See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323027389

HULL INSPECTION METHODOLOGY, A PROGRESS REPORT

Conference Paper · August 2008

CITATIONS READS

0 522

4 authors, including:

Jan W Crane Julia Gazagnaire

Independent Researcher Florida Atlantic University
8 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Port Security View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan W Crane on 09 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 HULL INSPECTION METHODOLOGY, A PROGRESS REPORT

J. W. Cranea, J. Gazagnairea, D. F. Suchmanb, J. S. Marcusc

a
Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division, 110 Vernon Ave, Panama City,
FL, 32407, USA
b
Tech Associates LLC, 8389 Vereda Del Padre, Goleta, CA 93117, USA
c
Reson, Inc., 100 Lopez Road, Goleta, CA 93117, USA

Dr. Jan W. Crane

Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division
110 Vernon Ave, Panama City, FL 32407
Fax: 850-234-4151
jan.crane@navy.mil

Abstract: Inspecting the hulls of incoming vessels has become more important to many nations
as the potential effects of terrorism and sabotage continue to grow. A previous paper by the
authors analyzed several methods for performing the hull inspection task comparing their
advantages and disadvantages. Evaluation factors included procurement, operating and
maintenance costs, operator skill level required, the ability to detect anomalies, the impact on the
inspected vessel and port operations, ability to operate in high seas, and the time required to
interpret the data and report the conclusion. The authors concluded that, in order to screen the
large numbers of vessels needed to achieve a meaningful level of port security, a real-time system
capable of measuring several vessels each hour would be needed. Since publication of the paper
in 2006, the US Navy and Reson conducted experiments at Panama City, Florida to demonstrate
the feasibility of using moving and stationary multi-beam echo sounders to scan the hulls of
vessels. This paper describes the tests that were conducted and presents some of the results that
were obtained. It will be shown that there was successful detection of limpet-sized objects
mounted to the hull during the stationary trials.

Keywords: Hull Inspection; Sonar; UUV; ROV; Mine; Harbour Security

The appearance of trade names in this document does not constitute endorsement by the
Department of Defense; the Navy; or the Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City
Division.

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

WaterSide Security - 1st International Conference and Exhibition 1

Copenhagen, Denmark
25-28 August 2008
1. INTRODUCTION

Inspecting the hulls of incoming vessels before they enter a port has become more
important as the potential effects of terrorism, sabotage and other types of asymmetric
warfare continue to grow. Among the concerns are: importation of drugs, explosives or
biological weapons; loss of lives; and Limpet Mines causing a vessel to sink in a location
that would cause significant disruption to, or shutdown of, shipping in a major port
facility. The latter has become of particular concern recently, as has the realization that
the United States, in particular, is vulnerable to this threat as well as the threat of
conventional mining. It has been estimated that closure of the US ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach alone, would cost the United States' economy approximately one-billion
($1,000,000,000) dollars/day. [1]

As a result, a number of Governments, including the United States, are addressing this
issue. Several methods have been proposed for performing the inspection process. The
US Office of Naval Research, working closely with the Navy’s Explosive Ordnance
Detachment (NAVEOD) has sponsored several technology development programs, mostly
utilizing Autonomous/Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUV) and Remotely Operated
Vehicles (ROV). This emphasis on unmanned systems reflects the understandable desire
of the EOD forces to minimize the risk to their personnel during the inspection and
sanitization processes. It also reflects the realization that the majority of inspection and
sanitization missions have been conducted in Middle Eastern ports, not in the United
States.

This raises then the following question. Are the development efforts being funded by
the US Navy for hull inspection suitable for both US ports and foreign ports? Might other
system types be superior for US ports? This paper explores these issues. In a previous
paper [2], we described four hull inspection methods:
• Autonomous/Unmanned Underwater Vehicle;
• Remotely Operated Vehicle;
• A Moored System; and
• Pole-Mounted Sonar.

Eight criteria were utilized to compare their relative advantages and disadvantages. To set
the stage for what is to follow, let us quickly review our previous findings.

2. SYSTEM COMPARISION

2.1. Unmanned Underwater Vehicle

Two different AUV or UUV programs are currently being sponsored by US Navy
agencies: Lockheed-Martin’s CETUS II [3] (Fig.1), and the HAUV [4] (Fig.1) from
Bluefin Robotics, Inc. We thank both organizations for their permission to use the data
presented here. Tests have been conducted with both UUVs. High resolution sonar
images (Fig.2) have been obtained; the ability to detect and image objects as small as
1/10th of a cubic foot has been demonstrated, as has the ability to construct images of the

WaterSide Security - 1st International Conference and Exhibition 2

Copenhagen, Denmark
25-28 August 2008
hull from the small swath measured by the imaging sonar. These experiments, however,
have been conducted using vessels that were stationary, not moving,

The main advantage of this approach is the excellent image resolution and high
probability of detecting small anomalies even when the water is murky, and the system's
portability. However, there are several disadvantages that are:
• The UUV must be positioned precisely next to a moving vessel.
• The mosaic is not constructed in real time and may reveal gaps.
• Due to the narrow swath, only 1.5 to 2 meters, many passes are required.
• Extensive post processing is needed to construct the image.
• Lacking real-time data the UUV cannot re-examine a suspicious contact.
• This is a time consuming (and therefore expensive) process.

.
Fig. 1: Lockheed-Martin’s CETUS II (left) and Bluefin Robotics' HAUV (right)

Fig.2: High Resolution Images Acquired with a DIDSON Sonar Mounted on HAUV

2.2. Remotely Operated Vehicle

An ROV operates under supervision from the surface. The operating concept is similar
to the UUV. The data is acquired in real-time and then analyzed at the conclusion of the
inspection. A good ROV system example is the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock
Division with the BlueView Technologies Blazed Array forward-looking sonar. Team
member, Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division, provided Fig. 3. Also
shown is an example of the mosaic produced with the current system. The targets and
even their 3/8-inch suspension lines can be clearly seen. The tracks taken by the ROV can
clearly be seen as can the vessel’s chine (blue).

Fig. 3: NSWCCD ROV and High Resolution Mosaic

WaterSide Security - 1st International Conference and Exhibition 3

Copenhagen, Denmark
25-28 August 2008
 Several advantages of the ROV approach should be mentioned.
• Suspicious objects can be re-examined as they are discovered.
• Manual position keeping is currently slightly better than for an UUV, and the
probability of not surveying portions of the hull is reduced somewhat.
• Real-time data acquisition and data processing allows mosaic construction to
begin immediately, and coverage gaps can be detected and corrected.
• Excellent resolution can be obtained.

There are several disadvantages and many are the same as the UUV.
• The covered swath is very small and many passes will be needed.
• Position estimation is very difficult.
• Active tether management is needed to keep from fouling the ROV cable.
• Shallow water may limit the clearance between the hull bottom and the seafloor.

Two US Navy Laboratories are studying hull inspection methods that do not require
either ROVs or UUVs. These methods are Moored and Pole-Mounted (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Moored Sonar Concept that Provides 100% Coverage in Real-Time (Image
Courtesy of the RESON Group) and Pole-Mounted Concept

2.3. Moored System

The US Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) working
together with RESON Inc., has proposed a moored system (Fig. 4) where vessels to be
inspected are routed through a controlled inspection point located between two moored
high-resolution multi-beam sonars such as the RESON SeaBat 7125. The sonars scan the
entire hull during a single pass by the ship. No areas are missed. The data are telemetered
to shore in real-time using an RF link. On shore, the data are compared to a database of
similar vessels and the past history of that individual vessel (if it exists). In the event a
suspicious anomaly is detected, the vessel can be quarantined and a more detailed
inspection conducted either by divers or using one of the other techniques discussed
previously. This concept was first proposed in late 2001[6]. Experiments and modelling
have shown the concept's feasibility. The multi-beam approach produces a 3-dimensional
map of the hull which can be manipulated easily and viewed from different aspect angles.

The US Naval Undersea Warfare Center Newport Division (NUWC NPT), working
with Battelle Memorial Institute and EdgeTech, has conducted experiments with a moored
system called Harbor Shield Hullprint that is similar conceptually to the NSWC PCD
approach just described. In Harbor Shield (Fig. 5) multiple sonars would be used to
produce a 3-D image capture-system using an active Sonar Array and underwater optical

WaterSide Security - 1st International Conference and Exhibition 4

Copenhagen, Denmark
25-28 August 2008
imaging sensors arranged on a 400-foot baseline. Topside sensors determine location of
the ship relative to the underwater sensors. Hullprint data is archived at each shore site,
and updated across a global network. The only significant difference between the two
approaches lies in the sonar type utilized. The NUWC NPT approach [7] utilizes a
sidescan sonar while NSWC PCD uses a RESON multi-beam echo sounder.

Fig. 5: Harbor Shield Concept [7] (By Permission)

Recently acquired feasibility test data indicates that both approaches should work. The
NUWC sidescan approach will produce a high quality image of the hull. A series of tests
were conducted at NSWC-PCD in April of 2008. It was planned initially to moor a single
SeaBat 7125 on the sea floor looking upward which would allow the effect of bubble
masking to be evaluated. A shortened test schedule and diver unavailability did not allow
the equipment to be installed on the sea floor. As a result, these tests were conducted with
the catamaran in a single-point moor under far from ideal conditions. Even so, a number
of datasets were acquired. Both port and starboard aspects of the target vessel (M/V Mr.
Offshore) were scanned at 3-, 4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-knots with the sonar looking to the side
from a depth of 17-feet. These data sets are still being analyzed. A future experiment will
allow completion of the Moored Sonar test. Fig. 6 is the sonar image of Mr. Offshore,
starboard aspect, passing at 4-knots. As you see, the ability to view the image from
various aspect angles is an important attribute.

The moored system advantages are:

• The inspection area can be located off shore, and near entry lanes.
• Will operate satisfactorily in high sea state conditions.
• MUCH faster. A typical vessel will take less than 5 minutes to inspect.
• No gaps in coverage.
• Minimal disruption – hence minimum economic impact.
• Provides an online, sharable, universal database with similarly equipped ports.
• A 3-dimensional visualization allows significantly enhanced detection.

Fig. 6: Front and Bottom Aspects

The disadvantages are:

• Lower resolution capability which my lead to further investigation.
• High initial investment and cost to redeploy.
• A jamable RF link or expensive cabling to shore is required.

WaterSide Security - 1st International Conference and Exhibition 5

Copenhagen, Denmark
25-28 August 2008
 One more step is needed to further reduce the number of false alarms it is necessary to
eliminate objects that have been previously seen and investigated. This procedure is often
called "change detection." The list of known objects (sea chests, ship's log, etc.) is
correlated with the list of detections. The uncorrelated detections are the only objects
requiring further investigation. This list of known objects can be initially developed from
the ship plans, but after every visit the list of known objects can be expanded.

2.4. Pole-Mounted Sonar System

This concept utilizes a sonar system carried aboard a support vessel (Fig. 7). NSWC-
PCD is also pursuing this approach because the same system can also be used to survey
the port infrastructure and to study ship wake characteristics. The hull inspection
operating concept is as follows: A security launch would meet the vessel in a designated
offshore inspection area. The sonar system (a high resolution multi-beam echo sounder
such as RESON’s SB7125, oriented vertically) is deployed over the side of the launch on a
pole. The sonar transducer depth is controlled manually as determined by the draft of the
vessel being inspected. The security launch passes along each side of the vessel.
Differential GPS is used to measure sonar position. Data is viewed in real time.

A pole-mounted sonar system has most of the advantages of the ROV, as well as these
additional advantages:
• Lower system cost. The tether, propulsion and control systems are not required.
• Relative position to the ship of the system and any targets it locates can be
achieved through the use of differential GPS receivers on the ship and support craft.
• Larger swath, and therefore much higher search rate.

There are four main disadvantages:

• The length of the pole limits the depth of the sensor.
• The system may not be able to see underside of the hull of deep drafted vessels.
• The required standoff distance of the support craft may result in lower resolution.
• Roll, pitch and heave compensation is a necessity.

Tests were conducted by NSWCPCD and RESON in April of this year. A readily-
available high-resolution COTS bathymetric sonar, the RESON SeaBat 7125, was pole
mounted on a Navy Catamaran (Fig. 8). The SeaBat 7125 operates at 400 kHz and
produces a transmit beam that is 1-degree wide and covers a 120-degree swath. It also
produces 128 receive beams, each about 0.5-degrees wide. For the hull inspection
application, the sonar was rotated up 105-degrees and looked off to the side (Fig. 9). All
data was acquired at 3-knots and took less than a minute to scan the vessel. Images of the
hulls of 7 different moored vessels were acquired. The vessels ranged in size from large
tankers to commercial tugboats. In addition, under way data was acquired on a
cooperative US Coast Guard Cutter and a chartered workboat (M/V Mr. Offshore).
Several of the images obtained are shown below. Fig, 9 (left) shows the hull of a tug boat
that was about 60-feet long. Some scalloping exists at the edges of the image. This is due
to rocking of the catamaran that was not completely compensated out by the software. A
calibration procedure wherein “offsets” of the sonar from the inertial navigation system
are measured precisely has been shown to eliminate this phenomenon. Even so, the details
of the propulsion system are clearly visible. The right image shows portions of two tugs,

WaterSide Security - 1st International Conference and Exhibition 6

Copenhagen, Denmark
25-28 August 2008
the seafloor and the seawall. Several tires affixed to the wall as fenders have fallen off
show up clearly, as does the propeller of the leftmost vessel.

Fig.8: SeaBat 7125 Sonar Mounted on Pole and Installed on NSWC PCD Catamaran

Fig. 9: Images of 2 Moored Vessels. Note Clarity of Propeller Area

The hull inspection system purpose, of course, is to detect contraband or explosives.

To simulate this situation, and evaluate the ability of the system to detect it, two simulated
Limpet Mines were placed on the hull of Mr. Offshore about 3-feet below the water line.
The “mines” were cylindrical slices of syntactic foam, about 18-inches in diameter, and 5-
inches thick. They were affixed to the hull with powerful magnets. The image of the hull
of Mr. Offshore is shown below (Fig. 10). Both Limpet mines are discernable. The
ability to rotate the image and view it from different vantage points proved valuable for
detecting hull protuberances. The primary test objective, to demonstrate the ability of the
pole-mounted multi-beam sonar to rapidly inspect the hulls of stationary vessels was
achieved. Additional work to better remove vessel motion effects is a calibration issue.
The ability to rotate the image to visualize from different aspects is important.

Fig.10: Hull Image Showing “Limpet Mines”

3. SUMMARY

The desire to inspect in the open ocean, before allowing the vessel to enter the port
limits the effectiveness of ROV and UUV platforms. Adverse weather or sea conditions
would make it extremely difficult for the platform to navigate with the required accuracy.

WaterSide Security - 1st International Conference and Exhibition 7

Copenhagen, Denmark
25-28 August 2008
 The result would be high probability of coverage gaps. In addition, both of these methods
have very high operating costs. The ROV and UUV programs offer great promise for
EOD activities, but are too time consuming for a large volume vessel inspection program.

Inspection Method AUV ROV Pole-Mounted Moored

Cost Element Procurement Medium Low Low High
Operation High High Medium Low
Logistic Support Medium Medium Low Medium
Maintenance Medium Medium Low Low
Skill Level Required by Operators High High Medium Medium
Impact on Vessel and Port Operations >1.5 hours >1 hour 15 min 5 minutes
Time to Reduce/Interpret Data 45 min 25 min 10 min 5 minutes
Probability of Coverage Gaps High Moderate Low Low
Ability to Operate in High Seas Poor Poor Fair Good
Ability to Detect Anomalies Excellent Excellent Good Good
Ability to Classify Anomalies Excellent Excellent Good Fair

Table 1: Comparison of the Advantages and Disadvantages

The pole-mounted sonar solves many of these problems, but might be unable to cover
the hull bottom on deep draft vessels. The inability of the Moored Sonar to classify
suspicious detections requires that follow up be performed with a higher resolution
system. The Moored Sonar, however, is the only method that would allow almost all
incoming vessels to be inspected. It is concluded that the most effective overall approach
consists of inspecting all incoming shipping at major ports with a moored system, and then
studying suspicious contacts with the ROV or the AUV. This will produce minimal
disruption to normal port activities and provide high probability or detecting anomalies,
even under adverse sea conditions. Pole mounted sonars are an economical, very low risk
alternative that can be implemented very rapidly on an interim basis.

REFERENCES

[1] Truver, S.,“Naval Mines and Underwater IEDs”, Journal of American Society of
Naval Engineers, March 2008.
[2] Crane, J.W. and Suchman, D.F., “Developments in Hull Inspection Technology”,
Proceedings of 2nd IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland
Security and Safety, October 2006
[3] CETUS II Flyer, Office of Naval Research, June 2001
[4] Vaganay, J., et al., "Ship Hull Inspection with the HAUV: US Navy and NATO
Demonstrations Results," Proceedings of IEEE/MTS Oceans 2006.
[5] M. Flagg, Desert Star, LLC, “AquaMap Performance at HULSFEST”,
[6] Suchman, D.F., “Proposed Real-Time Hull Inspection Method”, RESON, Inc.
Memorandum, November 2001
[7] Jankowski, W.L., Faulkner, L.L., Lanza, J.R. and Murphy, F., “Harbor Shield: A New
Technique for Inspection of Vessels Below the Waterline”, UDT Europe, June 2008.

WaterSide Security - 1st International Conference and Exhibition 8

Copenhagen, Denmark
25-28 August 2008

View publication stats