Predicting ocean-wave conditions using buoy
data supplied to a hybrid RNN-LSTM neural
network model
Abstract - The ability to accurately predict ocean wave
conditions is paramount to many maritime activities.
Framework containing a bidirectional recurrent neural
network (RNN) with long-short-term memory (LSTM)
cells (RNN-LSTM is developed for timely and accurate
ocean wave forecasting conditions). We used a set of
shallow ones learning data-driven techniques to predict
significant wave height. Models need accurate and
consistent data to make accurate predictions. The dataset
was an aggregation of state data taken from wave
observation floats (buoys) that recorded reading in 20
and 30 minute increments. The buoy measured the wave
height, wave period, sea surface temperature and other
attributes. These properties have been used in different
approaches to forecasting future conditions. This
approach is global application because it can be deployed
using any sufficient data set collected from wave tracking
buoys.
Keywords—Deep learning, Machine learning, Wave-
condition forecasting
I. INTRODUCTION
Myriad marine and coastal activities are greatly affected
by ocean-wave conditions. As such, improved forecast
accuracy is always sought. Furthermore, the growth of
coastal engineering and ocean-based renewable energy
will immensely benefit from accurate forecasts. Yet,
predictions become complicated by the stochastic nature
of ocean conditions. This paper applied a hybrid RNN-
LSTM neural network because it combines the recurrent
network’s ability to consider not only the input to the next
time step but also what it remembers from preceding
elements [1]. We chose an LSTM as the memory cell
because it mitigates the vanishing gradient problem,
lessens over-fitting, and prevents loss of important
information [1]. This paper presents a bi-directional RNN-
LSTM deep learning model to predict ocean-wave
conditions.
II. RELATED WORK
When investigating phenomena of the natural world
with the aim of making predictions, there are two
foundations to base a model on, physics or machine
learning (ML). Physics-based models are built on the
foundation of Newtonian mechanics, while ML models are
built on both computer and data science, and statistics [2].
Physics-based methods require appropriate calibration and
validation, as ML models require training and testing [3].
However, machine learning models are easier to
implement and there is a much smaller computational load
when training and using them, as compared to physics
based [2], [3]. Though, after appropriate calibration of
physics models, their estimations did not depreciate as
time increased [2], [3]. While ML-based models exhibit
higher performance with shorter lead times, and
performance depreciates as prediction time increased [3],
[4]. Finally, ML based models use approximation rather
than exact mathematics and are good at discerning
complicated patterns and relations within the data
provided [2]. Machine learning has been used as an
alternative to physics-based approaches to predict
significant wave heights and periods [5].
Recurrent neural networks (RNNs) recognize patterns
and have made accurate predictions from time-series data
[6]. RNNs are capable of propagating historical data, but
only recent historical data significantly contribute to
predictions as gradients get progressively smaller for data
further back in time [7]. Nevertheless, RNNs have
achieved impressive results with natural language
processing and document analyses [7].
The LSTM neural network improved upon the classic
RNN framework by adding a “forget” gate that reduces
training time and mitigates the vanishing gradient problem
[7]–[9]. The time gates, which model intervals of time, of
RNNs and LSTMs, are used to improve performance
juxtaposed to traditional frameworks [10]. Time gates can
capture both short and long term interests, as well as
interval information [10]. Phased LSTM has shown
efficacy in predicting event-based and long term sequences
[6].
ML models have successfully predicted ocean-wave
conditions [5]. The Simulating WAves Nearshore
(SWAN) model forecasts wave conditions in surf zones
with relatively low return times; though, the model
underestimates the mean wave period [11]. However, the
SWAN model is physics-based. James et al. developed an
ML-based approach around the SWAN model using a
multi-layered perception model (MLP) and a support
vector machine model (SVM) to efficiently forecast wave
conditions in significantly less time than needed to run the
SWAN model [5]. In a similar vein, relatively simple
artificial neural networks (ANNs) have used buoy data to
predict wave height and wave period with solid results
[12]. Fanetal. proposed a SWAN-LSTM model for fast
singlepoint predictions of nearshore wave conditions; the
model outperformed the original SWAN model (with a
65% increase in accuracy), conventional neural networks,
and machine learning models [8]. The model used wind
speed, wave height, and wind directions as inputs; it is best
used for one-hour predictions, but also performed well
with six-hour predictions [8]. Another model employing
RNNs and a simple LSTM proposed by Pirhooshyaran and
Snyder accurately forecast a single variable, such as
significant wave height, as well as two variables, i.e.
energy flux in addition to significant wave height [11].
This work additionally showed that performance benefits measured in degrees Celsius. The dataset is a collection of
from deeper structures when there are many features [11]. these features from 2010 to 2020.
Ni and Ma coupled principle component analysis (PCA)
with an LSTM in order to predict significant wave height The input (feature) matrix is:
in Polar Westerlies [13]. First, their PCA analysis
identified principle components in the dataset, which was
X = [Significant wave height 1
an aggregation of two and a half moths of data fro four
Dominant wave period 2
wave buoys [13]. Next, the LSTM was employed to Average wave period 3
mitigate deep-rooted independence while forecasting. Mean wave direction 4
Their novel method used temporal and spatial data and can Sea surface temperature 5 ]
be applied for short term predictions . Kimetal. predicted
ocean weather using a convolutional LSTM and denoising
AutoEncoder . Following one week, there proposed model where X is the 1 × N input vector at time index t = 1, . . ,T
estimated ocean weather with an average errot of 9.7% . where N is the number of features. Each row represents a
training or testing sample dataset including all data for
Thus illustrating their models efficacy. A recent LSTM
each ocean or wave feature.
model, proposed by Wei, was trained on historic wind,
temperature, and atmospheric pressure, and wave data
[13]. This model predicted wind waves in the US Atlantic Correspondingly, the output matrix is:
Coast in ambient conditions, as well as during hurricanes
and winter storms [13]. The model achieved accurate
forcasts in both conditions, and did not exhibit over or Y = [Significant wave height 1
under fitting [13]. These studies illustrate the success of Dominant wave period 2
LSTM models in wave prediction, and provide a Average wave period 3
foundation for this work to build upon. Here, we develop Mean wave direction 4
a bi-directional recurrent neural network (RNN) with long- Sea surface temperature 5]
short term memory (LSTM) cells (RNN-LSTM) to
forecast ocean-wave conditions from buoy data in
where Y is the 1 × M output vector of predicted wave
Wilmington, NC. Data from the National Data Buoy characteristics at time t. We used Python programming to
Center (NDBC), a network of buoys that record various conduct our research.
ocean and wave characteristics, were supplied to our deep
learning model to predict subsequent ocean-wave
conditions. Next, for comparison, we built Gradient B.FEATURE NORMALIZATION
Boosting, Extreme Gradient Boosting, K Neighbors,
Linear, Ridge, Elastic Net, Lasso, Decision Tree, and Extra We removed values above the 95th percentile and below
Tree machine learning models and estimated significant 5th percentile of the data set. This was to reduce outliers
wave height. All models used the same dataset for training because hurricanes occurred throughout the data set. The
and testing. filtered data set was plotted as a heat map on a 5×5 matrix
and shown in Figure 1. The heat map shows the feature
III. METHODOLOGY correlations. The data were then normalized to a range
from 0 to 1 using python's MinMaxScaler. This is a
common practice used when preparing datasets for
A.FEATURES machine learning. The purpose is to change numerical
values within a data set to a common scale maintaining the
difference in scale.
The data used were collected from buoy ILM-02,
Station 41110, off the coast of Wrightsville Beach, NC by
the National Data Buoy Center. The exact location of the
buoy is (34.142 N 77.715 W), in Masonboro Inlet. The
water depth at the site is 16m and temperature readings
occur 0.46 m below water level. Buoy motion was
captured, transformed to digital information, and relayed
to a nearby data repository as a satellite transmission.
The movement of the buoy was captured, converted to
digital information and transmitted to a nearby data
repository as a satellite transmission. We included the
following variables in our dataset: significant wave height
(WVHT), dominant wave period (DPD), mean wave
period (APD), mean wave direction (MWD), and sea
surface temperature (WTMP). WVHT is calculated as the
average of the highest one-third of all wave heights during
a 20-minute sampling period, measured in meters. DPD is
the period of greatest wave energy, measured in seconds.
APD is the average of all waves over a 20-minute period,
measured in seconds. MWD is the direction from which
waves are coming at the DPD, measured in degrees from Fig. 1. A correlation matrix comparing the ocean and wave
true north. Finally, WTMP is the sea surface temperature, features within the dataset.
The deep learning RNN-LSTM model makes predictions
for all five features (WVHT, DPD, APD, MWD, WTMP),
and the machine learning models predict only significant
wave height (WVHT).
Fig. 2. A series of plots illustrating fluctuations in ocean-
wave variables
C.TRAINING AND TESTING DATA SPLIT
The collected data were divided into two groups: one for
training and one for testing. The training group includes
most of the original data set and the test group consists
what's left Next, the data was iterated through a divided
into multiple NumPy arrays or sets. This process was
repeated until all data was stored in the frame. As noted by
splitting the data sets into different ones frames uses
temporal information and improves the model
performance.The training dataset was used to build/train a
deep learning model. Subsequently, a test data set was
delivered on a trained deep learning model to verify
performance compare with real-time data and assess
accuracy. Training dataset included 99,969 members of
five functions, testing the dataset contained 7,958
members of the five features.We obtained 15 epochs and
produced an accuracy table training data.
D. DEEP LEARNING MODEL DEVELOPMENT
A hybrid RNN-LSTM neural network was chosen to
perform this research because it combines recurrent
networks ability to think not only about entering the next
time step but also what it remembers from preceding
elements [1]. We chose LSTM as the memory cell because
it alleviates this vanishing gradient problem, reduces
overfitting and prevents loss of important information [1].
Fig. 3. Schematic of an LSTM cell.
Figure 3 illustrates an LSTM cell, which was assembled
into a layer, where the number of cells within a layer
affects the performance of the network.
An LSTM layer is defined mathematically as:
i
f
and
𝑐 <𝑡> = (𝑖 <𝑡> × 𝑔<𝑡> + 𝑓 <𝑡> × 𝑐 <𝑡−1> )
h
where 𝑥 <𝑡> is a vector from input matrix X at time t, 𝑔<𝑡>
is the information used to update cell state 𝑐 <𝑡> ,
superscript t is the current time index and t − 1 is the
previous time index. tanh is the hyperbolic tangent
function.
Input weight matrices are 𝑊𝑖𝑔 , 𝑊𝑖𝑓 , 𝑊𝑖𝑖 , and 𝑊𝑖 ,with
sizes N × B. B is the number of LSTM cells, 𝑊ℎ𝑔 , 𝑊ℎ𝑓 ,
𝑊ℎ𝑖 , and 𝑊ℎ𝑜 are the recurrent weight matrices of size N
× N.b(ex: 𝑏𝑜 )is the bias term in the activation function.

𝑓 <𝑡> , 𝑖 <𝑡> , 𝑜 <𝑡> are the forget, input, and output gates,
respectively.
ℎ<𝑡> is the output from the LSTM layer.
assessed training estimations by comparing training/
validation losses, and training/ validation accuracies.
Losses were in terms of root mean squared error (RMSE)
and are equivalent to accuracies.

Next, output from the LSTM network was sent to a fully

connected (FC) layer with the sigmoid activation function

𝑧 <𝑡> is the output from this first FC layer. 𝑊𝑓1 is the

weight matrix of size B × P. P is the number of
perceptron’s for this layer, and 𝑏𝑓1 is the bias.
Finally, the output from the first FC layer was sent to a
second FC layer with the swish activation function to make
the predictions of interest
^
𝑦𝑚
where Wf2 is the weight matrix of size XX × YY , and 𝑏𝑓2
is bias for the swish layer.
Loss was calculated as: Fig. 4. The accuracy and loss during training and
validation for each epoch

where 𝑦𝑚^ is the prediction of interest m = 1, . . . , M at time Tables II and III lists the RMSEs (losses) for the training
t from output matrix 𝑦 ^ . and testing datasets, respectively

TABLE I TABLE II
RNN-LSTM DEEP LEARNING MODEL SUMMARY. TRAINING LOSS (RMSES).

Feature RMSE
Wvht 0.413
Layer (type) Shape Number of Dpd 12.55
Parameters Apd 1.123
lstm (LSTM) (None, 5, 32) 8065 Mwd 0.291
lstm 1 (LSTM) (None, 5, 16) 3136 Wtmp 0.413
dropout (None, 5, 16) 0
(Dropout)
lstm 2 (LSTM) (None, 10) 1080
dense (Dense) (None, 5) 55
TABLE III
TESTING LOSS (RMSE S).
E. HYPERPARAMETER OPTIMIZATION Feature RMSE
The Adam method was used to minimize the loss Wvht 0.394
function; dropout and batch normalization were Dpd 11.82
implemented to reduce overfitting and to hasten
Apd 1.089
convergence . In natural language processing models using
RNN, dropout rates range from 0.2 to 0.6 and 0.2 was used Mwd 0.307
in this study. We set the learning rate to 0.001, and a batch Wtmp 0.394
size to 200. Table I depicts the architecture of the deep
learning model.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Training and Testing Losses:
Using the hybrid RNN-LSTM neural network, the training
loss was plotted as a function of epoch number. We

Figure 5. Compares the predicted values made by the deep
learning model to measured values from the testing dataset
V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
The predictions produced by these models could aid
power estimations for renewable energy, surf conditions,
or optimize shipping routes and lessen fuel usage.
Moreover, the RNN-LSTM neural network could be
extended to include additional features such as wind
direction/speed and bathymetry. For future work,
improvements may be realized if more historical data were
available
VI. REFERENCES
[1] W. Koehrsen, “Recurrent neural networks by example
in python,” https://towardsdatascience.com/ recurrent-
neural-networks-by-example-in-python-ffd204f99470,
Nov. 2018.
[2] S. Erikstad, “Design patterns for digital twin solutions
in marine systems design and operations,” 05 2018.
[3] M. C. A. B. J. A. L. C. P. J. G. Gumiere, Silvio Jos ` e
and A. N. Rousseau, ´ “Machine learning vs. physics-
based modeling for real-time irrigation management,”
Frontiers in Water, vol. 2, 2020.
[4] Y. S. R. Nayak, Purna C. and K. P. Sudheer.,
“Groundwater level forecasting in a shallow aquifer using
artificial neural network approach,” Water Resources
Management, vol. 20, pp. 77–90, 2006.
[5] S. C. James, Y. Zhang, and F. O’Donncha, “A
machine learning framework to forecast wave conditions,”
Coastal Engineering, vol. 137, pp. 1–10, 2018. [Online].
Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science/article/pii/S0378383917304969
[6] D. Neil, M. Pfeiffer, and S.-C. Liu, “Phased LSTM:
Accelerating recurrent network training for long or event-
based sequences,” in Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems, D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, I.
Guyon, and R. Garnett, Eds., vol. 29. Curran Associates,
Inc., 2016, pp. 3882– 3890. [Online]. Available:
https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2016/
file/5bce843dd76db8c939d5323dd3e54ec9-Paper.pdf
[7] C. Zhou, C. Sun, Z. Liu, and F. C. M. Lau, “A C-
LSTM neural network for text classification,” 2015. [8] N.
X. Fan, Shuntao and S. Dong., “A novel model to predict
significant wave height based on long short-term memory
network,” Ocean Engineering. [9] A. Sherstinsky,
“Fundamentals of recurrent neural network (rnn) and long
short-term memory (lstm) network,” Physica D: Nonlinear
Phenomena, vol. 404, no. 132306, 2020.
[10] Y. Zhu, H. Li, Y. Liao, B. Wang, Z. Guan, H. Liu,
and D. Cai, “What to do next: Modeling user behaviors by
time-LSTM,” in International Joint Conference on
Artificial Intelligence, vol. 17, 2017, pp. 3602–3608.
[11] The SWAN Team, “SWAN Scientific and Technical
Documentation,” Delft University of Technology, Tech.
Rep. SWAN Cycle III version 40.51, 2006.
[12] O. Makarynskyy, “Improving wave predictions with
artificial neural networks,” Ocean Engineering, vol. 31,
pp. 709–724, 2004. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/
pii/S0029801803001641
[13]Z. Wei, “Forecasting wind waves in the us atlantic
coast using an artificial neural network model: Towards an
ai-based storm forecast system,” Ocean Engineering, vol.
237, p. 109646, 2021.