Proceedings of the ASME 2013 32nd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering
OMAE2013
DEEPWATER CURRENT PROFILE DATA SOURCES FOR
RISER ENGINEERING OFFSHORE WEST AFRICA
Gus Jeans
Oceanalysis, Wallingford, UK
Mark Calverley
Fugro GEOS, Wallingford, UK
Cyril Frelin
Actimar, Brest, France
ABSTRACT
Reliable quantification of current profiles is required for
safe and cost effective offshore exploration and field
development. The current regime offshore West Africa is often
considered benign, compared to some regions of oil and gas
activity, but still presents challenges to reliable quantification.
A key challenge to all offshore developments is acquisition of
appropriate data. The primary source of data for riser design is
site specific full water column measurement. Such in-situ data
are generally expensive and time consuming to collect, so there
is an increasing tendency for numerical model current data to be
considered. Model data are often relatively quick and
inexpensive to obtain, with the added benefit of a much longer
duration, potentially allowing inter-annual variability and
extreme events to be captured. However, the accuracy and
reliability of numerical model data remains questionable, or
unproven, in many deepwater development regions. This paper
explores the suitability of such models to represent a deepwater
site offshore West Africa, in relation to the key oceanographic
processes revealed within the in-situ data.
June 9-14, 2013, Nantes, France
OMAE2013-10540
Liam Harrington-Missin
Oil Spill Response, Southampton, UK
Christophe Maisondieu
Ifremer, Brest, France
Valerie Quiniou
Total, Paris, France
1 INTRODUCTION
This study was undertaken as part of the Worldwide
Approximations of Current Profiles (WACUP) Joint Industry
Project [1]. The key objective was quantitative assessment of
different current profile reduction techniques for efficient and
reliable riser design.
The project considers current profile characterisation at
four different offshore development sites, one of which is the
Girassol deepwater development offshore West Africa. The
present paper explores the various data sources considered for
representing the current profile at the Girassol location. A
previous OMAE paper describes a similar comparison for
another location offshore Brazil [2].
It has become established best practice to derive current
profile data for engineering applications from site specific full
water column measurement. This provides the most reliable
quantification of the dominant oceanographic processes that
impact the site in question. Sufficiently high vertical and
temporal resolutions are required to capture the dominant
oceanographic processes.
1 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
 In-situ measured current profile data do have some
disadvantages compared to the various numerical model sources
that have become available in recent years. It is relatively
expensive and time consuming to collect in-situ data, compared
to model data which are generally inexpensive and quick to
obtain. In-situ data sets are typically of much shorter duration,
with measurement periods greater than one year being rare.
Model data therefore have the potential to provide superior
coverage of inter-annual variability and rare extreme events.
Despite the apparently clear potential advantages of model
data, it is very important to recognise the limitations of these
data sources. The underlying physics and model resolution will
usually allow a subset of all potential oceanographic processes
to the represented. Even when a model can be expected to
represent a certain process, the accuracy and reliability need to
be validated using representative in-situ data before the model
output can be safely used for a given engineering application.
Figure 1. Map of the Approximate Location of the Girassol Field (Water Depths are in meters)
Currents are the result of interactions between many
different processes such as general circulation, tides, inertial
currents, and turbulence. The identification and quantification
of the corresponding signals, occurring at different time scales,
can make it possible to effectively complement in-situ data with
results from numerical models.
2 IN-SITU CURRENT MEASUREMENT
The Girassol Field is located in 1350m, approximately
210km north-north-west of Luanda, Angola, West Africa
(Figure 1). The Girassol “gold standard” dataset was created
from data collected during two measurement campaigns carried
out between 1997 and 1998 then between 2002 and 2004.
2 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Figure 2. Depth Coverage of the Girassol Measurement Campaign

3 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 The measurement campaign between 1997 and 1998
(hereafter referred to as Girassol A) consisted of Acoustic
Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) measurements in the upper
few hundred meters. Near-complete but sparser vertical
coverage was provided by single point Recording Current
Meters (RCMs) in the remainder of the water column.
The measurement campaign between 2002 and 2004
(hereafter referred to as Girassol B) consisted of Acoustic
Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) measurements in about the
upper half of the water column but nothing below this.
The different vertical coverage of both campaigns is
illustrated in Figure 2. This presented a major challenge to
creation of a single gold standard dataset for Girassol, so they
were considered separately throughout the WACUP project.
The following sections of this paper focus on Girassol A.
The flow diagram in Figure 3 summarises the work
involved in the creation of the Girassol A gold standard dataset.
Further details were provided in a report provided to project
participants [3].
The Girassol gold standard datasets were provided in
MATLAB® Binary and Microsoft Excel format to the WACUP
partners. These data, along with corresponding data from the
other three locations, were subjected to numerous further
analyses. The identification and quantification of different
components of the flow is considered next in this paper.
Figure 3. Girassol A Data Preparation Flow Diagram
3 IN-SITU CURRENT ANALYSIS
The Girassol mooring was located close to the intersection
between the southward flowing Angola Current (AC) and the
northward flowing Benguela Current (BC). The high vertical
resolution in the upper layer of this dataset indicated
considerable stratification with a number of current layers
flowing in opposing directions.
Stronger currents (associated with periods of persistent
south/southeasterly flow) and inertial currents appeared to be
confined to the upper 100 m. From 100 m to approximately
300 m the flow was predominantly towards the north to north-
west but below this there was no predominant direction.
Throughout both Girassol A and B campaigns, current speeds
did not exceed 0.8 m/s at any level.
Spectral analysis of the Girassol A dataset (Figures 4 and 5)
revealed clear peaks in energy at approximately 12 hours,
relating to the semi-diurnal tidal period and 90 hours relating to
the inertial period. Tidal peaks at the 24 hour (diurnal) period
and at 6 hours are also evident but weak
Fourier filtering was used to decompose the Girassol A
current velocities into four period bands:
• Less than 4 hours (Short period)
• Between 4 and 48 hours (Tidal period)
• Between 48 and 132 hours (Inertial period)
• Greater than 136 hours (Long period).
Figures 6 to 8 present vertical profiles of statistics
calculated at each measurement depth for each flow component.
In all cases the long period flow is shown to dominate. This is
in contrast to some other regions of West Africa, such as
Namibia where inertial currents are a major component of the
flow [4], or Nigeria where short period internal waves known to
be of major engineering significance [5]. Internal waves may
also occur offshore Angola, but the sample interval of these in-
situ data did not allow them to be resolved.
4 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Figure 4. Spectral Analysis of the Girassol A Gold Standard Dataset – Velocity North (Vn)

5 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Figure 5. Spectral Analysis of the Girassol A Gold Standard Dataset – Velocity East (Ve)

6 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Figure 6. Girassol A Fourier Decomposed Statistical Profile Plot - Mean

7 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Figure 7. Girassol A Fourier Decomposed Statistical Profile Plot – 95th Percentile

8 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Figure 8. Girassol A Fourier Decomposed Statistical Profile Plot – Maximum

9 Copyright © 2013 by ASME


4 NUMERICAL MODEL SELECTION
A comprehensive review of available numerical model
current data was undertaken to support data selection and
gathering as part of the WACUP project [6]. The primary
model selected for comparison with in-situ data in all four
regions was the widely used dataset freely available from the
HYCOM Consortium (http://www.hycom.org/dataserver/).
A number of selection factors were considered, including
global coverage, spatial and temporal resolution, model physics,
data assimilation and data acquisition costs. The selection of
this model for the purposes of the project does not imply that
this is the best available in any given region. However this data
source has become very widely used, so a detailed evaluation at
the Girassol site is worthwhile.
The HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model or HYCOM is a 3D
global model with 1/12° spatial resolution and 32 levels on the
vertical. The model bathymetry is derived from a digital terrain
dataset (AVO-NRL DBDB2).
The model takes into account:
• Forcing from Navy Operational Global Atmospheric
Prediction System (NOGAPS)
• Rivers runoff from climatology values
It assimilates:
• Satellite altimeter observations (Jason GFO Envisat)
• Satellite and in-situ Sea Surface Temperature
• In-situ temperature and salinity profiles (XBTs,
ARGO floats, moored buoys)
Daily values of current were available since 2003,
providing about 5 months of overlap with the Girassol B
campaign. Model data were extracted at the closest grid point
to the measurement location. HYCOM currents are available at
21 levels from the surface to 1400m depth.
5 NUMERICAL MODEL VALIDATION
The freely available global HYCOM data source provides
only daily snapshots of model current velocities. To facilitate
meaningful comparison, daily vector mean values were derived
from the measured currents at each depth.
Following the analysis described in Section 3, in which we
found that the long period component of the flow dominates at
this location, it is reasonable to expect that the key processes
might be represented by the daily values available from the
model.
Model current speeds are quantitatively compared with
measurements in Figures 9 to 16. The closest level in the
HYCOM model was selected for each measurement depth
considered, with no vertical interpolation.
Time series (Figure 9) show good agreement at 20m depth
throughout much of the overlap period. This agreement
deteriorates with depth, quantified in the scatter diagrams and
QQ plots from all comparison levels (Figures 10 to 16).
For the period of comparison, the selected model tends to
underestimate speeds from 200m to 400m then improves around
500m. At some depths, the observed current is nearly twice as
strong as corresponding HYCOM values. Unfortunately the
Girassol B dataset, which overlaps HYCOM in time, only
covers the upper half of the water column. Model performance
therefore cannot be assessed below this.
The scatter plots generally show a poor correlation between
simultaneous measured and model currents. However Q-Q
plots suggest a near linear underestimation in the statistical
distributions. This could be corrected via depth dependent
model calibration to meet some engineering applications.
Further details of the model validation were provided in a
report provided to project participants [7]. This included an
examination of current direction and seasonal trends, although
the latter cannot be reliably inferred from such a short overlap
period.
So far we have considered how well the model represents
the temporal variability and statistics of currents at each
separate measurement level. However the vertical coherence
and structure of individual current profiles is critical for riser
engineering applications. The ability of the model to produce
profiles with realistic profile shapes was also examined in the
WACUP project [8].
Altogether, the validation studies show that model profiles
require careful validation and calibration before being used to
derive criteria for riser design applications.
6 SPATIAL VARIABILITY OF CURRENTS
Despite the above limitations of model data, one clear
advantage over site specific measurement was highlighted [9].
The large scale synoptic view provided by the model provides a
very valuable tool to assess and quantify spatial variability
across a wide region. The cost of collecting in-situ data at so
many locations would be considerable.
The model is believed to capture key spatial trends in the
large scale surface circulation of the region. Spatial maps of
current speed statistics are presented at two near surface levels
in Figure 17 and 18. These show that currents are relatively
weak at Girassol, compared to other parts of the region shown.
10 Copyright © 2013 by ASME
 Figure 9. Measured and Model Daily Current Speed Time Series

Figure 10. Scatter and Q-Q plots of Model (20m depth) and Measured (20m depth) Daily Current Speed

11 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Figure 11. Scatter and Q-Q plots of Model (75m depth) and Measured (74m depth) Daily Current Speed

Figure 12. Scatter and Q-Q plots of Model (200m depth) and Measured (206m depth) Daily Current Speed

Figure 13. Scatter and Q-Q plots of Model (300m depth) and Measured (302m depth) Daily Current Speed

12 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

Figure 14. Scatter and Q-Q plots of Model (400m depth) and Measured (398m depth) Daily Current Speed

Figure 15. Scatter and Q-Q plots of Model (500m depth) and Measured (494m depth) Daily Current Speed

Figure 16. Scatter and Q-Q plots of Model (500m depth) and Measured (506m depth) Daily Current Speed

13 Copyright © 2013 by ASME

 Figure 17. Model Surface Current Speed Maximum (Left) and 95% Percentile (Right)

Figure 18. Model 100m depth Current Speed Maximum (Left) and 95% Percentile (Right)

14 Copyright © 2013 by ASME


7 CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of in-situ data reveals that the long period
component of the flow dominates at the Girassol location. This
supports the use of freely available model data to assess key
characteristics of the current regime.
For the period of comparison, the statistical magnitude of
model current speeds are well represented at the surface but the
agreement deteriorates with depth. There was a poor
correlation between simultaneous measured and model currents,
but the statistical distributions show a trend, potentially
allowing calibration for some engineering applications.
The primary source of data for characterisation of current
profiles in riser design remains full water column, site specific,
in-situ measurement. Models do play an increasingly useful
supplementary role. However they must by properly validated
and calibrated before use in any engineering application.
Models are superior to measurements for providing a large
scale regional interpretation of key oceanographic processes.
They can also be used to cost effectively quantify spatial
variability in the current regime.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
WACUP participants are acknowledged for their
contributions towards the project and permission to publish this
paper. Particular thanks are given to Total for approval to
release details of their measured data.
Key participant contributions are also acknowledged from
Einar Nygaard and Børge Kvingedal of Statoil, Colin Grant and
Richard Gibson of BP, Jose Lima and Eric Oliveira of
Petrobras.
The WACUP project was initiated and led by Marc
Prevosto. The rest of the project team are also acknowledged,
including George Forristall, Raymond Nerzic, Cyril Frelin,
Gilbert.Damy, Gavin Harte, Kieran Kavanagh and Andrew
Watson.
REFERENCES
[1] Prevosto, M., Forristall, G.Z., Jeans, G., Herry, C.,
Harte, G., Harrington-Missin, L. and Dooley, P. (2012).
Worldwide Approximations of Current Profiles - the WACUP
project. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
10-15 June 2012. OMAE2012-83348.
[2] Jeans, G., Prevosto, M., Harrington-Missin, L.,
Maisondieu, C., Herry, C. and Lima, J.A.M, 2012. Deepwater
Current Profile Data Sources for Riser Engineering Offshore
Brazil. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
10-15 June 2012. OMAE2012-83400.
[3] Harrington-Missin, L., Watson, A. and Jeans, G.,
(2011). Worldwide Approximations of Current Profiles. Fugro
GEOS Report C50605/5881/R0. June 2011. Confidential to
WACUP Participants.
[4] Hyder, P., Simpson, J.H., Xing, J. and Gille, S.T. 2011.
Observations over an annual cycle and simulations of wind-
forced oscillations near the critical latitude for diurnal–inertial
resonance. Continental Shelf Research, 31, 1576-1591.
[5] Quiniou-Ramus, V., 2010. Nigeria OML100/102 Real-
time current monitoring as a support to operations. Presentation
to Université d’Abomey – Calavi, Feb 2010, Benin, Cotonou.
[6] Muller, H., and Herry, C., (2010). State of the Art of
the Available 3D Ocean Model Outputs. Actimar Report 09.52
V1.2. September 2010. Confidential to WACUP Participants.
[7] Casitas, S., Herry, C., (2010). Comparisons Between
HYCOM Model & Girassol Measurements. Actimar Report
10.33 R0. October 2010. Confidential to WACUP Participants.
[8] Maisondieu, C., (2011). Are the Model Current Profiles
Representative of the Actual In-Situ Local Profiles. Ifremer
Report R11HO008. June 2011. Confidential to WACUP
Participants.
[9] Herry, C., (2011). Spatial Variability in HYCOM
Model at Jubarte & Girassol. Actimar Report 10.52 V2.0.
March 2011. Confidential to WACUP Participants.
15 Copyright © 2013 by ASME