Estimating Ocean Wave Directional Spreading

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/243685670
Estimating ocean wave directional spreading from an Eulerian

surface elevation time history
Article in Proceedings of The Royal Society A · September 2009

DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2009.0031
CITATIONS READS
24 198
2 authors, including:
Paul H. Taylor
University of Oxford
207 PUBLICATIONS 3,184 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Data for sheared current blockage View project
Step-WEC View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Paul H. Taylor on 20 May 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Downloaded from rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org on March 12, 2014
Estimating ocean wave directional spreading from

an Eulerian surface elevation time history
T. A. A. Adcock and P. H. Taylor
Proc. R. Soc. A 2009 465, doi: 10.1098/rspa.2009.0031 first published online

12 August 2009
References This article cites 12 articles

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/465/2111/3361.full.
html#ref-list-1
Article cited in:

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/465/2111/3361.full.html#re
lated-urls
Subject collections Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections
ocean engineering (27 articles)
Email alerting service Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in
the box at the top right-hand corner of the article or click here
To subscribe to Proc. R. Soc. A go to: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009) 465, 3361–3381

doi:10.1098/rspa.2009.0031
Published online 12 August 2009
Estimating ocean wave directional spreading

from an Eulerian surface elevation time history
BY T. A. A. ADCOCK* AND P. H. TAYLOR
Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Parks Road,
Oxford OX1 3PJ, UK
The directional spreading of sea states is an important design parameter in offshore

engineering. Wave directionality affects the resulting wave kinematics, which affects the
forces exerted on offshore structures. In this paper, we develop a method for estimating
the amount of spreading, when the only information available is the time history of free
surface elevation at a single point in space.
We do this by predicting the second-order bound waves that occur at the difference in
frequency of two freely propagating waves. The magnitude of these second-order bound
waves is a function of the angle between the interacting waves. Thus, it is possible to
infer some information about spreading from a single-point time history.
We demonstrate that this approach works for wave groups in a fully nonlinear numerical
wave tank. We create a synthetic random sea state and introduce noise into the analysis
and thus show that our approach is robust and insensitive to noise, even with a signal-
to-noise ratio of unity in the difference waves. This approach is also applied to random
waves in a physical wave tank where spreading was directly measured and also to a
storm recorded in the North Sea. In all cases, we find our estimate of spreading is in
good agreement with other measurements.
Keywords: ocean; water wave; directional spreading; Eulerian; second-order difference
1. Introduction
Directional spreading is an important parameter in the accurate description of

a sea state. The degree of directional spreading affects the forces on offshore
structures (Bea et al. 1991) and the height of extreme waves (Jonathan &
Taylor 1997; Johannessen & Swan 2001) and as such is of importance to offshore
engineers.
Unfortunately, measuring directionality is more complicated than merely
measuring the elevation of the free surface motion with time. Much field data
consist of point measurements of the free surface without any information about
directionality recorded. One instance of this is the much analysed Draupner
wave where the nearest measurement of spreading known to the authors was
180 km away.
*Author for correspondence (thomas.adcock@st-peters.oxon.org).
Received 20 January 2009

Accepted 16 July 2009 3361 This journal is © 2009 The Royal Society
3362 T. A. A. Adcock and P. H. Taylor
Walker et al. (2005) proposed a method of estimating directional spreading

by using the ‘sum’ term of Stokes-type second-order bound waves. Our work
builds on this, but uses the low-frequency ‘difference’ terms to infer the
directional spreading.
First, the theoretical magnitude of the difference waves is shown to be
dependent on the directional spreading of the freely propagating waves. We
demonstrate that this can be used to estimate spreading in a fully nonlinear
numerical wave tank.
To demonstrate the robustness of our approach, synthetic random data
containing noise are created. We also apply our method to random wave data
from a physical wave basin. Finally, we show that our analysis is consistent with
other spreading measurements for severe storm waves recorded at the Draupner
platform in the North Sea.
It is worth noting that, while the amount of directional spreading may be
inferred from the nonlinear wave–wave interactions, it is, of course, not possible
to determine the mean wave direction.
2. Directional spreading
A directional sea state may be described by a frequency-directional spectrum

S (f , μ). We assume that this is the product of a power spectrum and a directional
distribution, i.e.
S (f , μ) = S (f )D(μ). (2.1)
In this work, for simplicity, we make the assumption that the directional
distribution is independent of frequency. However, more detailed analyses such
as Mitsuyasu et al. (1975) and Ewans (1998) show that spreading is a function
of frequency. Thus, our estimates are of the weighted average spreading.
Here, we model the directional distribution using a wrapped normal spreading
function 2
1 μ
D (μ) = √ exp − 2
, (2.2)
σ 2π 2σ
where μ is the angle relative to the mean wave direction. This spreading function
is theoretically not bounded in angle and will ‘wrap around’, as noted by Tucker &
Pitt (2001). In this paper, the largest value of spreading we consider is σ = 35◦
and for computational reasons we curtail this spreading at μ = ±100◦ .
In this work, there is no attempt to estimate directional spreading on a
wave-by-wave basis. Instead, we aim to estimate the degree of directional
spreading occurring in a sea state (typically taken to be 3 hours in
duration), and comparable to what would be recorded from a directional wave
buoy, to be captured as the value of a single parameter. We choose, for
convenience, a Gaussian spreading model but other forms such as cos2s (μ),
as used for the experiments discussed in §6, could be used to equal effect.
In terms of a single parameter to describe spreading, all such forms are
equivalent. As a consequence of this ‘broad-brush’ approach, the method
breaks down for crossing seas such as might occur as the combination of a
local wind–sea and swell. However, a study of worldwide field measurements
of directional spreading in extra-tropical storms by Forristall & Ewans (1998)
Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

Estimating spreading from a wave-staff 3363
10 2
spectral density (m2 s)
10 –2
second-order linear linear and higher harmonics

difference second-order and high-
sum frequency tail
10 –4
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
frequency (s−1)
Figure 1. The spectrum of a typical 20 min time history recorded at the Draupner platform. The
data are slightly smoothed for clarity.
shows that the representation of real storms as unimodal sea states

with relatively small directional spreading is a reasonable assumption for
engineering designs.
3. Second-order bound waves
(a) Theory
Freely propagating water waves will interact to produce ‘bound’ components
that do not move with their own dynamics, but are merely functions of the
freely propagating waves. To second-order, these waves will occur at the sum and
difference of the frequencies of the freely propagating waves. A typical spectrum
based on 20 min of data recorded at the Draupner platform in the North Sea
(see §7) is shown in figure 1. Here the largest components, predominately linear
terms, occur at frequencies above 0.04 Hz. In this paper, we concentrate on the
second-order difference terms, here below 0.04 Hz. These are small but separable
by simple filtering in frequency. The freely propagating waves may be written as

n=N
ηfree = an cos φn , (3.1)
n=1
where an is the Fourier coefficient, N the number of Fourier components used, and
φn = ωn t + ξn , (3.2)
where ξ gives the relative phase of the component.

60 1.0
angle between
components
40 0.8
20 0.6
0 0.4
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ωn /ωm
Figure 2. The variation in κ + (θ)/κ + (0) for km d = 2 and ωm = 1 rad s−1 .
The waves in equation (3.1) will interact to give a second-order record given by
η = ηfree + η2+ + η2− , (3.3)

where
m=N
n=N
η2± = an am κ ± cos(φn ± φm ), (3.4)
n=1 m=1
where κ + and κ − are the interaction kernels given in equation (3.5). The kernels
for deep water were given by Longuet-Higgins (1962) and for finite depth by
Dean & Sharma (1981) (see also Dalzell (1999) and Forristall (2000), who both
give corrections to the finite depth case)

± ωn2 + ωm2
ω n ωm cos θ
κ = + ∓1
2g 2g tanh(|kn | d) tanh(|km | d)

(ωn ± ωm )2 + g |kn ± km | tanh(|kn ± km | d)
×
(ωn ± ωm )2 − g |kn ± km | tanh(|kn ± km | d)

ωn ± ωm
+
2g (ωn ± ωm )2 − g |kn ± km | tanh(|kn ± km | d)

ωn3 3
ωm
× ± . (3.5)
sinh2 (|kn |d) sinh2 (|km | d)
The wavenumber |k| and natural frequency ω are related by the linear
dispersion relation. The angle between the interacting components is θ .
The relative variation in the kernels with angle and frequency is shown in
figures 2 and 3.
It should be noted that, as the ratio of ωn /ωm increases, the magnitude of
the kernels also increases. The kernels were derived on the assumption that the
second-order term is small compared with the linear wave and that the ratio
between the components is small; this assumption becomes invalid at higher
frequency ratios. This work uses only interactions where the frequency ratio is less

60 1.0
angle between
components 0.5
40
20 0.0
–0.5
0
1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
ωn /ωm
Figure 3. The variation in κ − (θ)/κ − (0) for km d = 2 and ωm = 1 rad s−1 .
1.0
0.5
amplitude (m)
–0.5
–1.0
–200 –150 –100 –50 0 50 100 150 200
time from focus (s)
Figure 4. A linear NewWave group with unit amplitude.
than 3. The interaction kernels are functions of frequency, water depth and the
angle between the free components. Thus, the second-order terms are functions
of the directional spreading of the free components.
This paper uses the difference terms to estimate spreading. To show how the
difference term varies under directionally spread waves, we use a linear NewWave
group (see Tromans et al. 1991). The wavegroup has unit amplitude when all
components are at focus and is based on a JONSWAP spectrum with Tz = 12 s
and a peak enhancement of 3.3. The free waves are shown in figure 4.
The difference terms may be calculated from this for different water depths and
spreading angles. The wavenumber, k, used to characterize depth, corresponds
to the mean period. The variation with spreading angle and depth is shown in
figure 5. It can be seen in figure 5 that these waves are small compared with the
free waves. The magnitude of the bound waves, of course, varies with the square
of the linear wave.
(b) Fully nonlinear simulations

Gibbs & Taylor (2005) carried out fully nonlinear simulations of the evolution
of directionally spread NewWave groups using the numerical scheme developed by
Bateman et al. (2001). The wavegroups were based on a narrow-banded Gaussian
spectrum in deep water and a mean period of 12 s.

(a)
amplitude (× 10 –3 m)
–2
–4
–6
–8
(b) 5
0
amplitude (× 10 –3 m)
−5
−10
−15
−20
–100 –50 0 50 100
time from focus (s)
Figure 5. The difference term under a NewWave wavegroup. (a) Variation with spreading (kd = 2).
Dashed line, σ = 0◦ ; thick line, σ = 15◦ ; thin line, σ = 30◦ . (b) Variation with depth (σ = 15◦ ).
Dashed line, kd = 1; thick line, kd = 2; thin line, kd = ∞.
The odd and even harmonics can be separated by running simulations that are
π out of phase (equivalent to replacing an by −an in equation (3.1)) but have the
same linear envelope, producing ‘crest’ and ‘trough’ focused events. The odd and
even harmonics are then given by
ηcrest − ηtrough ηcrest + ηtrough
ηodd = and ηeven = . (3.6)
2 2
The inversion of the wave group permits the straightforward extraction of the
spectral contributions from different orders, because the nonlinear contributions
to the surface profile scale as powers of the linear components an . As an
example, the third-order (cubic) terms are inverted by inverting the linear

η (m) 2
–2
–4
–100 –50 0 50 100
time from linear focus (s)
Figure 6. Free waves extracted from fully nonlinear simulation for the ak = 0.1 case.
2
η (× 10 –3 m)
–2
–4
–6
–8
–100 –80 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 100
time from focus (s)
Figure 7. Comparison of fully nonlinear bound waves from fully nonlinear simulation for the ak =
0.1 case, with those predicted from the free waves assuming σ = 15◦ . Dotted line represents fully
nonlinear simulation, whereas the solid line represents calculation using interaction kernels.
term ((−an )3 = −an3 ), whereas the second-order (quadratic) terms remain the
same ((−a)2n = an2 ). The free waves can then be extracted by filtering in
the frequency domain.
Figure 6 shows the free waves for a run where the linear focused steepness
was ak = 0.1. Figure 7 shows the second-order difference waves for this run, along
with the bound waves calculated from the the linearized data using equation (3.4)
assuming a spreading of 15◦ .
On a linear basis, this group would have had a 15◦ spread at focus. Because of
the nonlinear changes in group structure as the group converges, Gibbs & Taylor
(2005) estimated the local spreading to 14.2◦ at focus, based on the analysis of
the spatial shape of the wave group. It can be seen that the time history of the
second-order difference term using 15◦ is very slightly too small, as would be
expected from the rather weak nonlinear dynamics occurring for this group.

Table 1. Spreading estimates for different input steepness of wave group.
spreading of group spreading estimated from

input akp at focus (◦ ) difference waves (◦ )
0.1 14.2 14.3

0.21 11.2 10.9
0.24 10.2 9.3
0.27 9.0 6.9
0.30 7.8 4.6
Gibbs & Taylor (2005) carried out other simulations using steeper wavegroups
with the same initial directional spreading. These fully nonlinear simulations
examined the complete spatio-temporal evolution of nonlinear groups. As the
steeper groups focused, there were substantial changes in the group structure,
such as a reduction of directional spreading below that of the initial conditions.
There was also a contraction of the steeper wave groups along the mean wave
direction substantially greater than that predicted by linear focusing. Each
simulation started from a linear wave group with a Gaussian spectrum and
directional spreading of 15◦ with the phasing set so that the group would focus
after 20 periods, assuming linear behaviour. The actual spreading for various
cases, based on the group structure at focus, is given in table 1. We also
estimate the second-order difference term for these data for various spreading
angles. Table 1 also shows the estimated spreading angle at which the theoretical
difference time history matches that in the numerical simulation.
The disagreement for the more nonlinear cases is partly due to inaccuracy
in extracting the linear data. However, the two spreading parameters compared
here are also significantly different. Gibbs & Taylor (2005) calculated spreading
by considering the spatial structure of the whole group over the entire free surface
at the instant of temporal focus, whereas analysis of the difference term, as here,
uses the complete time history at the spatial focus point—here an estimate over
approximately eight wave periods. Thus, some discrepancy between the small
spreading angles is to be expected for the most nonlinear and fast evolving cases.
However, the reduction of the directional spreading over time as the groups focus
is identified by both methods.
4. Method for analysing non-deterministic data
(a) Linearizing data

This work relies on being able to separate accurately a wave record into the
different components in equation (3.3). Walker et al. (2005) introduced a method
of linearizing datasets so as to extract the freely propagating, or linear, waves.
First the data are filtered to remove all low-frequency waves and very high-
frequency waves. The assumption is then made that the remaining waves, ηfiltered ,
are dominated by free waves with a small contribution from the second-order sum
waves. The next step uses the Hilbert transform, which introduces a π/2 phase
shift into a signal. For a single-frequency signal given by

η = A cos(ωt), (4.1)
its Hilbert transform is

η̂ = A sin(ωt). (4.2)
The ‘sum’ term for the signal given in equation (4.1) will occur at twice the
original frequency, the location in frequency of which can also be found from
the Hilbert transform,
ηsum ∼ A2 cos(2ωt) ∼ (η2 − η̂2 ). (4.3)
For irregular seas, which are not too broadbanded, the shape of the sum term
is approximately
ηsum ≈ K (η2 − η̂2 ), (4.4)
where K is a scalar. Thus the free waves are given by
ηfree ≈ ηfiltered − K (η2 − η̂2 ). (4.5)
The value of K is found by searching for the value of K that sets the skewness of
the free waves, ηfree , to zero. This approach works equally well for unidirectional
or directional spread waves. Taylor et al. (2005) showed that this Hilbert-
based approach accurately reproduces the second-order sum waves for relatively
broadbanded wave groups measured in a physical wave tank.
If the second-order sum components are a sensitive function of directional
spreading (figure 2), why analyse the smaller difference terms? The reason is the
frequency range of the various terms: the upper tail of the linear components
overlaps in frequency with the sum term making accurate separation rather
difficult. In contrast, the difference terms are small but measurable at frequencies
well below any significant linear term and so may be separated by simple filtering,
as is clear from figure 1.
(b) Analysis of results

Once the free waves have been extracted from the data, the difference
terms may be calculated using equation (3.4) for a given model of spreading.
Initially, a value is assumed for the root mean square spreading parameter.
Each frequency component in the linearized signal is assumed to be the sum
of components all with the same frequency but spread around a single mean
direction with the assumed wrapped normal distribution (we discretize the
wrapped normal distribution into 30 components). Then a double sum over
direction and frequency is performed (equation (3.4)) to predict the long-wave
component. Various different spreading values are tried and the results compared
with the low-frequency waves in the original signal.
The comparison is carried out by identical low-pass filtering of both the
calculated difference terms and the original data, so that no free waves from the
linear range remain in the latter (see figure 1). Filtering is also done to remove any
very long-period waves from the data (typically periods over 4 min at field scale).

The two datasets are then subtracted. The Euclidian norm is then taken of this
vector before it is non-dimensionalized as shown in equation (4.6) to find the
long-wave discrepancy,

(estimate − filtered data)2

long-wave discrepancy =
. (4.6)
(filtered data)2
In the absence of free long waves, the linear wave field can be assumed to
consist of a sum of many linear components of different frequency, with different
phase and different direction of motion. Our analysis accounts for the random
amplitudes and phases of these components by Fourier decomposition. However,
it cannot include the directional information for each component because this is
unavailable in a single-point time history of surface elevation. We simply assume
that each component has exactly the same spreading distribution around the
same mean direction and estimate what second-order difference signal would be
expected.
We seek the best possible correspondence between the measured long waves
and those predicted using second-order theory based on the measured linear
components. As no wave-by-wave estimation of spreading is performed, we seek
only an optimum in the goodness of fit based on a single averaged value of
spreading over the entire record. Various other measures of this fit were tried.
While many of these produced numerically lower values for the discrepancy
overall, all gave more erratic results for the position of the minima of the
discrepancy curves when trialled with noisy synthetic data and wave-basin data.
The matching process is also complicated by noise in the data. Both in
laboratory experiments with random waves and in the open ocean, the wave
fields are relatively very noisy at low frequency. Bound long waves arising from
second-order difference interactions with wave trains are small—typically smaller
than approximately 5 per cent of the overall wave height. On the open sea,
the measured low-frequency waves will be a combination of the bound waves
used in this analysis, and free waves uncorrelated with the local linear structure
of the wave group. This noise will arise from any process that disrupts wave
groups. As an example, consider wave groups incident on a distant coastline.
These have bound long waves that are amplified as the groups shoal and then
released as free waves to propagate offshore when the groups break. More local
and incremental release of long-wave components would occur from intermittent
breaking on deeper water close to the measurement point. Thus, every breaking
wave event in the entire sea state is likely to be a weak source of free long
waves. These processes, both local and far away, would lead to a relatively high
background level of free long components, within which the bound structure we
seek is embedded.
In laboratory basins and flumes, the absorption of the intended linear wave
components is relatively straightforward, either by active feedback control on the
paddles or passively. In contrast, long-wave components (including those related
to mass transport—Stokes drift) are much harder to control or absorb and will
be inevitably present to a significant degree in random waves. In work on the
distribution of crest heights in random seas, Forristall (2000) encountered such
large uncorrelated long waves in tank data that he used high-pass filtering to
remove all long waves from his analysis.

10
5
η (m)
−5
−10
200 250 300 350
time (s)
Figure 8. A typical time series of synthetic linear waves from a JONSWAP spectrum.
1.0
0.5
η (m)
0.0
−0.5
−1.0
200 250 300 350
time (s)
Figure 9. Typical sum and difference terms for synthetic data. The thin line represents the sum
term and the thick line represents the difference term.
In the open sea, we do not know the main source of the discrepancy between the
measured and modelled long-wave components. Both the effects discussed above
may be important. The analysis of deliberately injected noise given in §5 shows
that even high levels of noise in the long-wave components do not significantly
degrade our ability to estimate the mean spreading.
5. Synthetic test data
(a) Method for generating data

As a test of this approach, synthetic second-order data may be analysed.
Simulated random data are generated using the approach set out in
Forristall (2000).
First, a free wave directional spectrum is created. We use a JONSWAP
spectrum with Hs = 6 m, mean period Tz = 12 s and γ = 3.3. This is discretized
with ω = 0.0052 rad s−1 and an angular resolution of 3◦ . The spectrum is
curtailed at three times the mean frequency and at two standard deviations from
the mean wave direction. Free waves may then be generated by assigning a random
phase to each component. A typical time series is shown in figure 8.
Once the free waves have been calculated, the bound waves are found using
equation (3.4) for a depth of 60.1 m. For the linear time series in figure 8, the
sum and difference terms are shown in figure 9. The difference terms have been
filtered to remove components with frequencies higher than the lowest frequency
linear waves.

1.5
long-wave discrepancy
1.0
0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
σ (°)
Figure 10. The long-wave discrepancy between the synthetic data with σ = 15◦ and estimates.
Fifteen data points are used.
(b) Analysis of noise-free data

Random second-order data may be analysed using the method set out in §4.
Various values of spreading parameter σ may be trialled, and the results compared
using equation (4.6).
Results are shown in figure 10. Data were created with a mean directional
spread of 15◦ . The small inaccuracy in the analysis is due to two effects. First,
the removal of the sum bound waves is not exact for a finite bandwidth record.
Second, the mean wave direction will vary slightly over time. The waves were
created assuming a spreading around the mean wave direction over the duration of
the record, whereas the analysis measures the spreading around the instantaneous
mean wave direction.
(c) Analysis of noisy data

In all recorded data, noise will be present. It is important to establish the
sensitivity of an analysis technique to noise. We assume in this analysis that all
the noise is uncorrelated to the original data. For the purposes of this study, there
are three types of noise that we will consider:
(i) sensor noise in recording long waves,

(ii) spurious long waves which are not bound to the free waves; for instance,
freely propagating long waves could be released by short-wave wave groups
breaking at a coastline and propagating offshore, and
(iii) sensor noise in the linear record.
The effect of noise in the ‘free wave’ range of frequencies will lead to errors
in the estimates of the bound waves. The effect of this can be examined by
comparing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the ‘free waves’ with that introduced
from this into the estimate of the second-order signal. We define SNR as

powersignal Asignal 2
SNR = = . (5.1)
powernoise Anoise

104
wave estimate
SNR in bound
103
102
10
10 102 103 104
SNR (linear data)
Figure 11. The signal-to-noise ratio in the second-order difference term estimate, introduced by
noise in the free waves.
If we consider the interaction of two wave trains which have a small error in
amplitude , then the linear wave will be given by
ηn = an (1 + n ) cos φn (5.2)
and the SNR in the linear range will be
1
. SNRlinear = (5.3)
2
The interaction of two waves will then be approximately
η2− ≈ an am (1 + n )(1 + m ) cos(φn − φm ). (5.4)
If we ignore very small terms, the SNR of the second-order difference estimate
is then
1
SNR2− ∼ . (5.5)
(n + m )2
If the noise is Gaussian, these will sum geometrically to give a general result
1
. SNR2− ∼ (5.6)
2 2
This can be checked numerically by injecting Gaussian noise into the linear
range and by calculating the SNR ratio of the resulting second-order difference
waves, using equation (3.4), as shown in figure 11. Thus noise in the linear part
of the spectrum will cause an inaccuracy in the estimated second-order difference
term. This will have the same order SNR as that in the linear range.
We now make the simplifying assumption that the noise from types (1) and
(2) will be more important than the noise in the linear range to the estimate
of discrepancy. This assumption is based on the physical waves being far larger
in the linear range, and so absolute inaccuracies in the measurement will lead
to smaller SNRs. This is obviously dependent on the sensor type, analogue to
digital conversion, etc. The amount of disturbance from type (2) is specific to
the location and sea state. A more complex analysis than the one presented here

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
σ (°)
Figure 12. Typical long-wave discrepancy for various levels of noise, based on 20 min of data. The
data points used are shown with circles and these results spline fitted. Dashed line, SNR = 0.5;
dotted line, SNR = 1; dash-dotted line, SNR = 2; solid line, SNR = 3.
would involve several varying noise parameters, but would lead to very similar
results, so we present the simplified case.
We will lump the noise from types (1) and (2) together and introduce this into
the filtered data term in equation (4.6). The amount of noise is given by the SNR
(the signal being the filtered data). This can then be systematically varied.
In the following examples, the data were created with a spreading value of 15◦
and are analysed with various levels of noise added using the method set out in §4.
In all cases, 20 min of data was used for the analysis. Figure 12 shows a plot of the
discrepancy for several SNRs. It can be seen that the discrepancy increases with
noise and that the minimum is much flatter than in the noiseless case (figure 10).
It can also be seen that the location of the minimum does not occur exactly at 15◦ .
To examine this, figure 13 shows the variability of the estimate in spreading as
the noise level increases. While the average value of predicted spreading remains
close to 15◦ , the standard deviation of estimates based on 20 min of data (roughly
100 waves) increases.
Thus, we can make an estimate of spreading, even when the level of noise in
the low-frequency waves is comparable to the actual signal. However, as noise
increases, we will need to analyse more data to make an accurate estimate of
the spreading.

estimated spreading 20
15
10
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
SNR
Figure 13. The average estimate of spreading when noise is added to the calculation. The results
are based on 250 runs with 20 min of data in each. The standard deviation of these estimates is
shown. The true spreading is 15◦ .
6. Wave basin data
(a) Data parameters

To assist with the design of a pair of offshore structures for the Sea of Okhotsk,
tests were commissioned by Shell and performed in a wave basin at the Canadian
Hydraulics Centre. These tests included irregular, unidirectional and multi-
directional sea states, in the absence of any structure. The tests were carried out
with length scaling of 1 : 45. All surface elevation data presented here are scaled
up to full scale, using Froude number scaling as appropriate. Further details may
be found in Cornett et al. (2002).
The spectrum used was a JONSWAP spectrum with γ = 2. The undisturbed
water depth was 53.13 m, the significant wave height was 9.9 m and the peak
period was 14.3 s.
The directional spreading model used in the experiments was
Γ (s + 1)
D(θ ) = √ cos2s (θ − θ0 ), (6.1)
π Γ (s + 0.5)
where Γ is the gamma function, θ0 the mean wave direction, s the spreading index
and |θ − θ0 | < 90◦ . At each frequency component, only one plane wave component
was synthesized, so equation (6.1) was only fulfilled over a range of frequencies. A
spreading index of 7 was used, which equates to a theoretical standard deviation
of 15◦ . Although different in form, the two models for the spreading function
(equations (2.2) and (6.1)) with suitably matched values of the constants are
visually indistinguishable when plotted. Thus fitting a wrapped normal angular
distribution to cos2s data presents no difficulty or ambiguity in interpretation
unless there is significant wave energy propagating at angles >90◦ to the mean
wave direction. The actual wave spreading in the basin was measured using two-
axis electromagnetic current meters. These found a mean spreading angle of 17◦
and it was observed that measured spreading varied with frequency, with the
minimum spreading under the spectral peak. For nominally unidirectional waves,
spreading of 4◦ was measured in the basin.

0.3
0.2
0.1
elevation (m)
–0.1
–0.2
–0.3
−0.4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
time (s)
Figure 14. A typical comparison of low-pass-filtered data with the best estimate of the second-order
difference components after identical filtering, based on Canadian Hydraulics Centre data. Thin
line, filtered data; thick line, best estimate.
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
σ (°)
Figure 15. The long-wave discrepancy between the low-pass-filtered data and the estimate of
second-order difference components for various spreading angles. Eight data points were used,
shown with multiplication symbols, and the results spline fitted. Solid line, the unidirectional case;
dotted line, the spread sea case.
(b) Analysis
Point surface elevation data were available for 186 min for both spread and
unidirectional seas. For convenience, this was divided into 20 min sections, which
were then analysed using the approach set out in §4. A comparison of low-pass-
filtered data with best estimate for the bound difference waves is given in figure 14
for a typical 20 min section of the spread sea case. The long-wave discrepancy over
the entire record is shown for various assumed spreading angles in figure 15.

20
15
10
η (m)
–5
–10
–200 0 200 400 600 800
time (s)
Figure 16. The surface elevation time history recorded at the Draupner platform that includes the
New Year wave. For convenience, the time is set to zero under the big wave.
Over the nine sections of spread sea data analysed, the mean estimated
spreading was found to be 17◦ with a standard deviation in the results of 3◦ .
The smallest estimate for a 20 min period was 13◦ and the largest 22◦ , with
be compared with the intended spreading angle of 15◦ and 17◦ achieved in the
wave basin.
For the unidirectional case, we estimate mean spreading to be 7◦ with a
standard deviation of 0.7◦ . It should be noted that the long-wave discrepancy
was much larger for these data than for the directional spread data.
Thus, the mean spreading is accurately predicted when the whole record
is considered. However, for these data, there is some error when shorter time
intervals are considered. In wave tanks, it is very difficult to absorb low-frequency
waves, so it is likely that spurious low-frequency waves will be present, possibly
at a higher level than in field data and these are likely to be significantly larger
in unidirectional as opposed to spread sea states.
7. Field data
(a) Draupner field data

The Draupner platform is located in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea in a
water depth of 70 m. The surface elevation was measured using a downward-
pointing laser. The platform structure is rather sparse and the effect of the
structure on the waves is assumed to have been minimal. For more information on
the structure, the instrumentation, the meteorological conditions and the wave
record, see Haver (2004).
The data used in this paper were recorded during a storm on 1 January
1995, between 14:00 and 19:00. The sea-state properties remained fairly constant
over the storm’s 5 hour duration. Data were recorded for 20 min in every hour.
Significant wave height was around 12 m and average wave period was around
12.5 s. The data have been much analysed (see, for instance, Jensen 2005; Walker
et al. 2005) because of the ‘New Year wave’ that occurred during the storm. This
had a crest elevation of 18.5 m. This is shown in figure 16.

0.3
0.2
elevation (m)
0.1
–0.1
–0.2
–0.3
–200 0 200 400 600 800
time (s)
Figure 17. The low-pass-filtered data for the time history containing the New Year wave, together
with the estimate of the long waves based on a wrapped normal spreading distribution with σ = 20◦ .
Thin line, low-pass-filtered data; thick line, predicted waves for σ = 20◦ .
0.3
0.2
0.1
elevation (m)
–0.1
–0.2
–0.3
–0.4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
time (s)
Figure 18. The low-pass-filtered waves for a typical 20 min section of data. The best estimate is
also shown. Thin line, low-pass-filtered data; thick line, predicted waves for σ = 20◦ .
No directional information was recorded at the Draupner location. The only

relevant directional spreading measurement known to the authors is from a
directional buoy close to the Auk platform, 180 km away (K. C. Ewans 2005,
personal communication). Gibson (2004) based his analysis of this record on the
same directional measurement. The data recorded here had a similar frequency
spectrum to those recorded at Draupner and are assumed to be part of the
same storm. The spreading measured at Auk was around 20◦ although there was
considerable variation with frequency. Using the ECMWF WAM type hindcast
model P. A. E. M. Janssen (2009, personal communication) estimated the
spreading to be 24◦ at 18:00.

(a)
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
(b) 1.15
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
σ (°)
Figure 19. Long-wave discrepancies for the Draupner data. (a) The long-wave discrepancy of each
20 min section of the Draupner time histories. (b) The average long-wave discrepancy for Draupner
time histories. The results are spline fitted.
(b) Analysis
Six 20 min records are available at Draupner, with the start of each recording
being on the hour. The record containing the New Year wave, shown in figure 16,
was the second of these.
We observe that something unusual happens to the low-frequency waves around
the time of the giant wave. Forristall (2000) pointed out that the kernels for the
second-order difference terms usually predict a set-down under a large wave. This

is supported by figure 5, which shows a set-down under that wave group. However,
Walker et al. (2005) observed that there is a set-up under the Draupner wave as
shown in figure 17. This also shows our prediction for the second-order difference
terms based on 20◦ spreading. It can be seen that these are dramatically out
of phase around the large wave. We will consider this inconsistency in greater
detail in a subsequent paper, in which we propose that the giant wave arose in a
locally crossing sea (Adcock & Taylor 2009). The present method assumes that
sea states are unimodal in direction with relatively modest directional spreading.
This is consistent with most of the data analysed in the worldwide study of wave
directional spreading in extra-tropical storms by Forristall & Ewans (1998).
A more typical result is shown in figure 18 for the 20 min period an hour after
the one containing the giant wave. The low-pass-filtered signal is shown as in the
identically filtered best estimate.
Figure 19 shows the long-wave discrepancy, as defined by equation (4.6), for
the storm (with a small section around the big wave excluded). It can be seen
that the minimum discrepancy over all the available data is at 20◦ , which is
consistent with a previous, cruder, estimate by Walker et al. (2005) based on
the second-order sum terms. The lowest estimate of spreading is 12◦ in the first
20 min section. The highest is 25◦ in the final 20 min section. Without accurate
local spreading measurements, we cannot say whether these variations are due
to inaccuracy in our method or natural variation of the sea-state properties
with time.
8. Conclusions
In this paper, we have demonstrated that it is possible to infer the degree of

spreading without direct measurement. This may be done using the low-frequency,
second-order difference waves, whose magnitude is dependent on the directional
spreading of the linear waves.
The technique is shown to work in a numerical wave tank, for mildly nonlinear
waves that are representative for waves in a typical storm.
Analysis of synthetic random data shows that our approach is robust,
producing reasonable estimates of spreading even if the SNR is of the order of 1.
This analysis highlights that the length of data available, and over which the sea-
state parameters are approximately constant, is important in determining the
accuracy of the spreading estimate.
We apply our approach to random wave data recorded in a physical wave basin.
While the analysis is not perfect when only 20 min of data are considered, when
longer sections of data are analysed, the results are excellent.
We also show that this approach can be applied to field data recorded in the
North Sea.
The approach in this paper has the potential to be a useful tool in the analysis
of wave records where spreading has not been directly measured. It is applicable
to analysis of rough seas, when the properties of the storm are stationary for
several hours.
The authors are grateful for the data provided by Dr Richard Gibbs, Dr Kevin Ewans (Shell) and
Dr Sverre Haver (Statoil). T. A. A. A. was supported by an EPSRC studentship.

References
Adcock, T. A. A. & Taylor, P. H. 2009 Second-order difference waves and the Draupner New Year
Wave. In 11th Int. Workshop on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting, Halifax, Canada, 18–23
October 2009.
Bateman, W. J. D., Swan, C. & Taylor, P. H. 2001 On the efficient numerical simulation
of directionally spread surface water waves. J. Comput. Phys. 174, 277–305. (doi:10.1006/
jcph.2001.6906)
Bea, R. G., Pawsey, S. F. & Litton, R. W. 1991 Measured and predicted wave forces on
offshore platforms. J. Waterway, Port, Coastal Ocean Eng. 117, 511–532. (doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-950X(1991)117:5(511))
Cornett, A., Morin, V. & Durand, N. 2002 Model tests to select deck elevations for the pa-b and
lun-a platforms. Technical Report HYD-CTR-008, Canadian Hydraulics Centre.
Dalzell, J. F. 1999 A note on finite depth second-order wave–wave interactions. Appl. Ocean Res.
21, 105–111. (doi:10.1016/S0141-1187(99)00008-5)
Dean, R. G. & Sharma, J. N. 1981 Simulation of wave systems due to nonlinear directional spectra.
In Int. Symp. on Hydrodynamics in Coastal Engineering, Trondheim, pp. 1211–1222.
Ewans, K. C. 1998 Observations of the directional spectrum of fetch-limited waves. J. Phys.
Oceanogr. 28, 495–512. (doi:10.1175/1520-0485(1998)028<0495:OOTDSO>2.0.CO;2)
Forristall, G. Z. 2000 Wave crest distributions: observations and second-order theory. J. Phys.
Oceanogr. 30, 1931–1943. (doi:10.1175/1520-0485(2000)030<1931:WCDOAS>2.0.CO;2)
Forristall, G. Z. & Ewans, K. C. 1998 Worldwide measurements of directional wave spreading.
J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 15, 440–469. (doi:10.1175/1520-0426(1998)015<0440:WMODWS>
2.0.CO;2)
Gibbs, R. G. & Taylor, P. H. 2005 Formation of walls of water in fully nonlinear simulations. Appl.
Ocean Res. 27, 142–157. (doi:10.1016/j.apor.2005.11.009)
Gibson, R. 2004 Wave interactions and wave statistics in directional seas. PhD thesis, Imperial
College, London, UK.
Haver, S. 2004 A possible freak wave event measured at the Draupner Jacket, January 1 1995. In
Rogue Waves Workshop, Brest. See http://www.ifremer.fr/web-com/stw2004/rw/fullpapers/
walk_on_haver.pdf.
Jensen, J. J. 2005 Conditional second-order short-crested water waves applied to extreme wave
episodes. J. Fluid Mech. 545, 29–40. (doi:10.1017/S0022112005006841)
Johannessen, T. B. & Swan, C. 2001 A laboratory study of the focusing of transient and
directionally spread surface water waves. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 457, 971–1006. (doi:10.1098/
rspa.2000.0702)
Jonathan, P. & Taylor, P. H. 1997 On irregular, nonlinear waves in a spread sea. J. Offshore Mech.
Arctic Eng. 119, 37–41. (doi:10.1115/1.2829043)
Longuet-Higgins, M. S. 1962 Resonant interactions between two trains of gravity waves. J. Fluid
Mech. 12, 321–332. (doi:10.1017/S0022112062000233)
Mitsuyasu, H., Tasai, F., Suhara, T., Mizuno, S., Ohkusu, M., Honda, T. & Rikiishi, K. 1975
Observations of the directional spectrum of ocean waves using a cloverleaf buoy. J. Phys.
Oceanogr. 5, 750–760. (doi:10.1175/1520-0485(1975)005<0750:OOTDSO>2.0.CO;2)
Taylor, P. H., Walker, D. A. G., Eatock Taylor, R. & Hunt, A. C. 2005 On the estimation
of directional spreading from a single wave staff. In Proc. 5th Int. Conf. on Ocean Wave
Measurement and Analysis, Madrid, Spain, 3–7 July 2005.
Tromans, P. S., Anaturk, A. & Hagemeijer, P. 1991 A new model for the kinematics of large
ocean waves application as a design wave. In Proc. 1st Int. Cong. on Offshore Mech. Polar Eng.
(ISOPE ), vol. 3, pp. 64–71.
Tucker, M. J. & Pitt, E. G. 2001 Waves in ocean engineering. London, UK: Elsevier.
Walker, D. A. G., Taylor, P. H. & Eatock Taylor, R. 2005 The shape of large surface waves on
the open sea and the Draupner New Year wave. Appl. Ocean Res. 26, 73–83. (doi:10.1016/
j.apor.2005.02.001)
View publication stats

Estimating Ocean Wave Directional Spreading

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimating Ocean Wave Directional Spreading

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Estimating ocean wave directional spreading from an Eulerian

Article in Proceedings of The Royal Society A · September 2009

Data for sheared current blockage View project

Step-WEC View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Estimating ocean wave directional spreading from

Proc. R. Soc. A 2009 465, doi: 10.1098/rspa.2009.0031 first published online

References This article cites 12 articles

Article cited in:

ocean engineering (27 articles)

To subscribe to Proc. R. Soc. A go to: http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009) 465, 3361–3381

Estimating ocean wave directional spreading

The directional spreading of sea states is an important design parameter in offshore

Directional spreading is an important parameter in the accurate description of

Received 20 January 2009

3362 T. A. A. Adcock and P. H. Taylor

Walker et al. (2005) proposed a method of estimating directional spreading

A directional sea state may be described by a frequency-directional spectrum

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

Estimating spreading from a wave-staff 3363

second-order linear linear and higher harmonics

shows that the representation of real storms as unimodal sea states

3. Second-order bound waves

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

3364 T. A. A. Adcock and P. H. Taylor

Figure 2. The variation in κ + (θ)/κ + (0) for km d = 2 and ωm = 1 rad s−1 .

η = ηfree + η2+ + η2− , (3.3)

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

Estimating spreading from a wave-staff 3365

Figure 3. The variation in κ − (θ)/κ − (0) for km d = 2 and ωm = 1 rad s−1 .

Figure 4. A linear NewWave group with unit amplitude.

(b) Fully nonlinear simulations

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

3366 T. A. A. Adcock and P. H. Taylor

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

Estimating spreading from a wave-staff 3367

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

3368 T. A. A. Adcock and P. H. Taylor

Table 1. Spreading estimates for different input steepness of wave group.

spreading of group spreading estimated from

0.1 14.2 14.3

4. Method for analysing non-deterministic data

(a) Linearizing data

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

Estimating spreading from a wave-staff 3369

its Hilbert transform is

ηsum ∼ A2 cos(2ωt) ∼ (η2 − η̂2 ). (4.3)

where K is a scalar. Thus the free waves are given by

ηfree ≈ ηﬁltered − K (η2 − η̂2 ). (4.5)

(b) Analysis of results

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

3370 T. A. A. Adcock and P. H. Taylor

(estimate − ﬁltered data)2

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

Estimating spreading from a wave-staff 3371

5. Synthetic test data

(a) Method for generating data

Proc. R. Soc. A (2009)

3372 T. A. A. Adcock and P. H. Taylor

(b) Analysis of noise-free data

(c) Analysis of noisy data