Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHaselsteiner, AF
dc.contributor.authorCoe, RG
dc.contributor.authorManuel, L
dc.contributor.authorChai, W
dc.contributor.authorLeira, B
dc.contributor.authorClarindo, G
dc.contributor.authorGuedes Soares, C
dc.contributor.authorHannesdóttir, Á
dc.contributor.authorDimitrov, N
dc.contributor.authorSander, A
dc.contributor.authorOhlendorf, JH
dc.contributor.authorThoben, KD
dc.contributor.authorHauteclocque, GD
dc.contributor.authorMackay, E
dc.contributor.authorJonathan, P
dc.contributor.authorQiao, C
dc.contributor.authorMyers, A
dc.contributor.authorRode, A
dc.contributor.authorHildebrandt, A
dc.contributor.authorSchmidt, B
dc.contributor.authorVanem, E
dc.contributor.authorHuseby, AB
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-28T07:56:29Z
dc.date.issued2021-08-11
dc.description.abstractEnvironmental contours are used to simplify the process of design response analysis. A wide variety of contour methods exist; however, there have been a very limited number of comparisons of these methods to date. This paper is the output of an open benchmarking exercise, in which contributors developed contours based on their preferred methods and submitted them for a blind comparison study. The exercise had two components—one, focusing on the robustness of contour methods across different offshore sites and, the other, focusing on characterizing sampling uncertainty. Nine teams of researchers contributed to the benchmark. The analysis of the submitted contours highlighted significant differences between contours derived via different methods. For example, the highest wave height value along a contour varied by as much as a factor of two between some submissions while the number of metocean data points or observations that fell outside a contour deviated by an order of magnitude between the contributions (even for contours with a return period shorter than the duration of the record). These differences arose from both different joint distribution models and different contour construction methods, however, variability from joint distribution models appeared to be higher than variability from contour construction methods.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 236, article 109504en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109504
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/127257
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.rights© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).en_GB
dc.subjectEnvironmental contouren_GB
dc.subjectMetocean extremesen_GB
dc.subjectJoint distributionen_GB
dc.subjectExtreme responseen_GB
dc.subjectStructural reliabilityen_GB
dc.titleA benchmarking exercise for environmental contoursen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2021-09-28T07:56:29Z
dc.identifier.issn0029-8018
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.journalOcean Engineeringen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-07-12
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2021-08-11
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2021-09-28T07:53:21Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2021-09-28T07:56:44Z
refterms.panelBen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).