Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHauteclocque, GD
dc.contributor.authorMackay, E
dc.contributor.authorVanem, E
dc.date.accessioned2022-01-05T12:59:22Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-05
dc.date.updated2022-01-05T11:54:14Z
dc.description.abstractEnvironmental contours are a pragmatic and widespread method to estimate the long-term extreme response of marine structures. Over the years, a range of approaches have been proposed. A benchmarking study was recently conducted to compare the various methods using a common set of data. The current work extends this benchmark study by providing a quantitative assessment of the contours submitted to the exercise. The estimates of long-term responses from the contours were compared against a response-based analysis (RBA) for a wide range of responses. While some contour methods agreed well with estimates from the RBA (relative errors less than 10%), most methods were found to give large errors relative to the RBA. For the 1-year responses most methods showed a large positive bias, whilst both positive and negative biases were found for the 20-year responses. The reasons for the differences between the contours and RBA were explored. It was shown that the fitted statistical models accounted for a large portion of the error in some approaches, with both positive and negative biases of the order of 50% for some contributions, depending on the response type. Whilst for other methods, the statistical model gave accurate predictions for most responses, no models were able to capture all response behaviours for all locations. Secondly, most contour methods do not account for serial correlation in the data. It is shown that this introduces a significant positive bias into long-term response estimates, especially for lower return periods. The level of error introduced by the type of contour method is dependent on the assumption made about the shape of the failure region in the contour definition. For the predominantly unimodal response types considered, contours which approximate the failure region as having a linear boundary (IFORM and direct sampling contours), introduce relatively little error for most responses. However, for some responses, the direct sampling contours were found to introduce errors in the range 20-40%, depending on the variable space in which they are constructed. The ISORM and highest density contours were found to have a significant over-conservatism bias, which would be expected for the response types considered.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)en_GB
dc.format.extent110374-110374
dc.identifier.citationVol. 245, article 110374en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110374
dc.identifier.grantnumberEP/S000747/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/128293
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0001-7121-4231 (Mackay, Ed)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://github.com/ec-benchmark-organizers/ec-benchmarken_GB
dc.rights.embargoreasonUnder embargo until 5 January 2023 in compliance with publisher policyen_GB
dc.rightsCrown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.en_GB
dc.subjectLong-term extreme responseen_GB
dc.subjectEnvironmental contouren_GB
dc.subjectResponse based analysisen_GB
dc.subjectStatistical modelen_GB
dc.subjectSerial correlationen_GB
dc.titleQuantitative comparison of environmental contour approachesen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2022-01-05T12:59:22Z
dc.identifier.issn0029-8018
exeter.article-number110374
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record en_GB
dc.descriptionAll primary data used on this study (wave datasets, contours and response transfer functions) can be found on the benchmark github repository, available at : https://github.com/ec-benchmark-organizers/ ec-benchmarken_GB
dc.identifier.journalOcean Engineeringen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofOcean Engineering, 245
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2021-12-07
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2022-01-05
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2022-01-05T12:53:25Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.panelBen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2022-01-05


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record