Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/oceaneng

An experimental study on capacitive and ultrasonic measurement

principles and uncertainty assessment in laboratory wave measurements
Mehmet Zeki Sener a, Hyeon Kyu Yoon b, Thi Thanh Diep Nguyen c, Jongyeol Park b, *,
Ercan Kose a
a
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University, Turkey
b
Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, Changwon National University, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Smart Ocean Environmental Energy, Changwon National University, Republic of Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Prof. A.I. Incecik Many studies in ocean engineering and related fields need physical wave modelling in controlled environments.
Monitoring the free surface elevation over time is essential to forming accurate waves. Various wave height
Keywords: measurement instruments can be used to determine the free surface elevation. However, measurements based on
Experimental uncertainty only one principle might lead to uncertain results. This study aims to compare measurements taken with
GUM method
capacitance-type and ultrasonic-type wave height gauges for the same wave models and analyze uncertainty in
Wave measurement
wave modelling. Nine different wave cases were tested using three-wave heights and three-wave frequencies. In a
Wave probe
Uncertainty analysis two-dimensional wave flume, the amplitude and frequency of the waves were controlled with a mechanical wave
Ultrasonic sensor generator. The Guide on the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) presented by the Joint Committee
for Guides in Metrology (JCGM) was used following ITTC procedures and guidelines. The processes for acquiring
data, selecting data intervals, estimating amplitude and frequency, and analyzing uncertainty are presented and
discussed. The measurements by the ultrasonic-type wave height gauge required a different input stroke for the
wave generator and had more uncertainties associated with the amplitude of the measured waves. The findings
highlight that identifying differences in measurement principles is significant for wave modelling.

1. Introduction uncertainty of wave measurements. McCombes et al. (2010) presented a

Physical wave modelling in controlled environments is needed for
many aspects (Blacka et al., 2011; Hughes, 1993; Komen et al., 1994) of
ocean engineering and other related study disciplines. Modelling based
on similarities and model theories is employed in most studies that
require physical measurements and observations. These theories address
the conditions that must be met for models to respond similarly to
physical events. However, the value of a measured physical variable can
be affected by errors and differences caused by the tools, the method,
and other factors. The result of a measurement is an estimate of the true
value based on these effects. Reliable measurement methods ensure that
the measured value is as close as possible to the true value. By assessing
the confidence level associated with the output and the variables, un­
certainty analysis can be used to investigate the reliability of measure­
ment results.
Some studies were carried out to provide guidance regarding the
methodology for evaluating the uncertainty associated with physical
tank testing of tidal marine energy converters in controlled laboratory
environments as well as identifying and reducing uncertainty in exper­
imental results. Coelho et al. (2021) introduced a Monte Carlo-based
numerical approach to analyze the dimensional measurement uncer­
tainty that occurs with wave gauge measurements. Judge et al. (2021)
presented a methodology to analyze uncertainty in an oscillating water
column wave energy converter. Type A and Type B uncertainty values
are calculated for each input variable. Type A uncertainty reflects the
statistical uncertainty obtained from repeated tests, while Type B un­
certainty is derived from sensor calibration and determined through
regression analysis. Expanded uncertainty is determined at a 95% con­
fidence level. Nam et al. (2022) carried out an experimental study in
which they compared wave probe measurements inside a
two-dimensional (2D) wave tank to study the relative wave height
around semi-submersible platforms. The causes of the measured

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: senermehmetzeki@ktu.edu.tr (M.Z. Sener), hkyoon@changwon.ac.kr (H.K. Yoon), nguyenthithanhdiep1994@gmail.com (T.T.D. Nguyen), jyp@
changwon.ac.kr (J. Park), ekose@ktu.edu.tr (E. Kose).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115320
Received 23 February 2023; Received in revised form 17 June 2023; Accepted 2 July 2023
Available online 18 July 2023
0029-8018/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.Z. Sener et al.
difference were studied with two types of wave probes. The measure­
ment values of the capacitance-type wave height gauge were determined
to be larger than those of the resistance-type wave height gauge under
the breaking-wave conditions. This was regarded as due to the differ­
ence in the measurement principle, and it was recommended that model
test experiments use a wave probe that fits the measured physical
phenomenon.
The inherent uncertainty in experimental studies is not solely
attributable to the measurement instruments. Differences in the di­
mensions of the physical models and abstract mathematical represen­
tations may also contribute to this uncertainty. Due to practical
limitations, conducting full-scale modelling is often impractical, leading
researchers to rely on similarity and model theories. These theories
elucidate the conditions that must be fulfilled for models to mirror
physical phenomena accurately. The model theory involves the mathe­
matical representation and analysis of systems. These models are created
with certain assumptions and simplifications, striving to represent the
crucial aspects of the real system. Similarity theory refers to a theoretical
approach to understanding phenomena or systems by establishing sim­
ilarities between a model and the original system. This process requires
the consideration of relationships between non-dimensionalized vari­
ables. Dimensionless quantities are numerical values that represent ra­
tios or products of physical quantities, devoid of any specific physical
units. They play a crucial role in various scientific fields, allowing for
comparisons, generalisations, and mathematical modelling, without
being bound to specific measurement scales or dimensions.
In wave model studies, gravitational, viscous, and mass components
all play crucial roles in shaping the outcomes. The Froude number (Fr)
and the Reynolds number (Re) are typically employed to represent the
relative significance of these forces. The Froude number, for instance,
characterises the influence of gravitational forces on fluid motion as the
ratio of a body’s inertia to gravitational forces. The Reynolds number
allows us to understand flow behavior by indicating the dominance of
inertial and viscous forces over each other. While Fr and Re are often
used, they’re not always practical for every model test. Therefore, the
scale of the model can be chosen based on which forces are most sig­
nificant to the model in question. In the field of ocean engineering,
another critical dimensionless quantity is the Keulegan-Carpenter
number. Particularly in wave experiments, it offers a relationship be­
tween inertial and viscous forces in oscillatory flow conditions. This
ratio of the total excursion of the flow (the horizontal movement of the
water mass) to the characteristic length of the object in the flow illus­
trates the dominance of inertial forces (related to fluid acceleration)
relative to viscous forces. Hence, while the Froude number and Reynolds
number remain essential in assessing the importance of gravitational
and inertial forces, the Keulegan-Carpenter number adds an additional
layer of understanding, particularly in oscillatory fluid flows. The scale
of the model can be selected by considering which forces are more
important for the experimental model or the system.
To ensure proper scaling in wave modelling experiments, it is
important to establish similarity between the Froude numbers. The
Froude number helps maintain the relative importance of gravitational
and inertial forces. By keeping the Froude number constant during
scaling, we can ensure that the overall wave behavior remains consistent
between the physical model and the actual system. Kimmoun et al.
(2010) conducted a comparison between experimentally measured local
fluid impact pressures at two different scales for the same Froude-scaled
global flows. The Froude scaling assumption was used for experimental
modeling, where geometric and time scales were adjusted. The study
managed to achieve relatively good similarity between flows at the two
scales. However, it was emphasized that accurately replicating local
developments of the impacts proved challenging, and even minor dis­
crepancies could have a notable impact on the measured pressures.
Orphin et al. (2022) examined the influence of scaling on an oscillating
water column wave energy converter model, finding that model tests at
various scales can still have differences and that the scaling might affect
2
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320
the results more than the measurement uncertainty. Physical wave
modelling in controlled environments, as indicated by the studies, has
challenges due to measurement uncertainty introduced by instruments,
methodologies, and other external factors. Although studies have been
carried out on this subject, offering various approaches to calculate and
mitigate uncertainties, the reliance on a single principle of measurement
that may lead to uncertain results is an overlooked concern. The vari­
ability in the influential factors further contributes to this uncertainty,
necessitating more studies that can address uncertainties caused by
measurement principles in wave modelling experiments.
This research examines the uncertainty of the measurements ob­
tained from capacitance-type and ultrasonic-type wave height gauges
for regular wave conditions by making it a quantifiable feature with an
uncertainty analysis. The uncertainties in the measurements are
analyzed with the Guide on the Expression of Uncertainty in Measure­
ment (GUM) approach (BIPM et al., 2008) per the International Towing
Tank Conference (ITTC) procedures and guidelines (ITTC, 2014, 2021b).
In a 2D wave flume, three wave heights and three wave frequencies were
used to generate nine wave models. The chosen wave forms for this
study are suitable for examining the impact of scaling under different
wave steepness conditions. The three chosen wavelengths and wave
√̅̅
periods exhibit a scaling relationship of 1/s for wavelengths and 1/ s
for wave periods. The scale ratio, denoted by “s,” represents the ratio
between the characteristic length and the size of the experimental model
that represents it.
A calibration study was done on both wave height gauges. The
sample heights for the calibration study were chosen by the range of
wave amplitudes that will be formed. Linear regression analyses were
performed on each wave to calculate the required input stroke values for
a 2D wave flume. Different time intervals with start and end points were
chosen from the measured data depending on the height and frequency
of the waves. The frequencies and amplitudes were estimated from the
filtered data between the selected intervals using models based on the
sum of sines and the Fourier series. The results in terms of amplitude and
frequency and a methodology for the uncertainty analysis are all shown
and discussed. The findings may serve as a guide for determining and
reducing levels of uncertainty, as well as for producing regular waves
with the appropriate amplitudes and frequencies.
2. Uncertainty assessment strategy
In this study, measurements by capacitance-type and ultrasonic-type
wave height gauges were compared for identical waveforms, and the
uncertainty in the regular wave measurements was investigated. In
physical experiments, uncertainty assessments can be performed to
evaluate the degree of uncertainty inherent in a measurement. This
study utilizes the GUM presented by the Joint Committee for Guides in
Metrology (JCGM) to perform the measurement uncertainty analysis on
regular waves generated in a laboratory environment.
2.1. Measurement uncertainty
Measurements are the process of determining physical quantities by
comparing them to known standard quantities. An illustration of what it
means for measurements to have some degree of uncertainty is shown in
Fig. 1 (a). Uncertainty is an inherent part of any measurement process,
arising from various sources such as the precision limitations of in­
struments, human error, and environmental conditions, among others.
Uncertainty range in the measurements refers to a range within which
the true value of the measurement lies. The true value refers to the exact
or ideal value of the measured quantity. It represents the value obtained
if the measurement could be made with infinite precision and without
any sources of error or uncertainty. However, in practical terms, the true
value is often unknown or unattainable.
Probability distributions can be used as a graphical representation of
a measurements’ uncertainty range, as shown in Fig. 1 (b). The concept
M.Z. Sener et al.
Fig. 1. (a) Illustration of the uncertainty in measurements and (b) normal probability distribution.
of a normal distribution graph is used to provide a visual representation
of the potential spread of a measured value around the ‘true’ value. The
normal distribution graph provides valuable insights into the measure­
ment process. It quantifies the uncertainty in the measurement process.
A smaller standard deviation indicates a narrower spread of measured
values around the mean, indicating higher precision in the measure­
ment. Conversely, a larger standard deviation reflects a wider spread,
indicating increased uncertainty in the measurement. The standard de­
viation measures the spread or variability of individual data points
within a sample or population, while the standard error of the mean
quantifies the precision or uncertainty associated with the sample mean
as an estimate of the population mean. The outcome of measurements
should be viewed with skepticism until the degree of confidence and
margin of error are included. Fig. 2 illustrates the relationships between
the terms “true value,” “measured value,” “error,” and “uncertainty
range."
Monitoring the free surface elevation over time is essential to
forming accurate waves in experimental environments. Wave mea­
surement instruments can be used to determine the relative level of the
free surface. Wave amplitude and wave period are parameters that
characterise regular waves. In order to generate waves with the target
amplitudes and frequencies, it is necessary to measure these two wave
parameters. In this study, measurements from two different types of
instruments were compared for the regular waveforms generated in an
experimental environment, and the uncertainty in wave measurements
was examined.
The free surface elevation for a two-dimensional linear water wave is
expressed as below equation (Stewart, 2008),
ζ = a sin(kx − ωt) [1]
where ζ(x, t) is the free surface, a is the wave amplitude (H /2), k is the
wave number (2π /λ), ω is the wave frequency (2π /T), H is the wave
height, λ is the wavelength, and T is the wave period. The definition
sketch for the linear wave theory can be seen in Fig. 3.
Capacitance-type and ultrasonic-type wave height gauges measure
the wave elevation for the same waveforms. The characteristics of both
instruments are based on different concepts of measurement, which
contributes to the uncertainty in measurements. The capacitance-type
Fig. 2. Relationships between true value, measured value, error, and
uncertainty.
3
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320
wave height gauge works on a similar concept as a capacitor. The
wire of the wave probe is a conductor placed in the water, and the
capacitance varies in direct proportion to the immersed part of the wire.
On the other hand, ultrasonic-type wave height gauges use ultrasonic
waves to measure distance. The sensor sends out ultrasonic waves and
receives the echoes reflected from the target. The time between the sent
and received waves is used to calculate the distance. Fig. 4 shows an
illustration of both capacitance-type and ultrasonic-type wave height
gauges.
The measurements obtained from both instruments were evaluated
for their differences and similarities. Uncertainty in the measurements
was addressed by using the GUM (BIPM et al., 2008) published by the
JCGM. In the 2D wave flume, nine distinct waveforms were examined.
Table 1 presents the properties of these waveforms, encompassing three
wave amplitudes and three wave frequencies.
A specific time interval was chosen from the series of 50-s recordings
to study the waves. The estimation of frequencies and amplitudes from
the measurements within the selected intervals was achieved using the
sum of sines model and the Fourier series. The results in terms of
amplitude and frequency, as well as a methodology for the uncertainty
analysis, are all shown and discussed within the context of this study.
2.2. Test facility and equipment
The wave measurements were conducted at the Ship Dynamics and
Control Laboratory at Changwon National University in Korea. The
laboratory is equipped with a two-dimensional wave flume measuring
20 m in length, 1.2 m in width, and 1.5 m in depth. The wave flume
includes a towing carriage, a wave generator, and a wave absorber. The
visual details for the experimental facility and the wave flume are pre­
sented in Fig. 5.
Wave generation using paddles is a commonly employed method in
various applications. The movement of the paddle induces the creation
of waves on the free surface. The hydraulic engine, which controls the
movement of the paddle, plays a crucial role in generating waves of
specific parameters. The hydraulic system provides the necessary power
to drive the paddle and adjust its speed and direction. The specifications
for the wave generator system can be seen in Table 2.
Two types of wave height gauges are chosen for measurements,
corresponds to a capacitance-type gauge manufactured by KENEK
(Tokyo, Japan) and an ultrasonic-type gauge from the P49 series pro­
duced by PIL Sensoren GmbH (Erlensee, Germany). The instruments
used for the measurements are presented in Fig. 6.
Measurement devices may differ in terms of output voltage and
sensing distance. The capacitance-type wave height gauge used in this
study is capable of measuring wave heights from 0 to 50 cm and provides
an output voltage of ±2.5 V. However, the detection distance of the
M.Z. Sener et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

Fig. 3. Definition sketch for the linear wave theory.

Fig. 4. (a) Illustration of capacitance-type and (b) ultrasonic-type wave height gauges.

framework provided stability and eliminated any unwanted vibrations

Table 1
or disturbances that could affect the accuracy of the recorded data. The
Characteristics of the generated regular waveforms.
two wave height gauges were strategically positioned within the wave
Wave - Wave period, Wave Length, Wave Height, Wave Steepness, flume to simultaneously measure the same free surface elevation. The
T [s] λ [m] H [m] H/λ -
placement of these gauges was intended to be on the same line to obtain
Wave 0.88 1.2 0.024 1/50 synchronized readings. For accurate data collection, the ultrasonic-type
1 wave height gauge and the wire of the capacitance-type wave height
Wave 0.88 1.2 0.016 1/75
2
gauge were positioned perpendicular to the free surface. The ultrasonic-
Wave 0.88 1.2 0.012 1/100 type wave height gauge was positioned at an appropriate distance from
3 the free surface, taking into account the recommended minimum dis­
Wave 1.07 1.8 0.036 1/50 tance of 8 cm. To eliminate any potential interference or disruptions
4
caused by the minimum proximity limitation of the gauge to the water
Wave 1.07 1.8 0.024 1/75
5 surface, the free surface’s oscillation was considered. Throughout the
Wave 1.07 1.8 0.018 1/100 experiments, due care was taken to maintain a consistent, calm water
6 depth was fixed to 1 m (the vertical distance from the bottom of the tank
Wave 1.24 2.4 0.048 1/50 to the free surface). The experimental setup for the measurements can be
7
Wave 1.24 2.4 0.032 1/75
seen in Fig. 7.
8
Wave 1.24 2.4 0.024 1/100
9 2.4. Data acquisition process

The measurement process involved the use of two wave height

ultrasonic-type wave height gauge ranges from 8 cm to 160 cm. Its
output voltage ranges from 0 to 10 V. The information on the mea­
surement instruments and the capacitance-type wave height meter can
be found in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
The details of the NI USB-6212 A/D converter (National Instruments
Corporation, Texas, U.S.) used for this experiment are shown in Table 5.
The converter was connected to the computer with a USB cable. The
electrical signals received from the wave height gauges were converted
into digital signals through the A/D converter and recorded using the
data acquisition software (Multidas 16) within the computer.
2.3. Experimental setup
The experimental setup employed in this study aimed to measure the
accurate wave characteristics within a controlled environment. A metal
frame structure was built to serve as a mounting platform for the mea­
surement instruments to ensure precise measurements. This sturdy
gauges: capacitance-type and ultrasonic-type. These gauges were used to
measure wave height simultaneously but independently of each other. In
the case of the capacitance-type wave height gauge, the wave probe was
connected to the wave height meter. The wave height meter, in turn, was
connected to an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter. This setup allowed
the analog electrical signals from the wave height meter to be converted
into a digital format for further processing. On the other hand, the
ultrasonic-type wave height gauge’s signal gets transferred straight to
the A/D converter. Both measuring tools were connected to the same A/
D converter, and the digital signals were recorded on the computer with
the data acquisition software. The data acquisition processes are
depicted visually in Fig. 8 (a) and (b).
Applying fitting procedures directly to raw data without noise
filtering could lead to various issues impacting the precision and
dependability of the fitted model. Noise within the data might introduce
overestimation in wave parameter predictions. Processing extensive raw
datasets containing noise can increase the probability of computational

4
M.Z. Sener et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

Fig. 5. Experimental facility - (a) Ship Dynamics and Control Laboratory, (b) 2D wave flume, (c) wave generator of the wave flume, (d) wave absorber of the
wave flume.

the calibration results for the measurement instruments.

Table 2
Specifications for the wave generator.
Wave Generator Specifications
Wave height range H ≤ 0.2 m
Wavelength range λ ≤ 3.0 m
Wave frequency range f ≤ 2.0 Hz
inaccuracies, including during the calibration process. Moreover, noise
interference can distort the outcomes of the fitting methodology,
creating outliers that make it challenging to discern and evaluate the
influence of measurement principles on the overall analysis. Noise
filtering can improve the accuracy of the measurements, particularly
when dealing with small wave patterns where the noise can be of
comparable magnitude to the signal of interest. Nevertheless, filtering
can distort the original signal if not properly designed or implemented. It
may inadvertently remove parts of the signal that are mistakenly iden­
tified as noise or introduce artifacts into the data not present in the
original signal. To isolate the impact of noise on the measurements,
noise filtering was applied at a very minimal level.
The results were written as equations after the wave height mea­
surements were taken. The fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm was
employed as a first step to filter noise from the signal. The sampling
To capture the highest quality waves for the study, a time interval
early in the series was selected, specifically before the reflected waves
arrived. This choice ensures that the analyzed waves represent the initial
wave generation and are less influenced by subsequent interactions. The
visual selection process is also suggested by the recommended proced­
ures and guidelines (ITTC, 2021a) of the ITTC.
The Fourier series and sum of sines model are mathematical methods
that can be used for analyzing and representing periodic data as func­
tions, such as wave elevation. The Fourier series (Bocher, 1906),
developed by Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, enables the expression of
any periodic function as a sum of sine and cosine functions with varying
frequencies and amplitudes. On the other hand, the sum of sines model,
also known as sinusoidal regression or sine curve fitting, approximates a
given dataset by utilizing a combination of sine functions with different
amplitudes, frequencies, and phases. In the present study, MATLAB
2022b was utilized to analyze the wave elevations obtained from wave
height gauges. The Fourier series and sum of sines method were
employed along with the curve fitting tool of MATLAB 2022b. Fig. 8 (c)
provides a visual representation of the process that was carried out.
The wave elevation can be written in the form of an equation with
the Fourier series as (Djatmiko, 2012)
∑
n

frequency of the sensor data is 100 Hz. The FFT provides frequency ζ(t) = ζ + An cos(ωn t) + Bn sin(ωn t) [2]
information about the signal, enabling an examination of the signal’s 1

frequency components. The power spectrum was computed, represent­

and the An and Bn constans are
ing the power distribution across different frequencies within the signal.
The maximum power spectrum value was determined from the power ∫Th
2π
spectrum, which indicates the signal’s dominant frequency component. An = ζ(t)cos(ωn t)dt [3]
Th
The noise level was approximated based on this maximum power 0
spectrum value by multiplying it by a small factor of 0.001, creating a
threshold distinguishing noise from the actual signal. Frequencies below ∫Th
2π
this threshold were treated as noise components and removed from the Bn = ζ(t)sin(ωn t)dt [4]
Th
frequency domain. The data was then returned to the time domain by 0
applying the inverse FFT to the frequency domain representation. The
digital signal is then converted to the free surface elevation values using where n is the number of harmonics, t is the time on the interval [0, Th],

5
M.Z. Sener et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

Fig. 6. The instruments used for the experiment - (a) capacitance-type wave height gauge, (b) ultrasonic-type wave height gauge, (c) A/D converter, (d) computer,
(e) data acquisition software.

Table 3 Table 5
Details for the measurement instruments. Details for the A/D converter.
Measurement Instrument Converter (NI USB-621)

Models CHT6-50E P49-160-M18-U-CM12 Number of channels 8 differential or 16 single-

Type Capacitance-type wave height Ultrasonic-type wave height ended
gauge gauge ADC resolution 16 bits
Power Supply 220VAC±10V, 50–60 Hz 15–30 Vdc DNL No missing codes
Output Voltage ±2.5 V 0–10 V guaranteed
Sensing 0–50 cm 8 cm–160 cm Sample rate:
Distance Single channel maximum 400 kS/s
Linearity error ±0.3% of full scale <0.5% Multichannel maximum (aggregate) 400 kS/s
Temp. ranges 0 ~ +40 ◦ C − 20 ~ +70 ◦ C Minimum 0 S/s
Timing resolution 50 ns
Timing accuracy 50 ppm of sample rate
Input coupling DC
Table 4 Input range ±0.2 V, ±1 V, ±5 V, ±10
Details for the capacitance-type wave height meter. V
Maximum working voltage for analogue inputs (signal ±10.4 V of AI GND
Capacitance Type Wave Height Meter (CH-701E)
+ common mode)
Channels 1 channel CMRR (DC to 60 Hz) 100 dB
Measurement mode × 1, × 2, × 4, × 10 (4-point switching)
Calibration voltage 0, 1/2, 1 (3-point switching)
Autozero error ±0.1%/F.S. ωn is natural frequency.
Voltage output ±2.5V/F.S. (Linear output up to ± 7V/F.S.) The wave elevation can also be expressed as an equation using the
Current output 4–20mA/-5V ~ +5V (Option)
Operating conditions 0–40 ◦ C, 20–80% RH (without condensation)
sum of sines model as
Power source AC 100V–240V 50 Hz & 60 Hz ∑
n
Power consumption Approx. 5VA ζ(t) = an sin(bn t + cn ) [5]
External dimensions 50W × 137H x 140D mm 1
Weight Approx. 0.5 kg

6
M.Z. Sener et al.
Fig. 7. (a) The front and (b) side views of the mounted capacitance-type and ultrasonic-type wave height gauges.
Fig. 8. The data acquisition processes for the (a) capacitance-type and (b) ultrasonic-type wave height gauges and (c) evaluation process.
where n is the number of harmonics, an is the amplitude, bn is the fre­
quency, and cn is the phase constant for each sine wave term. The for­
mula presented here bears a close relationship to the Fourier series.
However, the key distinction lies in the inclusion of a phase constant in
the sum of sines formula, while omitting the intercept term.
2.5. The GUM approach
Uncertainty analysis in measurements is a process for evaluating the
quality of a measurement result by quantifying its uncertainty. The
concept of uncertainty as a comparable and standard quantifiable
feature is essential for experimental studies. The GUM approach (BIPM
et al., 2008) provides general guidelines for evaluating and quantifying
measurement uncertainty. These standards can be used to assess accu­
racy in many different disciplines.
A measurement result is never precise; it is always subject to
7
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320
uncertainty, mainly due to the limitations of the measurement principles
and the environmental conditions. Therefore, an uncertainty analysis
requires a comprehensive understanding of the measurement system,
including the measurement procedure, the instrumentation used, and
the environmental conditions in which the physical quantity is
measured.
The first step of uncertainty analysis is to decide what is being
measured and define the model equation for measurement. Since most
measured values (weight, force, etc.) are not dependent on a single
parameter, it is essential to define a model equation with output quan­
tity and input variables. The next step is identifing the sources of un­
certainty for the input variables. The GUM approach (BIPM et al., 2008)
categorizes the components of uncertainty into two types: Type A and
Type B. The evaluation of Type A uncertainty can be carried out using
statistical techniques and is based on repeated experiments. On the other
hand, Type B uncertainty can be determined with the information
M.Z. Sener et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

accessible for the experimental system other than repeatable measure­ can be seen in Fig. 9.
ments. It is possible to calculate the standard error of repeated tests as
follows. 3. Results
The mean value of the repeated tests can be defined as
∑
n This section outlines the uncertainty analysis results and provides a
yi step-by-step breakdown of the measurements taken. The results of this
ym = i=1
[6] paper are arranged as follows: Identification of uncertainty sources for
n
wave parameters; calibration of measurement instruments; calibration
where n is the number of samples. of a wave generator; repeated tests; wave measurements; and uncer­
The standard deviation can be used to measure the dispersion of tainty analysis.
results from multiple measurements as
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
√∑
√n 3.1. Uncertainty sources
√ (yi − ym )2
√
s(y) = i=1 [7] Investigating the behavior of regular waves is a crucial aspect of
n− 1
various scientific and engineering disciplines. When conducting exper­
where (n − 1) is often called the number of degrees of freedom. iments in a controlled laboratory setting, it becomes possible to generate
The standard error of the mean is calculated from regular waves with specific characteristics. Two primary properties
defining these waves are their amplitude and frequency. Both these
s(y)
s(ym ) = √̅̅̅ [8] parameters must be accurately measured to emulate the desired wave­
n forms effectively. However, as with any experimental setup, there are
The standard error of estimates (SEE) can also be similarly calculated intrinsic sources of uncertainty that could influence the accuracy of
as these measurements, potentially leading to discrepancies between the
[ ]1/2 modeled waveforms and the actual wave behavior. It is important to
1 ∑n
identify, categorize, and understand these sources of uncertainty to
SEE = (yn − yest. )2 [9]
n(n − 1) 1 mitigate their impact and enhance the reliability of the experimental
outcomes. The categorization of uncertainty sources for the wave pa­
where n is the number of calibration samples, yn is the calibration data rameters can be seen in Table 7.
point, and yest. is the fitted value. When calculating the standard error of Uncertainties linked to it primarily arise from mechanical, electrical,
the estimates, the sample size must be equal to or higher than seven and software components involved in wave generation. Mechanical
samples. uncertainties can be related to wear and tear in moving parts, instability
The standard uncertainties for each input variable can be calculated in the operating mechanism, or inaccuracies in the drive mechanism.
as Electrical uncertainties may be due to inconsistencies in the power
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ supply, drift in electrical components, or improper calibration of the
u = uA 2 + uB,1 2 + uB,2 2 + … + uB,n 2 [10] signal generator. Software uncertainties could be brought about by
inaccuracies in control algorithms or faulty data processing procedures.
where u is the standard uncertainty, uA is the Type A uncertainty, and Instruments used for measuring wave properties add another layer of
uB,n represents the Type B uncertainty sources. The standard uncertainty uncertainty to the experiments. Type A uncertainty can be quantified
components can also be combined into the combined standard uncer­ based on repeated tests under the same conditions, resulting in a sta­
tainty. tistical measure of the scatter in the data. Therefore, the random fluc­
The combined uncertainty (uc ) considering each input variable (xn ) tuations in the wave characteristics due to these uncertainties can be
can be calculated as quantified, and their standard deviation gives the Type A uncertainty.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
[ ]2 [ ]2 [ ]2 Type B uncertainty arises from systematic errors that are less predictable
∂y ∂y ∂y and harder to quantify than Type A. For the wave generator, this could
uc = u(x1 ) + u(x2 ) + … + u(xn ) [11]
∂x1 ∂x2 ∂xn come from a long-term drift in performance due to aging or environ­
Establishing confidence in the data points within a standard devia­ mental factors. Moreover, inaccuracies in the theoretical models used to
tion range for normal distribution can be accomplished via a coverage
factor. From the combined uncertainty, expanded uncertainty can be
calculated by multiplying with a coverage factor as uexp. = uc • k (see
Table 6).
There is no perfect strategy to determine measurement uncertainty
for every discipline, and determining uncertainties can sometimes be
challenging. However, the guidelines provided by the GUM approach
may be used to determine a suitable procedure. The steps for evaluating
the quality of wave measurement results by quantifying the uncertainty

Table 6
Coverage factors for normal distribution.
Level of confidence Coverage factor, k

68.27% 1
90% 1.645
95% 1.96
95.45% 2
99% 2.576
99.73% 3
Fig. 9. Steps for the uncertainty analysis with the GUM approach.

8
M.Z. Sener et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

Table 7
Uncertainty sources for the wave parameters.
Parameter Uncertainty Type A, uA
Wave Uncertainty due to random
amplitude, errors from the measurement
a instruments
Uncertainty due to random
errors from the wave generator
Wave Uncertainty due to random
frequency, errors from the wave generator
f calibration measurements for the wave height gauges and wave gener­
Uncertainty Type B, uB
Uncertainty due to calibration
of the measurement
instruments
Uncertainty due to calibration
of the wave generator
Uncertainty due to calibration
of the wave generator
range of 0–50 mm, where the highest wave was covered. However, for
the range between 50 and 80 mm, a larger increment of 10 mm was
selected. Once the peak wave height is surpassed, it becomes more
practical to use a larger increment. This approach allows a wider range
to be covered in fewer steps, making the calibration process more
efficient.
The practice of regression analysis is a fundamental and widespread
method to establish a linear relationship between an independent and
dependent variable. Linear regression analyses were performed from
ator. The linear form of the regression equation is defined as

design the wave generator or assumptions made in these models could
also lead to Type B uncertainties. These uncertainties cannot be deter­
mined from repeated tests but must be estimated based on a scientific
understanding of the generator’s operation and performance. Similar to
the wave generator, measurement instruments can also contribute to
Type B uncertainty. These can be systematic biases in measurement, for
example, due to calibration errors that consistently offset the measure­
ments. As with the wave generator, these uncertainties can’t be deter­
mined statistically but must be evaluated based on the calibration
history. By thoroughly understanding these sources of uncertainty and
carefully calibrating and maintaining the instruments, the impacts of
these uncertainties can be minimized.
3.2. Calibration of measurement instruments
yi = β 0 + β 1 xi [12]
where yi is the dependent variable, β0 is the intercept and β1 is the slope.
The coefficient of determination (R2 = 1 − sum of squares of residuals /
total sum of squares) is provided to quantify how well the regression
model fits the data. The closer the value of R2 is to 1, the better the linear
regression is, and the more accurately the model values match the
observed values. The graphs used for calibrating the measurement in­
struments are shown in Fig. 11 (a) and (b), respectively.
The calibration samples provided by the manufacturer of the
ultrasonic-type wave height gauge (Fig. 11 (c)) are also used in the
process of comparing the results of measurements. The difference be­
tween the slopes from the calibration measurement and the data-sheet is
− 0.302997%. The slope values on the two calibration curves are
reasonably compatible.

The precision and reliability of experiments significantly depend on

the accuracy of the measurements derived from calibrated instruments.
Therefore, it is essential to calibrate the measuring devices before their
usage. Measurements needed for the calibration and repeated testing of
the instruments were done in a separate tank in a more controlled
environment. In this setup, both the capacitance-type and ultrasonic-
type wave height gauges were mounted to the vertically adjustable
plate of the metal frame, which was securely clamped to the top of the
tank. This configuration allowed for adjustable positioning and align­
ment perpendicular to the free surface of the gauges based on their
respective distances. The experimental setup used for these measure­
ments is presented in Fig. 10.
The calibration procedure involved a comprehensive set of mea­
surements conducted at 27 distinct sample distances in relation to the
calm free surface. These distances were carefully selected to cover a
range that extends slightly below the minimum amplitude and exceeds
the maximum wave profile.
The determination of the calibration range and increment size for
calibration measurements should be based on careful consideration of
the wave profiles. It is important to choose an increment size that is
sufficiently small to capture all amplitudes within the range and avoid
any oversights. In this study, an increment of 5 mm was used within the
3.3. Calibration of the wave generator
The generation of water waves with required frequencies and am­
plitudes can be achieved through a mechanical wave generator in a
controlled environment. The form of these waves depends mainly on the
precision of the wave generator. In this study, the paddle’s motion
within the wave flume generated the waves on the water’s surface. The
parameters of these waves were controlled by a computer through a
software interface, which directly influences the paddle’s movements.
The relationship between the input values and the resulting wave
characteristics (height and frequency) is calibrated via linear regression
analyses. This approach was chosen to address discrepancies between
the theoretical transfer function and the actual behavior of the wave
generator. Theoretically, a set input should correspond to a predictable
output, but in practice, there can be inconsistencies. The aim of the
calibration was to address these inconsistencies by determining the most
accurate input values for the wave generator. The most accurate stroke
values for the wave flume were directly obtained based on the actual,
observed wave characteristics. A set of nine distinct wave examples was
generated by applying three different amplitude values across three
wave frequencies. Experimental conditions for the target waves can be

Fig. 10. Images taken from two perspectives that show the calibration setup for the measurement instruments - (a) the first perspective and (b) the second
perspective.

9
M.Z. Sener et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

Fig. 11. Calibration measurements of the (a) capacitance-type wave height gauge and (b) the ultrasonic-type wave height gauge, along with (c) calibration samples
from the manufacturer for the ultrasonic-type wave height gauge.

Fig. 12. Calibration measurements for the wave generator using the capacitance-type wave height gauge - (a) and (b): f = 1.14 Hz, (c) and (d): f = 0.93 Hz, (e) and
(f): f = 0.81 Hz.

10
M.Z. Sener et al.
seen in Table 1.
Calibration measurements were performed at different amplitude
ranges depending on the frequency values. An increment value of 5 mm,
which is smaller than the lowest amplitude, was employed within a
range that encompasses the highest wave height for each frequency. The
amplitude and frequency values of the measured wave profiles were
assumed to be constant and were determined with the sum of sines
model and Fourier series for each wave measurement. The relevant
calibration equations for each frequency are derived independently
using regression analysis, as shown in Figs. 12 and 13.
The slope coefficients for frequency values are close to zero (β1 ≅ 0).
This means that the values of the input frequencies can be used without
further calibration based on other measurements. However, new input
amplitudes were calculated using the calibration equations for both
measurement equipment since they do not represent the target ampli­
tude values. The calculated input amplitudes for the capacitance-type
and ultrasonic-type wave height gauges are shown in Tables 8 and 9,
respectively.
3.4. Repeated tests
Random uncertainty refers to the variability and unpredictability
inherent in measurements. It arises from various sources, including
environmental conditions, instrument limitations, and human factors.
The impacts of random uncertainty can be mitigated to some degree
with repeated tests. Repeated tests are very effective in obtaining the
Fig. 13. Calibration measurements for the wave generator using the ultrasonic-type wave height gauge - (a) and (b): f = 1.14 Hz, (c) and (d): f = 0.93 Hz, (e) and (f):
f = 0.81 Hz.
11
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320
standard error that results from random influences. Many researchers
conduct repeated tests to evaluate the effects of random uncertainty for
measurements.
To quantify the effects of random uncertainty, ten repeated tests
were conducted for both instruments. The standard error of the mean is
inversely proportional to the square root of the sample size. This rela­
tionship implies that as the sample size increases, the standard error of
the mean decreases. Expanding the number of repeated tests can obtain
a more precise average measurement, thus minimizing random uncer­
tainty. A fixed displacement distance was maintained throughout the
repeated tests, and the measurements were performed simultaneously.
The relevant signals representing the measured distance were deter­
mined by averaging 5-s signal readings. Fig. 14 displays the repeated
tests for capacitance and ultrasonic wave height gauges.
The impact of random uncertainty on the wave generator was
assessed through ten repeated tests, where a constant wave frequency
and amplitude were maintained. The sampled data were analyzed using
fitting equations with the sum of sines model and Fourier series to
determine the corresponding wave heights. Fig. 15 shows the repeated
tests for the wave generator.
3.5. Wave measurements
The raw, filtered, and fitted values are presented between selected
intervals for only a single amplitude value of each measured frequency,
as seen in Figs. 16 and 17. Noise within the digital signal was filtered at
M.Z. Sener et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

Table 8
Wave measurements using the capacitance-type wave height gauge.
ID - Wave Amp. Wave Length Wave Freq. Wave Steep. Input Amp. (SSM) Input Amp. (FS) Meas. Amp. (SSM) Meas. Amp. (FS)
[mm] [mm] [Hz] - [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]

1 12 1200 1.14 1/50 13.2 13.2 12.1 12.2

2 8 1200 1/75 8.6 8.6 7.7 7.8
3 6 1200 1/100 6.3 6.3 5.6 5.7
4 18 1800 0.93 1/50 20.2 20.1 18.2 18.2
5 12 1800 1/75 13.5 13.4 11.9 12.0
6 9 1800 1/100 10.1 10.1 8.9 8.9
7 24 2400 0.81 1/50 28.4 28.4 24.4 24.4
8 16 2400 1/75 18.9 18.9 16.3 16.2
9 12 2400 1/100 14.1 14.1 11.9 11.9

Table 9
Wave measurements using the ultrasonic-type wave height gauge.
ID - Wave Amp. Wave Length Wave Freq. Wave Steep. Input Amp. (SSM) Input Amp. (FS) Meas. Amp. (SSM) Meas. Amp. (FS)
[mm] [mm] [Hz] - [mm] [mm] [mm] [mm]

1 12 1200 1.14 1/50 14.8 14.8 12.2 12.2

2 8 1200 1/75 10.2 10.2 7.9 7.9
3 6 1200 1/100 7.9 7.9 6.0 6.0
4 18 1800 0.93 1/50 21.9 21.9 18.1 18.1
5 12 1800 1/75 14.9 14.9 12.2 12.2
6 9 1800 1/100 11.3 11.4 9.2 9.2
7 24 2400 0.81 1/50 30.1 30.2 24.0 24.0
8 16 2400 1/75 20.3 20.4 16.3 16.3
9 12 2400 1/100 15.4 15.5 12.2 12.2

Fig. 14. Repeated tests for the (a) capacitance-type wave height gauge and (b) ultrasonic-type wave height gauge.

the selected intervals and converted into a representation of free surface
elevation using the calibration results of the measuring instruments.
Because the measurement location remains unchanging, the time in­
tervals vary depending on the frequency values. It is important to note
that noise filtering should be approached cautiously, as excessive
filtering may distort the original signal. Therefore, minimal-level noise
filtering was applied to ensure the preservation of the original data
while mitigating noise-related inaccuracies.
The calculated input amplitudes obtained for the wave generator
served as a basis for conducting individual wave measurements for each
instrument. The Fourier series (FS) and the sum of sines model (SSM)
were utilized similarly to estimate the frequencies and amplitudes of the
new measurements. The measurements obtained from both gauges are
presented separately in Tables 8 and 9. By employing the Fourier series
and sum of sines model, we gain a deeper understanding of the wave
data and accurately analyze its periodic nature. The separation of the
results for each measurement instrument enables detailed analysis and
comparison, facilitating insights into the performance and characteris­
tics of each gauge.
3.6. Uncertainty analysis
Uncertainty analysis for measurements provides a quantitative esti­
mate of a range where the true value lies with a confidence level.
Measurement results would be reliable only when it is accompanied by
uncertainty with an associated confidence level. In this study, the un­
certainties in the measurements are analyzed with the GUM approach.
The GUM methodology categorizes uncertainty components as Type A
and Type B.
Type A uncertainty components are estimates that can be quantified
based on the standard error of the mean for repeated tests. Table 10
presents the standard error results derived from the repeated tests of the
measuring instruments and the wave generator. The value of the stan­
dard error of the mean reflects the precision of the mean estimate based
on the standard deviation and sample size.
Type B uncertainty components are estimates of uncertainty deter­
mined from scientific judgments and all available information other
than Type A evaluation. Type B uncertainty can be derived from many
sources, including data from prior measurements, manufacturer’s
specifications, calibration measurements, etc. The categorization of
uncertainty sources in Table 7 efficiently quantifies the measure wave
parameters. The standard error of the estimates was calculated to
quantify the uncertainty resulting from the calibration of the measuring
instruments and the wave generator with equation (9), as seen in
Table 11.
The standard uncertainties are the ranges of estimated values ex­
pected to cover a measured parameter’s true value. The standard un­
certainties for each measurement instrument can be defined as

12
M.Z. Sener et al.
Fig. 15. Repeated tests for the wave generator at f = 0.93 Hz - (a) and (b): capacitance-type wave-type wave height gauge, (c) and (d): ultrasonic-type wave
height gauge.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
uprobe = u2probe,rep. + u2probe,calib.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
usensor = u2sensor,rep. + u2sensor,calib.
The standard uncertainties for the measurement instruments are uprobe =
0.098486 mm and usensor = 0.323218 mm. In a similar manner, the
standard uncertainties for the wave parameters can be estimated as
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2
uprobe (a) = u aprobe,rep. + u aprobe,calib. + u2probe
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2
usensor (a) = u asensor,rep. + u asensor,calib. + u2sensor
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2
uprobe (ω) = u ωprobe,rep. + u ωprobe,calib.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( )2 ( )2
usensor (ω) = u ωsensor,rep. + u ωsensor,calib.
Calculations of the standard uncertainties in the wave amplitude are
carried out independently for each frequency. The standard and
expanded uncertainties for the wave parameters can be seen in Table 12.
The coverage factor can establish confidence in the data points
within a standard deviation range for normal distribution. Selecting a
number for the coverage factor k depends on the desired confidence
level. In most cases, k = 2 (Fig. 1 (b)) is the preferred choice to achieve a
confidence level above 95%.
4. Discussion
There are multiple factors that contribute to the discrepancies in
wave measurements, and they can be broadly grouped into three cate­
gories: wave inherent factors, environmental factors, and principle-
instrumentation-related factors. Inherent factors are the innate charac­
teristics of waves that can cause measurement discrepancies. It is ad­
vantageous to use regular wave profiles to minimize uncertainties due to
the random nature of the waves. The generation of waves in a controlled
laboratory environment also minimizes environmental factors.
Principle-instrumentation-related factors refer to the disparities arising
from differences in the principles and instrumentation used to measure
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320
waves. Relying solely on the capabilities of a single measurement in­
[13]
strument may lead to different conclusions regarding the reliability of
the underlying principles. Although guidelines such as the laboratory
[14] modelling of waves guidelines issued by the ITTC (2021) provide valu­
able recommendations for wave measurement practices, they do not
address discrepancies in the measuring principles.
The regular wave model assumes the formation of sinusoidal oscil­
lations that have a fixed amplitude, wavelength, and frequency. How­
ever, there is always some degree of variance in the physical modelling
[15] of regular waves. In laboratory environments, the primary parameters of
interest for modelling regular water waves are amplitude and frequency.
In this study, we analyzed the uncertainty in regular wave modelling
[16]
using two instruments based on different measurement principles. To
generate the regular waves for measurements, a wave paddle was used
[17] to generate surface waves in the wave flume.
Experimental wave modelling involves obtaining data on the phys­
ical properties of the waves, such as their amplitude and frequency.
[18] Instruments like wave gauges can be used to determine the physical
properties of the modeled waves, but measurement principles have an
effect on the results. The scaling with measurement principle reveals
that wave height gauges have different effects at different scales. As a
result, it is not possible to generalize quantities solely based on different
measurement principles. To address this issue and reduce uncertainty,
employing multiple types of wave height gauges when measuring
physical wave models is necessary.
The wave generator and measurement instruments are the primary
sources of uncertainty for the measurements of wave parameters. Cali­
bration testing is a practical approach for assessing the uncertainty
associated with the measurement system and wave generator. These
uncertainties can be quantified by determining the standard error of the
estimates from the linear regression analysis of calibration data. On the
other hand, to quantify the uncertainty caused by random effects, it is
necessary to carry out repeated tests while maintaining the same input
parameters. It can be quantified based on the standard error of the mean
from the repeated tests.
Calibration and repeated testing of the wave height gauges are per­
formed in a separate tank with a more controlled environment since the
primary value measured is only the relative distance from the free sur­
face. These measurements are taken simultaneously for both measuring
13
M.Z. Sener et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

Fig. 16. The wave measurement results taken with the capacitance-type wave height gauge - (a) and (b): f = 1.14 Hz, (c) and (d): f = 0.93 Hz, (e) and (f): f = 0.81 Hz.

instruments. The standard error estimates of the ultrasonic-type wave
height gauge (uprobe,calib. = 0.098479 mm) were much higher than the
capacitance-type wave height gauge (usensor,calib. = 0.314904 mm).
Similarly, the ultrasonic-type wave height gauge
(usensor,rep. = 0.072838 mm) was shown to have a more significant inac­
curacy than the capacitance-type wave height gauge
(uprobe,rep. = 0.001144 mm) according to the standard error of the mean
estimated from the ten repeated tests. Comparing the results shows that
the Type B uncertainty of the measuring devices is more significant than
Type A.
The calibration measurements for the wave generator were con­
ducted separately for each wave frequency. These measurements were
carried out at a consistent frequency while progressively increasing the
amplitudes. However, it was observed that the input amplitude values of
the wave generator were inconsistent with the measurement in­
struments. Since the wave generator’s input amplitude values were
inconsistent with the measurement instruments, new input values were
determined using linear regression analyses from the calibration
measurements. Individual wave measurements were performed for each
instrument with the new input amplitudes. The slope coefficients for the
wave frequencies in the resulting calibration equations were very small
(β1 ≅ 0), and the input frequencies did not necessitate further calibra­
tion. The effect of random uncertainty on wave frequency is also rela­
tively small. In this particular wave measurement experiment, the
capacitance-type wave height gauge has lower uncertainty values than
the ultrasonic-type for both wave parameters, as seen in Table 12.
The capacitance-type wave height gauge has a higher signal-to-noise
ratio than the ultrasonic-type. This higher ratio can primarily be
attributed to the measurement principles employed by the capacitance-
type gauge. The capacitance-type wave height gauge operates based on
principles similar to a capacitor. The capacitance-type wave height
gauge operates based on principles similar to a capacitor, where the
capacitance varies in direct proportion to the submerged portion of the
wire acting as a conductor. The direct contact between the capacitance-
type probe and the free surface of the water results in a higher signal-to-
noise ratio than an ultrasonic-type wave height gauge, which uses sound

14
M.Z. Sener et al. Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320

Fig. 17. The wave measurement results taken with the ultrasonic-type wave height gauge - (a) and (b): f = 1.14 Hz, (c) and (d): f = 0.93 Hz, (e) and (f): f = 0.81 Hz.

Table 10 Table 11
Evaluation of the standard error from the repeated tests. Evaluation of the standard error of the estimates from the calibration
Uncertainty Mean of the rep. Standard Standard error of
measurements.
component meas. deviation the mean Uncertainty The standard error of the estimates
component
uprobe,rep. 39.686232 mm 0.003616 mm 0.001144 mm
usensor,rep. 41.309477 mm 0.230333 mm 0.072838 mm uprobe,calib. 0.098479 mm
u(aprobe,rep. ) 11.965870 mm 0.066636 mm 0.021072 mm usensor,calib. 0.314904 mm
u(asensor,rep. ) 12.352050 mm 0.078663 mm 0.024875 mm u(aprobe,calib. ) 0.169180 mm (f = 0.087069 mm (f = 0.108930 mm (f =
u(ωprobe,rep. ) 0.929978 Hz 0.000359 Hz 0.000114 Hz 1.14 Hz) 0.93 Hz) 0.81 Hz)
u(ωsensor,rep. ) 0.929889 Hz 0.000294 Hz 0.000093 Hz u(asensor,calib. ) 0.091402 mm (f = 0.186736 mm (f = 0.482919 mm (f =
1.14 Hz) 0.93 Hz) 0.81 Hz)
u(ωprobe,calib. ) 0.000154 Hz
waves to measure the distance to the surface of the water. The reason is u(ωsensor,calib. ) 0.000241 Hz
that ultrasonic-type wave height gauges can be more susceptible to
ambient noise and various forms of interference, thereby reducing their
overall signal quality compared to capacitance-type gauges. The
capacitance-type wave height gauges may be a more accurate and robust

15
M.Z. Sener et al.
Table 12
The standard and expanded uncertainties for the wave parameters.
Standard Uncertainty
uprobe (a) 0.196889 mm (f = 0.133133 mm (f = 0.148354 mm (f =
1.14 Hz) 0.93 Hz) 0.81 Hz)
uprobe (ω) 0.000192 Hz
usensor (a) 0.336813 mm (f = 0.374111 mm (f = 0.341986 mm (f =
1.14 Hz) 0.93 Hz) 0.81 Hz)
usensor (ω) 0.000258 Hz
option in laboratory conditions for regular waves. This is supported by
the lower root mean square error values obtained from the filtered data.
Nevertheless, it is crucial to consider that selecting a wave height gauge
depends on the specific phenomenon under investigation. It is worth
highlighting the advantages of non-contact measurement techniques,
which eliminate potential interference.
Irregular waves present a distinct set of challenges compared to
regular waves. These waves are characterized by variability in their
amplitude, frequency, and phase. This unpredictability makes modelling
and measurement quite challenging, as the characteristics of the waves
cannot be defined by a single set of parameters, unlike regular waves.
Given the inherent variability and randomness in irregular wave pat­
terns, measurement techniques have to account for this unpredictability.
As such, measurement uncertainty tends to be higher for irregular waves
than regular waves.
Non-linearity in wave models is a situation that arises, especially
with the increase in wave steepness. Nonlinearities would add
complexity to wave behavior and require a more complex model for
accurate representation. These nonlinear effects often lead to wave
asymmetry, the creation of harmonic components, and wave breaking.
In this study, it has been observed that these nonlinearities are negligible
with the use of low wave steepness and that the wave forms are fully
captured by the models. It is also worth noting that different measure­
ment principles may interpret these effects in varying ways, which might
lead to uncertain results. Therefore, in future works, it would be highly
relevant to investigate these non-linear effects in coordination with a
high-speed camera, particularly in the context of how different mea­
surement principles may capture these effects and the resultant
uncertainties.
5. Conclusion
The primary objective of this study is to assess and compare the
uncertainty associated with different measurement methods by utilizing
capacitance-type and ultrasonic-type wave height gauges with regular
wave measurements. In a controlled laboratory environment, a wave
generator was used to produce nine regular waveforms within a 2D wave
flume. Both ultrasonic-type and capacitance-type wave height gauges
are employed to capture the relative changes in surface elevation. The
uncertainties in the measurements were quantified using the GUM
approach. Separate wave measurements were conducted for both mea­
surement instruments due to different input requirements for the wave
generator. This difference reflects that uncertainties in measurements
taken with different instruments during an experiment might lead to
different conclusions. Employing multiple types of measuring principles
for wave measurements is suggested since the results will likely differ
depending on the measuring devices used.
The sum of sines model and the Fourier series yield similar amplitude
and frequency estimates for regular waves. In this particular experiment,
the capacitance-type wave height gauge has lower uncertainty values
than the ultrasonic-type. The disparity in uncertainty is primarily due to
the differences in measuring principles, sensing distance, output range,
and sensitivity of the two measurement instruments. Although regular
waves were selected in this study to allow for comparison and as a
baseline, it would be beneficial to build a complete guide with various
16
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320
Expanded Standard Uncertainty
0.393778 mm (f = 0.266266 mm (f = 0.296708 mm (f =
1.14 Hz) 0.93 Hz) 0.81 Hz)
0.000384 Hz
0.673626 mm (f = 0.748222 mm (f = 0.683972 mm (f =
1.14 Hz) 0.93 Hz) 0.81 Hz)
0.000516 Hz
wave spectrums using non-contact and contact approaches and analyze
the uncertainty for irregular wave measurements in future studies.
This study highlights that, under laboratory conditions, capacitance-
type wave height gauges prove to be a more precise and dependable
option for measuring the height of regular waves. However, it is
essential to keep in mind that the phenomenon in concern might
necessitate a different wave height gauge, and interpreting the event of
interest based on multiple principles would improve the reliability of the
measurements.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mehmet Zeki Sener: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Vali­
dation. Hyeon Kyu Yoon: Conceptualization, Methodology. Thi Thanh
Diep Nguyen: Software, Data curation. Jongyeol Park: Writing – re­
view & editing, Supervision. Ercan Kose: Conceptualization, Formal
analysis.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey
(TUBITAK) for the 2214-A International Doctoral Research Fellowship
Programme for the first author, the Ship Dynamics and Control Labo­
ratory of Changwon National University, and Karadeniz Technical
University are all acknowledged for their support to make this work
possible. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation
of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIT) (NRF-
2022R1A2C1093055).
References
BIPM, IEC, IFCC, ILAC, ISO, IUPAC, IUPAP, OIML, 2008. Evaluation of measurement
data - guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. In: Joint Committee
for Guides in Metrology. JCGM 100, p. 2008. URL. https://www.bipm.org/doc
uments/20126/2071204/JCGM_100_2008_E.pdf/cb0ef43f-baa5-11cf-3f85-4dcd
86f77bd6.
Blacka, M., Nilsen, A., Colleter, G., 2011. An Overview of the Use of Physical Models to
Assess Wave Loading on Marine Structures.
Bocher, M., 1906. Introduction to the theory of fourier’s series. C.F.p.d.A. Ann. Math. 7
(3), 81–152.
Coelho, G.E., Ribeiro, Á., Neves, M.G., Pascoal, A., 2021. A numerical study of
measurement uncertainties for wave gauges. Measurement: Sensors 18.
Djatmiko, E.B., 2012. Prilaku Dan Operabilitas Bangunan Laut di Atas Gelombang Acak.
ITS Press Surabaya.
Hughes, S.A., 1993. Physical Models and Laboratory Techniques in Coastal Engineering.
World Scientific.
ITTC, 2014. Guide to the expression of uncertainty in experimental hydrodynamics.
Recommended Proced. Guide. 7, 5, 01-01.
ITTC, 2021a. Analysis Procedure for Model Tests in Regular Waves, p. 7, 5-02-07-032.
ITTC, 2021b. Laboratory modelling of waves. Recommended Proced. Guide. 7, 5, 02-07.
M.Z. Sener et al.
Judge, F.M., Lyden, E., O’Shea, M., Flannery, B., Murphy, J., 2021. Uncertainty in wave
basin testing of a fixed oscillating water column wave energy converter. ASCE-ASME
J. Risk Uncertain. Eng. Syst. Part B Mech. Eng. 7 (4).
Kimmoun, O., Ratouis, A., Brosset, L., 2010. Sloshing and scaling: experimental study in
a wave canal at two different scales. Proc. Int. Offshore Polar Eng. Conf. 3, 33–43.
Komen, G.J., Cavaleri, L., Donelan, M., Hasselmann, K., Hasselmann, S., Janssen, P.A.E.
M., 1994. Dynamics and Modelling of Ocean Waves. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
17
Ocean Engineering 285 (2023) 115320
McCombes, T., Johnstone, C.M., Holmes, B., Myers, L.E., Bahaj, A.S., Kofoed, J.P., 2010.
Best Practice for Tank Testing of Small Marine Energy. EquiMar Project, pp. 1–48.
Nam, H.-S., Park, D.-M., Cho, S.K., Hong, S.Y., 2022. Analysis of relative wave elevation
around semi-submersible platform through model test: focusing on comparison of
wave probe characteristics. J. Ocean Eng. Technol. 36 (1), 1–10.
Orphin, J., Nader, J.-R., Penesis, I., 2022. Size matters: scale effects of an OWC wave
energy converter. Renew. Energy 185, 111–122.
Stewart, R.H., 2008. Introduction to Physical Oceanography. Robert H. Stewart.