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

net/publication/335230566

Evaluation of Recent Hydrographic Survey Standards

Conference Paper · November 2009

CITATIONS READS
4 2,107

2 authors:

Reha Metin Alkan Nedim Onur Aykut

Istanbul Technical University Yildiz Technical University
209 PUBLICATIONS   657 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Wi-Fi based indoor positioning View project

Benthic Habitat Mapping With Multi Beam Echo Sounder System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Reha Metin Alkan on 21 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
MODERN TECHNOLOGIES, EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE IN
GEODESY AND RELATED FIELDS
Sofia, 05 – 06 November, 2009

EVALUATION OF RECENT HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY

STANDARDS
R.M. ALKAN, N.O. AYKUT (TR)

SUMMARY

All surveying methods have different accuracy levels for determining the depths and positions.
Surveyors prefer the appropriate method for the survey. As a result of this, sometimes same survey
projects can be carried out with different accuracies. This confusion is removed by forming
surveying standards. In this way, consistency and uniformity could be provided. In this paper
different hydrographic survey standards are evaluated. In this frame, several hydrographic survey
standards belong to different organizations/offices (i.e. IHO S-44, USACE, LINZ, CHS, SMA and
NOAA) are investigated. Recent depth determination and positioning techniques with their
attainable accuracies are also introduced. These accuracies are compared to required ones described
in the standards. This study shows that today’s widely used depth determination and positioning
techniques can certainly meet the required accuracy levels.

1. INTRODUCTION

Standards supply qualities and rules to our lives with many applications. One of the definition for
standard is given as an exact value established and defined by authority, custom, or common
consent, to serve as a reference, model, or rule in measuring quantities or qualities, establishing
practices or procedures, or evaluating results. Standardization which is the comparison of an
instrument or device with a standard to determine the value of the instrument or device in terms of
adopted unit (IHO, 2007).

International standards have formed by International Standardization Organization (ISO) worldwide

since 1947. ISO is governed by a General Assembly of its 157 national member associations. It is
supported by a Central Secretary of about 153 permanent staff based in Geneva (Greenway, 2002;
URL 2). ISO has a Technical Management Board (TMB) that is working on establishing Technical
Committees (TC) appointing their chairs and secretaries. TMB also coordinates the technical
programs and reviews the need for work in new fields (Greenway, 2002). Today, ISO has 208
Technical Committees. The members of each TC are the national standardization bodies of
approximately 625 organizations in liaison including International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)
and International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) (Greenway, 2002; URL 2).

An ISO standard is a documented agreement containing technical specifications or other criteria to

be used continuously as rules, guidelines, or definitions of characteristics to ensure that materials,
products, processes and services are fit for their purpose (URL 3).

116
The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), cooperates with ISO in liaison, contributes the
hydrographic standards for surveyors. IHO works within ISO committes in liaison such as TC 211
(Geographic information/Geomatics), JTC 1/SC 24 (Computer graphics, image processing and
environmental data representation) and JTC 1/SC 24/WG 8 (Environmental representation) (URL
4).

In this study, several hydrographic survey standards, i.e. IHO S-44, USACE, LINZ, CHS, SMA and
NOAA, are investigated. Furthermore recent depth determination and positioning techniques with
their attainable accuracies are also summarized. These accuracies are compared to required ones
described in the standards.

2. INTERNATIONAL HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY STANDARDS

The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) is established in 1921 by International

Hydrographic Bureau (IHB). The aim of this organization is to adopt similar methods and
procedures in hydrographic data acquisition and nautical chart publication (Mills, 1998). In 1970,
member states changed the organization’s name and legal status (URL 1). IHO which is established
in Monaco by IHB currently has a membership of 80 states.

IHO coordinates the activities of national hydrographic offices and uniform the nautical charts and
documents. It also proposes reliable and efficient hydrographic surveying methods and develops the
sciences in the field of hydrography and oceanography (URL 1). To achieve these aims several
committees and Working Groups (WG) have periodically formed standards and specifications
(Mills, 1998). In 1967, WG prepared the text for Special Publication No:44 (S-44). The first edition
of S-44 was published in 1968 titled “Accuracy Standards Recommended for Hydrographic
Surveys” (IHO, 2008). Over years this publication has been updated depending on technological
developments. Second edition was published in 1982, the third in 1987, fourth in 1998 and the last,
fifth edition, in 2008 titled “IHO Standards for Hydrographic Surveys”.

IHO S-44 only provides the minimum standards for hydrographic surveys. Hydrographic
organizations/offices define more stringent standards than IHO’s for special applications (IHO,
2008). For instance, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Land Information New
Zealand (LINZ) have their own hydrographic survey standards (Wells and Monahan, 2002). The
primary standards accepted and applied worldwide are given in detail in the following sections.

2.1 IHO Hydrographic Survey Standards (S-44, Fifth Edition)

The S-44 is designed to provide a set of standards for conducting of hydrographic surveys for the
collection of data which will primarily be used to compile navigational charts to be used for the
safety of surface navigation and the protection of the marine environment (IHO, 2008). In this
standard, the surveys are classified in four orders to meet needs. ‘Special Order’ is formed for
harbors and critical areas of shipping channels where under-keel clearance is critical require full sea
floor search. Areas shallower than 100 meters where under-keel clearance is less critical but
existing sea bottom features are ‛Order 1a’. In ‛Order 1b’ areas where water depths are also shallow
than 100 meters, under-keel clearance is not considered. The depths are deeper than 100 meters
classified as ‛Order 2’ (IHO, 2008). The IHO Hydrographic Survey Standards are summarized in
Table 1.

117
 Table 1. IHO S-44 5th edition Hydrographic Survey Standards (IHO, 2008)

ORDER Special 1a 1b 2

Description of Areas Areas where under- Areas shallower Areas shallower than Areas generally
keel clearance is than 100 meters 100 meters where deeper than 100
critical. where under-keel under-keel clearance is meters where a
clearance is less not considered to be an general
critical but features issue for the type of description of sea
of concern to surface shipping floor is
surface shipping expected to transit the considered
may exist. area. adequate.

Maximum allowable
Total Horizontal 20 m + 10% of
2m 5 m + 5% of depth 5 m + 5% of depth
Uncertainty (THU) (95% depth
Confidence Level)

Maximum allowable
Total Vertical a = 0.25 m a = 0.5 m a = 0.5 m a = 1.0 m
Uncertainty (TVU) (95% b = 0.0075 b = 0.013 b = 0.013 b = 0.023
Confidence Level)

Full Sea Floor Search Required Required Not required Not required

Feature Detection Cubic features > 2

Cubic features > 1 m, in depths up to
Not applicable Not applicable
m 40 m; 10% of
depth beyond 40 m

Recommended 3 x average depth or 25

Not defined as full Not defined as full
maximum Line Spacing m, whichever is greater.
sea floor search is sea floor search is 4 x average depth
For bathymetric lidar a
required required
spot spacing of 5 x 5 m

Positioning of Fixed
Aids to Navigation and
2m 2m 2m 5m
Topography Significant
to Navigation (95% )

Positioning of Coastline
and Topography Less
10 m 20 m 20 m 20 m
Significant to
Navigation (95% )

Mean Position of
Floating Aids to 10 m 10 m 10 m 20 m
Navigation (95% )
The formula below is used to compute the maximum allowable Total Vertical Uncertainty (TVU) at
the 95% confidence level for a specific reduced depth;

σ = ± a 2 + (b x d ) 2 (1)

where; a is the portion of uncertainty not varying with the depth, b is a coefficient that represents
the portion of the uncertainty varying with depth, and d is depth. More detailed information about
the standards can be found in literature IHO (2008).

2.2 The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydrographic Survey Standards
118
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was classified hydrographic surveys in two
orders which are ‛Navigation and Dredging Support Surveys’ and ‛Other General Surveys and
Studies’. The former one is also classified with respect to bottom material as hard and soft (Table
2).
Table 2. Minimum Performance Standard for USACE (USACE, 2002)
Navigation&Dredging Support Surveys
Other General Surveys
PROJECT &Studies
CLASSIFICATION Bottom Material Classification (Recommended
Standards)
Hard Soft
Resultant Elevation/Depth Accuracy (95%)
System Depth (d)
Mechanical d < 4.6 m ± 0.08 m ± 0.08 m ± 0.15 m

Acoustic d < 4.6 m ± 0.15 m ± 0.15 m ± 0.30 m

Acoustic 4.6 > d < 12.2 m ± 0.30 m ± 0.30 m ± 0.61 m

Acoustic d > 12.2 m ± 0.30 m ± 0.61 m ± 0.61 m

Object/Shoal Detection Capability

Minimum object size (95%) > 0.5 m cube > 1 m cube N/A

Min. number of acoustics hits >3 3 N/A

Horizontal Positioning System Accuracy (95% Confidence Level)

<2m 2m 5m

Reported Feature Horizontal Location Accuracy (95%)

Plotted depth location 2m 5m 5m

Fixed planimetric features 3m 3m 3m

Fixed navigation aids 3m 3m 3m

Floating navigation aids 10 m 10 m 10 m

Supplemental Control Accuracy

Horizontal Control 3rd order (I) 3rd order (I) 3rd order (I)

Vertical Control 3rd order 3rd order 3rd order

Water Surface Model ½ depth accuracy standard ½ depth accuracy standard

Accuracy

Minimum Survey Coverage 100% Sweep 60 m 150 m

Density
Table 2 contains the most critical technical performance standards for Corps hydrographic survey
applications. The standards are mandatory for ‛Navigation and Dredging Support Surveys’ whereas
the standards for ‛Other Surveys and Studies’ are recommended. These standards are considered

119
‛minimum technical performance standards’ and are independent of the measurement process
employed (USACE, 2002).

2.3 Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) Hydrographic Survey Standards

Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) defined hydrographic standards according to their usage.
Hydrographic surveys are classified in four orders as; special, first, second and third order in New
Zealand related to IHO’s S-44 standards. Surveys of critical channels, harbours and berthing areas
with minimum under-keel clearance are defined as ‛Special Order’. ‛First Order’ of survey covers
the harbour surveys, the channels approaching to the harbours, recommended tracks, inland
navigation channels and coastal areas of high traffic density. The ‛Second Order’ involves the areas
not covered by special and the first order. Surveys which are not covered by special, first and
second order, are classified as ‛Third Order’ deeper than 200 meters (LINZ, 1999).

LINZ depth accuracy requirements and target detection specifications for SBES survey, based on
the IHO guidelines from S 44, are given in Table 3.

Table 3. LINZ SBES Depth Accuracy for Reduced Depths (95%) (LINZ, 2008)
ORDER Special 1 2 3
a 0.25 m 0.5 m 1.0 m 1.0 m

b 0.0075 m 0.013 m 0.023 m 0.023 m

Size of Cubic > 2 m in depths up > 2 m in depths up
Objects to be to 40 m. to 40 m.
>1m Not Applicable
Detected by the 10% of depth 10% of depth
System beyond 40 m beyond 40 m

Required depth accuracies associated with each order for multibeam echosounder (MBES) are
given in Table 4. Required horizontal accuracies given at the 95% confidence level are listed in
Table 5.

Table 4. LINZ MBES Depth Accuracy (95%) (LINZ, 2008)

ORDER MB Special MB-1 MB-2 MB-3
Depth Accuracy Across
1 x IHO Special Order (SO) 1.5 x IHO SO 2 x IHO SO 2.5 x IHO SO
the Swath Width

Target Detection Minimum horizontal size of target required to be detected

Water depth < 40 m 1m 2m 4m 8m

Water depth > 40 m 2.5% of depth 5% of depth 10% of depth 20% of depth

Maximum Distance for

Three Strikes Along and 2.5% of depth 5% of depth 10% of depth 20% of depth
Across Track

Swath to Swath Area

200% 100% 100% 100%
Coverage

Table 5. LINZ Horizontal Accuracies (95%) (LINZ, 2008)

120
 ORDER Special 1 2 3
Horizontal Accuracy
of Position of 2m 5 m + 5%depth 10 m + 5%depth 100 m + 5%depth
Soundings
SBES-Not
100% Bottom SBES-Selected Areas SBES-As specified
Compulsory Applicable
Search MBES-Compulsory MBES-Compulsory
MBES-Compulsory
Fixed Aids and
Features Significant 2m 2m 5m 5m
to Navigation

Drying Rocks 2m 5m 5m 10 m

Natural Coastline 10 m 10 m 15 m 20 m

Mean Position of
Floating Aids to 10 m 10 m 15 m 20 m
Navigation

Topographic
10 m 10 m 15 m 20 m
Features

2.4 Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) Hydrographic Survey Standards

Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) forms hydrographic survey standards based on IHO S-44.
These standards are formed to meet the user needs. The aim of these standards is to specify
requirements for hydrographic surveys in order that hydrographic data collected using these
standards is enough accurate (CHS, 2005). Hydrographic surveys are classified in 6 orders;
exclusive, special, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th (imprecise) orders to meet surveys precision and quality
requirements (CHS, 2005). The standards formed by CHS is given in Table 6.

2.5 Swedish Maritime Administration (SMA) Hydrographic Survey Standards

The Swedish Implementation of IHO S-44 Hydrographic Survey Standards was formed by Swedish
Maritime Administration (SMA). These standards are classified into 5 orders; exclusive, special, 1st,
2nd and 3rd orders (SMA, 2001). Exclusive order of hydrographic surveys is defined for the most
demanding applications. 100% of seafloor coverage is required in all cases (Wells and Monahan,
2002). This standard includes the all budget of errors from the surveying up to the final result
(SMA, 2001). SMA classifies surveying areas in two categories like fairway areas and other areas.
Fairway areas are defined as existing, proposed or planned fairways, traffic separations, deepwater
routes, ports and areas of anchorage or waiting (SMA, 2001; Wells and Monahan, 2002).

The accuracy of depths mentioned in Table 7 refers to both acoustic sounding measurements
(topographic reproduction) as well as determinations of the minimum depths by means of
mechanical sensors (sweep bars). Bar sweeping shall also be used where the margin is 1 meter or
less (SMA, 2001).

Table 6. CHS Standards for Hydrographic Surveys (CHS, 2005)

121
 ORDER Exclusive Special 1 2 3 4 (Imprecise)

Examples of Shallow Harbours, Harbours, Areas up to Offshore areas All areas

Typical Areas water in berthing harbour 200 m water not described in where the
harbours, areas, and approach depth the previous accuracies do
berthing associated channels, orders not meet the
areas, and critical recommended requirements
associated channels tracks and of the
critical with some coastal previous
channels with minimum areas with orders
minimum under-keel depths up to
under-keel clearances 100 m
clearances or
engineering
surveys

Horizontal
Accuracy
5 m + 5% of 20 m + 5% of 150 m + 5% of > 150 m + 5%
(95% 1m 2m
depth depth depth of depth
Confidence
Level)

Depth
Accuracy for
Reduced a = 0.15 m a = 0.25 m a = 0.5 m a=1m Same as Order > than values
Depths (95% b = 0.0075 b = 0.0075 b = 0.013 b = 0.023 2 of Order 2
Confidence
Level)

System Features > 2 m

Detection cubed in depths
Features > Features >
Capability up to 40 m; N/A N/A N/A
0.5 m cubed 1 m cubed
10% of depth
beyond 40 m
Type of Coverage
1. complete coverage (multibeam, multi-transducer, acoustically swept);
2. systematic survey (single beam echo sounder lines run parallel at pre-planned line spacing, LIDAR);
3. sparse coverage (lead-line surveys, reconnaissance, track soundings, spot soundings);
4. unsurveyed
Maximum The lesser of: 3x average depth or 25 m in The lesser of: The lesser
Line Spacing depths to 10 m; or 50 m in depth of 10-40 m; or 3x average of:3x average
N/A
(SBES) 100 m in depths deeper than 40 m. Closer line depth or 200 depth or 1000
spacing may be required in doubtful areas. m. m.

2.6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Hydrographic Survey

Standards

These standards, The National Ocean Service (NOS) Hydrographic Surveys Specifications and
Deliverables, 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), NOS, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA
standards are based in part on IHO Standards for S-44 (4th edition) specially for ‘Order 1’ surveys.
First order surveys which are defined as inland navigation channels, coastal areas of high

122
commercial traffic density, and are usually in shallower areas less than 100 meters water depth
(URL 5).

Table 7. The Swedish Implementation of S-44 (SMA, 2001; Wells and Monahan, 2002)

ORDER Exclusive Special Order 1 Order 2 Order 3

Nautical Objects 1.0 m 1.0 m 2.0 m 2.0 m 5.0 m

150 m + 5% of
Horizontal Accuracy 2.0 m 2.0 m 5.0 m + 5% of depth 20 m + 5% of depth
depth

a = 0.15 m. a = 0.25 m. a = 0.5 m. a = 1.0 m. Corresponds with

Depth Accuracy
b = 0.0040 b = 0.0075 b = 0.013 b = 0.023 order 2

Fairway Areas - 0-20 m 20-50 m 50-100 m 100 m+

Other Depth Areas - - 0-6 m 6-100 m 100 m+

Maximum Depth To
50 m 50 m 100 m 100 m Unlimited
Apply Order

Table 8. NOAA Hydrographic Surveys Specifications (URL 5)

ORDER 1 2

Description of areas Inland navigation channels, coastal areas of

high commercial traffic density, and are Other areas.
usually in shallower areas.

Depth < 100 m Depth > 100 m

Horizontal Uncertainty 5 m + 5% of depth 5 m + 5% of depth

Depth Uncertainty a = 0.5 m a = 1.0 m

b = 0.013 b = 0.023

Feature Detection Cubic features > 1 m, in depths up to 20 m;

-
5% of depth beyond 20 m

3. COMPARISON OF HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY STANDARDS

IHO S44’s Special Order, USACE’s Hard Bottom, LINZ’s MB Special Order, CHS’s
Exclusive/Special Orders, SMA’s Exclusive/Special Orders survey standards are compared with
each other in terms of depth accuracy, horizontal positioning accuracy of sounding, positioning of
fixed navigation aids and target (feature) detection (Table 9). As an example, the depth and position
accuracies for different depth values (up to 40 m) are given in Table 10 and Figure 1 by using
corresponding values/formula given in Table 9.

123
 Table 9. Comparison of the Hydrographic Survey Standards (95% confidence level)
Reduced Depth Horizontal Positioning of Fixed
ORDER Description of Areas Feature Detection
Accuracy Accuracy Navigation Aids
a = 0.25 m
IHO S-44 Special Under-keel clearance is critical 2m 2m Cubic features > 1 m
b = 0.0075
d < 4.6 m ± 0.08 m
Navigation and Dredging support surveys of (mechanical)
USACE Hard d< 4.6 ± 0.15 m <2m 3m > 0.5 m cube
hard bottom characteristics
4.6<d< 12.2 ± 0.30 m
d >12.2 ± 0.30 m
Surveys of critical channels, harbours and
1 x IHO Special Order
LINZ MB Special berthing areas with minimum under-keel 2m 2m 1m
(SO)
clearance

Shallow water in Harbours, berthing areas, and a = 0.15 m

CHS Exclusive associated critical channels with minimum 1m - Features > 0.5 m cubed
b = 0.0075
under-keel clearances or engineering surveys
Harbours, berthing areas, and associated critical a = 0.25 m
CHS Special channels with minimum under-keel clearances 2m Features > 1 m cubed
b = 0.0075

Existing, proposed or planned fairways, traffic

SMA Exclusive separations, deepwater routes, ports and areas of a = 0.15 m 2m 1m -
anchorage or waiting b = 0.0040

Existing, proposed or planned fairways, traffic a = 0.25 m

SMA Special separations, deepwater routes, ports and areas of 2m 1m -
b = 0.0075
anchorage or waiting

124
 Table 10. Calculated Depth and Positioning Accuracies from Standards (95% confidence level)

STANDARDS IHO S-44 USACE LINZ MB CHS CHS SMA SMA

Special Hard Special Exclusive Special Exclusive Special
Accuracies
Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth Depth
Pos. (m) Pos. (m) Pos. (m) Pos. (m) Pos. (m) Pos. (m) Pos. (m)
Depths (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)

1 0.25 2 0.15 <2 0.25 2 0.15 1 0.25 2 0.15 2 0.25 2

5 0.25 2 0.15 <2 0.25 2 0.15 1 0.25 2 0.15 2 0.25 2

10 0.26 2 0.30 <2 0.26 2 0.17 1 0.26 2 0.16 2 0.26 2

20 0.29 2 0.30 <2 0.29 2 0.21 1 0.29 2 0.17 2 0.29 2

40 0.39 2 0.30 <2 0.39 2 0.34 1 0.39 2 0.22 2 0.39 2

Reduced Depth Uncertainty (meter)

0.50
0.45
USACE Hard
0.40
0.35
0.30 IHO S-44/LINZ/CHS/SMA Special Orders
0.25
0.20 CHS Exlcusive
0.15
0.10
SMA Exclusive
0.05
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Depth (meter)

Figure 1. Comparison of Depth Accuracies

125
4. LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN HYDROGRAPHIC DEPTH AND POSITION
DETERMINATION TECHNIQUES

Satellite based positioning was the revolution for the world and hydrographic surveying. Depending
on the technological developments, depth measurement technology and methodology were changed.
Multibeam Echo Sounders (MBES) and airborne laser sounding systems now provide almost 100%
sea floor coverage and depth measurement (IHO, 2005). Today Real-Time Kinematic Positioning is
used for shallow water precise surveys and engineering applications. Differential GPS whose
corrections are sent to moving receivers using radio frequencies, GSM or satellite such as satellite
based augmentation systems (SBAS), is the primary positioning system currently used in
hydrographic surveys.

4.1 Positioning Methods

Sextants, theodolites, Electronic Distance Measurement (EDM) techniques and electromagnetic

navigation systems had been used in hydrographic surveys for long years. Electromagnetic
positioning systems such as Shoran and Electronic Position Indicator (EPI), along with their British
Cousins Oboe, Gee, Decca and Loran were the navigational systems used in hydrographic surveys
and military operations in 2nd World War. EPI was 50-75 meter horizontal positioning accuracy at
the ranges out to 250 miles. Shoran was 10 to 20 meters on average (Albert and Theberge, 2009).
Nowadays Global Positioning System (GPS) and GLObal NAvigation Satellite System
(GLONASS) are the most widely used systems in hydrographic surveys. After turning off the
Selective Availability (SA) effect in 2000, the civil users can determine their coordinates with an
accuracy of 10 meters or even better using of single receiver in stand alone mode (Alkan, 2002).
The accuracy provided by that method does not meet the accuracies which needed for most
hydrographic applications. In order to increase the accuracies, GPS was used in differential
positioning mode (USACE, 2002). Today DGPS corrections are sent to moving receivers using
GSM or satellites such as Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS). Wide Area Augmentation
System (WAAS) in the United States, the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Signal
(EGNOS) in Europe, the MTSAT Satellite-based Augmentation System (MSAS) in Japan and the
GPS Aided Geostationary-Augmented Navigation (GAGAN) system in India are the examples of
SBAS (Walter at al., 2005). The accuracies provide by different GPS positioning techniques are
given Figure 2.

Figure 2. The Accuracy Potential of GPS Positioning Modes (Seeber, 2003)

126
By the early 1990s, DGPS accuracy was improved by transmitting carrier-phase data to moving
vessels in real-time. RTK measurement accuracy is reached centimetre-level accuracies when the
carrier phase integer ambiguities are determined (Langley, 1998; IHO, 2005). The positioning
accuracy is depending on the satellite geometry and carrier phase measurement accuracy (Han and
Johnson, 2001). A typical RTK GPS accuracy may be given as 1 cm + 1 ppm horizontally and 2 cm
+ 1 ppm vertically (Thales, 2005). This accuracy varies depending on the distance between the base
and rover receivers. A new technique, called as Network-RTK or Continuously Operating
Reference Stations (CORS), has been developed to overcome the distance dependency using a
network of GPS reference stations that spread over wide area (Rizos and Han, 2003). RTK or post
process kinematic techniques are used by CORS at wide area covering seas with the horizontal
accuracy of 2-3 cm (Eren et al., 2009).

4.2 Depth Determining Methods

Hydrographic surveys had been conducted with different methods such as rod, lead line and wire
cable in the past. Today, depending on the technological developments, acoustic and airborne laser
systems are used in hydrographic surveys.

Single Beam Echo Sounders (SBES) have been used in hydrographic surveying since the mid 1900s
(IHO, 2005). SBES is by far most widely used depth measurement technique currently and in
future. Acoustic depth measurement systems measure Two Way Travel Time (TWTT) of acoustic
signal which is generated form the transducer, sent and come back from the sea floor (USACE,
2002). If the sound velocity is known precisely the depth will be calculated by the elapsed time
multiplied by half of TWTT. Multiple-transducer systems which were formed by SBES were
developed in 1970 (USACE, 2002).

Multibeam Echo Sounders (MBES) have been used in hydrographic surveying since 1990s. MBES
measures the range between sonar and sea floor with a beam angle. The range is calculated by the
half of TWTT multiplied by measured sound velocity in addition, the depth is determined by the
range multiplied with the cosine of the beam angle (Godin, 1997).

The airborne laser technique which uses LIght Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) is a depth
measurement method that is used about up to 50 meter depths of shallow water from the air using a
scanning pulsed laser beam. It is a surveying technique for shore mapping because its laser system
provides an accurate digital depth model with 15 cm - one sigma height accuracy in a range of 1 to
50 meters (Irish et al., 2000; Collin et al., 2008).

To give a general idea, the achievable depth accuracies get from several practical applications for
the different depth determination techniques are summarized in Table 11. It should be noted that,
depth accuracies might be varied with the several effects and factors like vessel heave, pitch and
roll, tide, sound velocity throughout water column, dynamic draught and so on.

127
 Table 11. Achievable Depth Accuracies Provided by Different Methods
Expected Depth
Depth Measurement Expected Depth Accuracy
Method Accuracy for 5 meters
Range for 40 meters Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Manual Depth
<5m 0.05-0.10 N/A
Measurement

SBES Not limited 0.02* 0.09*

MBES Not limited 0.11** 0.18**

LIDAR < 50 m 0.15 0.15

* calculated from eq. 0.01 m +0.2% x d
** calculated from eq. 0.10 m + 0.2% x d

5. CONCLUSIONS

In this study several hydrographic survey standards are investigated. Recent depth determination
and positioning techniques with their achievable accuracies are compared to required ones
described in the standards. This study shows that today’s widely used depth determination and
positioning techniques can certainly meet the required accuracy levels.

It can be concluded from Table 10 that required depth accuracy is varying about 2 to 4 decimetres
for 40 meters depth and all widely used depth measurement techniques can certainly meet these
requirements. Concerning the required positioning accuracy (permissible error), 1 meter accuracy
level for CHS Exclusive and 2 meters level for the other organizations are required and these
accuracies could be provided from GPS measurements even in stand alone mode (e.g. PPP method)
and certainly Network-RTK GPS.

On the other hand, precise coastal engineering applications need higher accuracy level and the
current standards may not answer their requirements. To overcome this insufficiency, it can be
suggested that, another survey standards for applications that required higher accuracy level might
be designed by considering current survey instrumentation, practices, and capabilities. Furthermore,
the standards should be updated at a certain interval according to technological developments.

REFERENCES

Albert E. and Theberge, Jr., (2009). First Developments of Electronic Navigation Systems, Hydro
International, 13(3).

Alkan, R. M., (2002). Stand-Alone Real-Time GPS Positioning without SA, Sea Technology, 43
(3), 16-19.

Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS), (2005). Minimum Standards for CHS Hydrographic
Surveys, Canadian Hydrographic Service Fisheries and Oceans Canada, First Edition, Canada.

Collin, A., Archambault, P. and Long, B., (2008). Mapping the Shallow Water Seabed Habitat with
the SHOALS, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Vol.46, No.10, 2947-2955.

128
Eren, K., Uzel, T., Gülal, E., Yıldırım, Ö., Cingöz, A., (2009). Results From A Comprehensive
Global Navigation Satellite System Test In The CORS-TR Network: Case Study, Journal of
Surveying Engineering, Volume 135, Issue 1, 10-18.

Godin, A., (1997). The Calibration of Shallow Water Multibeam Echo-Sounding Systems, Master
of Engineering, The University of New Brunswick, Canada.

Greenway, L., (2002). FIG Guide on Standardisation, FIG Task Force on Standards, International
Federation of Surveyors, United Kingdom.

Han, S. and Johnson, R., (2001). Survey Quality Real-Time GPS: Solving the Time to Fix vs.
Reliability Paradox, 14th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of the Institute of
Navigation, 1550-1557, Utah.

International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), (2005). Manual on Hydrography, 1st Edition,

Publication M-13, International Hydrographic Bureau, Monaco.

International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), (2007). S32 Hydrographic Dictionary, 5th Edition.

International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), (2008). IHO Standards for Hydrographic Surveys,
Special Publication No:44, 5th Edition, International Hydrographic Bureau, Monaco.

Irish, J. L., McClung, J. K., and Lillycrop, W.J., (2000). Airborne lidar bathymetry: the SHOALS
system. PIANC Bulletin, (103): 43-53.

Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), (1999). Hydrographic MBES Survey Standards, TH
Standard 23, Version 2.1.

Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), (2008). Contract Specifications for Hydrographic Surveys,
Version 1.1, Customer Services, HDY-W15-07/1190.

Langley, R.B., (1998). RTK GPS, GPS World, Vol. 9, No. 9, 70-76.

Mills, G.B., (1998). International Hydrographic Survey Standards. International Hydrographic

Review, 75(2): 79-85.

Rizos, C. and Han, S., (2003). Reference Station Network Based RTK Systems – Concepts and
Progress, Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences. 8(2B): 566-574.

Seeber, G., (2003). Satellite Geodesy. Walter de Gruyter, Second Edition, Berlin.

Swedish Maritime Administration (SMA), (2001). The Swedish implementation of S-44. 9th Baltic
Sea Hydrographic Commission Conference, Estonia.

Thales, (2005). Z-Max Surveying System Technical Specifications.

USACE, (2002). Engineering and Design Hydrographic Surveying, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000, Publication No:1110-2-1003.

129
 Walter, T., Pullen, S., Rife, J., Seo, J., Enge, P., (2005). Advantages of Local Monitoring and VHF
Data. Broadcast for SBAS, Proceedings of the European. Navigation Conference GNSS. Munich,
Germany.

Wells, D. and Monahan, D., (2002). IHO S44 Standards for Hydrographic Surveys and the Variety
of Requirements for Bathymetric Data. The Hydrographic Journal, No:104.

[URL 1] International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), (2009). About the IHO.

http://www.iho-ohi.net/english/home/about-the-iho/history---general.html

[URL 2] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), (2009a). ISO in Figures for the year
2008
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_in_figures_2009.pdf

[URL 3] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), (2009b), Standards

http://www.iso.org/iso/support/faqs/faqs_standards.htm

[URL 4] International Organization for Standardization (ISO), (2009c), Organizations in

cooperation with ISO.
http://www.iso.org/iso/about/organizations_in_liaison.htm

[URL 5] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (2009). NOS Hydrographic
Surveys Specifications and Deliverables.
http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/docs/Specs2009.pdf

AUTHORS:

Assoc.Prof.Dr. Reha Metin ALKAN

Istanbul Technical University
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Geomatic Eng. Department
Maslak TR-34469, Istanbul/TURKIYE
Telephone : 90 (212) 285 6564
e-mail : alkanr@itu.edu.tr

Res. Assist. Dr. N. Onur AYKUT

Yildiz Technical University,
Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Geomatic Eng. Department.
Davutpasa-Esenler TR-34210, Istanbul/TURKIYE
Telephone : 90 (212) 383 5304
e-mail : oaykut@yildiz.edu.tr

130

View publication stats