Estimation of Extreme Met-Ocean Conditions for

Offshore Engineering Applications

Vijay Panchang1 and Chan K. Jeong2
1 Texas A&M University, Galveston, TX, USA
2 Dockwise USA, Houston, TX, USA

years, Gumbel (1941) provided perhaps the first systematic

1 Introduction 1 approach to this ill-posed problem. The essence of the proce-
2 Basic Theory 2 dure lies in fitting available data to an appropriate probability
3 Parameter Estimation 3 distribution and then using that distribution in inverse fashion
4 Other Distributions 5 to identify an event corresponding to the specified N.
Such techniques, in general, have been used to iden-
5 Selection of the Appropriate Distribution 5
tify 100-, 200-, and other larger N-year return period esti-
6 Data Requirements 6
mates of significant wave heights (SWHs) and windspeeds
7 Trends in the Data 7 for offshore engineering applications in many parts of the
8 Recent Developments: Modeled Wind and Wave world. Examples include Panchang, Jeong, and Demirbilek
Data 7 (2013) and Panchang and Li (2006) for the Gulf of Mexico,
9 Summary and Conclusions 9 Neelamani, Al-Salem, and Rakha (2006, 2007) for a part
Acknowledgments 12 of the Persian Gulf, Golshani, Taebi, and Chegini (2007)
Endnotes 12 for the Caspian Sea, Canellas et al. (2007) for parts of the
Glossary 12 Mediterranean Sea, Aarnes, Breivik, and Reistad (2012) for
References 12 the Norwegian Sea, Panchang, Pearce, and Puri (1999) and
Panchang, Jeong, and Li (2008) for various regions of the
Gulf of Maine, and Muzathik et al. (2011) for the South
China Sea. Engineers can refer to these publications for
1 INTRODUCTION first-order estimates as needed for their design calculations,
although as described below, considerable scope may exist
The design of offshore structures entails the characterization for obtaining improved estimates. In any case, the method-
of events corresponding to a specified frequency of occur- ology lends itself to multiple solutions and it behooves the
rence. In engineering parlance, these events are related to the engineer to consider more than one estimate with knowledge
“return period” (also called the recurrence interval), denoted of the attendant limitations and assumptions.
by N and loosely defined as an event that is equaled or In fact, recent events have given a fillip to the exami-
exceeded once in N years. Although engineers had grap- nation of such issues. The hurricanes in the Gulf Mexico
pled with such estimation using ad hoc methods for many during the 2004–2008 period resulted in wave heights that
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
exceeded the previously calculated 100-year return period
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. estimates (SWH100 ) by as much as 6 m (approximately 50%)
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition)
in the vicinity of several offshore facilities (Panchang and
ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2 Li, 2006), inflicting considerable damage to the structures
2 General

and disrupting supplies. Hurricane Katrina caused overtop- general, to estimate the N-year SWH (denoted by SWHN ),
ping of and damage to the levees that protect New Orleans Equation 2 may be rewritten as
from the 100-year surge. As a result of these events, exten-
sion of the design condition to larger return periods (or lower 1
1− = P(H < SWHN )
frequencies of occurrence) must be seriously considered. N
Even though a structure may be designed to withstand the { [ ( )]}
SWHN − a
100-year event (i.e., an event corresponding to a 1% prob- = exp − exp − (3)
b
ability of exceedance in any year), during its “design life”
of, say, 30 years, the probability of such an event being
experienced at least once is as high as 1 − (0.99)30 = 26%, The parameters a and b are determined in conjunction
which most engineers would be reluctant to accept. Prudence with available data (through a process known as parameter
would suggest lowering this risk by opting for a higher return estimation). Several methods are available for this process.
period. Differences in wave properties at different locations, as
While the basic framework for estimating conditions corre- represented by data, manifest themselves through differences
sponding to long return periods, described by Gumbel (1941, in a and b, so that, even if the Gumbel distribution itself is
1958) and subsequently in many textbooks, is fairly straight- applicable to the different locations, the actual formulas will
forward, the various steps involved present many alterna- be different.
tives, which have been the subject of considerable research In addition to the Gumbel distribution, other extreme value
in the past few years. The purpose of this article is to provide distributions have also been used. Isaacson and MacKenzie
a brief review of the salient features of such estimation and (1981), Muir and El-Shaarawai (1986), and Sorenson (1997)
to identify the most relevant methods available to the engi- provide lists of formulae for multiple distributions such as
neer and the choices that confront him. It is also intended the lognormal, Gumbel, Weibull, and the Frechet distribu-
to supplement the excellent earlier reviews by Isaacson and tions. In the well-cited papers authored by Chevron engineers
MacKenzie (1981) and Muir and El-Shaarawai (1986) by Petruaskas and Aagaard (1970, 1971), two distributions are
describing some more recent developments. reported as being common in offshore engineering practice:
the Gumbel and the Weibull distributions. The latter is given
by
2 BASIC THEORY
( )𝛼−1 ( ( )𝛼 )
Consider a set of SWHs (h1 , h2 , h3 , …, hi ), pertaining to H−𝛾
𝛼 H−𝛾
p(H) = exp − (4)
some regular or irregular time intervals, which cover a total 𝛽 𝛽 𝛽
[ ( )𝛼 ]
time duration of T (e.g., 1 year). Over a long period of time H−𝛾
(say several years), many such sets, say M, may be available P(H) = 1 − exp − (5)
𝛽
to the engineer. Now consider the set of maximum SWHs,
hereafter denoted by H, corresponding to each set; so long where 𝛼, 𝛽, and 𝛾 are the parameters of the distribution.
as the original SWHs in each of the M sets follows the In recent years, increasing ease of computational work has
same distribution, the maxima follow an “extreme value” enabled wider adoption of a more robust alternative, namely,
distribution. One such distribution is the well-known Gumbel the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution:
distribution:
{ [ ( ( ))]} [ ( )]−(1∕𝜉)−1
H−a H−a 1 H−𝜇
p(H) = exp − + exp − (1) p(H; 𝜇, 𝜎, 𝜉) = 1+𝜉
b b 𝜎 𝜎
{ [ ( )]−1∕𝜉 }
{ [ ( )]}
H−a H−𝜇
P(H) = exp − exp − (2) exp − 1 + 𝜉 (6)
b 𝜎
where p(H) is the probability density function, P the cumu-
lative distribution function representing the probability of { [ ( )]−1∕𝜉 }
H−𝜇
an SWH being less than a specified value H, and a and b P(H; 𝜇, 𝜎, 𝜉) = exp − 1 + 𝜉 (7)
the parameters of the distribution that are yet to be esti- 𝜎
mated. However, once a and b are established, SWH100
may be determined simply by specifying the latin hypercube for 𝜉 ≠ 0. When 𝜉 = 0, the above-mentioned equations take
sampling (LHS) of Equation 2 as 0.99 and calculating H. In the following form:

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
 Estimation of Extreme Met-Ocean Conditions for Offshore Engineering Applications 3

12

10
Significant wave height (m)

0
1 5 10 25 50 100 500 1000
Return period (years)

0.01 0.10 0.300.40 0.60 0.80 0.90 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.990 0.995 0.997 0.998 0.9991
Cumulative probability (P)

Figure 1. SWHs for various return periods, estimated using method of moments. (Created by the author using data from NOAA NCEI
(National Centers for Environmental Information) © (2015).)

[ (
1 H−𝜇
p(H; 𝜇, 𝜎, 𝜉) =
exp −
𝜎 𝜎
{ [ ( )]}
H−𝜇
exp − exp −
𝜎 Figure 1.
{ (
P(H; 𝜇, 𝜎, 𝜉) = exp − exp −
where 𝜉, 𝜇, and 𝜎 are the shape, location, and scale parame-
ters, respectively, of the distribution.
Equations 1–3 permit the demonstration of the basic calcu-
lations for estimating SWH100 , for example. Assume that this
estimate is needed in the vicinity of 27∘ 54′ 25′′ N, 95∘ 21′ 10′′
W in the Gulf Mexico. At this location, measurements from
a buoy (NDBC 42019), maintained by the US National
Data Buoy Center (National Ocean & Atmospheric Admin-
istration, NOAA), are available (http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov).
The data consist of hourly values of SWH for the period
1990–2013. The maximum SWH for each year is extracted
to yield the following data Hi .
While details of parameter estimation are described later,
a quick solution may be obtained by using an appropriate
(free or inexpensive) software package. For example, using
Minitab or MATLAB with the Gumbel distribution option
and the “method of moments” for parameter estimation
)]
yieldsa = 4. 23 and b = 0. 654. This calculation is practically
instantaneous. Specifying the LHS in Equation 2 as 0.99 (or
substituting N = 100 in Equation 3) yields SWH100 = 7. 22 m
as a first estimate. Choosing other values of N results in
(6a)
)} These preliminaries now enable us to address other aspects
H−𝜇 of extreme value prediction for ocean engineering applica-
(7a)
𝜎 tions.
3 PARAMETER ESTIMATION
As described earlier, once the parameters of a particular
distribution are determined using the available data, it is
a simple matter to estimate the desired SWHN . Several
methods are available for parameter estimation. In the
engineering community, the “plotting position” method
has for many years been popular (Petruaskas and Aagaard,
1970, 1971; Sorenson, 1997; Goda, 2010). It has been
used, for example, by Neelamani, Al-Salem, and Rakha
(2007) for extreme wave height calculations in Kuwaiti
waters and Panchang, Pearce, and Puri (1990) in the Gulf of
Maine. This method exploits the linear relationship between
y = H versus x = −ln (−ln P)), which results from rewriting
(Equation 1). The procedure consists of ranking the data

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
4 General

Table 1. Annual maximum SWH (in meters) near NDBC Buoy 42019.
Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
SWH (m) 4.8 4.5 4.4 5.8 3.5 4.5 5.45 4.2 5.4 4.85 4.33 3.83
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
SWH (m) 4.81 5.55 3.64 5.92 4.89 4.26 6.31 3.58 4.57 3.46 4 3.99
Created by the author using data from NOAA NCEI (National Centers for Environmental Information) © (2015).

12

10
Significant wave height (m)

0
−1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
−In(−In(i))

1 5 10 25 50 100 500 1000

Return period (years)

Figure 2. Return period estimated using the plotting position method. (Created by the author using data from NOAA NCEI (National
Centers for Environmental Information) © (2015).)

(m = 1 for the smallest) and assigning to each data point an
interim (empirical) probability (CDF), say i = m/(M + 1) or
variations thereof (Carter and Challenor, 1983; Muir and
El-Shaarawai, 1986), typically called the plotting position
formula.
Using i in place of P ( _ ), the points x and y are plotted,
and the best-fit straight line yields a = 4.226 and b = 0.717
by way of the slope and intercept for the data set in Table 1.
The calculations are quite easy to perform using Excel,
and Figure 2 shows the result for the data set used earlier.
Although in this case the parameters are fairly close to
those obtained earlier using the method of moments (with
Minitab), the plotting position method has been promoted
primarily because of its ease of use; in general, though, it
can be faulted for its requirement of an interim probability
formula i and the fact that i takes on multiple (somewhat
arbitrary) forms. In fact, in one example described by Petru-
askas and Aagaard (1970, 1971) for the Weibull distribu-
tion, this approach has produced a value of 𝛾 > Hmin , which
violates the requirement for this distribution.
Alternative methods such as the method of moments and
the method of maximum likelihood had been eschewed,
until recently, on the grounds of mathematical complexity
(Goda, 1989; Isaacson and MacKenzie, 1981). However,
recent developments in computational techniques and soft-
ware availability, combined with the speed of modern PCs,
invalidate this objection. The method of maximum likeli-
hood, in particular, yields estimates that are statistically the
most robust. (It is usually acknowledged to be superior to
other methods since it provides consistent estimates for large

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
 Estimation of Extreme Met-Ocean Conditions for Offshore Engineering Applications
data sets and no other unbiased estimator has a smaller vari-
ance.) These estimates are obtained by maximizing the joint
likelihood (L) of the observed data, since in fact the data did
occur. This elegant principle leads to the following equations:
H1
𝜕L∕𝜕a = 0 and 𝜕L∕𝜕b = 0 (8)
where L = pdf (H = H1 )⋅pdf (H = H2 ) . . . . (In practice,
the natural log of L is used for convenience). Numerical
solution methods for the often complex nonlinear equations
(corresponding to Equation 8) are described in Panchang
(1967) for the Gumbel distribution and in Panchang and
Gupta (1989) for the Weibull distribution.
In his seminal book, Coles (2001) has described the use
of maximum likelihood estimates for various forms of the
GEV distribution as well as other distributions. Nowadays,
the engineer need not concern himself with the intricacies of
obtaining such parameters: free software from the National
Centers for Atmospheric Research can be conveniently and
reliably availed of (http://www.isse.ucar.edu/extremevalues/
software.html).
4 OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS
The extreme value distributions in general are intended to
be used in conjunction with a set of maxima (Hi ) from
a chosen time interval (e.g., annual maxima). When the
data set is not sufficiently large, two other options find
appeal. The first depends on extracting the “peaks” in a
specified time interval T that exceed a chosen “threshold”
(the “peaks-over-threshold” method), for example, all SWH
values exceeding, say 7 m, may be selected for each year, as
long as the chosen exceedances do not belong to the same
event (i.e., they are sufficiently far apart as to be indepen-
dent). In this case, the Generalized Pareto distribution is most
often used (MacAfee and Wong, 2007), although Neela-
mani, Al-Salem, and Rakha (2007) and Golshani, Taebi, and
Chegini (2007) have used this approach with the Gumbel
and Weibull distributions. One limitation of this approach,
as opposed to the selection of annual maxima, is that the
results can be sensitive to the method used to select the data,
namely, to the chosen threshold, and a sensitivity analysis is
thus necessary (MacAfee and Wong, 2007; Canellas et al.,
2007). Other difficulties while using this distribution relate
to the parameter estimates (Mackay, Challenor, and Bahaj,
2011).
A second approach consists of using multiple maxima in
a given year. For instance, the three largest independent
SWHs in a year may be selected. Of course, the distri-
bution functions for the second largest SWH, third largest
SWH, and so on are different from the equations presented
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
5
in Section 2 and the joint distribution is considerably more
complicated. While the relevant equations are presented by
Sobey and Orloff (1995) for the Gumbel distribution and
by Coles (2001) for the GEV distribution, again the soft-
ware available at http://www.isse.ucar.edu/extremevalues/
software.html enables a user to readily apply these methods
to the data at hand. As in the case of the peaks-over-threshold
method, sensitivity of the results to the number of maxima
chosen each year and also to the procedures used to sepa-
rate them must be examined. Application of this method is
described in Jeong and Panchang (2008) for buoy data in the
Gulf of Mexico, by Guedes Soares and Scotto (2004) for data
obtained from a North Sea buoy, and by Aarnes, Breivik, and
Reistad (2012) for Norwegian Sea data.
A comparison of the results off the Italian coast, obtained
using multiple methods, may be found in Martucci et al.
(2010). Aarnes, Breivik, and Reistad (2012) examined the
GEV distribution using the annual maxima, the r-largest
maxima (r > 1), and the peaks-over-threshold methods; they
concluded that no model was uniformly superior in all cases.
5 SELECTION OF THE APPROPRIATE
DISTRIBUTION
As noted in Section 2, the estimate of 7.22 m as SWH100
for the example considered was described as a first esti-
mate. This is because there is no a priori reason to assume
that the Gumbel distribution, chosen in Section 2 for illus-
tration, is the best fit. Although engineering studies often
confine themselves to a preselected distribution (Neelamani,
2007; Berek et al., 2007), it must be recognized many distri-
butions may fit the data well and there may be consider-
able differences in the estimates obtained for long return
periods. It must also be noted that the process of estimating
a condition corresponding to a large N (i.e., a low proba-
bility of occurrence) involves, fundamentally, extrapolations
to a range considerably exceeding the length of the data1 ;
yet it is only the data set, covering a much smaller period,
that can, using traditional statistical tools, help to measure
the goodness of fit. It is therefore incumbent upon the
engineer to examine multiple distributions and use subjec-
tive as well as quantitative methods to choose an appro-
priate result. Often, elementary techniques for identifying the
appropriate distribution, based on goodness of fit, are used
(Martucci et al., 2010) use a simple coefficient of determina-
tion relating to the model parameter estimates; Neelamani,
Al-Salem, and Rakha (2007) used a coefficient of regres-
sion; see also Petruaskas and Aagaard (1970, 1971). Muir
and El-Shaarawai (1986) provide a list of methods that can
be used for this purpose. However, a fairly robust quanti-
tative method, described more recently by Li et al. (2008),
6 General
may be of interest to users. Essentially, the process consists
of making numerous additional simulations by first gener-
ating equally plausible data sets by resampling the original
data set multiple times and then estimating the percentage of
the results that satisfy a prescribed criterion.
The jackknife or the bootstrap method can be used to create
resampled data sets, but the degree of randomness in the
bootstrap resampling is apparently greater and the stability
of the optimized parameters has been rigorously tested by Li
et al. (2008). A large number of data sets (say K = 500) are
created using these resampling methods, and the maximum
likelihood parameter estimates Q are calculated for each of
the various cumulative density functions (G) being tested.
The maximum error norms are computed based on the differ-
ence Δ between the empirical probabilities (=m/(M + 1), as
described in Section 3) and the modeled probabilities GQ ,
and the average error norm for the K replicates is found as
follows (Li et al., 2008):
⟨ ⟩
|[ m ]h | which these data may be inadequate. Most other locations
E⟨Δm (Qj )⟩ = E max || − GQ (rmj )h ||
1≤m≤M | M + 1 m
| in the world yield far shorter data sets or no data at all.
where E stands for the expected value, r1 , r2 , …, rM are the
SWH data in increasing order, j = 1, 2, …, K represents the
individual sample number, and h is a parameter described
later. To elaborate, one can generate 500 data sets, each
containing N points, from the original data using the boot-
strap method, and for each data set, the maximum likeli-
hood parameters Q can be determined. For each data point
in the set, the absolute value of the difference between the
empirical and theoretical probabilities is determined and the
maximum difference for all N points is found. E represents
the average of this estimate for the 500 samples. If the candi-
date distributions are, for instance, the Gumbel, Weibull, and
GEV distributions, this calculation is repeated for the three
distributions, and the distribution with the least error norm is
selected as the preferred distribution.
The parameter h is used to emphasize different parts of the
data while fitting the distribution to the data. If h is set equal
to 1, both the lower and upper tails receive equal emphasis.
When h < 1, emphasis is placed on the lower tail, and when
h > 1, the upper tail, where “extreme” events occur, domi-
nates. This aspect, along with a preference for the smallest
error norm, helps the engineer select the most appropriate
model, rather than limiting himself to any preselected model.
Panchang, Jeong, and Demirbilek (2013) have availed of
this method to identify which of the three distributions
mentioned in Section 1 is the most appropriate at various
locations in the Gulf of Mexico. It was found that if the
engineer chooses to emphasize the upper tail, estimates
from the GEV distribution were to be preferred, and the
SWH100 resulting from this distribution were larger than
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
those resulting for the Gumbel distribution. This type of anal-
ysis helps the engineer make informed choices.
6 DATA REQUIREMENTS
As the earlier discussion suggests, a plethora of statistical
techniques and tools are available to the engineer for esti-
mating high return-period events. What has been perhaps a
more vexing matter is obtaining, generating, and/or identi-
fying the appropriate data. Xu and Huang (2011) demon-
strate the deleterious effects of short data sets on estimates of
long return-period conditions. According to a rule of thumb,
extrapolation is acceptable to a return period that is approx-
imately three times as long as the data duration. In the Gulf
Mexico, for example, some buoys provide measurements that
span approximately 35 years. At the locations of these buoys,
then, data may be sufficient to estimate SWH100 , but as noted
in Section 1, often a higher return-period is desirable, for
(9)
As noted in Section 2, the classical method consists of
creating a data set containing the maxima from a given
interval of time. This interval of 1 year is chosen such that
the SWHs in these intervals are independent and identi-
cally distributed. Therefore, the annual maximum tends to
be a reasonable choice (the distribution of SWHs in 1 year
could generally be reasonably assumed to be comparable to
that for the following year, etc.). Caires, Swail, and Wang
(2006) describe this as a “statistically sound method.” In the
event, the largest SWHs occur in the late autumn and winter
months, it may be best to use a summer-to-summer year
rather than the calendar year, to avoid the possibility of two
maxima in successive years stemming from the same events.
To overcome the limitations of short data sets, monthly
maxima are sometimes chosen. However, the distribution of
SWHs in each month may not be identical (e.g., calm seas
occur in some months and stormy conditions in others), and
if this approach is used, comparisons to other methods or esti-
mates may be needed to enhance confidence in the results
(Panchang and Li, 2006; Carter and Challenor, 1981).
Hindcasting of met-ocean conditions can be used to “gen-
erate” a data set using mathematical wave models, if no
measurements are available. Sometimes, specific historical
storms are modeled. This approach has been used, for
example, by Panchang, Pearce, and Puri (1990) for the Gulf
of Maine and by Cavaleri et al. (1986) for the Tyrrhenian Sea.
The maximum SWHs from each of the storms constitutes the
requisite data set. This is acceptable since the distribution
of SWHs during the different storms may be assumed to be
comparable (typically, some small SWHs followed by some
very large SWHs as the storm peaks, followed by smaller
 Estimation of Extreme Met-Ocean Conditions for Offshore Engineering Applications
SWHs as the storm subsides). In this case, as well as in the
case when data are available but lack continuity, the number
of maxima in the data set may be different from the overall
duration (e.g., 15 storms covering 10 years or 15 annual
maxima for a period of 20 years in case of an incomplete
data set). Equation 2 must then be modified as follows:
{ [ ( )]}
1 SWHN − a
1− = exp − exp −
𝜆N b covering both increasing and decreasing extreme events can
where 𝜆 = average number of data points per year.
7 TRENDS IN THE DATA
The calculations described earlier are based on the assump-
tion that the individual data points (annual or storm maxima)
covering a period of several years have an entirely random
likelihood of occurrence and are largely independent of
time, that is, the stochastic process allows the selection
of a joint distribution that is stationary. In other words,
data from various time periods are essentially similar to
each other. However, the recognition of trends in several
met-ocean parameters due, for example, to climate change
or multidecadal oscillations has gained prominence in recent
years. For the northeast Atlantic, Wang, Zwiers, and Swail
(2004) projected a 5–35 cm increase in the mean winter wave
heights in 2070–2099 relative to 1961–1990. A 109-year
hindcast enabled Bertin, Prouteau, and Letetrel (2013) to
relate increasing trends in the SWHs in the North Atlantic
to increasing wind speeds. Off the California coast, Graham
(2005) reported an increasing trend in the largest modeled
SWHs of about 1.0–2.5 m for the period 1949–1999 (see
also Graham et al., 2013). Examining buoy data, Komar
and Allan (2007) reported an increase of 1.7 cm/year off
the US east coast. Ruggiero, Komar, and Allan (2010)
reported an increase of about 7.1 cm/year in the largest
SWHs since the mid-1970s off the US northwest coast.
Based on 51 years of simulations, Panchang, Jeong, and
Demirbilek (2013) found that the eastern part of the Gulf
of Mexico shows an increasing trend of approximately
5.6 cm/year in the maximum SWH. In the same vein,
using 40 years (1958–1999) of wave height simulations in
selected areas near the Italian coasts, Martucci et al. (2010)
reported the existence of a negative trend in the annual-
and winter-averaged sea state heights, and the existence
of a turning point in late eighties in the annual-averaged
trend of sea state heights at a site in the Northern Adriatic
Sea. Trends in the North Sea have also been discussed by
Weisse and Günther (2007). Using satellite altimeter data,
Young et al. (2012) have examined trends in both global
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
7
wind speeds and wave heights. Zheng et al. (2015) have
investigated decadal variability in global SWHs.
The presence of such increasing trends suggests that the
likelihood of occurrence of a certain event is not the same
now as it was some decades ago. As a result, nonstationary
statistics are gradually being introduced in ocean-related
applications. The treatment of such models is beyond the
scope of this paper; however, a fairly simple description
(10)
be found in Salas and Obeysekera (2014). Essentially, the
parameters of the chosen distribution(s) are modeled as a
function of time. For example, for water level applications
using the Gumbel distribution, Salas and Obeysekera have
used the following:
{ ( )}
H − 𝜇t
P(H) = exp − exp − (11)
𝜎t
where 𝜇t and 𝜎 t represent time-dependent parameters
(corresponding to the constant parameters a and b used in
Equation 1) and are sometimes modeled as 𝜇t = 𝜇0 + mt
and 𝜎 t = 𝜎 0 + nt (Ruggiero, Komar, and Allan, 2010; Katz,
2013). Similar relations have been used by others, based
on an examination of the data and heuristic grounds, in
conjunction with the software available at http://www.isse
.ucar.edu/extremevalues/software.html.
By way of results of such methods, in the context of
wave heights, Wang, Zwiers, and Swail (2004) projected a
60–100 cm increase in the fall SWH20 in the Norwegian Sea
between 1990 and 2080. Caires, Swail, and Wang (2006)
provide a demonstration of SWH calculations under different
climate change scenarios and suggest that SWH20 estimates
for the year 2080 would be larger in some parts of the
world by about 20% relative to those for 1990. Examples of
applications to water levels include Warner and Tissot (2012)
and Obeysekera et al. (2013) who studied the effects of trends
in the Gulf of Mexico; Mudersbach and Jensen (2010) who
estimate that the 100-year extreme water levels for the North
Sea coast to be 5.07 m above datum using stationary methods
but in excess of 5.4 m above datum for the year 2100; and
Masina and Lamberti (2013) who examined extreme sea
levels in the northern Adriatic in the context of North Atlantic
and Arctic oscillations and wind-related seasonality.
8 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: MODELED
WIND AND WAVE DATA
As can be seen from the earlier discussion, a data set of
sufficient length is a prerequisite to the generation of high
return-period estimates that inspire confidence for design
purposes; but it must be recognized at the outset that at any
8 General
desired location of interest for offshore engineering applica-
tions, there is only a remote chance of obtaining a database
greater than, say, 25 years. In recent years, mathematical
hindcast models have advanced tremendously and these may
be reliably used to produce surrogate met-ocean data such
as wind speeds and SWHs. In addition to efforts by indi-
vidual groups (companies, university researchers, etc.), the
most notable development of interest may be the long-term
hindcasts produced by major governmental agencies such
as NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Predic-
tion (NCEP) and the European Centre for Medium-Range
Weather Forecasting. Simulations using a set of advanced
wind and wave models, along with recomputations owing
to technical/scientific advances, have enabled the creation
of databases covering much of the globe. Hindcasts and
forecasts are available, often at no cost, to the public. Fore-
casts can be used for planning operations, and the hind-
casts cover approximately three decades. NOAA/NCEP’s
data sets are available at http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/waves/
CFSR_hindcast.shtml.
The data sets include NOAA’s simulations with the WAVE-
WATCH III model, which are called the Climate Forecast
System Reanalysis Reforecast (CFSRR). This global data
set is based on a 31-year (1979–2009) numerical wave hind-
cast and covers most offshore locations except the Caspian
Sea region. It presents wind speeds and directions, SWHs,
wave periods (Tp s), and the mean wave direction on a
0.5∘ × 0.5∘ grid at a temporal resolution of 3 h. A some-
what different data set is based on the “multigrid WW3”
model that uses the “Global Forecast System” analysis or
GFS windfields (http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/index.php?
branch=GFS). These data cover the entire globe and are
carried out in monthly installments from February 2005 to
the present (ftp://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/pub/history/waves).
Other modeling efforts also lead to various databases
and hindcast results that are available (e.g., http://
ecowatch.ncddc.noaa.gov/global-ncom/; Cieślikiewicz
and Paplińska-Swerpel, 2008; Music and Nickovic, 2008;
Part 1
Build database
Longitude, latitude, and
desired return period N
Download
NOAA data
Figure 3. Flowchart of the MATLAB package.
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
Heideman and Mitchell, 2009; Panchang, Jeong, and Demir-
bilek, 2013). Often, such global forecasting/hindcasting
systems are scaled down or nested with regional/coastal
modeling systems such as the Alaska Ocean Observing
System (http://portal.aoos.org/models-grids.php#module-
search?page=1&tagId=42&q=). These provide real-time
forecasts (Singhal, Panchang, and Lillibridge, 2010) but the
modeled information is usually archived and may perhaps
be obtained from the modeling group.
Using these data sets as a starting point can help alleviate,
at least to a considerable extent, concerns such as the choice
of models and calibration and validation. To assist the engi-
neer, we have developed a MATLAB package that links to
the NOAA web site and helps the user to identify the grid
points closest to the specified location, to access the rele-
vant data and perform spatial interpolations as needed, and
to determine monthly and annual maxima. Three statistical
distributions may also be selected and the estimates corre-
sponding to a specified return period will be readily calcu-
lated using two standalone codes (Gumbel and Weibull) and
one optional method (GEV distribution) using the MATLAB
statistics tool box.
The package consists of two parts, as shown in Figure 3.
The first part builds the database using the CFSRR data and
the multigrid WW3 model. As described earlier, CFSRR
data are available for the period 1979–2009, and the multi-
grid WW3 model is available for 2005 to present. Although
the two simulations are based on different wind inputs, the
results are largely consistent. (This can be verified by exam-
ining the data from the overlapping period 2005–2009.)
Thus, a combination of the two data sets is rendered possible,
resulting in a database up to 36 years in length, which can
yield monthly values of SWH, Tp , wave direction, wind
speed, and wind direction.
The second part performs statistical analysis using the
selected database. It provides monthly and annual distribu-
tion plots and tables by way of basic analysis and estimates
of SWH values corresponding to specified return periods as
Part 2
Read data Basic analysis
results
INPUT
MATLAB tool
Advanced
analysis resilts
 Estimation of Extreme Met-Ocean Conditions for Offshore Engineering Applications 9

4000
6.5

3500
6
3000
5.5
Latitude

2500
5
2000
4.5
1500
4
1000
3.5
500
Bathymetry (m)
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Longitude

Figure 4. Bathymetry off the Nigerian coast; the ⊗ denotes the location of interest. (Created by the author using data from NOAA NCEI
(National Centers for Environmental Information) © (2015).)

Table 2. Estimated extreme wave heights off the Nigerian coast.
Return Period Gumbel Weibull GEV
(m) (m) (m)
SWH10 3.34 3.16 3.16
SWH100 3.86 3.37 3.38
Created by the author using data from NOAA NCEI (National Centers for
Environmental Information) © (2015).
well as joint distribution of SWH and Tp . The user merely
supplies the input consisting of the longitude and latitude for
the location of interest and the desired return period.
By way of example of the application of this package, we
consider a location (4.0∘ E, 5.0∘ N) off the coast of Nigeria
(Figure 4), which is an active area for offshore operations.
The water depth is approximately 1683 m, and data length is
31 years (1979–2009).
Table 2 gives, by way of output, the estimated 10- and
100-year return period SWH values using 31 annual SWH
maxima. The three methods yield different estimates. Note
that the SWH100 of 3.86 m estimated by the Gumbel model is
larger than the maximum SWH modeled, in 31 years, for that
location (viz. 3.42 m), whereas the other two distributions
yield smaller values. This is quite normal. (The MATLAB
package described earlier does not make computations for
identifying the preferred distribution, as described in Section
5.)
The availability of the database enables one to make
other more elementary but useful calculations as well. For
example, a composite table of the joint occurrence of SWHs
with specified peak periods can be prepared. For the location
Maximum SWH being considered, all of the NOAA modeled data (every 3 h
Recorded (m) for 31 years) can be placed in bins, as given in Table 3.
3.42 Figure 5 shows the joint distribution of SWH and Tp for
two seasons. This figure, based on three-hourly data for all 31
years, indicates that the SWHs have some variation between
two seasons but that the periods are constant between 10
and 15 s all year round. Similar seasonal or monthly analyses
can be performed for various wind and wave parameters. For
example, the three-hourly data for the month of July for all
31 years yield Figures 6 and 7. If similar plots are constructed
for the whole year, they show that the direction of the winds
and the waves are largely constant from the south-west all
year round (not shown).
The analyses described earlier can be extremely useful
for planning various offshore operations. The MATLAB
package makes it convenient to do so rapidly. Interested engi-
neers may contact the authors for further information about
this tool.
9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
We have provided a brief summary of the salient features
involved in estimating met-ocean conditions corresponding
to a specified recurrence interval. Such estimates, needed for
design, cannot be “validated” with ground truth, and thus,
the estimation represents a challenge from the viewpoint
of establishing confidence in their use. Indeed, the Amer-
ican Petroleum Institute (2000, 2007) has recently revised

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
 10
General

DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Table 3. Number of waves with specified SWH and Tp characteristics (total 90,584).

This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

SWH (m) Tp (s)

0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 16–17 17–18 18–19 19–20
0.0–0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.25–0.5 0 0 4 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0.5–0.75 0 0 0 11 0 7 0 7 20 27 21 26 19 15 9 4 1 0 0 0
0.75–1.0 0 0 0 0 8 13 6 30 170 556 694 620 384 308 161 85 70 25 4 7
1.0–1.25 0 0 0 0 42 77 27 41 411 1730 3096 3965 2680 1814 1186 594 387 217 51 35
1.25–1.5 0 0 0 0 21 125 37 17 223 1388 3289 5340 4955 3623 2461 1476 858 464 113 75
1.5–1.75 0 0 0 0 1 101 78 0 50 580 2454 3734 4607 3696 2554 1497 897 401 140 70
1.75–2.0 0 0 0 0 0 30 76 0 2 94 1048 2043 2899 3225 2122 1246 674 341 125 48

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
2.0–2.25 0 0 0 0 0 7 45 3 2 24 281 883 1184 1611 1505 876 453 195 50 32
2.25–2.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 31 7 0 0 34 320 370 594 690 452 213 87 44 12
2.5–2.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 3 0 0 0 63 166 184 265 174 92 32 13 8
2.75–3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 39 48 75 87 60 25 13 0
3.0–3.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 22 13 4 1 0
3.25–3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 0

Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
3.5–3.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3.75–4.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.0–4.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.25–4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.5–4.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.75–5.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Created by the author using data from NOAA NCEI (National Centers for Environmental Information) © (2015).
 Estimation of Extreme Met-Ocean Conditions for Offshore Engineering Applications 11

5 5
Nigeria Nigeria
4 (Nov. to Apr.) 4 (May to Oct.)

3 3
Hs (m)

Hs (m)
2 2

1 1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Tp (s) Tp (s)

(a) 1000 2000 3000 (b) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Figure 5. Joint distributions of Hs and Tp (number of observations) for two seasons. (Created by the author using data from NOAA NCEI
(National Centers for Environmental Information) © (2015).)

50 50

40 40
Percentage (%)
Percentage (%)

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
(a) SWH (m) (b) Wind speed (m/s)

Figure 6. Wave and wind characteristics for July. (Created by the author using data from NOAA NCEI (National Centers for Environmental
Information) © (2015).)

0° 80% 0° 80%
337.5° 22.5° 337.5° 22.5°

315° 60% 45° 315° 45°

40% 25%
292.5° 67.5° 292.5° 67.5°
20%

270° 90° 270° 90°

247.5° 112.5° 247.5° 112.5°

225° 135° 225° 135°

202.5° 157.5° 202.5° 157.5°

(a) 180° (b) 180°

Figure 7. SWH (a) and wind direction (b) for July. (Created by the author using data from NOAA NCEI (National Centers for
Environmental Information) © (2015).)

Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
12 General
its estimates of such conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. The
availability of data in recent years has been greatly enhanced
owing to the modeling efforts of various government agen-
cies. These data can be used with a variety of statistical tools,
the usage of which has also been greatly facilitated by the
availability of free software. These tools are considerably
more sophisticated than those used in previous years and
allow the engineer to explore the use of multiple distribu-
tions, to use multiple ways of using the data, to examine the
effects of trends in the data, and to use robust methods for
identifying preferred distribution. The examination of such
alternatives should be emphasized because, as noted earlier,
there can be no validation of the estimates in the real sense of
the word, and one is tackling the inherently ill-posed issue of
identifying conditions with a very low probability of occur-
rence using relatively small data sets. The developments
summarized here, along with a growing body of literature,
can aid the engineer in accomplishing this task with greater
ease than was hitherto possible.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to Dr. Sashikant Nayak for assisting with the
preparation of this manuscript.
ENDNOTES
1. The term extrapolation may be viewed as somewhat
of a misnomer, giving the impression that present data
are being extended to a long time horizon; in reality,
one is seeking an estimate that has a low probability of
occurrence, usually much lower than that represented by
the data.
GLOSSARY
Buoy data Measurement wave data from buoy.
Design wave Wave height of whether or not
height exceedance of the design criterion
causes cumulative damage.
Design wind Wind speed of whether or not
exceedance of the design criterion
causes cumulative damage.
Extreme value MATLAB statistic tool box.
software
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
GEV (Generalized Extreme Value) a flexible
distribution three parameter model that combines
the Gumbel, Frechet, and Weibull.
Gumbel Extreme value theory type I.
distribution
NCEP model Hindcast Wave Model by National
Centers for Environmental Prediction.
Trends Extremes of non-stationary statistics.
Weibull Extreme value theory type III.
distribution
REFERENCES
Aarnes, O.J., Breivik, O., and Reistad, M. (2012) Wave extremes in
the Northeast Atlantic. Journal of Climate, 25 (5), 1529–1543.
American Petroleum Institute (2000) Recommended Practice
for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms—Working Stress Design, API Recommended Practice
2A-WSD.
American Petroleum Institute (2007) Interim Guidance on Hurricane
Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico, API Bulletin 2INT-MET.
Berek, E.P., Cooper, C.K., Driver, D.B., Heideman, J.C., Mitchell,
D.A., Stear, J.D., and Vogel, M.J. (2007) Development of Revised
Gulf of Mexico Metocean Hurricane Conditions for Reference by
API Recommended Practices, Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston.
Bertin, X., Prouteau, E., and Letetrel, C. (2013) A significant increase
in wave height in the North Atlantic Ocean over the 20th century.
Global and Planetary Change, 106, 77–83.
Caires, S., Swail, V.R., and Wang, X.L. (2006) Projection and
analysis of extreme wave climate. Journal of Climate, 19 (21),
5581–5605.
Canellas, B., Orfila, A., Mendez, F.J., Menendez, M., and Tintore,
J. (2007) Application of a POT model to estimate the extreme
significant wave height levels around the Balearic Sea (Western
Mediterranean). Journal of Coastal Research, 50, 329–333.
Carter, D.J.T. and Challenor, P.G. (1981) Estimating return values of
environmental parameters. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteo-
rological Society, 107, 259–266.
Carter, D.J.T. and Challenor, P.G. (1983) Methods of fitting the
Fisher-Tippett type I extreme value distribution. Ocean Engi-
neering, 10 (3), 191–199.
Cavaleri, L., De Fillippi, P.L., Grancini, G.F., Lovenitti, G.L., and
Tosi, R. (1986) Extreme wave conditions in the Tyrrhenian Sea.
Ocean Engineering, 13, 157–180.
Cieślikiewicz, W. and Paplińska-Swerpel, B. (2008) A 44-year hind-
cast of wind wave fields over the Baltic Sea. Coastal Engineering,
55 (11), 894–905.
Coles, S. (2001) An Introduction to Statistical Modeling of Extreme
Values, Springer, New York.
Goda, Y. (1989) On the Methodology of Selecting Design Wave
Height. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on
Coastal Engineering, Spain, pp. 899–913.
 Estimation of Extreme Met-Ocean Conditions for Offshore Engineering Applications
Goda, Y. (2010) Random Seas and Design of Maritime Structures
(Ocean Engineering) (Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering),
3rd edn, World Scientific, New Jersey.
Golshani, A., Taebi, S., and Chegini, V. (2007) Wave hindcast and
extreme value analysis for the southern part of the Caspian Sea.
Coastal Engineering Journal, 49, 443.
Graham, N. (2005) Coastal Impacts of North Pacific Winter Wave
Climate Variability: The Southern California Bight and the Gulf
of Farallones. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California
Energy Commission, San Diego. CEC-500-2005-018, 34.
Graham, N.E., Cayan, D.R., Bromirski, P.D., and Flick, R.E. (2013)
Multi-model projections of twenty-first century North Pacific
winter wave climate under the IPCC A2 scenario. Climate
Dynamics, 40 (5–6), 1335–1360.
Guedes Soares, C. and Scotto, M.G. (2004) Application of the r
largest-order statistics for long-term predictions of significant wave
height. Coastal Engineering, 51 (5–6), 387–394.
Gumbel, E.J. (1941) The return period of flood flows. The Annals
Mathematical Statistics, 12 (2), 163–190.
Gumbel, E.J. (1958) Statistics of Extremes, Colombia University
Press, New York.
Heideman, J.C. and Mitchell, D.A. (2009) Grid point pooling in
extreme value analysis of hurricane hindcast data. Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, 135 (2), 31–37.
Isaacson, M. and MacKenzie, N. (1981) Long-term distributions of
ocean waves: a review. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and
Ocean Engineering, 107 (2), 93–109.
Jeong, C.K. and Panchang, V.G. (2008) Measurement-Based Esti-
mates of Extreme Wave Conditions for the Gulf of Mexico.
Oceans2008 Conference, MTS/IEEE, Quebec.
Katz, R.W. (2013) Statistical methods for nonstationary extremes, in
Extremes in a Changing Climate: Detection, Analysis and Uncer-
tainty, Chapter 2, vol. 65 (eds A. AghaKouchak, D. Easterling, and
K. Hsu), Springer, New York.
Komar, P.D. and Allan, J.C. (2007) Higher waves along US East
Coast linked to hurricanes. EOS Transactions American Geophys-
ical Union, 88 (30), 301.
Li, Y., Simmonds, D., and Reeve, D. (2008) Quantifying uncertainty
in extreme values of design parameters with resampling tech-
niques. Ocean Engineering, 35, 1029–1038.
MacAfee, A.W. and Wong, S.W.K. (2007) Extreme value analysis of
tropical cyclone trapped-fetch waves. Journal of Applied Meteo-
rology and Climatology, 46 (10), 1501–1522.
Mackay, E.B.L., Challenor, P.G., and Bahaj, A.S. (2011) A compar-
ison of estimators for the generalised Pareto distribution. Ocean
Engineering, 38 (11–12), 1338–1346.
Martucci, G., Carniel, S., Chiggiato, J., Sclavo, M., Lionello, P., and
Galati, M. (2010) Statistical trend analysis and extreme distribution
of significant wave height from 1958 to 1999 – an application to
the Italian Seas. Ocean Science, 6, 525–538.
Masina, M. and Lamberti, A. (2013) A nonstationary analysis for the
Northern Adriatic Sea levels. Journal of Geophysical Research,
118 (9), 3999–4016.
Mudersbach, C. and Jensen, J. (2010) Nonstationary extreme value
analysis of annual maximum water levels for designing coastal
structures on the German North Sea Coastline. Journal of Flood
Risk Management, 3 (1), 52–62.
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
13
Muir, L.R. and El-Shaarawai, A.H. (1986) On the calculation of
extreme wave heights: a review. Ocean Engineering, 13 (1),
93–118.
Music, S. and Nickovic, S. (2008) 44-year wave hindcast for the
Eastern Mediterranean. Coastal Engineering, 55, 872–880.
Muzathik, AM., Wan Nik, WB., Samo, KB. and Ibrahim, MZ. (2011)
Ocean wave measurement and wave climate prediction of Penin-
sular Malaysia. Journal of Physical Science, 22 (1), 77–92.
Neelamani, S., Al-Salem, K., and Rakha, K. (2006) Extreme water
waves in the UAE territorial waters. Emirates Journal for Engi-
neering Research, 11 (2), 37–46.
Neelamani, S., Al-Salem, K., and Rakha, K. (2007) Extreme waves
for Kuwaiti territorial waters. Ocean Engineering, 34, 1496–1504.
Obeysekera, J., Park, J., Irizzary-Ortiz, M., Barnes, J., and Trimble,
P. (2013) Probabilistic projection of mean sea level and coastal
extremes. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engi-
neering, 139 (2), 135–141.
Panchang, G.M. (1967) Realistic Projections from Extreme Values
Data. Proceedings of The International Hydrology Symposium,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, pp. 546–555.
Panchang, V.G. and Gupta, R.C. (1989) On the determination of
three-parameter Weibull MLE’s. Communications in Statistics:
Simulation and Computation, 18 (3), 1037–1057.
Panchang, V.G. and Li, D. (2006) Large waves in the Gulf of Mexico
caused by Hurricane Ivan. Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, 87 (4), 481–489.
Panchang, V.G., Pearce, B.R., and Puri, K.K. (1990) Hindcast esti-
mates of extreme wave conditions in the Gulf of Maine. Applied
Ocean Research, 12 (1), 43–49.
Panchang, V.G., Zhao, L., and Demirbilek, Z. (1999) Estimation
of extreme wave heights using GEOSAT measurements. Ocean
Engineering, 26, 205–225.
Panchang, V.G., Jeong, C., and Li, D. (2008) Wave climatology in
coastal Maine for aquaculture and other applications. Estuaries &
Coasts, 31 (2), 289–299.
Panchang, V.G., Jeong, C., and Demirbilek, Z. (2013) Analyses of
extreme wave heights in the Gulf of Mexico for offshore engi-
neering applications. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, 135 (3), 031104 (1–15).
Petruaskas, C. and Aagaard, P.M. (1970). Extrapolation of Historical
Storm Data for Estimating Design Wave Heights. 2nd Offshore
Technology Conference Paper OTC, No. 1190, pp. 1–20.
Petruaskas, C. and Aagaard, P.M. (1971) Extrapolation of historical
storm data for estimating design wave heights. Journal of the
Society of Petroleum Engineers, 251, 23–37.
Ruggiero, P., Komar, P.D., and Allan, J.C. (2010) Increasing wave
heights and extreme value projections: the wave climate of the U.S.
Pacific Northwest. Coastal Engineering, 57, 539–552.
Salas, J. and Obeysekera, J. (2014) Revisiting the concepts of
return period and risk for nonstationary hydrologic extreme events.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 19 (3), 554–568.
Singhal, G., Panchang, V.G., and Lillibridge, J. (2010) Reliability
assessment for a wave forecasting system for Prince William
Sound, Alaska. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean
Engineering, 136 (6), 337–349.
Sobey, R.J. and Orloff, L.S. (1995) Triple annual maximum series in
wave climate analyses. Coastal Engineering, 26 (3–4), 135–151.
14 General
Sorenson, R.M. (1997) Basic Coastal Engineering, Springer, New
York.
Wang, X.L., Zwiers, F.W., and Swail, V.R. (2004) North Atlantic
Ocean wave climate change scenarios for the twenty-first century.
Journal of Climate, 11 (12), 2368–2383.
Warner, N.N. and Tissot, P.E. (2012) Storm flooding sensitivity to sea
level rise for Galveston Bay, Texas. Ocean Engineering, 44, 23–32.
Weisse, R. and Günther, H. (2007) Wave climate and long-term
changes for the Southern North Sea obtained from a
high-resolution hindcast 1958–2002. Ocean Dynamics, 57,
161–172.
Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering, online © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
This article is © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118476406.emoe125
Also published in the Encyclopedia of Maritime and Offshore Engineering (print edition) ISBN: 978-1-118-47635-2
Xu, S. and Huang, W. (2011) Estimating extreme water levels
with long-term data by GEV distribution at Wusong station near
Shanghai city in Yangtze Estuary. Ocean Engineering, 38 (2),
468–478.
Young, I.R., Vinoth, J., Zieger, S., and Babanin, A.V. (2012) Inves-
tigation of trends in extreme value wave height and wind speed.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 117 (C11), 1–13.
Zheng, C., Zhou, L., Shi Weilai, W., and Li, X. (2015) Decadal
variability of global ocean significant wave height. Journal of
Ocean University of China, 14 (5), 778–782.