OTC 8267
Design Current Profiles Using Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) and Inverse
FORM Methods
George Z. Forristall, Shell International Exploration and Production, BV, and
Cortis K. Cooper, Chevron Petroleum Technology Company
Copyright 1997, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1997 Offshore Technology Conference held
in Houston, Texas, 5--8 May 1997
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s), Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject
to corredion by the author(s), The material, as presented, does not necessanly refled any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers, Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any pari of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited, Permission to reproduce in print
is restrided 10 an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied, The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented,
Abstract
In the past, the oil industry has used highly simplified design
current profiles. The simplification process produces errors
which are typically unimportant in shallow water but the
errors can be substantial in deeper water where currents are
more complex and some design concepts are sensitive to
current. We suggest a new method to develop more accurate
current profiles without significantly burdening the design
engineer. The method consists of two steps. In the first step,
we simplify the current data using Empirical Orthogonal
Functions (EOF), a method that accurately expresses complex
data with just a few energetic modes. To these modes, we
then apply the inverse First Order Reliability Method (FORM)
to develop a profile with an n-year recurrence. We describe
the EOF and FORM methods and provide some examples of
how the analysis applies to real data.
IntrOduction
Historically the oil industry has based the vertical variation of
design current profiles on either simple theoretical formulas or
piecewise linear profiles. The latter are usually derived by
applying some simplistic vertical averaging to numerical
model hindcast results. Figure I shows several examples of
design profiles given in the codes of API (1993), DOE (1992),
and DnV (1991). Note the simple shapes. The magnitudes of
the profiles are not important because they reflect local
forcing.
11
These simple design profiles are reasonable for shallow
water and more traditional structures like jackets where waves
are a more important load factor then currents. For these
cases, the extreme loads occur during extreme storms and the
current profiles are relatively simple. Errors in the profiles are
of little consequence because the waves dominate the load
equation. In deeper water the situation can change, especially
for newer concepts like spars and subsystems like risers. In
these cases, currents can actually dominate the load equation
so simplification of the profile can introduce substantial
errors. In addition, the currents tend to be much more
complex and less constant with depth. The extreme load may
indeed occur during a storm but it may be accompanied by a
persistent and strong non-storm generated current. A good
example of this condition is found west of Shetlands where
there is often a strong (I m/s) current which is largely
independent of local wind forcing.
Figure 2 shows some examples of strong, non-storm
current profiles measured in various sites around the world.
Note the complex profiles.
This paper describes a technique to develop more realistic
current profiles with two techniques used in sequence:
empirical orthogonal functions (EOF) followed by the inverse
First Order Reliability Method (FORM). EOFs are used to
reduce a vertical profile into a small number of values, called
modes. These are analyzed by the inverse FORM to develop
design currents of a specified recurrence interval.
EOFs have been used by meteorologists and
oceanographers for several decades to analyze complex time
series. Wunsch (1996) gives a number of examples and
references in the field of oceanography. In the case of
currents, EOFs have been used to simplify time series of ocean
currents into a series of modes. Just a few modes can replicate
extremely complex current profiles. In addition, one can often
gather substantial irtsigl!!Jnto the physical processes driving
the currents by examining the shape and frequency of the EOF
components.
Once the EOF procedure has been used to reduce the data
to a few characteristic modes, we apply the inverse FORM to
the modal components to derive currents at specified
2 GEORGE Z. FORRISTALL AND CORTIS K. COOPER
recurrence intervals. The inverse FORM is an elegant way to
develop loads from multiple inputs that may be statistically
dependent In our case, the inputs correspond to the dominant
modes derived from the EOF. Winterstein et aL (1993)
describe the inverse FORM and give examples which include
the determination of loads based on wave height and period.
The next chapter outlines the basic EOF procedure. It is
followed by a chapter that demonstrates the application of the
EOF method to data collected west of Shetlands. This
application illustrates how EOFs can dramatically reduce the
amount of data needed to describe time series. It also
illustrates how they can provide insight into the dominant
physical processes driving the currents.
The fourth chapter describes the inverse FORM, and
applies it to hindcasted typhoon-generated current profiles
from the South China Sea. We compare the 100-yr extremes
to values derived from traditional means.
The final chapter discusses some of the more important
results and closes with conclusions.
EOFs from Singular Value Decomposition
Using matrix notation, any M x N matrix A can be written as
A U
l time series of the current at one depth. Neither the times nor
where U has the same dimensions as A, and Wand V are N x
N square matrices. W is a diagonal matrix and U and V are
orthogonal so that
and
Written out explicitly, the matrix multiplication in equation
(1) is
1\/
Au = L
k=l
WkU,kVjk
Equation (I) decomposes the data into a time modulation
OTC 8267
(U) and a spatial modulation (V) multiplied by a constant
weight vector (W). Equation (I) is known as the Singular
Value Decomposition (SVD) of A. The decomposition
consists of finding the matrices W, U and V given A. SVD is
a powerful technique for solving over- and under-determined
systems of linear equations. Wunsch (1996) gives a
comprehensive discussion of the relationship of the SVD to
least squares estimation and its use in an oceanographic
context Another good explanation of the use of the SVD for
an oceanographic problem can be found in Davis (1986).
Press et aL (1986) give a FORTRAN routine that performs the
SVD along with a simple explanation of its use.
Alternatively, Equation (1) can be solved as a classical
eigenvalue problem. Wunsch (1996) outlines the procedure.
The first step is to calculate the covariance matrix
(5)
The next step is to solve the eigenvalue problem
(6)
which yields the values for V and W. The U matrix is then
given by
U=AVW- I (7)
The necessary calculations can be written in a few lines
using languages such as MATLAB. The computational
burden of these calculations is small. Finding the singular
value decomposition of 1000, 30-level profiles takes only
seconds on Pentium Pc.
Each current profile is written as a row in A. Each row is a
separately observed profile and each column represents the
the depths need to be evenly spaced, although the depths must
be the same in every profile.
The rows of VT (columns of V) are called the EOFs. Each
EOF is a vector with a value at each depth in the original data,
and there are the same number of functions as there are
depths. As indicated in equation (3), the EOFs are orthogonal
to each other. They play the same role as sine waves do in an
(2) ordinary Fourier spectral analysis. The current profiles are
expressed as a sum of the EOFs just as they could be
(3) expressed as a sum of sine waves. The difference is that the
EOF modes are functions which fit the data matrix most
efficiently as opposed the predetermined functions used in a
Fourier analysis.
The diagonal elements of Ware called the magnitudes of
(4) the EOF modes. There is one non-negative magnitude per
mode. The matrix U gives the amplitudes of the modes in each
current profile; that is they modulate the fit in the time
domain. There is one row in U for each profile, and the N
12
OTC 8267 DESIGN CURRENT PROFILES USING EOF AND INVERSE FORM METHODS
amplitudes in the row multiply the N modes which add to give
the current profile at that time. The coefficient of mode k for
profile i is thus wkuik, but since both the EOF and amplitude
matrices are orthonormal, all of the information about the
relative importance of the modes in explaining the data is
contained in the magnitudes wk. We will use the notation
convention that uk is the variable giving the amplitude of the
kth mode. That is
uk = uk(i) = Uik
The shapes of the EOF modes and their magnitudes can
provide considerable insight into the physical processes that
cause the currents. For example, if the mode with the largest
magnitude is nearly constant with depth, barotropic processes
such as tides are likely to be important in the dynamics.
As it stands, equation (4) is not a more efficient
representation of the data - there are the same number of
amplitudes as there were data points. The gain in efficiency
results from the fact that the magnitudes of some of the
modes are generally much larger than the rest. A good
approximation to the data can thus be made by summing over
only a few modes:
where Yg is the approximation to the current profile and K can
be much smaller than N.
EOFs of ADCP Profiles from West of Shetlands
As an example of EOF decomposition we consider data taken
by an ADCP (Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler) every 10
min in 450 m from west of Shetlands, north of the Wyville-
Thompson ridge. Measurements were made during the
summer of 1988 using an ADCP suspended from a drilling rig
in a downward looking mode. For illustration we only
consider the first seven days of the record. The ADCP
recorded 16 m bins yielding 22 total bins. Therefore, a
complete representation of the data requires 22 EOFs. We
focused on the alongshelf component which runs 45' from
hue North. We chose this data set because the EOF modes
correspond closely to physical processes identified by Grant et
al. (1995).
Figure 3 shows three of the more complex individual
profiles from the data (solid curves) and EOF fits (dashed
curves) using the three most energetic modes. Note the
complex shape of these profiles are matched quite well with
just three EOF modes.
Figure 4 compares the actual time series at the top bin
(-28 m) to the EOF time series based on the three modes. The
3
fit is generally excellent. Similar fits are found at other depth
bins.
Figure 5 quantifies the error by showing the percent of the
variance in the data that is reproduced using the EOF fits as
the finction of the number of modes used. Our measure of
error is defined as
The error in the variance is a good measure for
engineering problems since drag force is proportional to
velocity squared. Figure 5 indicates that 96% of the variance
can be explained with the first mode. Using the first two
modes accounts for 98% of the variance. This figure shows
how effective EOFs are at reducing the volume of data. Recall
that we originally started with 22 depth bins and can now
describe 99% of the variance in the original data using only
three modes. This effectively reduces the data storage by a
factor of seven. The figure also shows the mode magnitude for
the first 10 modes. Modes are ranked so that the most
energetic mode has the lowest index (number). In this case the
first mode is an order of magnitude larger then any of the
other modes. Mode 2 is roughly twice the magnitude of the
higher modes.
Figure 6 shows the shapes of the first three EOF modes.
The first mode is nearly barotropic (constant with depth) and
corresponds to the barotropic tide and slope current identified
in Grant et al. (1995). The second mode suggests a diurnal
baroclinic tide although at times this mode may also occur
when the flow near the bottom is southerly and the flow near
the surface is northerly corresponding to a northward-flowing
warm Slope Current overlaying cold, southward-flowing
Norwegian water. The physical interpretation of the third
mode is uncertain in part because it contributes only 1% to the
total variance. A closer look at the detailed time series
suggests that mode 3 is fairly important during times of
stronger, near-surface current events suggesting that it may be
linked to local wind forcing.
Figure 7 shows the EOF-based time series derived by
multiplying the mode amplitude (W) by the mode magnitude
(U). The barotropic tidal component is clearly seen in a 12.4
hr sinusoid in Mode 1. The low frequency variability of the
Slope Current is evident in the trend of Mode I . Spectral
analysis of Mode 2 shows a diurnal peak. Mode 3 shows no
dominant periods.
4 GEORGE 2.FORRISTALL AND CORTIS K. COOPER
Extreme Current Profiles
Criteria from Inverse FORM.
The inverse FORM method provides a general procedure for
calculating joint environmental conditions for extreme
responses. Contours of equal probability of the joint
occurrence of environmental parameters, say wave height and
period, are constructed. The contour is then searched for the
point which maximizes some response function such as total
force on a pile. The environmental parameters at that point
then become the design criteria. Winterstein et al. (1993) give
a good introduction to the method.
Inverse FORM calculates environmental contours by
mapping the joint probability of the environmental parameters
to standard normal distributions. This process is most easily
understood using a simple example. Let the standard normal
probability distribution be denoted by @(*). If the
probabilities are expressed as annual extremes and the return
period of interest is 100 yrs, then the probability of exceeding
the 100-yr value is p = 11100, and the reliability index is
From tables of the normal distribution, we find P = 2.32 in this
example.
The contour of the standard normal variables xi is given by
the hypersphere defined by
In two dimensions, the hypersphere is a circle. Each point on
the hypersphere or circle has the same probability of
exceedence.
Now suppose that the distributions of the actual
environmental parameters, say wave height H and period Tare
given by FH and FT. We assume for the moment that these
distributions are independent. Then for each point on the
contour given by equation (1 I), the corresponding physical
parameters are
A plot of the resulting contour can then be made with H
and T as the axes. The design point is then the point on this
contour where the response is maximized.
If T is correlated with H, then instead of the distribution
FT, we must use the conditional distribution F ~ H The
OTC 8267
inversion
is generally no more difficult than when the parameters are
independent.
Hindcast Typhoon Currents
As an illustration of estimating design current profiles using
FORM, we consider typhoon current hindcasts in the South
China Sea. The hindcasts were made with the one dimensional
turbulence closure model developed by Kantha and Clayson
(1994), an improved version of the familiar Mellor and
Yamada (1982) model. These models describe the vertical
mixing of momentum due to the wind stress at one point on
the surface of the ocean. The output is a profile of the current
speed and direction at each time step in the history of the
storm. Wind stress histories for a point in the center of the
South China Sea were taken from the SEAMOS hindcasts of
Cardone and Grant (1994). These hindcasts include the 156
strongest typhoons to affect the South China Sea in the 47 yrs
from 1946 through 1992, a long enough period for reasonably
reliable estimates of 100-yr criteria.
Figure 8 shows some representative current profiles from
the typhoon hindcasts. The profiles have similar shapes but as
the current speed near the surface increases, the current also
extends deeper. Only larger current speeds are shown because
these govern the extreme statistics. Since the current direction
is nearly constant with depth, we focus on the current speed
rather than velocity components.
The first step to develop design profiles is to calculate the
EOFs for the 3 19 current profiles discretized at 28 levels for
all profiles with speeds greater than 1 m1s at the 5 m depth
level. The shapes of the first four modes are shown in Figure
9. The first mode is a simple sheared profile from the surface
to the deepest depth reached by the wind mixing. The higher
modes are surface intensified and have large oscillating
components at depth which can add to make the speed there
near zero when needed to match the hindcast profiles. Figure
10 shows the magnitudes of the first 10 modes. The first three
modes contain over 99% of the variance in the data.
The second step is to apply the inverse FORM. The
question is which variables from our EOF do we apply it to?
A little thought suggests that inverse FORM should be done
on the amplitudes of the EOF modes uk. since these are
essentially the time series of each mode, e.g. Figure 7. We
thus need to find the joint probability distribution of the EOF
amplitudes. This is the most difficult stage of the inverse
FORM calculations because it involves subjective judgments
about what functional forms should be used to fit the data.
Weibull distributions are often used to fit extreme value data.
and we found that the amplitudes of the first mode could be fit
OTC 8267 DESIGN CURRENT PROFILES USING EOF AND INVERSE FORM METHODS
well using the two parameter Weibull distribution. The least
squares fit gives
F(u,) = 1 - (3 191365.8.47) exp - ---
0 0 8 3 } (I5)
where the factor in front of the exponential is based on 3 19
observations in 47 yrs and a decorrelation time for the currents
of three hours, or eight samples per day. Equation (1 5) is thus
the probability that the amplitude u, will not be exceeded in a
randomly chosen three hour sample.
Figure I I is a scatter plot of u, against u,. A trend is
apparent, suggesting that these amplitudes are clearly not
statistically independent. As discussed by Wunsch (1996), the
orthogonality of the EOF amplitudes does not ensure
statistical independence.
It seems reasonable to fit the distribution of u2 given u, as
a deterministic straight line plus normally distributed scatter.
A least squares fit gives
where E is normally distributed with zero mean and standard
deviation of 0.0345. Expressed as a conditional probability,
The reliability index for the 100-yr contours is
where x, and x, are the standard normal variables which plot
as a circle. The EOF amplitudes are found by taking each pair
of x, and x, points on the circle and converting them to the
amplitudes using
and
Equation (20) is particularly easy to use since it can be re-
written
5
The contours of the 100-yr amplitudes are shown as the bold
curve in Figure 12.
For the next step, we need to specify a response function.
A reasonable function for a current profile is the total drag
force on a cylinder, which is proportional to the integral of the
square of the velocity. For each point on the 100-yr EOF
contour, we can calculate the drag by summing the two modes
to find a current profile and then integrating over depth to get
the total drag. The design point is then the point on the EOF
contour which gives the maximum drag. For illustrative
purposes, we actually calculated the drag for many points over
the plane in Figure 12 and contoured the drag as the thin
curves in the figure. One advantage of inverse FORM is that
this calculation is not really necessary since finding the
contour with a given reliability index reduces the dimensions
of the problem by one.
The maximum drag occurs near the maximum of the first
mode, with a drag of 276.7. A 100-yr drag can also be found
by calculating the drag for each hindcast profile and doing the
extreme value analysis on those drags. The result of that
calculation was 277.0. The precise agreement is fortuitous
given the vagaries of an extreme value fit.
The advantage to finding the drag using inverse FORM is
that it gives the most probable shape of the current profile
which produces that extreme drag. For example, the first
mode of the 1 00-yr profile is given by
where u, = 0.92 from Fig 12, W, and Vj, come from the EOF
analysis of the data, and j=l..28 corresponding to the 28 depth
levels used to discretize the original hindcast profiles.
The 100-yr profile from the two-mode inverse FORM
calculation is shown as the dashed curve in Figure 13. We also
found a 100-yr profile using the first three EOF modes, and
that profile is shown as the dotted line. The 100-yr drag from
the three-mode solution was 279.5. The three-mode profile is
stronger at depth, agreeing more with the shape of the
strongest hindcast profile.
Conclusions
The method we have developed provides more accurate and
realistic design profiles than traditionally used yet requires no
6 GEORGE Z. FORRISTALL AND CORTIS K. COOPER
more effort from the design engineer. The improved accuracy
should be especially important in deeper waters and with new
design concepts like spars and deepwater risers that are
sensitive to current.
The method uses two steps. The first step applies the EOF
technique to decompose the measured or hindcast time series
of current profiles into spatially- and temporally- dependent
parts multiplied by a constant vector. When applied to
oceanographic data, EOFs usually yield a set of dominant
modes. We demonstrated this for data from west of Shetlands
which we found could be accurately described with just three
modes, amounting to an order of magnitude decrease in data.
EOF analysis can also give insight into the physical processes
of importance in the data. In the case of the west of Shetlands,
the first mode corresponds to the barotropic tide and slope
current while the second mode is probably generated by an
internal tide.
The combination of modes which gives an extreme
current profile is found using the inverse FORM method of
Winterstein et al. (1993). Inverse FORM searches a
hypersphere of a constant and specified recurrence level to
find the amplitudes of the EOF modes that give the maximum
response function. We provided an example for the case of
typhoon-generated currents in the S. China Sea. We used a
drag response function for our example, though clearly other
response functions are possible. We found that the method
produced estimates of the 100-yr response that were within
1% of a more traditional approach. The advantage of our
approach is that one can quickly back out the profile that
generated the 100-yr response. This is not so easy if inverse
FORM is applied to the full 3-D current data. Our method
retains the advantage of inverse FORM over the more straight-
forward simulation used by Forristall et al. (1991). That is,
one can quickly find the design profile for another response
function without rerunning the entire simulation. One only
has to re-plot the load curves in Figure 12.
A description of current profiles as a sum of EOFs should
be ideal for use in fatigue analyses of risers. The joint
probabilities of mode amplitudes given in scatter plots like
Figure 11 can be combined into bins, producing a scatter
diagram of mode amplitudes similar to the scatter diagrams of
wave height and period used in the fatigue analysis of fixed
platforms. A riser analysis would be performed for the current
profile represented by each bin, and the fatigue damage added
up taking into account the number of profiles in the bin. The
number of modes which need to be considered will depend on
how sensitive the riser stresses are to the higher modes as well
as how energetic the modes are. We suspect that only a few
modes will be necessary for an accurate calculation of fatigue
damage.
While the method appears to be a clear improvement over
previous methods, there are some potential limitations which
must be investigated hrther. For example, there is one subtle
problem with extrapolating the amplitudes of the modes to
OTC 8267
produce a 100-yr typhoon current profile. Since all of the
hindcast current profiles were zero below 130 m depth, all of
the mode vectors also go to zero below that depth. It is,
however, likely that the 100-yr storm would create enough
mixing to produce a deeper current profile. Extrapolation of
the modes of the profiles in the hindcast data can not
duplicate such a profile. In the present example, it appears
that this theoretical problem was not too important, since the
100-yr drag from the inverse FORM calculations agreed well
with direct analysis of the hindcast profiles.
We also suspect that the EOF would underestimate the
profile in regions where high wave number currents occur
infrequently. An example would be the northwest shelf of
Australia where solitons add substantially to the extreme
currents but because they occur for only a few minutes each
day and represent a relatively small portion of the total
variance, they will not be well captured by the EOF method.
Keep in mind, the design profiles in present design codes are
of course no better.
Acknowledgments
Rabi Dee gave us a beginner's guide to inverse FORM
calculations. Lakshmi Kantha kindly sent us a copy of the
code for his turbulence closure model. Colin Grant gave us
permission to use the west of Shetlands ADCP data, and he,
Chris Shaw, Kevin Ewans and Paul Taylor made helpful
comments on a draft of the paper
References
1. API( 1993), Recommended practice for planning, designing,
and constructing fixed offshore platforms, American Petroleum
Institute, API R P 2A, Washington.
2. Cardone, V.J. and C.K. Grant (1994), Southeast Asia
meteorological and oceanographic hindcast study (SEAMOS).
In Proceedings of the 10th Offshore South East Asia
Conference and Exhibition, OSEA 94 132, Singapore, 1994.
3. Davis, R.E. (1986), Predictability of sea surface temperature
and sea level pressure anomalies over the North Pacific Ocean,
Journal ofPhysica1 Oceanography, 6,249-266.
4. DOE (1992), Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design,
Construction and Certification, UK Department of Energy,
London.
5. DnV (Det norske Veritas) (1991), Environmental conditions and
environmental loads. Hovik, Norway, March.
6. Forristall, G.Z.. R.D. Larrabee and R.S. Mercier (1991),
Combined oceanographic criteria for deepwater structures in the
Gulf of Mexico, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC 654 1. Houston
OTC 8267 DESIGN CURRENT PROFILES USING EOF AND INVERSE FORM METHODS 7

7. Grant, C., R. Dyer. and I. Leggett (1995), Development of a

new metocean design basis for the NW shelf of Europe,
Proceedings of the 27th Annual Oflshore Technology
Conference, OTC 7685, Houston.

8. Kantha, L.H. and C.A. Clayson (1994), An improved mixed

layer model for geophysical applications, Journal o/
Geophysical Research, 99, 25,235-25,266.

9. Mellor, G.L. and T. Yamada (1982), Development of a

turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems,
Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics, 20, 85 1-875.

10. Press, W.H., B.P. Flannery, S.A. Teukolsky, and W.T.

Vetterling (1 986), Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific
Computing, Cambridge University Press, London.

I I. Winterstein, S.R., T.C. Ude. C.A. Cornell, P. Bjerager, and S.

Haver ( I 993), Environmental parameters for extreme response:
Inverse FORM with omission factors. In ICOSSAR-93,
Innsbruck.

12. Wunsch, C. (1996), The Ocean Circulation Inverse Problem,

Cambridge University Press, London.
 DESIGN CURRENT PROFILES USING EOF AND INVERSE FORM METHODS

0 , I

Fig. 3 Sample current profiles from west of Shetlands. The

Fig. 1 Examples of profiles from various design codes used by
wind and solid curves show the measured along-sbpe profiles and the
the oil industry. DOE (L DnV are based on 37
dashed curves show the profiles using three EOF modes.
water depth.

Fig. 4 Time series of the alongshelf current at 28 m depth from

Fig. 2 Examples of measured current profiles taken from
west of Shetlands.
various parts of the world.
OTC 8267 DESIGN CURRENT PROFILES USING EOF AND INVERSE FORM METHODS 9

Modes Used

Fig. 5 The dashed curve shows the magnitudes of the EOF Fig. 7 Time series of the size of the first three EOF modes
modes used to fit ADCP measurements west of Shetlands, and fined to the ADCP measurements from west of Shetlands. The
the solid curve shows the percentage of the variance in the mode size is given by its amplitude multiplied by its magnitude.
original data as a function of the number of modes used in the fit.

L
Current Speed (m/s)

Fig. 6 Shapes of the first three EOF modes for the ADCP Fig. 8 Representative current profiles from the typhoon
measurements from west of Shetlands. hindcasts.
10 GEORGE Z. FORRISTALL AND CORTIS K. COOPER OTC 8267

Mode 3

.. . i' .
. ).
I . . .
.
I . '
. . - .. . .
..
. .. . '

Current Speed (m/s)

Fig. 9 The first four EOF modes for the typhoon hindcasts. Fig. 11 Scatter plot of the first two EOF modal amplitudes for
the typhoon hindcasts.

Mode Number
U

Fig. 10 Magnitudes of the first 10 EOF modes for the typhoon Fig. 12 The bold curve is the IOOyr contour of the amplitudes
of the first two EOF modes for the typhoon profiles. The thin
hindcasts.
contours show equal drag on a single pile. The design current
profile is given by the point on the bold curve with the maximum
drag.
OTC 8267 DESIGN CURRENT PROFILES USING EOF AND INVERSE FORM METHODS 11

Maximum in Hindcosts
-
100
, 1 100 Yeor profile from 2 modes 1 I
1 0 0 Yeor profile from 3 modes 11

Current Speed (rn/s)

Fig. 13 100-yr typhoon current profiles along with the hindcast

profile which produced the largest drag.