HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS JUNE 2003

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 1

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Table of contents......................................................................................................................... 2 What are standards? .................................................................................................................... 3 Uncertainty management ............................................................................................................ 5 Summary......................................................................................................................... 6 Expressing uncertainty .................................................................................................... 7 The IHO S44 standards ............................................................................................................... 8 The US Army corps of engineers standards................................................................................. 9 CHS Survey Standing Orders.................................................................................................... 10 NOS Specifications and deliverables......................................................................................... 11 NOS Statement of Work ........................................................................................................... 14 CLCS Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 15 NAVO hydrographic procedures............................................................................................... 16 LINZ provisional mulibeam specifications................................................................................ 17 DGPS Data format standards: RTCM SC-104.......................................................................... 18 DGPS Data format standards: NMEA 0183 .............................................................................. 19 The standards of competence for hydrographic surveyors ......................................................... 20 The International organization for standards (ISO).................................................................... 21 International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA).............................................................. 22

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 2

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

WHAT ARE STANDARDS?

The word standards implies something which can be used as a basis for comparison, such as a model or a set of rules, or an authorized measure of some kind. Along these lines, the International Organization for Standards (ISO) defines the term standards as Rules, guidelines, and definitions of characteristics, which ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their intended purposes. Standards can have one of a number of objectives, and thus be labeled as a particular type of standard: a product standard specifies characteristics for a specific product (hydrographic example: the product specification for the Electronic Nautical chart, contained in IHO Special Publication S57, version 3, Appendix B.1); a performance standard specifies the functions which a particular product or service must provide (hydrographic example: the performance standard for Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECIDS), approved at the 19th biennial assembly of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in November 1995). a procedural standard specifies the methods and procedures which must be rigorously followed to achieve a particular result (geomatics example: the survey standards required to achieve first order horizontal or vertical geodetic control). Generally speaking, procedural standards are rather inflexible, and are less in vogue now than they once were, and are gradually being replaced by performance standards. a data standard specifies the format and content of data. This may be very specific, such as the National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) 0183 Standard for interfacing marine electronic devices. Or this may be generic, such as the ISO/IEC 8211 Specification for a data descriptive file for information interchange, which provides a file-based mechanism for the transfer of data of any kind from one computer system to another, independent of computer type or operating system. a quality standard, which most recently has implied generic management systems standards for ensuring the quality of products and services, commonly referred to as ISO 9000 family of standards. Many hydrographic organizations have adopted ISO 9000 quality management. As indicated by these examples, there are a number of international, national, and enterprise (company) standards which prescribe acceptable and competent hydrographic practices and procedures. We will not attempt a comprehensive review of all such standards during this course. We will look at a few of the more important ones. This course is about multibeam sonar data acquisition and processing. The relevant standards in this case provide rules and guidelines for design and execution of a multibeam survey, and for the assessment of the quality of the resulting information. Key quality factors in survey design

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 3

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

are coverage and resolution each of which will be considered in later lectures. The key quality factor in data assessment is uncertainty - what are the uncertainties in the resulting bathymetric, positioning, and sonar backscatter information, and how do these uncertainties compare with international standards and with end-use requirements? In other words, the point of view from which we consider standards for this lecture is their role in uncertainty management.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 4

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

UNCERTAINTY MANAGEMENT
Hydrographic information, whether from a multibeam survey or otherwise, is used to make informed decisions. Vessel navigation decisions. Resource management decisions. Coastal development decisions. Environmental management decisions. The confidence with which such decisions can be made depends on the confidence which can be placed on the hydrographic (and other) information available to assist in making informed decisions. This confidence is usually expressed as a quantitative uncertainty. Other terms which are sometimes used are accuracy, reliability, and errors, although the term uncertainty seems to be a better, more generic, and neutral term than these alternatives. The uncertainty associated with hydrographic measurements will affect both: (a) uncertainty in the location of a hydrographic data point; and (b) the depth associated with a hydrographic data point. Hydrographic uncertainty can be calculated, represented and modeled in subsequent calculations. Uncertainty management involves both the design of a hydrographic system and the evaluation of results and products which are derived from hydrographic data. Measurements are always uncertain, to some degree. Uncertainties are of three fundamentally different types: accidental, systematic or random, and each type must be dealt with differently. In this course, we use the term data cleaning to describe methods which are used to deal with accidental uncertainties, (also called mistakes, blunders, or outliers). In this course we use the terms artifact to describe systematic uncertainties (at least those systematic uncertainties for which we suspect a cause), and we refer to artifact detection and, if possible artifact removal as further steps in the data-cleaning process. Once we have done our best in data cleaning and artifact removal, we are left with random uncertainties, or noise, in the data. Sometimes it is appropriate and possible to reduce the noise level in our data by use of suitable filtering and smoothing of the data, but this requires caution. It is always a danger that such filtering will re-introduce systematic uncertainties, due to the filtering process itself, rather than to the measurement process in which we are primarily interested. In any case, when we have done our best, if we are fortunate, we will be left with some remaining random uncertainties. If we are unfortunate, we will still have residual systematic uncertainties which we cannot remove. If we are really unfortunate, there may still be blunders or outliers which we cannot remove with certainty, because it is impossible to decide whether these data points represent real features, or are accidents of measurement. To meet the requirements for informed decision making, mentioned above, we must be able to describe these remaining uncertainties in some standard way. One variety of such an uncertainty description is precision which describes the consistency our data. Another variety of such an

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 5

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

uncertainty description is accuracy, which in a perfect world indicates agreement of our data with the truth (whatever that may be). In either case, these descriptions of uncertainty are based on statistical principles and standards. The mean and the standard deviation are the two most common statistical descriptors of measurement uncertainties. The mean is the average value of a series of measurements. If we subtract the mean value (or perhaps a true value if such is known) from every measurement, we have a series of residuals or deviations from the mean. If we calculate the square-root of the sum of the squares of these residuals, we obtain the standard deviation for that measurement series. When discussing measurements which have a number of dimensions or time-correlated quantities (as we most certainly are for a multibeam survey), then these simple concepts can be extended into several dimensions by considering a mean vector and a covariance matrix in place of the sample mean and standard deviation. Data-sets of many measurements tend to have a special statistical character, known as a Gaussian distribution (the familiar bell-shaped curve), provided all accidental and systematic uncertainties have been removed, so that the uncertainties are purely random. This Gaussian character is an approximate model of reality, and becomes a better model the larger the number of values which are being considered (something called the Central Limit Theorem). But what does all this have to do with the confidence we can place in our information or measurements? It is another statistical principle that we can predict, under specific statistical conditions, how often our measurement uncertainties (or more specifically our measurement residuals) are likely to exceed a certain value. The value (or values) in question are referred to as the confidence region, and the likelihood that our measurements lie inside this confidence region is referred to as the confidence level. The international standard for confidence level is 95% in other words 19 times out of 20. 95% is confidence level associated with weather predictions. 95% is the confidence level associated with election outcome predictions or public polling results. And 95% has become the standard for expressing the confidence level for results derived from hydrographic measurements. If data has a Gaussian distribution, the 95% confidence region is related to the standard deviation (in one dimension) or the covariance matrix (in several dimensions) by a simple scale factor.

SUMMARY
Hydrographic uncertainty management consists of the following steps: Establishing what size confidence region is required for hydrographic measurements, in order that the hydrographic results upon which decisions of a particular type (e.g. following a safe navigation route) can be made with acceptable confidence. Designing a measurement system (e.g. multibeam equipment, operating procedures, and data cleaning methods) which is intended to achieve this required confidence region.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 6

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Assessing the confidence region actually achieved, after data cleaning, and comparing this with the required confidence region. Presenting these uncertainties (or confidence regions) in an easily-understood way to those who will be making decisions based on hydrographic information. Guidelines for the first step are embodied in the IHO S44 standard, and several alternatives standards documents. Guidelines for the positioning part of the second step are embodied in RTCM and NMEA standards for DGPS. Uncertainty management specifically for multibeam sonar surveys are addressed by some of these documents as well. Analysis of the discrepancies among redundant data is the standard tool used for the third step. The fourth (presentation) step is still in its infancy, represented by such objects as source diagrams on nautical charts, and the catzoc attribute specified in IHO S57.

EXPRESSING UNCERTAINTY
In recognition of the growing international consensus on the evaluation and expression of measurement uncertainty, the International Bureau for Weights and Measures (BIPM) convened a Working Group on the Statement of Uncertainties, which in 1980 recommended the preparation of what became the ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. This guide, commonly referred to as ISO GUM, was completed in 1995. A United States version, which differs only using a dot rather than a comma as the decimal marker, and uses American rather than British spelling, was completed in 1997. These efforts also contributed to a standardized vocabulary, which was captured in the ISO International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology, commonly known as ISO VIM, and published in 1993. Complementary documents are available from several other sources, for example, the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology website <http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Uncertainty/combination.html> The references mentioned are: ISO VIM 1993, The International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology ($71) ISO GUM 1995, The ISO Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, international edition ($92) American National Standard for Expressing Uncertainty--U.S. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, ANSI/NCSL Z540-2-1997 101 pages ($50) Taylor, Barry N. and Chris E. Kuyatt (1994) Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results. NIST technical note 1297.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 7

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

THE IHO S44 STANDARDS

The purpose of the International Hydrographic Organization Special Publication No. 44 (often referred to IHO S44, or simply S44): IHO standards for hydrographic surveys is stated to be: To specify minimum standards for hydrographic surveys in order that hydrographic data collected according to these standards is sufficiently accurate and that the spatial uncertainty of data is adequately quantified to be safely used by mariners (commercial, military or recreational) as primary users of this information. S44 was first published in the 1960s. The most recent edition, the Fourth Edition, was published in early 1998. S44-4th Ed marks a dramatic change in the content and approach taken by the IHO in setting standards. To set the stage, S44 3rd Ed was published in 1987, and, like the earlier editions, it specified a single standard for hydrographic surveys. This single standard was based on the requirements for a nautical charting survey, the main concern of the IHO member organizations at that time. It was also based on the assumption that paper charts are the sole method of delivering hydrographic information. The particular standards required for high density bathymetric surveying methods were not considered, such as Lidar, multi-transducer boom-sweep, and particularly multibeam swath systems. And finally, the S44 3rd Ed did not take into account the impact of widely available Differential GPS positioning, both for hydrographers, and for mariners using hydrographic products. IHO policy has been to review and update publications like S44 on a five-year cycle. This process began in 1992 for S44. However, mere updates and modifications were not considered to adequately address the major changes occurring in hydrographic technology, and there was much debate about what should and should not be included in the standards. Hence, preparation of S44 4th Ed took over five years to complete. A copy of S44-4th Ed is provided with this unit.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 8

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

THE US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS STANDARDS

The US Army Corps of Engineers defines hydrographic surveying as follows: Hydrographic surveying is performed to determine the subsurface topography (or bathymetry) of a site which affects the planning, acquisition, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of various types of planned or previously constructed projects. The basic principles and techniques of hydrographic surveying are also employed in positioning other marine construction and investigative platforms. The USACE Hydrographic Surveying Engineer Manual was first published in 1991, revised in 1994, and revised again in 2002. It is Publication Number EM 1110-2-1003. A catalog of all USACE Engineer Manuals can be found at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em.htm The USACE Hydrographic Surveying Engineer Manual is located online at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals/em1110-2-1003/toc.htm and can be downloaded chapter by chapter and appendix by appendix from that site (a total of 29 files). The purpose of this manual is stated to be: provides technical guidance for performing hydrographic surveys that support the planning, engineering design, construction, operation, mainenance, and regulation of navigation, flood control, river engineering, charting, and coastal engineering projects. Accuracy standards and quality control critewria are defined to establish USACE-wide uniformity in performing surveys involving dredging measurement, payment and acceptance. This manual has 22 chapters and 5 Appendices. We will consider mainly the following four chapters. Chapter 3: Corps Accuracy Standards, quality control, and quality assurance requirements Chapter 4: Survey accuracy estimates for dredging and navigation projects Chapter 6: Planning and processing surveys for civil works projects Chapter 22: Contracted survey Specifications and cost estimates.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 9

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

CHS SURVEY STANDING ORDERS

A set of 41 modular specifications, or standing orders for the design and execution of hydrographic surveys within the Canadian Hydrographic Service, which had been revised between 1985 and 1988, were issued in March 1988. These capture a typical set of specifications from that era before the revolutions of DGPS positioning, high-density bathymetric methods, and the conversion to digital data acquisition and products. However, it is an indication of the forward-looking approach of the CHS in the case of digital data, that some of these standing orders deal specifically with digital data issues. These standing orders are organized under 11 headings 1 Field instructions and reports 2 Field sheets 3 Surveys horizontal and vertical control 4 Positioning systems 5 Sounding 6 Reporting dangers 7 Fixed and floating aids 8 Revisory and special surveys 9 Miscellaneous survey requirements 10 Management of field records 11 Provision and acquisition of technical information and servcies to and from other agencies Although many of these standing orders are out of date, many are still relevant (e.g. those under headings 6 to 9). Copies of these standing orders, as a set of Acrobat format files, is provided in a sub-directory for this unit.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 10

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

NOS SPECIFICATIONS AND DELIVERABLES

The latest version of NOS Hydrographic surveys specifications and deliverables was issued in March 2003. The introduction reads: These technical specifications detail the requirements for hydrographic surveys to be undertaken either by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) field units or by organizations under contract to the Director, Office of Coast Survey (OCS), National Ocean Service (NOS), NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. The specifications described herein are based in part on the International Hydrographic Organizations Standards for Hydrographic Surveys, Special Publication 44, Fourth Edition, April 1998, specifically for Order 1 surveys. Hydrographic surveys classified as Order 1 is intended for harbors, harbor approach channels, recommended tracks, inland navigation channels, coastal areas of high commercial traffic density, and are usually in shallower areas lower than 100 meters water depth. Additional details for the specific project areas, including any modifications to the specifications in this manual, will be provided in Hydrographic Survey Letter Instructions for NOAA field units or the Statement of Work for contractors. This document is available for downloading at http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/specs/specs.htm Here is outline of its contents: 1. Introduction 1.1. Definition 2. Datums 2.1. Horizontal Datum 2.2. Sounding Datum 2.3. Time 3. Hydrographic Position Control 3.1. Horizontal Position Accuracy 3.2. Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) 3.2.1. DGPS Specifications 3.2.2. DGPS Site Confirmation 4. Tides and Water Levels Requirements (Sections 4.1 through 4.4.3) 4.1. General Project Requirements and Scope 4.1.1. Scope 4.1.2. Objectives 4.1.3. Planning and Preliminary Tidal Zoning 4.1.4. NOS Control Stations and Data Quality Monitoring 4.1.5. General Data and Reference Datum Requirements 4.1.6. Error Budget Considerations 4.2. Data Collection and Field Work 4.2.1. Water Level Station Requirements 4.2.2. Water Level Measurement Systems and Data Transmissions 4.2.3. Station Installation, Operation and Removal 4.2.4. Tide Staffs 4.2.5. Bench Marks and Leveling 4.2.6. Water Level Station Documentation 4.2.7. Additional Field Requirements
Dave Wells June 2003 Page 11

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

4.3. Data Processing and Reduction 4.3.1. Data Quality Control 4.3.2. Data Processing and Tabulation of the Tide 4.3.3. Computation of Monthly Means 4.3.4. Data Editing and Gap Filling Specifications 4.4. Computation of Tidal Datums and Water Level Datums 4.4.1. National Tidal Datum Epoch 4.4.2. Computational Procedures 4.4.3. Tidal Datum Recovery 4.4.4. Quality Control (Sections 4.4.4 through 4.7) 4.4.5. Geodetic Datum Relationships 4.5. Final Zoning and Tide Reducers 4.5.1. Water Level Station Summaries 4.5.2. Construction of Final Tidal Zoning Schemes 4.5.3. Tide Reducer Files and Final Tide Note 4.6. Data Submission Requirements 4.6.1. Station Documentation 4.6.2. Water Level Data 4.6.3. Tabulations and Tidal Datums 4.6.4. Tide Reducers and Final Zoning and Final Tide Note 4.6.5. Submission 4.7. Guidelines and References 5. Depth Sounding 5.1. Sounding Units 5.2. Accuracy and Resolution Standards 5.2.1. Accuracy Standards 5.3. Multibeam Sonar Requirements 5.3.1. General 5.4. Corrections to Echo Soundings 5.4.1. Instrument Error Corrections 5.4.2. Draft Corrections 5.4.3. Velocity of Sound Corrections 5.4.4. Heave, Roll, Pitch, Heading, and Navigation Timing Error Corrections 5.4.5 Error Budget Analysis for Depths 5.5. Quality Control 5.5.1. Multibeam Sonar Calibration 5.5.2. Positioning System Confidence Checks 5.5.3. Crosslines 5.5.4. Multibeam Sun-Illuminated Digital Terrain Model (DTM) Images 6. Towed Side Scan Sonar 6.1. Coverage 6.2. Side Scan Acquisition Parameters and Requirements 6.2.1. Accuracy 6.2.2. Speed 6.2.3. Towfish Height 6.2.4. Horizontal Range 6.3. Quality Control 6.3.1. Confidence Checks 6.3.2. Significant Contacts 6.3.3. Contact Correlation 6.3.4. Identification of Potential Field Examinations 7. Other Data 7.1. Bottom Characteristics 7.2. Aids to Navigation
Dave Wells June 2003 Page 12

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

8. Deliverables 8.1. Field Reports 8.1.1. Progress Sketch 8.1.2. Danger to Navigation Report 8.1.3. Descriptive Report 8.1.4. Descriptive Report Appendices 8.2. Preliminary Smooth Sheet 8.2.1. Specifications 8.2.2. Cartographic Specifications and Conventions 8.3. Shallow-Water Multibeam Sonar Swath Coverage Plot 8.4. Side Scan Sonar 8.4.1. Side Scan Sonar Coverage Plot 8.4.2. Side Scan Sonar Contact List and Plot 8.4.3. Sonargrams 8.5. Digital Data Files 8.5.1. Media 8.5.2. Single-beam Data 8.5.3. Shallow-Water Multibeam Data 8.5.4. Side Scan Sonar Data Appendices Appendix 1 NOAA Form 77-12 Tide Station Report & N/OMA121 Form 91-01 Next Generation Water Level Appendix 2 NOS Cartographic Codes and Symbols Appendix 3 NOAA Form 76-35A Descriptive Report Cover Sheet Appendix 4 NOAA Form 77-28 Descriptive Report Title Sheet Appendix 5 NOAA Form 76-40 Appendix 6 Abstract of Times of Hydrography For Smooth Tides or Water Levels Appendix 7 Example Request for Smooth Tides/Water Levels Letter Appendix 8 Standard Depth Curve Intervals and Color Appendix 9 Danger to Navigation Report Appendix 10 Data Acquisition and Processing Reports

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 13

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

NOS STATEMENT OF WORK

This document Statement of work: shallow water multibeam sonar and side scan sonar survey services is provided on the NOAA website at http://chartmaker.ncd.noaa.gov/staff/prodserv.htm as an example of a typical Statement of Work (SOW) that NOAA uses for specifying hydrographic surveying requirements. The stated purpose of a typical contract is: The purpose of this contract is to provide NOAA with modern, accurate hydrographic survey data acquired using shallow water multibeam and side scan sonar technology with which to update the nautical charts of the assigned area. Numerous obstructions have been reported in this area. Side scan sonar shall be used to locate these obstructions and a shallow water multibeam sonar system shall be used to determine the least depth over the obstructions as well as determine the depths over the entire project area. Because the results of this survey will be portrayed on nautical charts, the survey products must be traceable to and reconstructible from the original raw data.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 14

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

CLCS GUIDELINES
On 13 May 1999, the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) adopted the Scientific and technical guidelines which it had been developing over the previous year or so. These guidelines are intended for those coastal states which are preparing extended continental shelf claims to be submitted to the commission. This 91-page document is organized into 10 chapters 1 Introduction 2 Entitlement to an extended continental shelf, and the delineation of its outer limits 3 Geodetic methodologies and the outer limits of the continental shelf 4 The 2500 m isobath 5 Foot of the continental slope determined as the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base 6 Foot of the continental slope determined by means of evidence to the contrary to the general rule 7 Ridges 8 Delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf based on sediment thickness 9 Information on the limits of the extended continental shelf 10 References and bibliography The guidelines can be downloaded from the CLCS website http://www.un.org/Depts/los/tempclcs/docs/clcs/CLCS_11A1.htm A copy, in Acrobat format, is provided on the directory for this unit.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 15

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

NAVO HYDROGRAPHIC PROCEDURES

This document was prepared between 1988 and 1990, and much of it is out of date, although some sections are still relevant. It was for the use of employees of the US Naval Oceanographic Office, using NAVO vessels and equipment. It was not meant toi replace the hyhdrographers judgement, but any deviation from these procedures had to be explained and documented. It was designed to amplify the then-current NOAA hydrographic manual, which is also now out of date. The ten sections in the original document were 1 Survey planning 2 Hydrographic project instructions and specifications development 3 Geodesy 4 Tides 5 Positioning systems 6 Survey operations 7 Manual data processing 8 Automated data processing 9 Administrative requirements 10 Hydrographic procedure forms A few parts from sections 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 are considered still applicable, and have been scanned into a single Acrobat document (149 pages long). This is provided on the directory for this unit.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 16

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

LINZ PROVISIONAL MULIBEAM SPECIFICATIONS

IHO S44 specifications are performance standards, and are not intended to describe appropriate procedures by which the required performance can be achieved. This is left up to each hydrographic organization to define. Many sets of such procedures have been developed for IHO S44 (3rd edition 1987), but so far very few for IHO S44 (4th edition, 1998). Also, although the document claims otherwise, IHO S44 is developed almost exclusively for SOLAS type surveys, although IHO S44 is often cited (inappropriately in my opinion) for many other kinds of survey. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has responsibility for administering the purchase of hydrographic and bathymetric information (but not to perform any of the surveys). The Royal New Zealand Navy (who once had total control over NZ hydrography) now submits bids on hydrographic survey work funded by LINZ, in competition with any other commercial (or foreign government) contractor who wishes to compete for the work. LINZ mandate is broader than nautical charting. In July 1997, LINZ assumed responsibility for New Zealand's Continental Shelf Delimitation Project, including surveys in preparation for a claim to the United Nations for an extended continental shelf, according to UNCLOS-III Article 76. Multibeam sonar is likely to be used (RNZN recently outfitted a vessel with a multibeam system, and other potential contactors have proposed using multibeam sonar as well). LINZ asked John Hughes Clarke to prepare specifications particularly for the design and assessment of a survey using multibeam sonar echosounders. Specifications for other required survey measurements, such as positioning, tides and operator competence were not addressed. Johns report (LINZ TH Technical Report #2, August 1999) is available on his website <http://www.omg.unb.ca/~jhc> A copy of this 46-page report, in Acrobat format, is provided in the directory for this unit.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 17

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

DGPS DATA FORMAT STANDARDS: RTCM SC-104

The Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM) is an organization of industry and user stakeholders, which addresses issues concerning radio communications at sea. Starting in the early 1980s this organization began discussing the data structures, which would be needed to provide effective real-time differential corrections for GPS navigation. SubCommittee 104 was formed, known as RTCM SC-104, and the data structure specifications which they developed have come to be known as the RTCM SC-104, or simply RTCM formats. The RTCM SC-104 message formats are designed to broadcast real-time differential GPS correction data from a reference station to a DGPS user (rover receiver), using any convenient radio link. Version 1.0 of these standards was published in 1986. The current version is 2.2, dated January 1998. Because they were involved in the discussions from the beginning, most major GPS manufacturers adopted the RTCM standard as soon as DGPS products began to be produced. This has contributed to the widespread success and adoption of DGPS services, since any (RTCM-capable) brand of GPS receiver can use DGPS corrections measured and broadcast using any other (base-station-capable) brand of receiver. The RTCM standard defines formats for a few dozen different message types. However the primary DGPS message type is Type 1 (or the more efficient equivalent Type 9) messages, which provide range and range rate corrections for pseudoranges measured for each of the satellites being tracked at the base station. The RTCM specification document can be obtained from: Radio-Technical Commission for Maritime Services P.O.B. 19087 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 639-4006

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 18

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

DGPS DATA FORMAT STANDARDS: NMEA 0183

The National Marine Electronics Association states that We are the unifying force behind the marine electronics industry. Bringing together all aspects of the industry for the betterment of all is our business. The NMEA 0183 Standard for Interfacing Marine Electronics Devices is a voluntary industry standard, first released in March of 1983. The NMEA 0183 Standard defines electrical signal requirements, data transmission protocol, timing and specific sentence formats for a 4800 baud serial data bus. The Standard has been updated from time to time and the latest release, in July 2000, is Version 3.0. More details about NMEA and its products can be found at: http://www.nmea.org/ We will be considering data formatted according to some of the NMEA sentences later in the course.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 19

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

THE STANDARDS OF COMPETENCE FOR HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYORS

This standard is published by the IHO as Publication No. M-5, and has evolved through eight editions since first appearing in 1978. It is prepared and revised by an eight-member FIG / IHO International Advisory Board on Standards of Competence for Hydrographic Surveyors. The purpose of these standards is stated to be: To provide guidance whereby individual surveyors may be trained and qualified in accordance with internationally accepted levels of competence. The document has several pages of preamble describing the procedures for recognizing that a particular training program achieves the standards contained in this publication. This is followed by a detailed model syllabus for the training of hydrographic surveyors. This syllabus is in three parts. For the Ninth Edition (release date Spring 2001) these parts contain: Four Basic subjects (Mathematics and statistics; Computing; Physics, Nautical Science). Seven Essential subjects (Bathymetry; Water levels and flow; Positioning; Hydrographic practice; Hydrographic data management; Environmental science; and Legal Aspects). Seven Optional units (Nautical charting, Coastal Zone Management; Offshore Seismic; Offshore construction; Remote sensing; Military; Inland waters). A copy of the current (Eighth) edition of M5 is provided in the directory for this unit.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 20

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

THE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR STANDARDS (ISO)

The ISO is the lead organization in the World Standards Services Network, which also include the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), as well as another 40 or so international standardizing bodies (for example the International Maritime Organization). Most ISO standards are technical or engineering standards, for example, those which specify the dimensions and tolerances for bolts, nuts, screws, pins and rivets, allowing the world to standardize the supply and use of these fasteners, keeping much of our world from falling apart. Recently (1987) ISO ventured into a very different kind of standard: generic management systems standards, which are applicable to any organization (private company, government agency, public administration), large or small, providing either products or services. Management system standards provide a model to follow in setting up and operating a management system, using state-of-the-art practices. These standards are known as the ISO 9000 family, and consist of standards and guidelines relating to management systems, and related supporting standards on terminology and specific tools, such as auditing. ISO 9000 is primarily concerned with "quality management". The ISO definition of "quality" refers to all features of a product (or service) which are required by the customer. "Quality management" means what the organization does to ensure that its products conform to the customers requirements. ISO 9000 is NOT concerned with products and product standards (directly at least), but is rather concerned with an organizations (management) processes, which will affect whether or not everything has been done to ensure that the product meets the customers requirements. ISO 9000 is generic. No matter what the organization is or does, the essential features of a quality management system are spelled out in ISO 9000. An informal description of the ISO 9000 process is Say what you do. Do what you say. Document it. For more details, see http://www.iso.ch/ ISO/IEC 8211:1994 Information technology -- Specification for a data descriptive file for information interchange Edition: 2 (monolingual) Number of pages: 69 Price code: V Technical committee / subcommittee: JTC 1 ICS: 35.080

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 21

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

INTERNATIONAL MARINE CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION (IMCA)

In November 2001, IMCA published IMCA S 003 Guidelines for the Use of Multibeam Echosounders (MBES) for Offshore Surveys Having the following contents 1. Preface 2. Introduction 3. Multibeam echosounders 4. Sub-sea vehicles and systems 5. Calibration tests 6. MBES data processing 7. Standards for MBES surveys 8. Survey planning 9. Terminology 10. Bibliography This publication is available for purchase from IMCA at 60 / copy (15 for IMCA members). The IMCA guidelines were prepared by Ed Danson, Andy McNeill, Eric Primeau, and Will Primavesi, with input from Carl Sonnier, Gordon Johnston, Bent Warming Hansen, Graham Cooper, Richard Green, and David Shand. It draws on the following publications (some of which are discussed earlier in these notes): Mike Brissette and John Hughes Clarke Sidescan versus multibeam echosounder object detection Mike Brissette The applications of multibeam sonars in route survey S Cowls and B Fogg How to chose a multibeam B W Hansen Seabed mapping Lloyd Huff Shallow water multibeam systems Lloyd Huff HPR and dynamic vessel corrector John Hughes Clarke Provisional swath sonar survey specifications. (for Land Information New Zealand) John Hughes Clarke Field calibration; the patch test and the reference surface IHO Special Publication No 44: Standards for Hydrographic Surveys, 4th edition Mike Kalmbach Multibeam patch test Land Information New Zealand Hydrographic MBES Survey Standards. TH23 Version 2.2 National Ocean Service Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and Deliverables I Sinclair and P Edge Swathe bathymetry systems: practical experience in deriving operating standards C Sonnier Calibration of multibeam echosounders US Army Corps of Engineers & NOAA Multibeam Surveying Workshop
Dave Wells June 2003 Page 22

HYDROGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

US Army Corps of Engineers Calibration procedures for multibeam sonar systems-Technical letter 1130-2-1 US Army Corps of Engineers Hydrographic Surveying, Engineer Circular 1130-2-210 Following is a review of this publication, taken from the IMCA website at <http://www.imca-int.com/www/imca/publications/survey/> Although multibeam echosounders (MBES) have been in use since the 1960s, their track record in commercial marine operations has can be traced back only as far as the 1990s. The growth in their use has been, in part, due to the ability of these instruments to cover wide swathes of the sea floor in a single pass. With high-resolution bathymetry obtainable over wide areas and with acoustic frequencies ranging from 10kHz to over 500kHz, multibeam echosounders offer the potential for great accuracy and provide detailed sea floor imagery with scales of economy unavailable from traditional single-beam echosounders. At the time of publication, some 700 systems had been built by at least ten manufacturers worldwide, of which more than 40% had gone into commercial operations. However, no specifications or guidelines could be found that specifically addressed the use of MBES for offshore surveying. IMCA's Offshore Survey Division Management Committee established a workgroup to oversee the development of these guidelines, as a means of augmenting existing (in the main more general) documentation and to provide a guide for future specifications. The guidelines draw heavily on a number of existing standards and published papers by persons eminent in their field and were distributed widely for consultation among key users and client groups prior to publication. IMCA was particularly pleased to receive the endorsement of UKOOA's Survey & Positioning Committee following its valuable collaboration, review and input. It is intended to review and update the guidelines on a regular basis - users of the document are encouraged to forward their comments to IMCA.

Dave Wells

June 2003

Page 23