OTC 18620
Wave Crest Heights and Deck Damage in Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita
George Z. Forristall, Forristall Ocean Engineering
Copyright 2007, Offshore Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2007 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 30 April–3 May 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an 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
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to 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. Write Librarian, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
The rapidity with which the weather can deteriorate with the
approach of the storm, and the violence of the fully developed
tropical cyclone, are difficult to imagine if they have not been
experienced.
– Nathaniel Bowditch
Abstract
The hurricanes of 2004 and 2005 caused substantial damage
even to relatively new deepwater facilities such as Petronius
and Pompano. Crest heights calculated using standard
theories are unlikely to have caused such damage. Several
possible reasons for the discrepancy between crest height
calculated by standard methods and observed deck damage
were considered. Freak waves due to unusual wave spectra
were not observed at sites where individual waves were
recorded. Much of the damage occurred on structures with
small members so diffraction was not an issue. Calculations
of the maximum crest height over the area of a deck were able
to explain the damage. If the an entire deck is inundated, the
lateral force on a structure increases greatly. Our calculations
show that while local inundation is more likely than
previously suspected, the inundation is usually local and does
not necessarily threaten the integrity of the structure.
Introduction
In September 2004, Hurricane Ivan generated the largest
waves ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2005,
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita added to the devastation. Over
100 platforms were destroyed in these storms. Most of them
were old, designed to standards that are now obsolete. But the
lower decks of many large new structures also suffered
damage, casting doubt on present design standards.
Figure 1 shows the bent plate girders under the south end
of the cellar deck of the Petronius compliant tower after
Hurricane Ivan. This damage must have been caused by one
or more wave crests striking the girders. The bottom of steel
on the cellar deck is at 16.75 m above mean water level and
the deck was set down approximately 0.3 m during the storm.
The wave crest near the plate girders must have exceeded
16.45 meters above mean water level.
Cardone et al. [1] found that the Oceanweather wave
hindcast model did a good job of matching significant wave
height measurements in Ivan. The purpose of this paper is to
determine whether crest heights calculated on the basis of
those hindcasts can explain the observed deck damage.
The maximum hindcast significant wave height at the
Oceanweather grid point closest to Petronius was 14.76 m.
According to Forristall’s [2] empirical wave height
distribution, the highest wave in 1000 would be 24.95 m. The
crest height of a Stokes fifth order wave of this height is 13.96
m, far below the height needed to produce the observed
damage. As shown in the next section, second order crest
height statistics give an estimated maximum crest height about
two meters higher, but still too low to explain the damage to
the deck.
There are several possible explanations for discrepancies
between predicted crest heights and observed damage. One
suggested mechanism is that unusual directional spectra can
increase the chance of freak waves larger than predicted by
second order theory. Two inherently contradictory causes of
freak waves have been suggested in the literature. The first is
crossing seas with very wide directional spreading. The
second is related to the Benjamin-Feir instability. Basically,
steep waves with spectra that are narrow in both frequency
and direction have instabilities that could produce long tails in
the wave crest distribution.
Wave diffraction and run-up can play an important role for
platforms composed of large diameter cylinders. Incident
waves may be sufficiently amplified to cause much higher
crests under some areas of the platform decks [3,4].
Diffraction and run-up are very important processes for the
structures that are affected. They are poorly understood and
deserve more study. But Petronius and the other structures
considered here are composed of cylinders less than two
meters in diameter, so diffraction effects are small on them.
Because waves are dispersive and directionally spread, the
crest height is different at different locations. This variability
means the maximum crest under a deck is larger than the
maximum at one point. Because standard wave statistics are
2 OTC 18620
based on single point measurements they under-predict the
maximum crest affecting a deck.
In the remainder of this paper, we consider these
mechanisms in detail. Then predictions of second order crest
heights over deck areas are compared with the elevation of
observed damage at Petronius and other structures.
Second Order Crest Heights
Crest heights in steep waves are higher than those predicted by
Gaussian theory because of non-linearities. The distribution
produced from simulations of second order waves by Forristall
[5] accounts for most of the non-linearity. It is a Weibull
distribution of the form
  η β 
P(η 2 ) = exp  −  (1)
 
  α H S  
where
α = 1/ 8 + 0.2568S1 + 0.0800Ur
(2)
β = 2 − 1.7912S1 − 0.5302Ur + 0.2824Ur 2
The mean steepness and Ursell number are given by
2π H s
S1 =
g T12 (3)
Hs
Ur =
k12 d 3
The maximum crest height during a storm can be estimated by
integrating this short term crest height distributions over the
storm’s sea state history. If the probability that the wave or
crest height exceeds η is given by P(η), then the probability
that the height will not exceed η in N waves is given by
N (4)
P(ηmax < η ) = 1− P(η )
For a sequence of records during a storm, the probability of
non-exceedance becomes
k Ni
(5)
P(ηmax < η ) = ∏ 1− Pi (η )
i =1
We applied equation (5) to the Oceanweather hindcasts of
Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita. The mean wave period T1
was calculated from the integral and first moment of the wave
spectrum. The water depth was taken from the Oceanweather
grid files.
The Oceanweather hindcasts include the storm surge
calculated using a two dimensional hydrodynamic model. We
calculated the total surface elevation by adding the storm
surge to the second order crest heights in each record of the
hindcast model. We then applied equation (5) to find the
expected maximum of the total surface elevation at each grid
point in each storm.
The expected value of the maximum second order crest
height in Ivan at Petronius is 16.28 m. Including the storm
surge raises this estimate to 16.66 m. This estimate is slightly
higher than the 16.45 m elevation of the bottom of the deck
girders, but unlikely to have been high enough to cause the
observed damage.
Effect of Unusual Wave Spectra
Crossing seas have been suggested as a possible cause of freak
waves. By freak waves, we mean individual wave or crest
heights that cannot be reasonably explained by standard
statistical theories. For example, Donelan and Magnusson [6]
argued that mixed or crossing seas could increase the
probability of high wave crests. They show a hindcast
indicating broad spreading that coincided with a shipwreck,
but no measurements were available to prove that freak wave
crests occurred.
The Oceanweather fields files give two measures of
angular spreading from the directional wave spectra. The
Angular Spreading Function [7] is the mean value over the
552 bins of cos(θ-ψ), where ψ is the vector mean direction.
The sum is weighted by the variance component in each bin.
If the angular spectrum is uniformly distributed over 360º, this
statistic is zero. If the distribution is uniform over 180º, this
statistic is 2/π. If all variance is concentrated at the VMD, it is
1.0.
The In-Line Variance Ratio [8] is computed as
IVR =
∑∑ cos (θ −ψ )dS
2
(6)
∑∑ dS
If spectral variance is uniformly distributed over the entire
compass, or over a semicircle, IVR = 0.5. If the spectral
variance is confined to one angular band, or to two bands that
are 180º apart, IVR = 1.0. According to Haring and
Heideman, cos2 spreading corresponds to IVR = 0.75.
Fairly broad wave spreading is typical during hurricanes.
Whether such spreading is enough to be a possible cause of
unusual or freak waves can be studied by examining
measurements of individual hurricane waves. Extreme waves
were measured at the Marlin TLP and the Medusa truss spar
during Hurricane Ivan. These measurements were described
by Cooper et al. [9]. At Marlin, the significant wave height
came close to 16 m. At Medusa, it was close to 12 m.
Directional spectra and the two measures of wave spreading in
Ivan are available from the Oceanweather hindcast. The
significant wave height and directional spreading at Marlin are
shown in Figure 2. At both Medusa and Marlin (not shown),
the spreading measures were close to 0.75 at the peak of the
storm. At both, the spreading increased very rapidly after the
close passage of the center of the storm by these sites.
The crest height statistics at Marlin are shown in Figure 3.
The crest height populations are well represented by the
second order distribution in equation (1). There are no
significant outliers to the fitted crest distributions so there is
no evidence of freak waves in the measurement sets.
Figure 4 shows the angular spreading function and in-line
variance ratio at Petronius from the Oceanweather hindcasts.
These measures of directional spreading are very similar to
those at Marlin and Medusa. The spreading measures were
close to 0.75 through the peak of the storm and the spreading
OTC 18620 3

increased after the passage of the storm center. The crest over a deck is higher than that the wave crest at any one point.
height distributions showed no unusual features at Marlin and But the area inundated by that crest is not necessarily a large
Medusa for similar directional spectra, so we do not expect portion of the deck.
unusual crests as a result of crossing seas at Petronius. Piterbarg [13] found asymptotic distributions for Gaussian
Narrow spectra have also been suggested as a cause of processes over large multi-dimensional spaces. Krogstad et al.
freak waves. Benjamin and Feir [10] found that high regular [14] applied Piterbarg’s theorem to the estimation of
waves suffered a modulational instability as they progressed maximum wave crests. Consider a Gaussian random process
down a long wave tank. A similar instability exists for over an n-dimensional space with standard deviation σ.
random waves when the spectral bandwidth is sufficiently According to Krogstad et al., the probability that the
narrow. The envelope of the wave amplitude oscillates. As a maximum of a multi-dimensional Gaussian process is less
result, the highest waves are higher than they would be if there than sσ is:
were no instability. Osborne et al. [11] demonstrated this   1 
effect both theoretically and experimentally. Pr(η < sσ ) = exp −Qn ( s) exp  − ( s 2 − hN2 )   (9)
  2 
Janssen [12] has proposed the Benjamin-Feir Index (BFI)
as a quantitative measure of the power of the modulational
where
instability. The waves must be both high and narrow-banded
in frequency space. The latest version of the index from ( n −1) / 2
(−1) m (n − 1)!
Janssen’s 2005 paper is Qn ( s ) = h1N− n ∑
m =0 m !2m(n − 1 − 2m)!
s n − 2 m −1 (10)

BFI = 2π k0 m01/ 2Qp (7)

and
hN = [ 2 log N + (n − 1) log(2 log N ) ]
1/ 2
where (11)
2 (8)
m02 ∫
Qp = ω E 2 (ω ) d ω
N is the “equivalent” number of waves. Evaluating equation
(10) gives
is Goda’s peakedness factor and k0 is the wavenumber at the Q1 ( s ) = 1
peak of the spectrum. Q ( s ) = sh −1 (12)
2 N
Figure 5 shows the Benjamin-Feir index calculated from Q3 ( s ) = ( s 2 − 1)hN−2
the hindcast spectra at Marlin during Hurricane Ivan. The BFI
reaches values over 0.3. According to the work of Osborne et
al. [11], this should be large enough to affect the crest height For large N, the distributions tend to the Gumbel distribution
distribution. But Figure 3 shows that the crest heights follow
the usual second order distribution. Directional spreading G ( s ) = exp {− exp [ − hN ( s − hN )]} (13)
decreases the effectiveness of the four wave interactions that
cause the modulational instability. Apparently, the degree of Then the expected value of the maximum becomes
directional spreading at Marlin was large enough to eliminate
any instability. E (η max / σ ) = hN + 0.5772 / hN (14)
Figure 6 shows the BFI calculated from the hindcast
spectra at Petronius during Ivan. Note that the significant
For a time series, the number of waves N is simply
wave height is slightly different than in Figure 4 because the
Oceanweather spectra were saved on a coarser grid than the
N = T / Tz (15)
fields. The BFI here is similar to that at Marlin shown in
Figure 5. The hindcast values of BFI are evidently not large
enough to produce unexpectedly high crests. where Tz is the zero up-crossing period. Equations (11) and
(14) then reduce to the standard formula for the maximum
Maximum Crest Heights over an Area wave in T seconds. In two spatial dimensions,
The crest height distribution in equation (1) refers to the crest
heights measured at a single point. Platform decks cover a N = (2π )1/ 2 A / λ1λ2 (16)
reasonably large area compared to the size of a wave crest.
Ocean waves are dispersive and directionally spread. As they where λ1 and λ2 are the wave length and crest length and A is
propagate, their crest heights change. A platform deck the area. For two space dimensions and time, the situation
samples those waves at many different locations. The becomes more complicated because space-time correlation
maximum crest height over the area of a deck during a storm must be taken into account. We then have
will naturally be greater than the maximum at a single point.
A mathematically rigorous theory exists for the maximum N = 2π AT / λ1λ2Tz (1 − ct21 − ct22 ) −1/ 2 (17)
of a multi-dimensional Gaussian process. After describing
that theory we use simulations to verify the theory and where ct1 and ct2 are the space-time correlations.
calibrate simple formulas for engineering use. Calculations
for two dimensional wave crests show that the maximum crest
4 OTC 18620
Krogstad et al. [14] used Piterbarg’s equations to estimate
the maximum crest height over a 100 km by 100 km area.
With a mean zero crossing period of 10 seconds,
E (ηmax ) = 1.32 H s (18)
This very large expected value of the linear crest height may
help explain the very large crests that have been reported in
studies of images made by orbiting synthetic aperture radars.
We are more interested in time series over smaller areas on
the order of 20 – 100 m on a side. It is reasonably easy to test
the theoretical predictions of linear crest heights using
simulated time series. Forristall [15] made simulations over a
128 by 128 point grid with a horizontal spacing of 5 m. The
time series were 1024 seconds in length with a time step of
0.25 sec. The simulations were repeated 100 times.
Maximum values of crest height were found over the whole
area and over smaller sub-regions of the area. This technique
yielded many samples of the maximum crest heights.
Averaging the results gave stable estimates of the expected
value of the crest height over different areas.
Figure 7 shows the results of simulations of a Jonswap
spectrum with a peak period of 10.0 sec. The mean period
was thus 8.35 sec and the associated wave length was 109 m.
The waves were directionally spread using the spreading
functions for fetch limited waves given by Ewans [16]. The
blue diamonds show the empirically determined expected
value of the maximum crest over a square with the side length
given on the abscissa. The crest heights are normalized by the
standard deviation σ of the time series.
The expected crest height maxima over an area are
substantially higher than those at one point. That is true even
for relatively small areas. The expected maximum at one
point for 1024 seconds of 8.35 sec waves is 3.29σ. For a
square 60 m on a side, the expected maximum is 3.944σ, or
20% higher. If Hs = 8 m, the maximum crest somewhere
under a square 60 m deck would be 7.88 m compared to 6.58
m for the linear crest height at one wave staff.
For the directional spreading used in our simulations, λ2 ≈
3λ1. Fitting equations (11), (14) and (17) to the simulations
for the larger areas gave an empirical estimate of 1.25 for the
correlation correction factor. The expected number of crests
would then be given by
N = 2π AT /(1.25λ1λ2Tz ) (19)
The effect of using Equation 19 to define the number of wave
crests is shown is shown by the magenta curve in Figure 7. It
falls well below the simulations for the smaller deck areas.
Piterbarg’s theorem is asymptotic in the sense that it applies
for large areas. It is not surprising that it fails for side lengths
smaller than one wavelength. For such small areas, it is likely
that a local maximum of the surface will not appear in the area
at any given time.
Empirically, Forristall [15] found that for small areas a
good fit to the simulations can be found by taking
L T (20)
N =2
λ1 Tz
Equation (20) is shown as the red line in Figure 7. For small
areas, the equivalent number of waves is thus proportional to
the length of the side rather than to the area. We speculate
that this is because the maximum value of the wave surface is
likely to be on the edge of the area when the edge is shorter
than one wavelength.
The results are robust. Equations (19) and (20) also match
simulations with peak wave periods of 8 and 12 seconds.
Changing the horizontal grid size from 5 m to 2.5 m makes
less than 1% difference in the crest heights. If the deck area is
placed at a 45° angle to the direction of wave propagation, the
simulated crest heights are the same as for when the waves
propagate parallel to the deck.
Non-linear interactions make crests in steep waves higher
than linear theory predicts. Equation (1) gives a good match
to the distribution of second order crest heights at a point.
Second order simulations over an area require substantial
computer time, but they are not necessary. The effects of non-
linearity and deck area are multiplicative. The linear crest
heights at each point over the area of the deck are amplified by
the factor between the distribution in equation (1) and the
Rayleigh distribution appropriate for linear theory.
For reasonably large numbers of waves N, the maximum
second order crest height at a point is given by
E (ηmax ) = (b + 0.5772 / a)σ (21)
where
a = ( β / 4α )(log N )1−1/ β (22)
b = 4α (log N )1/ β
and α and β are the coefficients given in equation (2). For the
example of a Jonswap spectrum with a peak period of 10 sec
and Hs = 8 m in infinitely deep water, we get α = 0.3725 and β
= 1.8684. The expected value of the highest crest in 1024
seconds is then 3.68σ. The increase of the second order crest
over the first order crest is 3.68/3.29 = 1.118. Applying that
factor to the expected value of a linear crest over a 60 m
square deck gives crest height of 4.41σ = 8.82 m. Table 1
summarizes the example calculations.
Calculation Method Maximum Crest Height
Linear at point 6.58
Second order at point 7.36
Linear over area 7.88
Second order over area 8.82
Table 1. Expected values of crest heights in 1024
seconds for Hs = 8 m, Tp = 10 sec.
Figure 8 shows the result of calculations using equation
(20) to calculate N and equation (21) to calculate the expected
maximum crest height. The calculations were made for a
range of deck areas. For each deck area, a curve shows the
maximum normalized crest height expected in the number of
waves shown on the abscissa of the graph. The increase in
expected maximum crest height is large even for small deck
areas. Then as the area increases, the crest heights increase
more slowly.
OTC 18620 5

Consideration of the deck area makes it much more likely Neglecting changes in spectral shape, that one table gives a
than previously recognized for a wave crest to strike some part good guide for all conditions. For example, if the peak wave
of the deck. This does not necessarily mean that the structural period was 12 seconds, 1.54 = 5.1, so the area inundated at
reliability is less than previously calculated. If only a small 0.90 of the crest height would be 272 m2.
part of the deck experiences green water then the additional To a good degree of approximation, the area inundated is
force on the structure will not be too great. given by
The shape of the highest crests can again be found by A = 0.62Tp4 (1 − r )1.7 (23)
simulation. Forristall [15] made 200 simulations of a Jonswap
spectrum with at peak period of 8 sec. The simulations were where r is the fraction of the maximum crest height. Equation
1024 sec long. The horizontal grid spacing was 2.5 m to give (23) is for the particular case of Ewans’ [16] directional
good resolution around the wave peak. The wave from each spreading function. The inundation areas for other spreading
simulation at the time of the maximum crest was normalized functions can be found by computing the autocorrelation of
by the maximum crest height and centered on the position of the directional spectrum.
the maximum crest. Then the normalized wave shapes were Equations (21) and (23) can be combined to estimate the
averaged. Figure 9 shows the resulting average wave shape as deck elevation for which a given area will be inundated.
a contour plot. Figure 11 shows the results for a deck 50 m square and a
It is also possible to derive the average shape of the Jonswap spectrum with a peak period of 12 sec. The deck
maximum wave from theory. The idea that the average shape elevations are normalized by Hs. The dashed curve in the
of the highest wave in a time series tends to the figure shows the elevation of the expected maximum crest on
autocorrelation function of the time series has been a single wave staff. We see that if the platform design was
independently discovered many times. Lindgren [17] and based on the crest elevation statistics of a single wave staff,
Boccotti [18] give detailed mathematical descriptions of the the expected area of inundation would be about 400 m2.
behaviour of a Gaussian process near a high local maximum.
Tromans et al. [19] introduced the idea to a wide audience of Platform Damage Cases
ocean engineers and called it NewWave. Fedele and Arena
[20] have now extended the concept to second order waves. Petronius in Hurricane Ivan
Essentially the same theory applies to two spatial dimensions. Table 3 summarizes the crest height calculations for the
The autocorrelation function of waves in two spatial Petronius tower shown in Figure 1.
dimensions is the average shape of the highest waves. This
idea was developed by Phillips et al. [21]. Phillips et al. [22] Bottom of Steel 16.45 m
then applied the theory to measurements from a scanning radar Second order crest height 16.28 m
altimeter. Second order crest plus surge 16.66 m
The autocorrelation function for a Jonswap spectrum with Maximum crest from equation (14) 18.69 m
2
a peak period of 8 seconds and Ewans’ [16] directional Area inundated from equation (23) 727 m
Maximum crest from simulations 18.93 m
spreading function is shown in Figure 10. As expected, the Area inundated from simulations 410 m
2

result agrees very closely with the simulations in Figure 9.

The wave crest in both cases has a hint of a figure eight shape. Table 3. Crest elevations at Petronius in Hurricane Ivan.
This is a result of the bimodal directional distribution at high
frequencies in Ewans’ directional spreading formulation. The maximum linear crest height over the area of the
The autocorrelation function can be calculated quickly Petronius deck was found from equations (11), (14), and (17).
even for fine scales. Using a horizontal grid size of 0.5 m The Petronius deck is 47 by 67 m. The area of the deck is the
gives very good accuracy for the area covered by the wave same as a 56 m square. The mean wave period at the peak of
crests. Table 2 gives the area inundated at various fractions of the storm was 11.15 sec, giving a linear wave length of 194 m.
the crest height by waves with a peak period of 8 sec. For Assuming three hours of waves at the peak of the storm,
example, if the wave crest is 10 m and the deck level is 9 m, equation 20 gives the equivalent number of waves as
we would expect an area of only 53 m2 to be inundated by the
wave crest. 56 3 ⋅ 3600
N =2 = 559 (24)
Height
2
Area (m )
194 11.15
0.95 17.17
0.90 53.25 Then equation (11) gives
0.85 100.25
0.80 162.75
hN = [ 2 log N + 2 log(2 log N )]
1/ 2
0.75 241.25 = 4.2105 (25)
0.70 332.75
and the expected maximum linear crest height from equation
Table 2. Area inundated as a fraction of crest height for (14) is
8 second waves. E (η max ) = hN + 0.5772 / hN = 4.3476σ (26)
For deep water, wavelength scales as period squared. So
the area inundated scales as period to the fourth power.
6 OTC 18620

A similar calculation of the maximum linear crest height at a

point gives 3.8640σ. The ratio between the maximum crest Top of cellar deck 16.23 m
over the deck area and the maximum at one point is 1.125. Second order crest height 15.28 m
Second order crest plus surge 15.48 m
Using this ratio on the second order crest height and adding in Maximum crest from equation (14) 16.96 m
the simultaneous surge gives Area inundated from equation (23) 123 m
2

E (η max,2 nd ) = 1.125i16.28 + 0.38 = 18.69 (27) Maximum crest from simulations 17.12 m
2
Area inundated from simulations 100 m

which is listed in the fourth line of Table 3. This crest is over

Table 4. Crest elevations at Virgo in Hurricane Katrina.
two meters above the bottom of the deck beams which is
easily high enough to cause the observed damage.
GC 52A in Hurricane Rita
The expected area of inundation above 16.45 m can be
GC 52A is a space frame jacket located at 29.8984º N,
estimated from equation (23). The result of 727 m2 is listed in
91.5103º W in 188 m water depth. The closest grid point in
the fifth line of Table 3. That area could be a circle 30 m in
Oceanweather’s Ivan hindcast is 51435, at 27.90º N, 91.50º
diameter.
W.
Equation (20) is based on a square deck and a nominal
Figure 15 shows damage on the cellar deck of GC 52A
directional spectrum. A more specific calculation of the
after Hurricane Rita. The damaged piping and missing
maximum crest over the deck area was made through
equipment was very likely caused by green water through the
simulation. Waves over an area with the Petronius deck
cellar deck.
dimensions were simulated for each time step in the hindcast
Table 5 lists the crest heights and areas of inundation
of Ivan. The simulations were based on the hindcast
calculated by the same methods that were used for Petronius.
directional spectrum. The deck was oriented with the long
The expected crest plus surge at a single point is below the
axis 47º east of north. The simulations were repeated 200
level of the deck. But the expected maximum crest over the
times and the maximum crest over the area of the deck was
area of the deck cleared the top of the deck by a meter and
found. The mean value of the ratio between the maximum
could have caused the observed damage.
over the deck and the maximum at one point was 1.140,
slightly larger than the results from using the generic Top of cellar deck 17.07 m
formulas. The maximum expected crest plus surge was then Second order crest height 15.71 m
18.93 m, as shown in the last line of Table 3. Second order crest plus surge 16.00 m
The maximum crest height over the deck is a random Maximum crest from equation (14) 17.82 m
2
variable that may be higher or lower than the expected value. Area inundated from equation (23) 132 m
Maximum crest from simulations 18.11 m
Figure 12 shows the probability of exceedance for the crest 2
Area inundated from simulations 114 m
plus surge height over the Petronius deck. There is about a
17% probability that the maximum elevation exceeds 20 m.
Table 5. Crest elevations at GC52A in Hurricane Rita.
The expected crest shape at the time of the maximum
significant wave height during Ivan is shown in Figure 13. It
Other Platforms Damaged by Hurricane Ivan
comes from calculating the Fourier transform of the
Energo Engineering Inc. [23] reviewed and assessed the
directional spectrum. The area of inundation calculated from
damage to fixed platforms in Hurricane Ivan. Appendix A of
the shape of the crest and the maximum simulated crest height
their report gives the deck heights of the platforms and notes
is 410 m2. This value is less than that calculated from
whether there was any evidence of waves in the deck. Those
equation (23) because the directional spectrum during the
deck heights are compared to the crest elevations calculated
hurricane was spread more broadly than the spectrum used to
from the Oceanweather hindcasts and second order crest
generate Figure 10. That makes the crest length shorter.
distributions in Figure 16. Energo did not give information
about the deck area of the platforms. We assumed that the
Virgo in Hurricane Katrina
deck areas were slightly smaller than the deck areas of the
Virgo is a space frame production platform located in VK 832
platforms studied in detail. The ratio between the maximum
at 29.181º N, 88.167º W. The water depth is 345 m. The
crest at a point and the maximum over the area of the deck
closest grid point in Oceanweather’s Ivan hindcast is 58236, at
would then be about 1.11.
29.20º N, 88.15º W.
Points above the diagonal black line in Figure 16 have
Figure 14 shows the damage to the generators on the Virgo
calculated crest plus surge heights greater than the deck
cellar deck. Offshore personnel and assessment engineers
height. Red points show platforms that had evidence of waves
agreed that this damage was caused by green water above the
in their deck. Green points show platforms that did not have
deck. Note however that the handrails next to the generators
evidence of waves in their decks. If the hindcasts and theory
are still in place.
are correct, most of the red points should be above the
Table 4 lists the crest heights and areas of inundation
diagonal line and most of the green points should be below the
calculated by the same methods that were used for Petronius.
diagonal line.
The expected crest plus surge at a single point is below the
level of the deck. But the expected maximum crest over the
Conclusions and Recommendations
area of the deck cleared the top of the deck by almost a meter
Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and Rita produced waves that
and could have caused the observed damage.
damaged equipment on the decks of many Gulf of Mexico
OTC 18620
offshore platforms. Some of the damage cannot be explained
with standard analysis tools. The purpose of this study was to
investigate this unexplained damage by applying new
methods.
The standard practice for calculating the maximum crest
height in a storm is to integrate the short term distribution of
second order crest heights over the significant wave heights
hindcast for the storm. We performed that integration for each
grid point in the Oceanweather hindcasts. In many cases, the
crest heights calculated by the standard methods were not high
enough to have caused the observed damage.
The hindcast waves were spread rather broadly. But the
waves at the damaged platforms were no more broadly spread
than at locations where the crest height distributions
conformed to second order theory. Freak waves produced by
crossing seas did not do the unexplained damage.
Instabilities caused by the combination of steep waves and
a narrow directional spectrum were not a cause of freak waves
that damaged platforms. The Benjamin-Feir Index (BFI) is a
measure of that combination. BFI values at the sites of the
damaged platforms were similar to those at the locations
where the crest height distributions conformed to second order
theory.
Predicting maximum crest heights over the area of the
decks rather than at a single point explains almost all of the
observed damage. The highest crest over the area of a
platform deck is almost always higher than the highest crest at
a single point. The statistical theory and simulations of this
effect show that it is surprisingly and significantly large. For
the deck areas and directional spectra studied, the maximum
over the decks was 10 - 14% higher than the expected
maximum at a single point.
We recommend that an evaluation of the difference
between local and global crest heights is included in structural
design. The crests that cause the local damage on decks affect
only a relatively small area because of dispersion and
directional spreading. They can cause the observed local
damage even though they do not engulf the entire deck or
cause global structural failure. Whether or not it is
economically optimal to accept the possibility of local damage
will depend on the specifics of each platform design.
Evaluating the difference between local and global crest
heights makes informed choice possible.
We recommend detailed numerical and experimental
studies of wave diffraction and run-up on structures with large
columns. Two of the structures with deck damage were
tension leg platforms. They received minor damage in the
decks despite the fact that their decks are higher than those of
fixed platforms. Diffraction and run-up may explain this
damage. The question is: how large an air gap is needed to
avoid this kind of damage to floating structures such as
tension leg platforms and spars?
We recommend that future calculations of the probability
of waves in decks should include predictions of the highest
crest over the area of the deck. The results of this study are
based mainly on observations from Hurricane Ivan. Excellent
damage documentation from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is
becoming available. Information on deck heights, deck areas,
and orientation should be included in the data collection. We
recommend applying the calculations of crest heights over
7
deck area in a thorough study of the data from these
hurricanes.
Acknowledgement
This work was sponsored by the Climatology and Simulation
of Eddies (CASE) JIP. We appreciate their support and
permission to publish the results.
References
1. Cardone, V.J., A. T. Cox, F. Counillon, and D. Szabo (2005),
Hindcast of winds, waves and currents in northern Gulf of
Mexico in Hurricane Ivan (2004), Proc. Offshore Tech. Conf.,
OTC 17736.
2. Forristall, G.Z. (1978), On the statistical distribution of wave
heights in a storm, J. Geophys. Res., 83, 2353-2358.
3. Nielsen, F.G. (2003), Comparative study on airgap under
floating platforms and run-up along platform columns, Marine
Structures, 16, 97-134.
4. Van Iperen, E.J., G.Z. Forristall, J.A. Battjes, and J.A. Pinkster
(2004), Amplification of waves by a concrete gravity sub-
structure: Linear diffraction analysis and estimating the extreme
wave height, Proc. 23rd Int. Conf. on Offshore Mech. and Arctic
Eng, OMAE 2004-51022, Vancouver.
5. Forristall, G.Z. (2000), Wave crest distributions: Observations
and second order theory, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 30, 1931-1943.
6. Donelan, M.A., and A.K. Magnusson (2005), The role of
meteorological focusing in generating rogue wave conditions,
Proc. Aha Huliko’a Hawaiian Winter Workshop, University of
Hawaii at Manoa.
7. Gumbel, E.J., J.A. Greenwood, and D. Durand (1953), The
circular normal distribution: theory and tables, J. Amer. Statist.
Ass., 48, 131-152.
8. Haring, R.E. and J.C. Heideman, 1978. Gulf of Mexico rare
wave return periods. Proc. Offshore Tech. Conf., OTC 3230.
9. Cooper, C., J. Stear, J. Heideman, M. Santala, G. Forristall, D.
Driver, and P. Fourchy (2005), Implications of Hurricane Ivan
on deepwater Gulf of Mexico metocean design criteria, Proc.
Offshore Tech. Conf., OTC 17740, Houston.
10. Benjamin, T.B., and J.E. Feir (1967), The disintegration of
wavetrains in deep water, J. Fluid Mech., 27, 417-430.
11. Osborne, A.R., M. Onorato, and M. Serio (2005), Nonlinear
Fourier analysis of deep-water, random surface waves:
Theoretical formulation and experimental observations of rogue
waves, Proc. Aha Huliko’a Hawaiian Winter Workshop,
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
12. Janssen, P.A.E.M. (2005), Nonlinear four-wave interaction and
freak waves, Proc. Aha Huliko’a Hawaiian Winter Workshop,
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
13. Piterbarg, V.I. (1996), Asymptotic methods in the theory of
Gaussian processes and fields, AMS 1 Transl. of Math.
Monographs, 148, Providence, R.I.
14. Krogstad, H.E., Liu, J., Socquet-Juglard, H, Dysthe, K.B., and
Trulsen, K. (2004), Spatial extreme value analysis of nonlinear
simulations of random surface waves, Proc. 23rd Int. Conf. on
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE 51336.
15. Forristall, G.Z. (2006), Maximum wave heights over an area and
the air gap problem, Proc. 25th Int. Conf. on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, OMAE2006-92022.
16. Ewans, K.C. (1998), Observations of the directional spectrum of
fetch-limited waves, J. Phys. Oceanogr., 28, 495–512.
17. Lindgren, G. (1970), Some properties of a normal process near a
local maximum, Ann. Math. Statist., 4, 1870-1883.
18. Boccotti, P. (1989), On mechanics of irregular gravity waves,
Atti Acc. Naz. Lincei, Memorie, 19, 11-170.
8 OTC 18620

19. Tromans P.S., Anaturk A. and Hagemeijer, P. (1991), ,

Edinburgh. A new model for the kinematics of large ocean
waves – application as a design wave, Proc.1st Offshore and
Polar Engineering Conf. (ISOPE), 3, 64-71.
20. Fedele, F., and F. Arena (2005), Weakly nonlinear statistics of
high nonlinear random waves, Physics of Fluids, 17:1, 026601.
21. Phillips, O.M., G. Daifang, and M. Donelan (1993a), Expected
structure of extreme waves in a Gaussian sea. Part I: Theory
and SWADE buoy measurements, J. Phys. Oceangr., 23, 992–
1000.
22. Phillips, O.M., G. Daifang, and E.J. Walsh (1993b), On the
expected structure of extreme waves in a Gaussian sea. Part II:
SWADE scanning radar altimeter measurements, J. Phys.
Oceangr., 23, 2297–2309.
23. Energo Engineering, Inc. (2006), Assessment of fixed offshore
platform performance in hurricanes Andrew, Lili and Ivan,
MMS Project No. 549, Energo Engineering Project No. E05114.

Figure 2. Significant wave height and wave spreading functions

at Marlin during Hurricane Ivan.
Figure 1. Damage to the Petronius tower after Hurricane Ivan,
The bottoms of the bent girders were 16.45 m above mean sea
level.

Figure 3. Crest height distributions at Marlin during Hurricane

Ivan.
OTC 18620 9

Figure 6. Benjamin-Feir index at Petronius during Hurricane Ivan.

5.500

5.000

4.500
Cmax/sigma

4.000

3.500
Figure 4. Significant wave height and wave spreading functions
at Petronius during Hurricane Ivan.

3.000
10 100 1000
Size of deck (m)

Figure 7. Expected value of maximum crest heights over an area

from simulations. Blue diamonds – simulations. Magenta curve –
Equation (5.11). Red curve – Equation (5.12).

Expected Maximum Crest Over a Deck

1.2000

1.1000
Single point
20 x 20 m
30 x 30 m
1.0000
40 x 40 m
50 x 50 m
Crest/Hs

0.9000 60 x 60 m
70 x 70 m
80 x 80 m
0.8000 90 x 90 m
100 x 100 m

Figure 5. Benjamin-Feir index at Marlin during Hurricane Ivan. 0.7000

0.6000
10.00 100.00 1000.00
T/Tz

Figure 8. Expected maximum crest height over different deck

areas as a function of the number of waves in the time series
10 OTC 18620

Figure 9. Average wave shape at the time of the maximum crest Figure 12. Probability of exceedance of the maximum crest
as derived from simulations. height plus surge over the Petronius deck area in Hurricane Ivan.

Figure 13. Contours of expected crest shape at the time of the

Figure 10. Autocorrelation function for a Jonswap spectrum with highest significant wave height during Hurricane Ivan at
a peak period of 8 seconds. Petronius.

Deck 50 x 50 m, Tp = 12 sec

1.1000

1.0000
Single staff
A=0
Deck Elevation/Hs

A = 25
0.9000
A = 50
A = 100
A = 200
0.8000 A = 400
A = 800

0.7000

0.6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Figure 14. Damage to generators on the Virgo cellar deck after
T(sec)
Hurricane Katrina.
Figure 11. Deck elevation for which the area (m2) given on the
legend will be inundated
OTC 18620 11

Figure 15. Damage on the cellar deck of GC 52 A after Hurricane

Rita.

Figure 16. Deck heights versus maximum crest heights. Points

above the diagonal line have crests higher than the platform deck
height.