12x12x9=12960 correlation
analyses. Being not possible to perform them automatically
without human check of fitting goodness, this is beyond
feasibility. Without considering that many coupled direction-
speed classes would be so low populated to induce errors or
large uncertainties.
Here it is proposed a procedure, less rigorous, but that has
the advantage of being applicable. Instead of considering the
correlation of each layer with all the others, let’s consider only
the correlation of one layer with the immediately below one.
This reduces the number of correlation analyses to 9. In this
paper the analysis is applied only to the omnidirectional case,
but the problem of directionality can be overcome assuming
that what it is important for riser excitation mode is the current
component from a single direction. In this case the 9 correlation
analyses can be repeated for the current speed components at
each level projected along each of the 12 directional sectors,
arriving to 108 correlation analyses. A large number but still
practicable.
It has also to be considered that all the above 108 analyses
shall be anyway performed as part of the 216 necessary for the
definition of the directional extreme profiles, i.e. when
performing the assessment of the extreme profiles, the current
profile climate is automatically defined.
Once all the correlations have been performed, the current
profile climate can be reconstructed for any desired period of
time by the random extraction of probability in the range ]0,1[
from 10 different series, one for each layer, originated by 10
different initial seeds. The first one is used for definition of
current speed value at surface from its marginal distribution,
the other 9 for definition of the current speed value at the
below level according to the speed distribution correlated
through eqs (1,2,3) to the above current speed value. In theory
this current profiles production could be originated by selecting
as marginal any one of the current layers and using the defined
correlations in ascending direction for layers above and
descending directions for layers below (to be noted that all of
them would be anyway already defined for extreme profile
definition), but for practical purposed and as it is reasonable to
assume that the strongest currents occur at surface, it is
advisable to use surface layer as the marginal one. By using a
sufficient number of profiles, or equivalently considering a
long enough period of time, the random extraction insures that
all the possible cases are considered, i.e. even cases with low
current at surface and relatively strong current, up to extreme
values, at intermediate or deep levels. If correlations are
correctly performed, it should be possible to observe that
current profile climate for a certain return period, e.g. 100
years, are nearly bounded by the profile of the extremes for the
same return period.
Fig. 7 – Profile of 1 year extremes compared with 1 year of
reconstructed current profile. The thick red line represent the 1
year return period profile of the uncorrelated extremes.
Fig. 7 shows the comparison between the profile of the 1
year extreme values (not correlated) with the reconstruction of
1 year of current profiles. It is possible to observe how, even if
none of the reconstructed profile follows the profile of the
extremes, the profile of the extremes consistently bounds the
8 Copyright © 2015 by ASME
reconstructed profiles which maxima fall about on the extremes
Cum. Prob. Prob. n. events Duration
profile.
For fatigue design application, it is most probably (%) (%) (10 min -100 yrs) (days)
necessary to reduce the number of cases, which would be
8760x6x100 for 100 years and 10 minutes duration events, by Largest value = 2m/s 99.7352 99.7352 5242082 1436186
collecting them in combinations of current speed value classes, 1-y 99.9980 0.6466318 13813 95.9
e.g. 10 cm/s classes, in order to arrive to a number lower than
1000. Generally the number of profiles remains anyway rather 10-y 99.9998 0.0017112 90 0.625
large. An additional measure to reduce the number of cases
100-y 99.9999 0.0001711 9 0.0625
could be to neglect all the cases with very low probability, i.e.
Tab. 8 – Number of profiles to be added to the reduced table for
which occur few times in 100 years. In this way, few hundreds
the surface current level marginal case.
of cases should cover more than 90-95% of the time of the 100
years of data. To be taken into account that the neglected cases
Obviously this shall be repeated considering each time a
are about the extreme profiles cases. Therefore, this
different level as marginal. For the 7 levels case considered in
methodology is effective if the fatigue is caused by the main
this paper and including in the reduced tables three extreme
body of the climate as the neglected cases would add a second
profiles for each level, 21 additional cases should be considered
order correction on the total fatigue damage. On the contrary, if
which is an absolutely manageable number.
the fatigue is dominated by few large current speed cases with
Obviously it remains the case of how to treat current profiles
rare occurrence, neglecting the large current speed cases would
with speed coming from different directions at different levels.
represent an unacceptable underestimation of the fatigue. In
This would be of second order in case it would be clear that the
such conditions, the fatigue analysis shall account for both the
collinear loading of the riser would be the most conservative
long term climate and the short term extreme conditions.
case, but for particular analysis where the force moment should
To maintain a low number of cases and include the rare
be of importance, i.e. current speed coming from different
strong current speed cases, the following conservative
directions, additional analysis should be considered.
procedure could be applied to add extreme events cases to the
reduced table (i.e. the table without the low occurrence
CONCLUSIONS
probability events):
In the last decade, a new concept of extraction and
1. for each level the exceeding probability of the largest
production systems has been established in the Oil & Gas
value considered in the reduced table is computed;
Industry. Subsea fields with surface development by means of
2. the exceeding probability of the 1, 10, 100 years return
SSFU (Ship Shaped Floating Units) units connected to subsea
period values (or of any other additional return period) is
wells by risers and anchored by mooring systems are the new
computed;
frontier of the deep water field.
3. the probability differences between the exceeding
Design of these system requires complex analyses which
probability of the largest value in the reduced table and of
involve the assessment of correlated directional extremes of
the 1 year return period is associated to the 1 year return
wind, waves and current and of extremes and climate of current
period extreme profile of the corresponding marginal
profile.
level;
Although a lot of work has been performed in this context,
4. the probability difference between 1 and 10 years return
a joint probability model considering all the intensities and
period is associated to the 10 years return period extreme
directions of environmental variables and their correspondent
profile of the corresponding marginal level;
statistical dependency is not yet available. Too simplified
5. the probability exceeding the 10 years return period is
approaches could lead to over-conservative or scarce reliability
associated to the 100 years return period extreme profile
results, rigorous approaches could be too onerous to be carried
of the corresponding marginal level (for the 100 years
out. The development of a guideline specifying standard
return period case the profiles for each level considered as
methodologies and criteria would be beneficial for a generally
marginal are reported in Tab. 7).
accepted and reliable design.
Tab. 8 shows for the same case considered for the extreme
The present paper illustrates a methodology based on the
current profiles the resulting probability and number of events
availability of a contemporary time series of the considered
to be associated to 1, 10 and 100 years return period extreme
variables which is a balance between a rigorous approach,
profiles with superficial level considered as marginal in case
which resulting in a too large number of combinations would
the largest value considered in the reduced table would be 2.0
be almost impossible to be applied, and a simplification which
m/s (the 1 year return period marginal extreme is 2.33 m/s).
maintains the significant cases/conditions without losing
In this way, the 3 extreme profiles conservatively represent
reliability. Three cases are considered.
some thousands of cases (not all of them would be different
For the wind, wave and current directional extremes
when reduced in classes, but still some thousands would
correlation, instead of providing the directional correlated
occur).

9 Copyright © 2015 by ASME

extremes of each dependent variable to each directional
extreme of the marginal variable, which would results in a not
manageable number of cases, provides only the cases which
could have a relevance in the design analyses, i.e. neglecting
those with a low value of one or more directional extreme. This
is done assuming that
a) the omnidirectional correlations are applicable to the
directional cases, which is true for the most relevant
directions,
b) assuring the consistency with the marginal directional
extremes, i.e. the correlated extreme cannot be larger
than the correspondent marginal one
c) checking the real occurrences of directional
combination in the contemporary time series, which
avoid the inclusion of combinations with numerical
consistence but physically impossible (e.g. wind and
waves from opposite directions).
For the extreme current profiles case, defined using a
certain number of levels, only the correlation between adjacent
levels is considered. To be noted that the assessment of
correlation in both directions is necessary as they could be
different. A number of extreme profiles equal to the number of
level is obtained, each one having a value equal to the marginal
extreme at one level. Values at the other levels are the mean
values of the resulting distribution moving upward or
downward along the water column.
For the current profiles climate case, the desired number of
profiles to cover a certain period of time, generally 100 years,
is obtained by random extraction of values at each level from
the relevant distribution. Actually the distribution at each level
could be selected as the marginal one. In the present paper the
distribution at the surface level has been assumed as the
marginal one having the largest variability. Hence random
values are extracted from the surface level marginal
distribution. For the other levels the random extraction is done
from the distribution resulting from the correlation in
descending direction. The consistency of this methodology is
demonstrated by the fact that the maximum value occurring at
each level when extracting profiles for a certain period of time
is nearly equal to the corresponding return period marginal
extreme. Being practically impossible the calculation using all
the obtained profiles, their number is reduced by collecting
them in combinations of current speed value classes. An
additional measure to reduce the cases to be analyzed is to
neglect the low probability ones which include all the cases
with large and extreme values and to conservatively substitute
them with representative profiles. This has been done
evaluating for each level the exceeding probability of the
largest remained value and to associate this probability,
properly subdivided, to the extreme profiles with the
corresponding level considered as marginal.
The proposed methodologies based on the joint probability
method allow to develop a metocean database of correlated
directional variables that can be applied for design of structures
for which the contemporary loading is of importance.
View publication stats
REFERENCES
Corbella, S., Stretch, D.D. (2012). ‘Multivariate return
periods of sea storms for coastal erosion risk assessment’. Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 2699–2708.
De Michele, C., Salvadori, G., Passoni, G., Vezzoli, R.
(2007). ‘A multivariate model of seastorms using copulas’.
Coast. Eng. 54, 734–751.
Dong, S., Wang, N., Liu,W., Guedes Soares, C. (2013).
‘Bivariate maximum entropy distribution of significant wave
height and peak period’. Ocean Eng. 59, 86–99.
Det Norske Veritas (2012). ‘Submarine pipeline system’.
DNV-OS-F101.
Ewans K.C., Jonathan P. (2014). ‘Evaluating
environmental joint extremes for the offshore industry using
the conditional extremes model’. Journal of Marine Systems
130, 124–130.
Ferreira, J.A., Guedes Soares, C. (2002). ‘Modelling
bivariate distributions of significant wave height and mean
wave period’. Appl. Ocean Res. 24, 31–45.
Heffernan, J.E., Tawn, J.A. (2004). ‘A conditional
approach for multivariate extreme values (with discussion)’. J.
R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 66, 497–546.
Joe, H., (1997). ‘Multivariate Models and Dependence
Concepts’. Chapman & Hall, London.Jonathan, P., Flynn, J.,
Ewans, K. (2010). ‘Joint modelling of wave spectral
parameters for extreme sea states’. Ocean Eng. 37, 1070–1080.
Mattioli M., Drago M., Quondamatteo F., Bruschi R.
(2013). ‘Load History for SSFU Under Multimodal Wave
Spectra’. Proc. of the 31th International Conference on Ocean,
Offshore and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2011, Nantes, France.
Nelsen, R., (2006). ‘An Introduction to Copulas’, Second
ed. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Nerzic, R., Frelin, C., Prevosto, M., and Quiniou-Ramus,
V., (2007). ’Joint Distributions of Wind/Waves/Current in West
Africa and Derivation of Multivariate Extreme I-FORM
Contours,’ Proceedings of ISOPE Conference, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Oceanweather (2010). Tanzania-Mozambique Metocean
Study (TAMOMS) JIP Part B – Wind and Wave Modeling
Final Report.
Repko, A., Van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M., Voortman, H.G.,
Vrijling, J.K. (2005). ‘Bivariate description of offshore wave
conditions with physics-based extreme value statistics’. Appl.
Ocean Res. 26, 162–170.
Salvadori, G., De Michele, C. (2010). ‘Multivariate
multiparameter extreme value models and return periods: a
copula approach’. Water Resour. Res. 46.
Salvadori G., Tomasicchio G.R., D'Alessandro F. (2014).
‘Practical guidelines for multivariate analysis and design in
coastal and off-shore engineering’. Coastal Engineering, 88, 1–
14.
Vazquez-Hernandez, A. O., Ellwanger, G. B., and Sagrilo,
L. V. S., (2006), ‘Reliability-Based Comparative Study for
Mooring Lines Design Criteria,’ Appl. Ocean. Res., 286, pp.
398–406.
10 Copyright © 2015 by ASME