4.7 Article

A simulation study on the uncertainty of environmental contours due to sampling variability for different estimation methods

Journal

APPLIED OCEAN RESEARCH
Volume 91, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apor.2019.101870

Keywords

Environmental contours; Marine structures; Extreme loads; Structural reliability; Marine design; Ocean environment; Environmental loads

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway (RCN) under the MARTEC II ERA-NET initiative [249261/O80]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Environmental contours are often used in design of marine structures to identify extreme environmental conditions that may give rise to extreme loads and responses. Recently, attention has been given to the fact that different methods exist for establishing such contours, and that in some cases significant differences may be obtained from the various methods. In this study, another aspect of the uncertainty related to the calculation of environmental contours is addressed, namely the uncertainty due to sampling variability when environmental contours are constructed based on metocean data of finite sample size. The uncertainty of environmental contours for the joint distribution of significant wave height and wave period for different sample sizes (10, 25 and 100 years of data) are investigated considering different underlying datasets and for different estimation methods for the joint distribution. Both cases where samples are drawn from a known joint distribution of wave height and periods and cases where samples are drawn from a real hindcast dataset and fitted to the joint distribution are considered. The uncertainty of the estimated contours is quantified and discussed in light of differences that can be anticipated from the different methods used to calculate the contours. Moreover, the potential bias from assuming different estimation methods is illustrated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available