Cover Journal of Physical Oceanography
Journal of Physical Oceanography

  • Allender, J., and Coauthors, 1989: The WADIC project: A comprehensive field evaluation of directional wave instrumentation. Ocean Eng.,16, 505–536.

  • Donelan, M. A., J. Hamilton, and W. H. Hui, 1985: Directional spectra of wind-generated waves. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London,315A, 509–562.

  • Ewans, K. C., 1998: Observations of the directional spectrum of fetch-limited waves. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,28, 495–512.

  • Forristall, G. Z., 1978: On the statistical distribution of wave heights in a storm. J. Geophys. Res.,83, 2353–2358.

  • Goda, Y., 1985: Random Sea and Design of Maritime Structures. University of Tokyo Press, 323 pp.

  • Hamilton, R. C., and E. G. Ward, 1976: Ocean Data Gathering Program: Quality and reduction of data. J. Petrol. Technol.,28, 337–344.

  • Haring, R. E., A. R. Osborne, and L. P. Spencer, 1976: Extreme wave parameters based on continental shelf storm wave records. Proc. 15th Int. Conf. on Coastal Engineering, Honolulu, HI, 151–170.

  • Huang, N. E., L. F. Bliven, S. R. Long, and C. C. Tung, 1986: An analytical model for oceanic whitecap coverage. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,16, 1597–1604.

  • James, I. D., 1986: A note on the theoretical comparison of wave staff and wave rider buoys in steep gravity waves. Ocean Eng.,13, 209–214.

  • Jha, A. K., 1997: Nonlinear stochastic models for loads and responses of offshore structures and vessels. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 70 pp.

  • Jonathan, P., and P. H. Taylor, 1995: On irregular, nonlinear waves in a spread sea. J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng.,119, 37–41.

  • ——, ——, and P. S. Tromans, 1994: Storm waves in the northern North Sea. Proc. Seventh Int. Conf. on the Behavior of Offshore Structures (BOSS), Boston, MA, ASCE, 481–494.

  • Kriebel, D. L., and T. H. Dawson, 1991: Nonlinear effects on wave groups in random seas. J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng.,113, 142–147.

  • ——, and ——, 1993: Nonlinearity in wave crest statistics. Proc. Second Int. Symp. on Ocean Wave Measurement and Analysis, New Orleans, LA, ASCE, 61–75.

  • Longuet-Higgins, M. S., 1963: The effect of non-linearities on statistical distrbutions in the theory of sea waves. J. Fluid Mech.,17, 459–480.

  • ——, 1986: Eulerian and Lagrangian aspects of surface waves. J. Fluid Mech.,173, 683–707.

  • Prevosto, M., 1998: Effect of directional spreading and spectral bandwith on the nonlinearity of the irregular waves. Proc. Eighth Int. Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Montreal, PQ, Canada, International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, 119–123.

  • Sharma, J. N., and R. G. Dean, 1979: Development and evaluation of a procedure for simulating a random directional second order sea surface and associated wave forces. Ocean Engineering Rep. 20, University of Delaware, 112 pp. [Available from Ocean Engineering Laboratory, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716.].

  • Srokosz, M. A., 1998: A new statistical distribution for the surface elevation of weakly nonlinear water waves. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,28, 149–155.

  • ——, and M. S. Longuet-Higgins, 1986: On the skewness of sea surface elevation. J. Fluid Mech.,164, 487–497.

  • Swanson, R. C., and G. D. Baxter, 1989: The Bullwinkle platform instrumentation system. Proc. 21st Annual Offshore Technology Conf., Houston, TX, Mar. Technol. Soc., 93–100.

  • Tayfun, M. A., 1980: Narrow-band nonlinear sea waves. J. Geophys. Res.,85, 1548–1552.

  • ——, 1981: Breaking-limited wave heights. J. Waterway, Ports, Coastal Ocean Eng.,107, 59–69.

  • ——, 1993: Sampling-rate errors in statistics of wave heights and periods. J. Waterways, Ports, Coastal Ocean Eng.,119, 172–192.

  • Thornton, E. B., and R. T. Guza, 1983: Transformation of wave height distribution. J. Geophys. Res.,88, 5925–5938.

  • Tucker, M. J., 1991: Waves in Ocean Engineering: Measurement, Analysis, Interpretation. Ellis Horwood, 487 pp.

  • van Unen, R. F., A. A. vand Beuzekom, G. Z. Forristall, J.-P. Mathisen, and J. Starke, 1998: Wacsis—Wave crest sensor intercomparison study at the Meetpost Noordwijk measurement platform. Oceans’98, Nice, France, IEEE, 192–197.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 40 40 40
PDF Downloads 46 46 46
Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Wave Crest Distributions: Observations and Second-Order Theory

George Z. Forristall1
View More View Less
  • 1 Shell E&P Technology, Houston, Texas
Print Publication:
01 Aug 2000
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0485(2000)030<1931:WCDOAS>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
1931–1943
Restricted access

Abstract

Many empirical and heuristic distribution functions for wave crest heights have been proposed, but their predictions differ considerably. Part of the lack of agreement is due to the difficulty of making measurements that accurately record the true height of the wave crests. Surface following buoys effectively cancel out the second-order nonlinearity by making a Lagrangian measurement. Pressure transducers filter the nonlinear components of the signal in complicated ways. Wave staffs have varying degrees of sensitivity to spray. The location of the instruments also plays an important role. There is clear evidence from measurements in the North Sea that spurious crests due to spray are a problem downwind even from mounting supports that appear transparent.

Much of the theoretical nonlinearity can be captured by calculations correct to second order. Explicit calculation of the interactions of each pair of components in a directional spectrum is straightforward although computationally intensive. This technique has the advantage that the effects of wave steepness, water depth, and directional spreading are included with no approximation other than the truncation of the expansion at second order. Comparisons with measurements that are believed to be of the best quality show good agreement with these second-order calculations. Simulations for a set of JONSWAP spectra then lead to parametric crest distributions, which can be used easily in applications.

Corresponding author address: Dr. George Z. Forristall, Shell E&P Technology, Box 481, Houston, TX 77001.

Email: gzforristall@shellus.com

Abstract

Many empirical and heuristic distribution functions for wave crest heights have been proposed, but their predictions differ considerably. Part of the lack of agreement is due to the difficulty of making measurements that accurately record the true height of the wave crests. Surface following buoys effectively cancel out the second-order nonlinearity by making a Lagrangian measurement. Pressure transducers filter the nonlinear components of the signal in complicated ways. Wave staffs have varying degrees of sensitivity to spray. The location of the instruments also plays an important role. There is clear evidence from measurements in the North Sea that spurious crests due to spray are a problem downwind even from mounting supports that appear transparent.

Much of the theoretical nonlinearity can be captured by calculations correct to second order. Explicit calculation of the interactions of each pair of components in a directional spectrum is straightforward although computationally intensive. This technique has the advantage that the effects of wave steepness, water depth, and directional spreading are included with no approximation other than the truncation of the expansion at second order. Comparisons with measurements that are believed to be of the best quality show good agreement with these second-order calculations. Simulations for a set of JONSWAP spectra then lead to parametric crest distributions, which can be used easily in applications.

Corresponding author address: Dr. George Z. Forristall, Shell E&P Technology, Box 481, Houston, TX 77001.

Email: gzforristall@shellus.com

Save