This paper aims to introduce an extension of the dynamic increasing amplitude and period (DIAP) technique, termed as the dynamic increasing wave analysis (DIWA) method, which is set to be further developed for dynamic analysis of offshore wind turbines under combined environmental actions. The DIWA is an effective dynamic analysis methodology that simulates both the frequency and intensity dependencies of the dynamic wave loadings and load effects during the passage of a storm in a single progressive dynamic analysis. In the present work, the basic concept and generation procedure of this analysis approach based on two wave models, linear and nonlinear models taking into account the bottom effects, are described, exemplified, and examined using a fully coupled time-domain hydro-servo-elastic multi-rigid-flexible-body (HSE-MRFB) model of a jacket-supported reference OWT. The performance and applicability of this method are then comparatively demonstrated using short-term extreme statistical measures of dynamic loadings and structural responses predicted by the common practice individually performed dynamic time-history analysis (ITHA) approach and the DIWA method. The results show that the DIWA method is not only a reliable analysis approach for design loads and damage assessment of jacket-supported OWT foundations under evolutionary wave actions of a storm event but also leads to consistent trend yet relatively conservative characteristic values with an overestimation up to 14%–31% in 10–100-year mean return period (MRP), respectively, which can be overcome to some extent by further future developments. The findings also indicate that the nonlinearity of the waves increases the structural dynamic responses, up to ~13% in the vicinity of the mean sea level (MSL), while bottom effects reduce the conservatism in design, more than ~25%, stipulating the importance of nonlinear waves incorporating bottom effects over common practice for OWTs in transient waters.
ChakrabartiS.Handbook of offshore engineering (2-volume set). Elsevier, 2005.
2.
SharmaJNDeanRG. Development and evaluation of a procedure for simulating a random directional second-order sea surface and associated wave forces. Tech. rep. ocean engineering report no. 20. University of Delaware, 1979.
3.
FaltinsenO.Sea loads on ships and offshore structures. Cambridge University Press, 1993. Vol. 1.
4.
OchiM.Ocean waves: the stochastic approach. Oceanogr Lit Rev1998; 6(45): 904.
5.
AgarwalPManuelL.Incorporating irregular nonlinear waves in coupled simulation and reliability studies of offshore wind turbines. Appl Ocean Res2011; 33(3): 215–227.
6.
NatarajanA.Influence of second-order random wave kinematics on the design loads of offshore wind turbine support structures. Renew Energy2014; 68: 829–841.
7.
WangY.Bottom effects on the tower base shear forces and bending moments of a shallow water offshore wind turbine. Mar Struct2020; 70: 102705.
8.
WangY-G.Predicting loads and dynamic responses of an offshore jacket wind turbine in a nonlinear sea. China Ocean Eng2020; 34(5): 641–650.
9.
DNV-OS-J101. Design of offshore wind turbine structures. Det Norske Veritas, 2014.
10.
IEC61400-3. Wind turbines-Part 3: design requirements for offshore wind turbines. International Electrotechnical Commission, 2009.
11.
API-RP-2A-WSD. Recommended Practice for planning, designing, and constructing fixed offshore platforms-working stress design. 21st ed. API Publishing Services, 2005.
12.
JahanmardVDiznabMADMehdigholiH, et al. Performance-based assessment of steel jacket platforms by wave endurance time method. Ships Offshore Struct2017; 12(1): 32–42.
13.
TabeshpourMR.A new method for analysis and evaluation of offshore platforms: dynamic Increasing Amplitude and Period (DIAP). In: 15th Marine Industries Conference, Kish, Iran, 2013.
14.
ZeinoddiniMMatin NikooHEstekanchiH.Endurance Wave Analysis (EWA) and its application for assessment of offshore structures under extreme waves. Appl Ocean Res2012; 37: 98–110.
15.
Dastan DiznabMAMohajernassabSSeifMS, et al. Assessment of offshore structures under extreme wave conditions by modified endurance wave analysis. Mar Struct2014; 39: 50–69.
16.
MohajernassabSDiznabMADMehdigholiH, et al. Modification of endurance wave analysis based on New-wave theory. Ships Offshore Struct2017; 12(3): 330–340.
17.
Dastan DiznabMAJahanmardVTabeshpourMRet al. Wave endurance time: a new concept for structural assessment under extreme waves. Proc Inst Mech Eng M J Eng Marit Environ2016; 230(2): 364–377.
18.
MazaheriSImaniH.Evaluation and modification of JONSWAP spectral parameters in the Persian Gulf considering offshore wave characteristics under storm conditions. Ocean Dyn2019; 69(5): 615–639.
19.
WeiKImaniHQinS.Parametric wave spectrum model for typhoon-generated waves based on field measurements in Nearshore Strait Water. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng2021; 143(5): 1–14.
20.
BoccottiP.Wave mechanics for ocean engineering. Elsevier, 2000.
21.
StewartRAKittelsonJKayIP.Statistical methods to improve the precision of the treadmill exercise test. J Am Coll Cardiol2000; 36(4): 1274–1279.
22.
RiahiHTEstekanchiHE.Seismic assessment of steel frames with the endurance time method. J Constr Steel Res2010; 66(6): 780–792.
23.
HaselsteinerAFSanderAOhlendorfJH, et al. Global hierarchical models for wind and wave contours: physical interpretations of the dependence functions. In: ASME 2020 39th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, 2020.
24.
ImaniHWeiKShenZ, et al. Investigations into relationship between significant wave height and mean wave period in nearshore straits under typhoon conditions. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng2025; 147(4): 1–16.
25.
USFOS-Hydrodynamics. USFOS hydrodynamics: theory description of use verification. SINTEF Marintek, 2010.
26.
KarimiradMMichailidesCNematbakhshA.Offshore mechanics: structural and fluid dynamics for recent applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2018.
27.
HaidLStewartGJonkmanJ, et al. Simulation-length requirements in the loads analysis of offshore floating wind turbines. In: International conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering, 2013. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
28.
SahaNGaoZMoanT, et al. Short-term extreme response analysis of a jacket supporting an offshore wind turbine. Wind Energy2014; 17(1): 87–104.
StewartGMLacknerMAArwadeSR, et al. Statistical estimation of extreme loads for the design of offshore wind turbines during non-operational conditions. Wind Eng2015; 39(6): 629–640.
31.
GolafshaniAABagheriVEbrahimianH, et al. Incremental wave analysis and its application to performance-based assessment of jacket platforms. J Constr Steel Res2011; 67(10): 1649–1657.
32.
WeiKMyersATArwadeSR. Dynamic effects in the response of offshore wind turbines supported by jackets under wave loading. Eng Struct2017; 142: 36–45.
33.
FentonJD.A fifth-order Stokes theory for steady waves. J Waterway Port Coast Ocean Eng1985; 111(2): 216–234.
34.
ParvinMSarkerMSASultanaM.Cnoidal wave solutions in shallow water and solitary wave limit. J Pure Appl Math Adv Appl2013; 11(1): 63–93.
35.
DNVGL-RP-C205. Environmental conditions and environmental loads. Det Norske Veritas Group, 2017.
36.
KitaigorodskiiSA.On the theory of the equilibrium range in the spectrum of wind-generated gravity waves. J Phys Oceanogr1983; 13(5): 816–827.
37.
BouwsEGüntherHRosenthalW, et al. Similarity of the wind wave spectrum in finite depth water: 1. Spectral form. J Geophys Res Oceans1985; 90(C1): 975–986.
38.
HaghayeghiZSImaniHKarimiradM.Directional dependence of extreme metocean conditions for analysis and design of marine structures. Appl Ocean Res2020; 100: 102181.
39.
World Meteorological Organization. WMO guidelines on the calculation of climate normals. Technical report, World Meteorological Organization, 2017.
40.
IMAREST. Metocean procedures guide for offshore renewables. Technical report, Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (Offshore Renewables Special Interest Group, 2018.
41.
ImaniHAbbaspourMKamranzadB, et al. Assessment of extreme wave height in Chabahar Region, north of Gulf of Oman. In: The 11th international conference on coasts, ports and marine structures (ICOPMAS), Tehran, Iran, 2014.
42.
Hasan Imani, Bahareh Kamranzad, Evaluation of ERA-Interim wave characteristics in Southern Caspian Sea, in the 12th International Conference on Coastal, Ports and Marine Structures, Tehran, Iran, 2016.
43.
LafaceVBitner-GregersenEMArenaF, et al. A parameterization of DNV-GL storm profile for the calculation of design wave of marine structures. Mar Struct2019; 68: 102650.
44.
ValamaneshVMyersATArwadeSR. Multivariate analysis of extreme metocean conditions for offshore wind turbines. Struct Saf2015; 55: 60–69.
45.
FischerTDe VriesWSchmidtB.UpWind design basis (WP4: Offshore foundations and support structures). Endowed Chair of Wind Energy (SWE) at the Institute of Aircraft Design Universit at Stuttgart, 2010.
46.
BattjesJAGroenendijkHW.Wave height distributions on shallow foreshores. Coast Eng2000; 40(3): 161–182.
47.
DeanRGDalrympleRA.Water wave mechanics for engineers and scientists. World Scientific Publishing Company, 1991. Vol. 2.
48.
ChenQChenXMaY, et al. Transient waves generated by a vertical flexible wavemaker plate with a general ramp function. Appl Ocean Res2020; 103: 102335.
49.
AbrougIMatarRAbchaN.Spatial evolution of skewness and kurtosis of unidirectional extreme waves propagating over a sloping beach. J Mar Sci Eng2022; 10(10): 1475.
50.
GramstadOTrulsenK.Hamiltonian form of the modified nonlinear Schrödinger equation for gravity waves on arbitrary depth. J Fluid Mech2011; 670: 404–426.
51.
ChabchoubAHoffmannNPAkhmedievN.Rogue wave observation in a water wave tank. Phys Rev Lett2011; 106(20): 204502.
52.
SlunyaevAPelinovskyESergeevaA, et al. Super-rogue waves in simulations based on weakly nonlinear and fully nonlinear hydrodynamic equations. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys2013; 88(1): 012909.
53.
TrulsenKZengHGramstadO.Laboratory evidence of freak waves provoked by non-uniform bathymetry. Phys Fluids2012; 24(9): 1–10.
54.
JonkmanBJonkmanJ.FAST user’s guide v8. 16. National Renewable Energy Laboratory National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), 2016.
55.
ImaniHKarimiradM. Spatial grid resolution effects on dynamics of offshore wind turbines. In: ASME 2023 5th International offshore wind technical conference, 2023.
56.
JonkmanJ, et al. Definition of a 5-MW reference wind turbine for offshore system development. National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), 2009.
57.
VorpahlFPopkoWKauferD.Description of a basic model of the “UpWind reference jacket” for code comparison in the OC4 project under IEA Wind Annex XXX. Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology (IWES), 2011, p.450.
58.
PopkoWVorpahlFZugaA, et al. Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration Continuation (OC4), Phase 1-results of coupled simulations of an offshore wind turbine with jacket support structure. In: The twenty-second international offshore and polar engineering conference, 2012. OnePetro.
59.
ShirzadehRDevriendtCBidakhvidiMA, et al. Experimental and computational damping estimation of an offshore wind turbine on a monopile foundation. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodynamics2013; 120: 96–106.
60.
ShiWParkHHanJ, et al. A study on the effect of different modeling parameters on the dynamic response of a jacket-type offshore wind turbine in the Korean Southwest Sea. Renew Energy2013; 58: 50–59.
61.
JonkmanJMRobertsonAHaymanGJ.HydroDyn user’s guide and theory manual. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2014. pp.610.
62.
EmamiAKarimiradM.Further development of offshore floating solar and its design requirements. Mar Struct2025; 100: 103730.
63.
LighthillJ.Waves and hydrodynamic loading. In: 2nd International Conference on the Behaviour of Offshore Structures, 1979, pp.1–40.
64.
FaltinsenOMNewmanJNVinjeT. Nonlinear wave loads on a slender vertical cylinder. J Fluid Mech1995; 289: 179–198.
65.
RaineyRCT. Slender-body expressions for the wave load on offshore structures. Proc R Soc Lond A Math Phys Sci1995; 450(1939): 391–416.
66.
NewmanJN.The second-order wave force on a vertical cylinder. J Fluid Mech1996; 320: 417–443.
67.
ImaniHAbbaspourMTabeshpourMR, et al. Effects of motion and structural vibration–induced loadings on the coupled dynamic response of a mono-column tension-leg-platform floating wind turbine. Proc Inst Mech Eng M J Eng Marit Environ2020; 234(2): 426–445.
68.
EmamiAPourjafariNParghiA.Effect of porous SBR composites on mitigating the heave motion response of a semi-submersible platform. Ocean Eng2024; 295: 116856.
69.
MohammadiPEmamiAMostafa GharabaghiAR, et al. Evaluation of RAOs of a semi-submersible platform using field measurements: a full-scale model in Caspian sea environmental conditions. Mar Struct2023; 91: 103467.
70.
EmamiAMostafa GharabaghiAR.Application of poroelastic layers in a semi-submersible platform: devising an efficient heave motion response reduction method. Ocean Eng2020; 201: 107148.
71.
RyanGVTangTMcAdamRA, et al. Influence of non-linear wave load models on monopile supported offshore wind turbines for extreme conditions. Ocean Eng2025; 323: 120510.
72.
Suja-ThauvinLBachynskiEEPierellaF, et al. Critical assessment of hydrodynamic load models for a monopile structure in finite water depth. Mar Struct2020; 72: 102743.
73.
MockutėAMarinoELugniC, et al. Comparison of nonlinear wave-loading models on rigid cylinders in regular waves. Energies2019; 12(21): 4022.
74.
SongJImaniHYueJ, et al. Hydrodynamic characteristics of floating photovoltaic systems under Ocean loads. J Mar Sci Eng2023; 11(9): 1813.
75.
WangSLarsenTJBredmoseH.Ultimate load analysis of a 10 MW offshore monopile wind turbine incorporating fully nonlinear irregular wave kinematics. Mar Struct2021; 76: 102922.
76.
NaessAClausenPH.The impact of data accuracy on the POT estimates of long return period design values. J Offshore Mech Arctic Eng2002; 124(1): 53–58.
77.
PickandsJIII. Statistical inference using extreme order statistics. Ann Stat1975; 3: 119–131.
78.
WangY.Optimal threshold selection in the POT method for extreme value prediction of the dynamic responses of a spar-type floating wind turbine. Ocean Eng2017; 134: 119–128.
79.
WangYXiaYLiuX.Establishing robust short-term distributions of load extremes of offshore wind turbines. Renew Energy2013; 57: 606–619.
80.
BrodtkorbPAJohannessonPLindgrenG, et al. WAFO-a Matlab toolbox for analysis of random waves and loads. In: The tenth international offshore and polar engineering conference, 2000. OnePetro.
81.
CoxDRLewisPA.The statistical analysis of series of events. Springer Dordrecht, 1966.
82.
FisherRAYatesF.Statistical tables for biological, agricultural and medical research (edited by FisherRAYatesF). Oliver and Boyd, 1963.
83.
WangLJonkmanJHaymanG, et al. Recent hydrodynamic modeling enhancements in openfast. In: International conference on offshore mechanics and Arctic engineering, 2022. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
84.
ZhangLMichailidesCWangY, et al. Moderate water depth effects on the response of a floating wind turbine. Structures2020; 28: 1435–1448.
85.
TabeshpourMImaniH.An approximate simple computational method to determine hydrodynamic forces on drag dominated offshore structures. Int J Coast Offshore Environ Eng2024; 9(1): 43–54.
