Wave loads on offshore wind turbine foundations in
shallow water
Engineering models vs. refined flow modelling
Erik Damgaard Christensen
DHI
edc@dhigroup.com
Lars Yde
DHI
lay@dhigroup.com
Helge Gravesen
Vattenfall
helge.gravesen@grontmij-carlbro.dk
Abstract:
This study presents comparisons between two
methods to estimate wave loads on wind turbine
foundations. The analyses have been restricted
to analyses of loads on mono-piles. The
traditional method is based on a combination of
undisturbed wave kinematics and a Morison force
model. A refined model is based on CFD
techniques where the wave interaction with the
structure is modelled directly. The comparisons
are made for regular waves, irregular waves, and
breaking waves. The effect of scour holes/scour
protection has also been analysed.
Keywords: Wave load, CFD, Morisons
equation.
1 Introduction
Frandsen et al. (2006) presents a list of
possibilities of improving existing methods for the
design of Offshore Wind Turbines (OWT). The
present paper deals only with the hydrodynamic
loads. OWT are often placed in fairly shallow
waters which gives rise to significantly non-linear
(often breaking) waves. These waves are three-
dimensional irregular waves and can co-exist with
a current. A correct modelling of the associated
wave loads requires a faithful description of the
kinematics. The complexity of this topic is
contrasted by the theories and methods, which
are normally applied in the design process. The
most widely applied methods make use of linear
wave theory combined with “Wheeler stretching”
from the mean water level to the instantaneous
sea surface position. Other methods use more
complicated approaches involving higher-order
Stokes or stream function wave models for the
kinematics. These non-linear approaches,
however, are restricted to regular waves.
Erik Asp Hansen
DNV Wind Energy
erik.asp.hansen@dnv.com
Niels Jacob Tarp-Johansen
DONG Energy
niels.jacob.tarp-johansen@risoe.dk
Mathilde Lindhardt Damsgaard
DONG Energy
matda@dongenergy.dk
In the simplest case, normally used in the
industry, the wave loads are determined by use of
the Morison formula using the undisturbed
kinematics. Morison’s formula is used with
constant drag and inertia coefficients, and wave
forces at different levels are assumed to be
independent, which are both debatable
assumptions.
The two limitations of a) describing the wave field
accurately and b) obtaining the loads faithfully,
can be met by use of a fully non-linear flow
model, incorporating the structure as part of the
modelling domain. In this study, such an
approach is taken, using the ‘NS3’ model, a finite
volume solver for the 3D Navier-Stokes
equations, allowing for a free surface through the
volume of fluid (VOF) technique. Hereby wave
loads obtained by the approximate methods can
be evaluated, using the NS3 results as a
benchmark.
Application of the NS3 code to wave loads and
run-up on wind turbine foundations has been
reported already in e.g. Christensen et al. (2005),
and for influence of a scour / scour protection in
Hansen et al (2007). NS3 has also been used for
non-cylindrical foundations; see Bredmose et al.
(2006).
The purpose of the study is to identify the cases
where conventional engineering models are
sufficiently accurate, and conversely to identify
the cases where more precise models are
needed. Results of the different modelling
approaches will be examined with respect to
kinematics and hydrodynamic loads. The study
will focus on cylindrical foundations at relatively
shallow water. Both irregular waves as well as
regular waves in combination with a current are
treated.
2 Design practice and rules
This section gives an overview of how the
hydrodynamic loads on vertical circular mono-
piles exposed to wave-current action are
determined. At the end of the section the applied
assumptions / simplifications are discussed.
The hydrodynamic loads are in principle
determined by completing the 3 steps procedure
described below.
Procedure
Step 1 Determination of the design basis for
wave and current.
An offshore wind turbine has to be designed for
the extreme conditions (ULS), a 50 year return
period is often used to design a turbine for 20
years. Furthermore, the turbine has to be
designed for accumulated fatigue damage (FLS)
which it will experience during design lifetime.
The ULS hydrodynamic loading depends on:
a) Water level (that may vary due to tide, surge,
wind set-up, and future sea level rise)
b) Bed level
c) Current velocities and directions
d) Waves, height, and associated period and
direction
Normally a number of representative wave time
series are used to determine the fatigue damage,
each time series is described by
1) The significant wave height, Hs
2) The power spectral density (i.e. the form of
wave spectrum) characterised by the peak
period, Tp, and one or more parameters. For
example for the JONSWAP spectra by an
additional parameter, the peak enhancement
factor
3) Mean wave propagation direction
4) Directional wave spreading
5) Water depth
6) Current and current direction (if important)
In order to design the turbine the above
parameters including their internal correlation and
the correlation with the wind speed and direction
have to be predicted for the entire lifetime of the
turbine.
The parameters are normally determined from
measurements or from numerical hindcast
simulation, see for instance Jacobsen and
Rugbjerg (2005).
Step 2 Determination of the undisturbed wave
and current kinematics at the tower centre
From the undisturbed conditions determined in
step 1, (the conditions that would have been there
if the turbine wasn’t there), the following
hydrodynamic properties at the turbine centre are
determined:
a) Wave elevation.
b) Vertical distribution of the wave induced
velocities (in 2 horizontal directions )
c) Vertical distribution of the wave induced
acceleration (in 2 horizontal directions)
d) Vertical distribution of the wave induced
pressure
e) Vertical distribution of the current (in 2
horizontal directions)
The current is normally characterised by the
depth averaged current, and the velocity profile is
typically assumed to be constant, logarithmic, or
following a power law.
Normally the kinematics is found based on the
assumption that the seabed is horizontal:
For the FLS calculations the wave kinematics is
normally determined by a sum of linear waves
and the current. For the ULS calculations the
wave kinematics is determined by a higher order
Stokes wave or by the stream function theory.
Step 3: Determination of the Tower Loads
from the wave-current kinematics
The horizontal hydrodynamic loads on mono-piles
are today determined from the relatively simple
Morison’s equation where the force intensity
(n/m) is the sum of the inertia and drag terms.
r
r du 1 rr
f ( y , t ) = ρCM ⋅ A ⋅ + ρCD ⋅ D ⋅ u u
dt 2
r
where u( y , t ) is the velocity, as a function of
the vertical coordinate and time (from step 2),
r
du
( y , t ) the acceleration, as a function of the
dt
vertical coordinate and time (from step 2), CM (y)
inertia coefficient, determined theoretically or
empirically, CD (y) drag coefficient, (determined
empirically), D(y) tower width, perpendicular to
the current, A(y) cross-section area in a vertical
section, ρ water density.
The total force on the tower is found by
integrating the force intensity from the seabed y=-
De to the instantaneous water surface y=η.
r η r most of them have been conducted with a circular
F( t ) = ∫
−De
f ( y , t )dy cylinder in U-tubes or in towing tanks. Most of the
tests have been sinusoidal oscillations, where the
velocity and accelerations are constant along the
cylinder and vary only in time:
FLS, flow above mean water level. Wheeler
stretching
 2πt 
u( t ) = U w cos  
The FLS calculations are normally based on  T 
linear wave theory, i.e. the wave heights are du( t ) 2π  2πt 
assumed to be small; in such cases the total = U w sin  
dt T  T 
force is found by integrating the force from the
seabed to the mwl (y=0).
where U w is the orbital velocity, and T is the
r 0 r period of the oscillation.
F( t ) = ∫
−De
f ( y , t )dy
Dimensional analysis shows that for a cylinder
with smooth surface the force coefficients depend
In cases where the wave heights cannot be
on two parameters, the Keulegan-Carpenter
considered small, it is normal to use a stretching
number, and the Reynolds number.
method, for example the Wheeler stretching, see
ISO 19901-1, Wheeler stretching of the linear
wave kinematics to get the wave kinematics in TU w
KC =
the entire water column to the instantaneous D
water surface.
Uw D
y +D Re =
uWeeler ( y , t ) = u lin ( η+De De − De , t ) ν
e

y = [− De : η]
For a rough cylinder with roughness k s the
for
relative roughness becomes a parameter.

Slamming load ks
k s* =
D
The instantaneous force: the horizontal slamming Inserting the velocity and acceleration in the
load, per vertical length unit on this section and Morison equation one gets:
on underlying sections, which has not yet fully
penetrated the sloping water surface, can be r  2πA D  2πt   2πt   2πt  
calculated, according to DNV-OS-J101’, as: f ( t ) = ρUw2 D CM ⋅ 2 ⋅ sin  + ½CD ⋅ cos  cos 
 D TUw  T   T   T  

r rr Or written in a non-dimensional form

fslam ( y , t ) = ½ ρCs ⋅ D ⋅ u u
r
f (t )  2πt   2πt  2πA 1  2πt 
= ½C D ⋅ cos  cos  + CM ⋅ 2 ⋅ sin  
where C s is the slamming coefficient whose ρU w2 D  T   T  D KC  T 

value can be taken as: (for 0<s<D)

 D 0.107s 
Cs = 5.15 + 
 D + 19s D 
The penetration distance, s, is the horizontal
distance from the periphery on the wet side of the
cylinder to the sloping water surface, measured in
the direction of the wave propagation.
Determination of Force coefficients
The force coefficients to be used in step 3 have
been determined through physical experiments;
When the velocity and acceleration are known
together with the measured force, the
coefficients, CD and CM ,are determined by a least
square fit. The book by Sumer and Fredsøe
(1996) gives a good overview of the force
coefficients variation, the book also addresses
the force coefficients in a combined wave and
current flow.
For practical engineering purposes, see e.g.
‘DNV-OS-J101’, the force coefficients are often
only taken to be a function of the KC number,
with a differentiation whether the tower surface is
rough or smooth. The DNV-OS-J101 coefficients
are shown in figure 1 below. Even though the
influence of the roughness seems to be quite
important, it turns out that for sinusoidal flow for
KC number less than 10, the influence of the
1.8
roughness on the peak force is less than a few
per cent. This is illustrated in figure 2 where the 1.6

forces for KC number 10 are shown both for a

Fmax-rough/Fmax-smmoth
1.4
rough and a smooth cylinder. Figure 3 shows the 1.2
ratio between the max forces on a rough and a
1
smooth cylinder as a function of the KC number.
0.8

force coefficients j101 0.6

2
smooth 0.4
1.5 rough
0.2
CD

1
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.5
KC

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Figure 3: Peak forces for KC number 10 for a
rough and smooth cylinder based on coefficients
2 presented in ‘DNV-OS-J101’.
smooth
1.5 rough
Wave forces by diffraction theory
CM

0.5 When the dimension of the structure in question

0 is large compared with the wave length, typically
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
KC
when D > 0.2L, Morison’s equation is no longer
valid. The inertia force will then be dominating
Figure 1; ‘DNV-OS-J101’ Force coefficients as a and can be predicted by means of diffraction
function of the KC number theory. For small waves the inertia coefficients
can be calculated by the MacCamy Fucks
KC=10 force variation j101
1 analytical solution.
0.8

0.6
smooth
rough 2
0.4

0.2
MacCamy Fuchs
Force

1.5 Morison
0

-0.2
CM

-0.4 1

-0.6

-0.8
0.5
-1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t

0
Figure 2: Force variation for KC number 10 for a 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
D/L
rough and a smooth cylinder based on
coefficients presented in ‘DNV-OS-J101’. Figure 4: Inertia coefficient, CM, calculated by
MacCamy Fucks as a function of ratio between
the diameter and the wave length.

Discussion

The 3 step procedure described above contains a

number of assumptions, engineering
approximations, and raises a number of practical
questions. The complicated task of establishing
the design waves and current (task 1) is not
treated here.
Step 2
How are forces below the seabed level
determined if a scour hole has been developed
around the turbine?
How are the kinematics affected by a possible
scour protection placed on the seabed affecting
the forces?
How accurate is the ULS and FLS wave
kinematics if the turbines are placed near or close
to a sloping bed? And how will the forces be
affected by local wave breaking etc.?
How accurate is the Wheeler stretching
compared with a full non-linear wave kinematics?
Step 3
How shall the KC number be determined in case
of irregular waves?
How is the KC number determined above the
‘mwl’ (here the turbine is only exposed to forward
directed flow)?
How is the KC number determined for a stream
function wave, where the flow isn’t sinusoidal?
How are the forces influenced by vertical
velocities, horizontal and vertical gradients of the
horizontal velocities? (For small waves this can
be treated by the MacCamy Fucks analytical
solution).
How well are the ULS determined, as they are
based on force coefficients based on regular
oscillations?
The free surface geometry is governed by the
kinematic boundary condition where a particle on
the free surface follows the local fluid velocity.
The kinematic boundary condition is included by
extrapolation of the velocities within the fluid
domain to the surface and through use of the
Volume of Fluid (VOF) that tracks the free
surface. The present method is described in Hirt
and Nichols (1981), however, with an improved
scheme for the advection of the conservative
quantity, F, cf. Ubbink (1997).
The dynamic boundary condition in the case of an
invicid fluid is given as:
psurf = patm
The atmospheric pressure is set to zero.
The spatial discretisation is based on the finite-
volume approach on a multi-block grid. The time
integration of the Navier-Stokes equations is
performed by application of the fractional step
method. The turbulence is not fully resolved in the
set-up in this study.

Of course it is much easier to raise the questions

than to answer them, however, the process of
listing questions and trying to answer them, may
help identifying uncertainties, inconsistencies,
and possible errors. The refined flow simulations
modelling presented by Hansen and Christensen
(2007) has addressed the scour hole and scour
protection with CFD analyses.

3 The use of CFD

The Navier-Stokes equations in three dimensions
are solved using a finite-volume approach on a
multi-block grid. The viscous forces are in the
present study neglected, which reduces the
Navier-Stokes to the Euler equation, which is Figure 5 The mono-pile (wind turbine foundation)
given below: with indication of mesh bounaries. The position of
the free surface is shown in blue.
∂u i
=0 Figure 5 shows an example of results from a
∂x i
numerical simulation of the multi-block grid used
∂u i ∂u i u j ∂p ∂  ∂u i ∂u j 
 for the study of run-up on wind turbine
ρ +ρ = ρg i − + µ +
∂t ∂x j ∂x i ∂x j  ∂x j ∂x i 

foundations. The grid consists of 12 blocks.
The ui are the three velocity components, g the The CFD code solving the Navier-Stokes
gravitational acceleration, p is the pressure, ρ the equations as sketched above has been used and
fluid density, and µ the dynamic viscosity. validated in Mayer et al. (1998), Nielsen and
Mayer (2001), Christensen et al. (2005),
Christensen (2006).

4 Comparison to standard
methods
The comparisons between the traditional
methods and the CFD method have been split up
in three different analyses. In all the cases the
mono-pile diameter is 4.2 m.

4.1 Regular waves

The first analyses are based on regular waves
and the objective is to study the interpretation of a
wave kinematics into loads on the structure. The
wave kinematics are described by a stream
function theory, where the current is defined in
terms of cS, i.e. net mass flux velocity.
Figure 6 Case 3: Comparison of horizontal force
It is not clear from the traditional guidelines how (upper panel), overturning moment (middle
scour holes, scour protection, and secondary panel), and the surface elevation at three
structures should be incorporated. In this study positions (green, at the mono-pile). Legends for
the depth has been changed to the total depth in the two upper panels: - - streamfunction +
the deepest part of the scour hole, and to the top
Morison equation,  CFD.
level of the scour protection when the traditional
methods are used. The effect of a secondary
structure has been incorporated by modifying the
force coefficients. The effect of a scour
hole/protection and secondary structures can be
incorporated directly in the CFD calculations,
wherefore no assumptions are necessary.

Table 1 Nine test cases based on regular waves.

Case h T H U Bed sec
[m] [s] [m] [m/s] form structure
1 9 4 2 0 plan no
2 15 4 2 0 plan no
3 15 8 7 0 plan no
4 15 8.6 8.1 0 plan no
5 15 8.6 8.1 1 plan no
scour
6 15 8.6 8.1 1 prot. no
scour
7 15 8.6 8.1 1 hole no
scour
8 15 8 7 1 prot. no
scour
9 15 8 7 1 hole no
Figure 7 Case 5: Comparison of horizontal force
Special cases (upper panel), overturning moment (middle
Scour protection: 20x20m area of 1 m height. panel), and the surface elevation at three
Slope of 1:2 from the top to the seabed. Scour positions (green, at the mono-pile). Legends for
hole: cone with depth 5.2 m at the mono-pile side the two upper panels: - - streamfunction +
and slope 30° to horizontal. Morison equation,  CFD.
Table 2 Nine test cases based on regular waves. The irregular analyses have been based on the
Max Horizontal Max Overturning following set-up:
Force [MN] Moment [MN] The depth at the wind turbine was 11.3 m. No
Case CFD Morison CFD Morison current which means that cS = 0, i.e. no net mass
1 0.26 0.27 1.55 1.62 flux velocity is set to zero in the present analyses.
2 0.26 0.28 2.96 3.13 Offshore wave condition: JONSWAP spectrum,
3 0.90 0.83 10.13 8.87 Hs=4.40m, Tp=9.44s. Wave condition at wind
4 1.19 0.97 15.35 11.30
turbine: Shoaling is insignificant.
5 1.17 1.10 14.63 13.10
A zero-crossing analysis of the horizontal force
6 1.20 1.11 15.85 12.94
and the overturning moment shows the
7 1.26 1.08 14.40 15.19 differences between the two models. For the
8 0.91 0.92 10.47 9.68 small load peaks the CFD loads are 6% and 18%
9 0.98 0.93 9.89 12.48 larger for the horizontal force and overturning
moment, respectively. However, the maximum
For small waves the difference between the horizontal force is predicted to be 38% larger in
traditional methods and CFD is rather small; in the CFD calculations compared to the traditional
the order of a few per cent. The largest relative methods, and for the overturning moment from
difference is found for case 4, which actually is a wheeler + Morison is 96% larger using CFD.
case with plane bed and no ambient current. The
st
main reason for the difference is the high non- It is well known that 1 order theory
linearity of the wave. Especially the rather steep underestimates the maximum forces. Therefore,
wave front has a major influence on the force. a part of the time series is often exchanged for a
The wave front or let’s say the effect of the free piece of stream function theory instead. However,
surface is not accounted for in the traditional it may be difficult to determine the part that will
method. give the largest load contribution. Figures 11 and
12 show 100 s sequences of the surface
The CFD results of scour hole/protection elevation predicted by the 1st order Wheeler
analyses show that the horizontal force method and horizontal force and overturning
decreases when going from scour hole to scour moment found from the Wheeler stretching +
protection, while the overturning moment Morison force and CFD, respectively. It is clear
increases. The traditional methods give the that the maximum forces are not found at the
completely opposite effect. same time, which of course makes it difficult to
st
choose correct 1 order wave to be exchanged
for wave kinematics obtained from stream
4.2 Irregular waves function theory.
Typical analyses of the dynamics of wind turbines
are based on 10 min. sequences of load from
wind, waves, and current. The CFD method uses
in this case a time series generated by a
Boussinesq model, MIKE21 BW. This gives a
good representation of the non-linear wave
kinematics for irregular waves.

The traditional method is based on Wheeler

stretching of 1st order Stokes wave theory. Using
st
1 order Stokes theory it is straightforward to
establish a time series of irregular waves. The
establishment of 1st order irregular time series is
based on the surface elevations used as
st
boundary condition for the CFD model. 512 1
order wave components have been found and
used to represent the incoming wave. If the wave
st
was close to 1 order the translation from the
boundary to the centre of the mono-pile (210 m) Figure 8 Comparison of max overturning
would be the same in CFD. However, due to non- moments found from zero-crossing analyses.
linearities the wave celerity is larger in the CFD
model, and therefore the waves arrive at the
cylinder in the order of 1 s earlier.
 Force Moment
Wheeler CFD Wheeler CFD
[MN] [MN] [MNm] [MNm]
0.561 0.778 4.13 8.09
0.538 0.573 3.79 6.75
0.519 0.560 3.60 5.06
0.459 0.504 3.09 4.70
0.453 0.501 2.98 4.11
0.446 0.479 2.93 4.06

Figure 9 Comparison of max overturning

moments found from zero-crossing analyses.

The free surface and contours of the excess

pressure are shown in figure 10 at t = 592 s, i.e.
when the horizontal and overturning moment is
close at its maximum. Even though the modelled
wave loads are significantly larger using CFD the
wave surface is not in a state of breaking. This
shows that even for moderate waves the
simplifications in the use of Wheeler stretching +
Morisons equation may lead to significant Figure 10: The free surface and excess pressure
underestimation of the wave loads. at t = 592 s.

Table 3 Comparison of the 6 highest events of

horizontal force and overturning moment.
Figure 11: Sequence of horizontal force from the irregular timeseries: - - Wheeler stretching + Morison
equation,  CFD

Figure 12: Sequence of overturning moment from the irregular time series: - - Wheeler stretching +
Morison equation,  CFD

4.3 Shoaling waves over a slope an example of the horizontal force on the mono-
pile for the three cases. It is clear that just small
Test cases have also been performed for changes in the wave height may lead to
breaking waves over a slope. In this paper only significantly larger maximum wave loads.
an example of the effect of breaking waves is
shown. The water depth was 11.3 m and 12 s in
all three simulations, while the wave height was
7.8 m, 8.1 m, and finally 8.4 m. Figure 13 shows

Figure 13: An example of extreme wave loads on a mono-pile when the wave height is increased from 7.8
m to 8.4 m.
6 Summary Christensen, ED (2006): “Large eddy simulation
of spilling and plunging breakers”, Coastal
Engineering 2006, Vol. 53. pp 463-485.
Traditional methods, such as stream function
theory + Morison equation, have been used to
Christensen, E.D., Bredmose, H. and Hansen
calculate the forces on a mono-pile. The results
E.A. (2005). “Extreme wave forces and wave run-
have been compared to CFD results.
up on offshore windturbine foundations”.
Proceedings of Copenhagen Offshore Wind
The analyses of traditional force coefficients
2005, Copenhagen October 2005.
indicate that the effect of marine growth, i.e.
roughness, mainly has an effect on the phase
DNV-OS-J101. Design of Offshore Wind Turbine
rather than on the maximum force as long as the
Structures. June 2004. Det Norske Veritas.
KC number is below 10. In irregular waves it is
not straightforward to define the KC number.
Frandsen S., Tarp-Johansen, NJ, Hansen, EA.,
Høgedal, M., Ibsen, LB., Jensen, L., (2006):
The analyses of the regular waves show that
“Offshore Wind Turbine Design: Addressing
using a stream function + Morison equation gives
Uncertainty Drivers”, In proc. of 2006 EWEC
comparable results to the CFD calculations for
2006, pp 74-78.
small waves. The CFD method generally predicts
higher wave loads for high and steep waves.
Hansen, EA and Christensen, E.D. (2007): “Scour
holes or scour protection around offshore wind
The CFD results of scour hole/protection
turbine foundations: Effect on wave loads”. In
analyses show that the horizontal force
Proc. Of EWEC 2007.
decreases when going from scour hole to scour
protection, while the overturning moment
IEC 61400-3, ed.1 Design Requirements for
increases. The traditional methods give the
Offshore Wind Turbines. IEC TC88 WG3:
complete opposite effect.
Committee Draft, December 2005.
Irregular waves have been modelled by a
ISO 19901-1:2003, DIS: Specific requirements for
combination of 1st order wave theory of 512 wave
offshore structures – Part 1: Metocean design
components and Wheeler stretching. The
and operating conditions
Morison equation was used to predict the wave
loads from this wave kinematics. In general the
Jacobsen. V. and Rugbjerg, M (2005): “Offshore
horizontal force and the overturning moment was
wind farms – the need for Metocean Data”, In
underestimated in the order of 6 and 18%,
proceedings of Copenhagen Wind conference, 13
respectively. However, for the largest load the
pages.
difference was 38% and 96% compared to CFD
calculations. This clearly indicates that even for
MacCamy, R.C., and Fuchs R.A. (1954): “Wave
moderate waves the use of Wheeler stretching +
forces in piles: A diffraction theory”,. Technical
Morison equation significantly underestimates the
memorandum no. 69, Beach Erosion Board, US
wave loads on the mono-pile.
Navy Corps of Engineers.

Morison, J.R., O’Brien, M.P., Johnson, J.W., and

Acknowledgement
The financial support of the Danish Public Service
Program (PSO) under contracts PSO: FU5101
(ENS: 79030-0019, PSO-05) and PSO: 5876
(ENS: 79029-0030, PSO-04) is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
Schaf, S.A.,(1950): “The forces exerted by
surface waves on piles”, Petroleum Transactions,
AIME, Vol. 189, pp 149-157.
Sumer B.M. and Fredsøe, J. “Hydrodynamics
around Cylindrical Structures”, Advanced Series
on Ocean Engineering – Volume 12, World
Scientific, London, 1997

Ubbink, O. (1997): ”Numerical prediction of two

Bredmose, H., Skourup, J., Hansen, E.A.,
Christensen, E.D., Pedersen, L.M. and Mitzlaff, A. fluid systems with sharp interfaces”, Ph.D. thesis,
(2006). Numerical reproduction of extreme wave University of London.
loads on a gravity wind turbine foundation. 25th
Int. Conf. Offshore Mech. Arctic Engng. Hamburg
2006. ASME