OTC 7782

Experimental and Analytical Studies of Wave Impact Forces on

Ekofisk Platform Structures
J.J. Murray, Inst. for Marine Dynamics; P. Kaplan, Hydromechanics Inc.
and W.C. Yu, Phillips Petroleum Co. Norway
Copyright 1995, Offshore Technology Conference

This psper was presented at the 27th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, U. S.A.,1-4 May 1995.

This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Pr~grem Committee following review of information conteined in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper,
as presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to carrectlon by the euthor(s). The material, es presented, does not necessarily reflect
anv oositlon of the Offshore Technoloav Conference ar its officers, Permissionto coDvis restricted to an abstract of not mare than 300 words. Illustrations mav not be covied. The sbstract
sh&ld contein conspicuous acknow[;dgment of where snd by wham the psper ii ‘presented.

ABSTRACT structures have access to the facility behind the

protective barrier by means of connecting bridges.
Experimental studies in a wave basin are described with
emphasis on wave impact on jacket platform decks and The primary concern with the Ekofisk field is
related structures in the Ekofisk field off Norwa y. The subsidence. Since the mid-80’s when this problem was
paper identifies a number of considerations related to discovered, the operators have taken various steps to
the design of scaled ph ysical models to be used in wave ensure the continued safe operation of the complex,
tests measuring impact loads. Special procedures for including raising a number of decks on jackets and
measurement of wave forces as well as techniques installing the protective barrier around the storage and
used for data analysis, specifically to remove processing facility as it presently exists. However,
extraneous effects introduced by the model’s response subsidence is continuing and is consequently increasing
to impact loads, are presented. Influence of the large the effective water depth within the field beyond the
protective barrier on wave crest characteristics around design water depth, This raises concerns about waves
the structure are also provided in the paper. Results and overtopping the protective barrier wall, causing damage
discussion provide information on impact phenomena on to the facility inside and impacting on the decks of the
various types of offshore structures, apart from the nearby structures. Therefore a requirement to
particular one used here. In view of the limited extent investigate the probability of such an occurrence, as
of information presently available, present results well as to quantify the resulting impact loads on various
provide a useful addition to the engineering knowledge components of the installation, has been presented,
of such wave forces, their measurement and analysis.
A model study was commissioned at the Institute for
Marine Dynamics in St. John’s, Newfoundland by
INTRODUCTION Phillips Petroleum Company Norway to measure and
analyze wave impact loads resulting from predicted
The Ekofisk complex, operated by Phillips Petroleum extreme wave conditions on various components of the
Company Norway, is located approximately 200 Ekofisk facility. The model study involved design,
kilometres off the Norwegian coast near the UK border. construction and testing of 1:36 scale models of the
The installation is characterized by a large circular protective barrier, 2/4 R jacket, connecting bridges and
shaped barrier housing a storage and processing facility, the 2/4 B jacket. Measurements included global and
Within the near vicinity of this protective barrier are impact loads, water runup on the barrier wall and crest
several jacket structures supporting production and elevations in the surrounding field. The study generated
accommodation facilities. A number of these jacket a considerable amount of data, most of which is unique
to the Ekofisk condition and is impractical to report
References and figures at end of paper. here. However, the experimental techniques used to

783

—
 2 EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES OF WAVE IMPACT FORCES ON EKOFISK PLATFORM STRUCTURES
measure and interpret wave impact loads on the deck
structures can be of widespread interest. These
measured impact loads included resonant effects from
the models that were separated and explained,
This paper is focused on the methodology of
measurement and data interpretation rather than on
reporting findings of the study. The paper identifies a
number of considerations related to the design of scaled
models to be used in tests measuring impact loads.
These considerations can be of general use and
information regarding knowledge of such forces.
MODEL JACKET DESIGN
The response of a physical model is assumed to be
described by the second-order differential equation,
Here M is the physical mass of the structure (or
particular member), A is the added mass , B is the
damping comprised of structural and hydrodynamic
contributions, K is the effective stiffness and F is the
applied load. In cases of static or quasi-static loads the
Kx term is measured by a load transducer as a function
of time and the hydrodynamic load, F, can be directly
equated to this measurement. This assumes that the
model’s dynamic response is negligible in relation to the
measurement.
The structure’s dynamic response is described by the
first two terms on the left-hand side of Equation (1),
The inertia and damping terms will be comprised of
both structural and hydrodynamic effects, When the
structure responds to an impact load its resonant
response will be sensed on the measuring transducer. In
physical models, other than hydroelastic ones, resonant
responses are considered as contaminants to the
measurement and must be removed or ‘avoided,
The underlying strategy is therefore to design a model
of sufficient stiffness such that the resonant
frequencies are above the lowest one of concern in the
full scale structure. The lowest frequency of interest to
a designer is specific to a particular structure and can
depend on the global or local structural characteristics
such as mass and stiffness. Higher stiffness in
instrumentation will tend to increase the natural
frequency but at the expense of sensitivity. There are
also design constraints related to the availability of
practical construction materials and fabrication
procedures, Added mass effects on the model structure
significantly influence the natural frequency. Even when
ultra-light weight materials are used, once in contact
784
—
OCT 7782
with water the effective mass can easily increase by an
order of magnitude,
The model design process becomes more complicated
as the number of structural components increases and
consequently the interactions among them. Modal
analysis of the integrated model structure will identify
the resonant frequencies and related mode shapes
which generally do not correspond to a particular rigid
body motion but identify a distortion in the model,
However, these modes can be somewhat controlled by
controlling the stiffness of linkages between rigid
components as in the case of a rigid component held in
position by softer load cells.
The Ekofisk 2/4 R Model
The Ekofisk test program required the following
measurements to be made on the scaled model of the
2/4 R jacket platform:
■ 6 DOF loads on the deck structure,
■ 6 DOF accelerations on the deck structure,
9 6 DOF global loads on the jacket structure.
The model shown in Figure 1 is considered to consist of
two components, the deck and the jacket, and loads
were required to be measured independently on each of
the two components. The deck is stiffened using
aluminum tubing and covered with aluminum sheeting,
The solid sheeting can be removed from the deck and
replaced with porous sheets as part of a design
technique being investigated to reduce the impact
loads. The deck frame is attached to the jacket using a
total of 8 slender flexures as illustrated in Figure 2. Five
flexures are mounted vertically and three are mounted
horizontally.
These flexures are manufactured from high tensile steel
with necked sections giving a bending to longitudinal
stiffness ratio of 103. Thus the flexure is sensitive to in-
Iine loads only. At the end of each flexure is a load cell
which measures the load in the flexure. Knowing the
locations of these load cells with respect to the mass
centre of the deck, the measured loads are resolved into
six-degree-of-freedom loads, The deck is also equipped
with a system of seven accelerometers used to measure
the six-degree-of-freedom accelerations of the deck
using the method described in Miles [11, The jacket
section, constructed of aluminum tubing, was mounted
on a six-degree-of-freedom force dynamometer.
Therefore, the total forces measured on the model
including the deck and jacket were measured at the
base of the model, Loads on the jacket alone were
determined by subtracting the deck loads from the base
loads.
 OCT 7782 J.J. MURRAY, P. KAPLAN AND W.C. YU 3

The model was designed using finite-elements. A modal WAVE CALIBRATION

analysis was carried out to identify the natural
frequencies of the fully assembled model, including the
base dynamometer, in air and in water. Added mass
was modelled by uniformly spreading lumped masses
over the deck. The total added mass was estimated
from that of a flat rectangular Plate.
Model Installation and Calibration
The 2/4 R jacket model was subjected to a series of
static and dynamic calibration tests both in air and in
water following installation on the base dynamometer.
Static calibrations were carried out by comparing
measured loads to applied ones, The maximum error
measured from all cases was 3%. Dynamic responses
were measured by applying a static load to the model
using a thin wire and burning the wire to break it. The
response on all transducers and accelerometers was
recorded at a sampling frequency of 200 Hz, Tests on
the deck in water were carried out by increasing the
water depth in the basin to the deck elevation.
One of the main objectives of the test program was to
establish the wave conditions that would cause wave
impact on a deck structure and subsequently quantify
the load response. Based on specified wave spectra
parameters the maximum expected wave height, H~W,
from that spectrum was determined.
Longuet-Higgins [21 has shown that the expected
maximum wave height can be approximated using the
following formula,
.~
E[lfma] = 2 0 [(2 In N); + 0.5772 @ In N) 2] (2)
Using the relationship between the spectrum peak
period and the average zero-crossing period, the number
of wave cycles occurring in a spectrum representing a
storm of specified duration can be calculated. Thus the
height of regular design waves can be determined.

Samples of the deck response in air and in water as
measured by the vertical force transducer, are shown in
Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Figure 3 shows an almost
linear damped response with a dominant frequency of
6,3 Hz, This is expected since only structural damping
is involved, The decay trace in Figure 4 shows a
significant increase in the decay period and damping, as
expected from the hydrodynamic effects. This time
trace also exhibits a beating frequency indicating a
coupled response of two components with very close
frequencies. In fact, the second modal frequency
predicted by the finite-element analysis is 1.8 Hz and is
a rotation about the base of the model jacket. All
frequencies are full scale equivalents determined from
the model measurements using Froude scaling laws.
TABLE 1 Measured and Predicted Natural
Frequencies
%
Mode Predict Measure Predict Measure
Air Air Water Water
(Hz) (Hz) (Hz)
1 5.8 6.3 1.6
&
The measured values from the vibrations test compare
very well with the predicted ones as indicated in TABLE
1. The added mass effects on the deck as well as those
on the jacket have a significant effect on reducing the
natural frequencies.
In the present test program, the storm duration was 90
minutes. Regular and irregular waves for the test
program were calibrated in the basin without the
models installed for the three different water depths
corresponding to three different levels of subsidence.
Samples of the ratio of maximum crest elevation and
the standard deviation of crest elevation measured for
two of the spectra during wave calibration are
compared to those predicted using Equation (2) in
TABLE 2. There is very good agreement between
predicted and measured values.
TABLE 2 Ratio of Maximum to Standard Deviation
of Crest Elevations
Predicted Measured
Ratio Ratio
SPECTRUM 1 3.63 3.89
SPECTRUM 2 7.27 7.33
(Hz)
Increasing the time duration of the waves used to
1,4 model a particular spectrum above 90 minutes will
increase the ratios given in TABLE 2. The calculated
values assume that the waves are linear. However,
because of the near shallow water conditions, the
waves are asymmetric. This is an important issue
because, considering clearance beneath a deck, the
maximum crest height is of primary importance as
compared to the maximum wave height.

785

—
—
— — —- . .— — __.
-— —_ —. -.=— ._L _
.—_. . . . ____ .—= .-. y.== —.— .—_ .... .-—
. _ -=. — — —.——— ——. -=_ ______ , ._ >_: __
— - — —.—— —
.
— -. — — — —_. _— ->- —- —-—
—=:: .—_u___ -_ ._ ._ —_
— -— .
 4 EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES OF WAVE IMPACT FORCES ON EKOFISK PLATFORM STRUCTURES
The distribution of wave crests and heights are further
investigated for the spectra. According to the Rayleigh
model, the probability of exceedence, PE, of a quantity
x, is given by the expression,
x’
PE (X) =exp[— —
202] (3)
Using a zero-crossing analysis, the wave heights and
wave crests generated in a sample of the modelled
spectrum are compared to the distribution given in
Equation (3) . Results of these measurements are
shown in Figure 5 and 6. The wave heights given in
Figure 5 appear to fit the model very well, indicating
that the wave heights in the modelled spectrum are
Rayleigh distributed. A comparison between observed
and estimated crest heights shows underestimated
probability of exceeding the small range crest heights,
but very good match for the large range of crest heights
that could be of concern.
MODEL TESTS ON 2/4 R JACKET
Following wave calibration, the 1:36 scale model of the
Ekofisk protective barrier, 2/4 R jacket and connecting
bridges were installed in the Offshore Engineering Basin
at IMD and subjected to waves incident from six
directions, N, NW, W, SW, S, SE as illustrated in Figure
7. This figure shows the position of the barrier relative
to the jacket, assuming the waves always propagate
from the same direction. The jacket model was rotated
on the base dynamometer to follow the position of the
barrier.
The jacket model was subjected to a total of 25
different regular waves and 18 irregular wave spectra in
the presence of the protective barrier. These runs
covered the three subsidence levels. A series of tests
was also repeated on the 2/4 R alone to investigate the
effects of the barrier on the wave field and
consequently on the wave loads, These tests are
referred to as the “far field” condition,
Apart from instrumentation on the jacket model, the
barrier was instrumented to measure wave elevations
on the outer wall and local wave impact loads at a
number of locations within the barrier, A number of
wave probes were also placed at locations in the wave
field that correspond to those where the jacket would
be located as it was positioned around the barrier,
During each test run all instrumentation was sampled at
200 Hz. Only the results of the wave impact loading on
the 2/4 R deck are discussed in this paper,
786
—
OTC 7782
Analysis of Impact Loads
Figure 8 compares the impact loads measured in the
2/4 R jacket model in the presence of the barrier and in
the far field. These results are related to the jacket in
the NW position as illustrated in Figure 7. In the figure,
F~Zis the vertical load measured at the base of the
model, F~Z is the vertical load measured on the deck and
F~x is the horizontal load measured in the direction of
wave propagation. The time traces of the impact loads
also illustrate distinct differences in magnitude as well
as shape. The impact loads are characterized by a sharp
rise to a peak value with a more gradual decline as the
momentum of the water diminishes. The short rise time
in the impact loads is comprised of many frequency
components, some of which are much higher than the
frequency of the impacting wave.
The resonant response of the model is clearly evident in
the time traces. Results in regular waves show
increasing resonance effects with increasing steepness
of wave crests. This is because the level of dynamic
response depends on the rise time of the impact;
increased steepness results in increased impact load
and larger dynamic response. Contributions from the
model’s resonant response must be separated and
removed, However, removing the high frequency
components not associated with the model’s resonance
will risk underestimating the magnitude of the impact
load,
Closer examination of an impact load was carried out by
isolating one impact from the far field F~Z loads, A
spectral analysis of this impact, given in Figure 9,
clearly shows a response within the model’s resonant
frequency 1.5 Hz, The forces measured by the vertical
load cells on the deck were low-pass filtered at 1,0 Hz,
The filtered signals are shown in Figure 10, As can be
seen in the figure, cells C2 and C3 sense the load first,
followed by C5 and finally Cl and C4. Refer to Figure 3
for load cell locations. The time delay between the
different load cells suggests that the impact loads on
the deck in the far field are caused by a wave making
contact with the deck and traveling along its underside.
The speed at which the force moves along the
underside of the deck can be determined by comparing
the phases between loads measured at individual loads
cells attached to the deck.
The part of each signal filtered off from each of the load
cell measurements , i.e. the high frequency
components, are compared in Figure 11. These are
essentially the result of high-pass filtering at 1.0 Hz. As
shown in the figure, all these signals are in phase with
each other indicating that they are not phase-locked to
the components below the 1.0 Hz frequency, The sum
 OTC 7782 J.J. MURRAY,
of the five components shown in Figure 11 is given in
Figure 12. This figure also compares the vertical inertia
force computed from the global acceleration measured
by the accelerometers and multiplied by the mass
(including added mass estimates). This comparison
shows that the response around 1.5 Hz is caused by
the inertia effect of the deck vibrating. The inertia force
is multiplied by -1.00 for comparison purposes.
The analysis concluded that impact loads measured
above 1.0 Hz were attributed to the model’s resonance
response and could be removed, Three techniques to
remove resonant effects from the measured signals
were investigated. These were:
Method 1 Inverse Transfer Function
Kaplan [31 presented a procedure using the
model’s impulse response to determine an
inverse transfer function. The transfer function
is found from the derivative of the unit step
response for a particular degree of freedom. In
the present case this step function was
determined by applying a static load to the
model and instantaneously releasing it.
Following this procedure the experimentally
measured step response of the deck with the
jacket mounted on the base dynamometer was
measured. The results are shown in Figure 13.
The trace shows a modulating frequency
indicating coupling between two modes having
close frequencies. The method of inverse
transfer functions is not easily applied when
coupling is involved unless a matrix form
including all cross coupling terms is included.
The matrix is extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to assemble. Some approximations
were made assuming a single degree of freedom
system but produced very poor results. This
method was abandoned.
Method 2 Remove Measured Inertia Forces
Assuming damping contributions defined in
Equation (1) to be negligible, the intended
method of compensating for model resonance
effects was to estimate inertia forces using
measured accelerations and subtract them from
the measurement. This technique assumes the
deck to be a rigid plate. Phase differences
between the vertical accelerations measured at
different locations on the deck were checked to
confirm this assumption. The main problem
associated with estimating the inertia effects
using the accelerometers is related to the added
——
—
P. KAPLAN AND W.C. YU 5
mass and added moments of inertia. In the
actual tests the coverage area and uniformity of
water in contact with the deck during the
passing of a wave crest is continually changing,
making an accurate assessment of the non-
constant added mass on the deck difflcuk.
Method 3 Low-Pass Filter
The third method considered was to use a low-
pass non-recursive time domain filter. A Kaiser
filter [41 was selected with a cut-off frequency
of 1.0 Hz. Referring to Figure 13, the thin line
passing through the decay trace is the output
from the selected filter. This shows all effects
of the deck’s response to the step function have
been removed.
Figure 14 compares the results of METHOD 2 and
METHOD 3 when applied to a measured impact
response. The figure shows that the inertia removal
technique reduces the peak of the load by
approximately 50%. However, there remains
considerable ripple in the signal assumed to be caused
by variations in the added mass which in this case is
assumed to be constant. The 1.0 Hz filter results show
a smoother signal with all high frequency components
removed.
The discussion on vertical load considerations with
regard to model resonance effects applies to the
horizontal measurements as well, although the added
mass effects were not as significant as in the vertical
direction. The above described analysis concluded that
responses around 1.5 Hz were related to model inertia
responses and could be removed to provide smoother
time traces of the measurements. All measured data
were subsequently low-passed at 1.0 Hz using a Kaiser
filter,
TEST RESULTS
Effects of Protective Barrier on Surrounding Wave
Elevation
The protective barrier has a significant effect on the
wave field around it due to diffraction. Wave diffraction
patterns around the barrier result in locations that
produce higher and lower wave crest elevations than
that of the incident wave. In linear waves, diffraction
patterns around a circular cylinder can be readily
predicted of the model of MacCamy and Fuchs [51.
However, in intermediate and shallow water conditions
this theory can underestimate the maximum crest
height attained by a wave due to the second-order
contributiorw Murray and WU [61 Presented a stretching
787
.
 6 EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES OF WAVE IMPACT FORCES ON EKOFISK PLATFORM STRUCTURES
technique to account for these second-order effects by
applying an enhancement factor to the predictions of
linear theory.
Wave diffraction is sensitive to wave period. Therefore
incident waves of shorter periods, although smaller in
height than a wave of a longer period, may result in
deck impact whereas the longer wave may not contact
the deck. Also the position of the deck relative to the
barrier wail may have an influence on deck impact since
the structure can be placed at a low elevation point in
the diffraction field.
Vertical Impact Loads on 2/4 R Deck in Regular and
Irregular Waves
The effects of jacket position and incident wave
direction are illustrated in Figures 15 and 16. The top
part of each figure shows the deck elevation and
location relative to the barrier wall together with the
wave surface elevation caused by diffraction from the
barrier. The ordinates of the graphs show the water
elevation at distances along a line passing through the
centre of the barrier and the geometric centre of the
jacket. These elevations, computed using the method
described in [61, are plotted from the barrier to a
distance 125 m in outward radial directions.
The elevations at the wall should represent the wave
runup on the barrier at these circumferential locations.
In each figure the surface elevation along a line passing
below the centre of the structure’s deck is given for
particular wave period and direction of incidence, The
deck elevation and location, relative to the barrier wall,
are indicated in the figure as a solid horizontal line. The
bottom part of the figure shows the vertical loads
measured in these wave conditions using the solid and
porous deck coverings.
In general, the level of subsidence and position with
respect to the direction of wave incidence were the
most significant influences on vertical impact loading on
the 2/4 R deck, The largest vertical deck loads
measured in regular waves occurred in the water depth
corresponding to the largest subsidence level in the N
and W positions. Wave loading responses on both the
deck and jacket in these positions are very similar. This
similarity is expected since the positions are nominally
symmetrical about the wave direction. Figures 15 and
16 illustrate the high correlation between crest height
as well as position and impact load,
The vertical loads showed a dramatic reduction when
the porous deck was used as compared to the solid
deck, In most cases the porous deck loads were
significantly reduced, In certain regular wave conditions
—
OTC 7782
there was no deck impact even at the maximum
subsidence level, presumably due to the diffraction
effects from the barrier causing a depression of the
water elevation in the diffraction pattern at the location
of the platform,
THEORETiCAL ANALYSIS
A theoretical analysis procedure for predicting platform
deck impact forces has been developed and described
in [71, The method was based upon an extension of the
procedures described in [3], where the forces arise due
to the sum of inertial effects ( associated with the time
rate of change of fluid momentum) and drag
contributions. Both vertical and horizontal plane forces
on deck structures are considered in [7], with major
emphasis on far field conditions. Further extensions and
applications to conditions including the diffracted wave
field arising from the barrier structure are indicated
there, but no detailed description of the analysis is
provided,
Correlation between theoretical predicted forces and
those measured in the present test series shows
generally good agreement. The influence of the porous
deck in reducing the vertical forces is explained in terms
of changes in added mass and cross-section area of the
porous region, with the necessary modifications in
modelling procedures described in [71.
CONCLUSIONS
The model test study discussed in this paper deals
primarily with procedures for measurement and
interpretation of impact forces, particularly in terms of
identifying and removing extraneous responses. The
paper also discussed the effects of wave asymmetry
and its effect on crest height both in the diffracted field
and in the far field.
The following conclusions result from the analysis:
The distribution of crest heights in a particular
spectrum are not Rayleigh distributed even
when the wave heights are. Crest heights can
be significantly higher than those assumed
under linear theory,
The added mass effects during wave impact
significantly reduce the natural frequencies as
compared to those measured in air.
Characteristics of vertical wave impact are
significantly different in the far field than in the
diffracted field both in shape and magnitude,
788
 OTC 7782 J.J. MURRAY, P. KAPLAN AND W.C. YU 7

with significantly larger loads being realized in ACKNOWLEDGMENT

the diffracted field.
Removal of model resonance effects using
measured accelerations and estimated added
mass is difficult because of the temporal
property of added mass during impact. Where
possible a band pass filter technique is
recommended.
The authors are grateful to Phillips Petroleum Company,
Norway, and Co-Venturers, including Fina Exploration
Norway, Norsk Agip, ELF, Norsk Hydrot Total and
Statoil for granting permission to publish this paper. The
authors also wish to express their thanks to many
colleagues for their contributions that lead the results
presented here.

REFERENCES

[11 Miles, M. Measurement of Six Degree of

Freedom Model Motions Using Strapdo wn
Accelerometers, 21* ATTC, Washington, D. C.,
August 1986.

[21 Longuet-Higgins, M.S, 1952, On the Statistical

Distribution of Heights of Sea Waves. J .Marine
Research, Vol. Xl, No. 3., 1952.

[31 Kaplan, P., Wave Impact Forces on Offshore

Structures: Re-Examination and New
Interpretations. OTC 6874, Proc. of 24”
Offshore Tech. Conference, May 1992.

[41 Literature in Digital Signal Processing: Author

and Permuted Title Index, Revised and
expanded edition, edited by N.D. Helms, J.F.
Kaiser and L.R. Rabiner. New York: IEEE Press,
1975.

[51 MacCamy, R,C. and Fuchs, R. A,, Wave Forces

on Piles, A Diffraction Theory. US Army Corps
of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, Tech Memo
No. 69., 1954.

[61 Murray, J,J. and Wu, S. , Techniques for

Approximating Non-Linear Wave Interaction
with a Large Fixed Cylinder Caisson in Shallow
Water. Vol. 1, Proc, of the Intern. Conf. on Ship
and Marine Research, Rome, 5-7 October,
1994,
..
[71 Kaplan, P., Murray, J. J., Yu, W. C., Theoretjca/
Analysis of Wave Impact Forces on Platform
Deck Structures. Proceedings of OMAE Figure 1. Model of 2/4 R Jacket
Conference, Copenhagen, June 1995.

789

—
 Figure 2. Deck Frame

f I

F~z

time time

Figure 3. Decay Response in Air Figure 4. Decay Trace in Water

790
 PE

i I I I

Wave Height

Figure 5. Distribution of Wave Heights

PE

I I I I

Crest Height

Figure 6. Distribution of Crest Heights

(n N
Directions

Figure 7.

791

—
 .

-+

o 0
0
I

N N x
Lim d Lo

. >

0 0
0

N x
Id”
792

—
 ,...

f I 1, I I I I I
J 1 I I

N
Ii? N
Ufn

..
1 t 1 r . .
\

793
 /’ measured response

recovered Kaiser filter

Time
Figure 13. Step Response

~
measured load

l——————— inertia removed

1.0 Hz filter

FDZ

I
i

Time

Figure 14. Comparison of Removal Techniques

794
 a-

x
u.

‘r m 0

I I

I18M J~!JM3a
x
u

795