MEASURING THE SPEED

THROUGH WATER BY WAVEX®

By Dr. Scient. Rune Gangeskar

February 2019

For any enquiries please contact us at:

info@mirosmocean.com
DIGITALISE. OPTIMISE. DECARBONISE.
 DIGITALISE. OPTIMISE. DECARBONISE.

Abstract: Accurate measurements of the speed through water (STW) and ocean surface
currents from moving vessels are useful for many purposes and applications. In the
context of fuel optimization, when considering fuel consumption per day, the important
parameter is STW. Accurate speed measurements are of vital importance to avoid
unintentional operation at suboptimal speeds and large additional costs. Traditional
ways of measuring STW using instruments (speed logs) immersed in water are
associated with various challenges, as well as high installation and maintenance costs.
Thanks to improvements within hardware and algorithms in recent years, STW and
surface currents can now be measured from moving vessels based on X-band radar
images. Such a “dry measurement solution” can provide measurements with high
accuracy in the relevant water body with no need for underwater equipment.

INTRODUCTION
Accurate measurements of the speed through water (STW) and ocean surface currents from moving vessels
are useful for many purposes and applications:
• vessel fuel optimization;
• hull performance estimation (detection of fouling);
• docking or navigation of vessels in constrained areas;
• estimating various sorts of drift, for instance of oil spills, floating objects, or a man overboard.
In the context of vessel fuel optimization, when considering fuel consumption per day, the important
parameter is STW. A couple of knots (1 knot ≈ 0.5 m/s) on the speed vs. fuel consumption curve [1], easily
increases the daily fuel consumption for one ship by several tens of tons. A couple of knots also has
significant impact on the profit, implying that accurate speed measurements are of vital importance.

BACKGROUND/PROBLEM
Using underwater instrumentation on moving vessels involves several important uncertainty factors, in
addition to time-consuming and expensive installation and maintenance procedures. The STW, measured by
speed log or equivalent instrumentation, is associated with particular challenges and is often unreliable [2]-
[5]. Underwater sensors, as for instance acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs) [6]-[8], are vulnerable to
disturbances due to the vessel motion [2], [9], [10]. For example, air bubbles, turbulence, and
inhomogeneous hydrodynamics caused by the vessel motion and propellers, will result in data considerably
influenced by noise. In addition, such sensors are frequently inadequately calibrated [2], [5], giving
systematic errors in certain speed ranges [5]. Equipment immersed in water is also exposed to fouling [9],
[11], [12].

SOLUTION
Thanks to improvements within hardware and algorithms in recent years, STW and surface currents can now
be measured from moving vessels by the Wavex® system [13]-[15], based on X-band radar images. Such a
“dry current measurements solution” can provide measurements with high accuracy, with no need for any
equipment to be installed or maintained under water [14]. The current can be measured using radar images
covering local areas of interest, in a reasonable distance from any disturbing structures, including the vessel
hull. The instrumentation can be connected to an already existing X-band radar or to a dedicated one.
Obtaining reliable current measurements [14] implies that also STW measurements will be reliable, as they
are related to each other (at the same depth) and the speed over ground (SOG, which is accurately provided
by a GPS):

+⃗ ,
𝑣⃗#$% = 𝑣⃗#'( − 𝑈 (1)

+⃗ is the current vector.

where 𝑈

About the technology used in Wavex®

Raw radar images are acquired from a marine navigation X-band radar and digitized by hardware, especially
developed for this application. Digitized images can also be acquired directly from radars with digital data
feed, commonly known as IP (Internet Protocol) radars, eliminating the need for additional digitalization
hardware. To obtain optimum performance, an unfiltered signal from a radar operating in short pulse mode is
required. In addition, a wind speed of at least 2–3 m/s is required to get sufficient electromagnetic
backscatter from the ocean surface.
DIGITALISE. OPTIMISE. DECARBONISE.

The digitized radar images are processed by dedicated algorithms to make real-time STW, wave and current
data available to the user. A number of Cartesian image sections, in which measurements are performed, are
defined during the system software configuration. The measurement area can be changed by software
reconfiguration at any time, without any reinstallation or underwater operation.

3-D fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) are applied to a number of subsequent Cartesian images in time, giving 3-
D spectra with information about the power present at various wavenumbers and frequencies. Ocean surface
currents and the STW are estimated from these wavenumber-frequency spectra using novel methods
recently developed by Miros. The methods are, as previously known methods, based on our already existing
knowledge about the relation between wavenumbers and frequencies of ocean gravity waves for zero
current, i.e. the dispersion relation:

+⃗ 1 tanh71𝑘
𝜔./ = 𝑔1𝑘 +⃗1𝑑9, (2)

where ω0 is the wave frequency, 𝑘 +⃗ is the wavenumber vector, d is the water depth, and g is the gravitational
acceleration. If there is a surface current 𝑈 +⃗ relative to the radar, a Doppler frequency shift is introduced in the
wave frequency:

𝜔 = 𝜔. + 𝑘+⃗ ∙ 𝑈
+⃗ . (3)

This Doppler shift causes the energy in the 3-D spectra frequency planes to be located on ellipses, rather
than circles. Based on the power distribution in the wavenumber-frequency spectra, the STW and the current
vector can be estimated.

Miros has recently developed further improvements to the methods used for estimating the STW and ocean
surface currents from X-band radar images. This includes an improved method utilizing the full power
distribution properties, improved motion compensation, as well as several improvements increasing
performance under conditions with high current speeds and low signal-to-noise ratios. In this context, signal
refers to gravity wave patterns visible to the radar, given the radar’s spatial resolution in range and azimuth.
The method also includes various functionalities to automatically detect and tag data with respect to quality.

DATA EXAMPLES
A number of Wavex® pilot systems have been installed on various vessels using various sorts of X-band
radars. The system reliability and the accuracy of radar-based STW measurements have been examined and
verified by comparing with theoretical models and standard speed logs over large geographical areas in a
wide range of weather conditions and sea states.

Data acquisition
The following examples, based on data acquired from the LNG carrier Arctic Lady, are presented thanks to
approval from the vessel’s owner Höegh LNG. With help from the crew, months of data have been made
available from their travels between Hammerfest in Norway and Marseilles in France. In addition to Wavex
measurements, simultaneous data have been acquired from the on-board acoustic speed log, from the
Norshelf model by the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, and from the Irish Marine Institute Northeast
Atlantic Model. Figure 1 shows the route during a period of simultaneous data from all sources, from
September 15 to October 31.

The acoustic speed log on Arctic Lady is a JLN-550 Doppler Sonar (SDME) provided by JRC [16], which is
an advanced and widely used instrument for measuring the STW from vessels. It is a two-axis, four-beam
pulse Doppler Sonar with optional rate of turn gyro, operating at 2 MHz (for water tracking), measuring a few
meters below the hull bottom. Information about the STW longitudinal component is obtained via the VBW
(dual ground/water speed) NMEA string. This is the STW component parallel to the vessel heading, with
positive values when the vessel moves forward relatively to the water.

The Norshelf model [17] provides ocean current data for the Norwegian Shelf Sea. The model has been set
up at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute (MET) and includes the Skagerak in the southeast, the northern
parts of the North Sea, the shelf sea off western Norway including the shelf slope, and parts of the Barents
Sea in the north, that is, a considerable part of section 1 of the route (Figure 1). The model provides data at a
horizontal resolution of 2.4 km at a temporal resolution of 1 hour. Data are available from MET Norway
 DIGITALISE. OPTIMISE. DECARBONISE.

Thredds Service [18] in NetCDF files. Model data representing 5 m depth were chosen because this is close
to the effective measurement depth of the radar-based system.

The dataset Irish Marine Institute Northeast Atlantic Model provides surface current vectors for the Irish
waters in the northeast Atlantic [19], that is, a considerable part of section 2 of the route (Figure 1). The
ROMS hydrodynamic model (Regional Ocean Modeling System) uses a mean horizontal resolution of 1.9 km
and provides data at a temporal resolution of 1 hour. Data for the last week are available via Thredds and
ERDDAP servers [20] in various formats. Older data were ordered from and delivered directly by the data
steward at the Irish Marine Institute in Matlab format.

Statistics and time series

Current data from the models are extracted at times and positions of interest, indicated by the route in Figure
1, using time and position data from the vessel and linear interpolation. This is partly similar to what was
done in [14] when defining a dynamic tidal model following the vessel’s route. As already stated above, the
accuracy of STW measurements is closely linked to the accuracy of current measurements, defined by (1).
Hence, for convenience, as the models and the Wavex® system already provides current data, we choose to
consider current values as the basis for statistical measures (Table 1). The STW longitudinal component
output from the speed log is simply converted to the current longitudinal component using (1).

In order to compensate for different averaging strategies, to make statistical comparison more balanced, to
smooth out any minor temporal offsets between various data sources, and to make measured data more
comparable to model data, an additional temporal averaging of measured data is performed before
calculating statistics. For this purpose, a 40-min centred average filter is applied to the time series. Mean and
root-mean-square (RMS) deviations between individual data sources are calculated.

Figure 2 provides an overview of longitudinal current components and STW during the entire route shown in
Figure 1. No additional averaging is applied to these data. Data are missing in three periods because most of
the measurement systems were turned off when the vessel was at rest in Hammerfest (Norway), Marseilles
(France), and Saint-Nazaire (France). Apart from these periods, the data capture is complete. The rate of
defined STW data from the Wavex system is 99.94 % during the periods with available radar images. In the
following, we will look further into the details for a couple of shorter periods.
DIGITALISE. OPTIMISE. DECARBONISE.

Section 1

Section 2

Section 3

Figure 1: Route from September 15, 2018 to October 31, 2018, indicated by red lines in Google Earth.
 DIGITALISE. OPTIMISE. DECARBONISE.

Marseilles Hammerfest Saint-Nazaire

(vessel at rest) (vessel at rest) (vessel at rest)

Figure 2: Overview of longitudinal current components and STW during the entire route shown in Figure 1. No additional averaging.

Radar-based vs. Speed log vs. Radar-

based
Norshelf Northeast Norshelf Northeast vs.
model Atlantic model Atlantic speed log
Model Model
Offset (m/s) -0.08 -0.11 0.49 0.46 -0.56

RMS dev. (m/s) 0.24 0.20 0.55 0.49 0.59

Table 1: Deviations between longitudinal current components from radar-based system, speed log, and models, based on all
available data.

Figure 3 shows five days of current and wind data from a period covered by the Northeast Atlantic Model.
The wind speed varies from 0 to 15 m/s, and the surface current in the area is dominated by the tidal
contribution, making it easy to visually observe the agreement between model data and measurements.
Currents in this area are more homogeneous and stable, with less eddies and stronger tidal dominance, than
for instance in the region covered by the Norshelf model. This may make this model more accurate, and it
makes comparison easier, because different averaging strategies and possible remaining temporal and
spatial offsets will make less influence on the results. Table 1 (based on all available data) shows that
measurements agree slightly better with the Northeast Atlantic Model than with the Norshelf model.

Figure 4 shows the longitudinal current component and the STW during the same period, without any
additional averaging. It is evident that the radar-based system produces considerably smoother data than the
speed log. The reason for the varying amount of noise observed in speed log data is not known. It is also
clear that the speed log measurements are systematically erroneous, with an offset of approximately 0.5 m/s.
This can also be observed from the statistics in Table 1 (despite additional averaging before calculating
statistics), in which data from the radar-based measurements are considerably more consistent with model
data (comparing green and red columns). Current magnitudes in the range 0–0.5 m/s are expected in this
region and period. In the context of fuel optimization, the observed offset in speed log data could mean an
additional fuel cost corresponding to tens of tons of fuel a day for one ship.
DIGITALISE. OPTIMISE. DECARBONISE.

Figure 3: Time series of current and wind data from Arctic Lady, during a period covered by the Northeast Atlantic Model; radar-
based compared to Northeast Atlantic Model.

Figure 4: Time series of longitudinal current components and speeds, during a period covered by the Northeast Atlantic Model; radar-
based compared to Northeast Atlantic Model, speed log, and GPS. No additional averaging.

Figure 5 shows the longitudinal current component and the STW during a period covered by the Norshelf
model, without any additional averaging. The wind speed varies from 1 to 19 m/s. Less homogeneous
currents and more local eddies, combined with different averaging strategies, make comparison more
difficult, because both model data and measurements vary relatively quickly with position and time. Still, it is
evident that the radar-based system produces considerably smoother data than the speed log, and that the
speed log data are influenced by an offset-like error. Current magnitudes in the range 0–0.5 m/s are
expected in this region and period.

Some possible explanations for observed deviations between various data sources are:
• differences in spatial and temporal averaging strategies;
• differences in effective measurement depth;
• minor temporal offsets between various data sources;
• inaccurate environmental data input to models;
• finite resolution and accuracy in models;
• measurement errors in sensors.
 DIGITALISE. OPTIMISE. DECARBONISE.

Figure 5: Time series of longitudinal current components and speeds, during a period covered by the Norshelf model; radar-based
compared to Norshelf model, speed log, and GPS. No additional averaging.

CONCLUSION
Measurement systems based on X-band radar images can provide reliable and accurate STW data.
Experiences from a number of Wavex® pilot installations support that radar-based systems often produce
less noisy and more accurate measurements than traditional underwater speed logs. By means of remote
sensing techniques, challenges resulting in noisy data and additional costs can be avoided, and the STW can
be measured in the relevant water body, sufficiently away from the chaotic conditions close to the vessel hull.

In the context of fuel optimization, when considering fuel consumption per day, STW is the important
parameter. Relatively small measurement errors, like the ones observed in data from the traditional
underwater acoustic speed log in the data example above, can mean an increased daily fuel consumption of
several tens of tons for one ship, along with the corresponding additional cost.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Miros Mocean would like to thank Höegh LNG and the crew of Arctic Lady for making available and
approving data to be used in this work and paper. Miros Mocean would also like to thank the Irish Marine
Institute and their data stewards for well-organized model output provision, and the Norwegian
Meteorological Institute for making model data available from their servers.

REFERENCES
[1] I. Dagkinis and N. Nikitakos, “Slow Steaming Options Investigation Using Multi Criteria Decision
Analysis Method,” in ECONSHIP 2015, Greece, 2015.

[2] M. Bos, “How MetOcean data can improve accuracy and reliability of vessel performance estimates,” in
Proc. HullPIC, Castello di Pavone, Italy, 2016, pp. 106–114.

[3] F. Fritz, “Practical experiences with vessel performance management and hull condition monitoring,” in
Proc. HullPIC, Castello di Pavone, Italy, 2016, pp. 128–136.

[4] M. Baur, “Acquisition and integration of meaningful performance data on board—Challenges and
experiences,” in Proc. HullPIC, Castello di Pavone, Italy, 2016, pp. 230–238.

[5] M. Antola, A. Solonen, and J. Pyörre, “Notorious speed through water,” in Proc. HullPIC, Ulrichshusen,
Germany, 2017, pp. 156–165.

[6] A. L. New, “Factors affecting the quality of shipboard acoustic Doppler current profiler data,” Deep Sea
Res. A, Oceanographic Res. Papers, vol. 39, nos. 11–12, pp. 1985–1996, Nov./Dec. 1992, doi:
10.1016/0198-0149(92)90009-I.

[7] B. A. King and E. B. Cooper, “Comparison of ship’s heading determined from an array of GPS
antennas with heading from conventional gyro-compass measurements,” Deep Sea Res. I,
DIGITALISE. OPTIMISE. DECARBONISE.

Oceanographic Res. Papers, vol. 40, nos. 11–12, pp. 2207–2216, Nov./Dec. 1993, doi: 10.1016/0967-
0637(93)90099-O.

[8] C. N. Flagg, G. Schwartze, E. Gottlieb, and T. Rossby, “Operating an acoustic Doppler current profiler
aboard a container vessel,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., vol. 15, pp. 257–271, Feb. 1998, doi:
10.1175/1520-0426(1998)015<0257:OAADCP>2.0.CO;2.

[9] A. Carchen, K. Pazouki, and M. Atlar, “Development of an online ship performance monitoring system
dedicated for biofouling and anti-fouling coating analysis,” in Proc. HullPIC, Ulrichshusen, Germany,
2017, pp. 90–101.

[10] J. Brown, A. Colling, D. Park, J. Philips, D. Rothery, and J. Wright, Ocean Circulation, 2nd ed. Milton
Keynes, U.K.: Open Univ., 2001, p. 130.

[11] J. Kelling, “Ultrasound-based antifouling solutions,” in Proc. HullPIC, Ulrichshusen, Germany, 2017, pp.
43–49.

[12] H. Goler and K. Boskurt, “Speed loss analysis of high-speed RO-RO vessels coated with new
antifouling technologies,” in Proc. HullPIC, Ulrichshusen, Germany, 2017, pp. 173–193.

[13] Miros, Asker, Norway. (2018). Wavex® v5.7. PR-002/DB/001 rev. 6. Accessed: Dec. 20, 2018.
[Online]. Available: https://ams3.digitaloceanspaces.com/backup-storage-amsterdam/miros/Wavex-
v5.7-Datasheet-Rev-6.pdf

[14] R. Gangeskar, “Verifying High-Accuracy Ocean Surface Current Measurements by X-Band Radar for
Fixed and Moving Installations,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 4845–4855,
Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2018.2840133.

[15] R. Gangeskar, “Surface Current Measurements from Moving Vessels by Wavex - Verified,” Miros,
Asker, Norway, 1300/TN/054 rev. 5, Nov. 2018.

[16] JRC, Japan. (2011). Doppler Sonar JLN-550. Accessed: Dec. 20, 2018. [Online]. Available:
http://www.jrc.co.jp/eng/product/lineup/jln550/pdf/JLN-550.pdf

[17] J. Röhrs, A. K. Sperrevik, and K. H. Christensen, “NorShelf: An ocean reanalysis and data-assimilative
forecast model for the Norwegian Shelf Sea,” Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Norway, Oct. 2018.

[18] Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Norway. Dataset Norshelf 2.4km ocean fields. Accessed: Jan. 11,
2019. [Online]. Available: http://thredds.met.no/thredds/fou-hi/norshelf.html

[19] T. Dabrowski, K. Lyons, C. Cusack, G. Casal, A. Berry, and G. D. Nolan, “Ocean modelling for
aquaculture and fisheries in Irish waters,” Ocean Sci., 12, pp. 101-116, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.5194/os-12-
101-2016.

[20] Irish Marine Institute, Ireland. Dataset Irish Marine Institute Northeast Atlantic Model. Accessed: Feb. 6,
2019. [Online]. Available: https://erddap.marine.ie/erddap/griddap/IMI_NEATL.html

www.miros-group.com