THE EFFECT OF SOUND VELOCITY ERRORS ON

MULTI-BEAM SONAR DEPTH ACCURACY

Donald F. Dinn Bosko D. Loncarevic Gerard Costello

Engineering and Technical Services Geoscience Atlantic Canadian Hydrographic Servik
Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans Dept. of Natural Resources Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans

Bedford Institute of Oceanography, P.O.Box 1006, Dartmouth, N.S., Canada, B3A 3V3

-
Abstract A number of hydrographic organizations
and commercial operators are using multi-beam sonar
systems for mapping shallow and deep water areas.
With transducer motion and refraction playing an
important role in measurement accuracy, errors in ship
motion data and sound velocity profile information are
major contributors to inaccuracies in the measured
depth. The effect of errors in sound velocity is
examined is shown to be different for flat-level
transducers and for tilted transducers or those with
sector steering. On survey vessels where roll is
significant, the roll can modulate the depth errors
contributed by sound velocity uncertainty. These errors
are discussed in relation to the IHO standards for
surveys, and methods of error control are suggested.
1. INTRODUCTION
the position of the ship, or more precisely, the
position of some point on the ship, e.g., the GPS
antenna;
the pitch, roll and heading angles of the ship
relative to the above position;
the vertical position of the transducer with respect
to the average water level, i.e., the ship's draft and
heave at the transducer, (increasingly, with precise,
high-rate GPS position fixing in three dimensions,
the earth ellipsoid is becoming the reference
surface for vertical control);
the changes in water level due to tides and
atmospheric effects;
the profile of sound velocity vs. depth, a basic
determinant of the path of the acoustic ray;
the vector distance (x, y, z ) in the ship frame of
reference between the transducer and the
positioning sensor (the GPS antenna).

Multi-beam sonars measure the two-way travel time of
a short acoustic pulse or tone burst as it travels from
the transducer to a point (or area) on the sea floor and
back along a path whose geometry is dependent on a
number of factors. Typically, some 60 separate paths
spanning 150 are "sounded" across the ship's track on
O Much work has been sponsored in recent years by the
each acoustic ping. With the improvements in acoustic
transducer design and digital signal processing in
recent years, multi-beam echo sounders have become
cost effective tools and are being increasingly
employed in ocean mapping, route surveys and
channel surveys. In addition, the calibrated target-
strength information available from some multi-beam
sonars makes them valuable in surficial geology
mapping and bottom classification.
In the common case where the transducer is not
mechanically leveled, +e travel-time measurement is
made in the frame of reference of the ship on which
the transducer is mounted. A number of parameters,
many of which are measured at the time of the ping,
are required to transform the measured slant-range
travel times into accurate geo-referenced depths (x, y,
z; latitude, longitude, depth). These parameters
include:
By virtue of their error propagation characteristics, roll
angle, sound velocity profile (SVP), and vertical
control are the more significant parameters affecting
depth accuracy.
Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) and others
(Cervenka et al, Dinn and Loncarevic, Dodds, Hughes
Clarke and Godin, Lachapelle and Loncarevic,
Loncarevic (1993), and Luscombe) to understand the
measurement errors in the above parameters and their
effect on the accuracy of the final geo-referenced
depths. In particular it has been shown (Loncarevic
and Scherzinger) that in a realistic error budget for the
EM1000 multi-beam sonar (manufactured by Simrad
AS, Horten, Norway), the rms uncertainty in roll angle
p should not exceed 0.0Y if the uncertainty in depths
measured by the outer beams (ray angle B of f75 ") is
to be within &I%, 90% of the time. (The percentage
error in depth due to roll uncertainty is given by Ad =
ApTan(B), where angles are in radians). The
International Hydrographic Organization (IHO)
specifies a 1% error limit for chart depths greater than
30m and a 0.3m error limit for depths of 30m or less,
with a 90% confidence limit.

1001

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Extensive testing and recent survey work carried out
by CHS and the University of New Brunswick on
Stellwagen Bank off Massachusetts using the survey
ship Frederick G. Creed has demonstrated that a new
GPS-aided inertial sensor, POS-MV (manufactured by
Applied Analytics Corporation: Markham, Ontario,
Canada) now in use by CHS on the Creed, achieves
the required accuracy in roll regardless of the extent or
severity of ship motion or maneuvers.
With the roll error under Control, CHS has turned its
attention to the two remaining, significant sources of
error: refraction and vertical control. This paper
examines refraction effects.
2. REFRACTION-INDUCED ERRORS
Refraction-induced errors in measured depths show up
in digital terrain models of the sea floor as ridges or as
furrows at extreme beam angles (typically where the
edges of adjacent swaths abut or overlap). Ridges or
furrows occur depending on whether the actual
refraction effect is greater or less than that determined
by the measured SVP. However, as will be shown, the
instantaneous roll angle modulates the refraction effect
in a way that is determined by thc type of transducer
used.
Given the launch angIe of an acoustic ray, the path of
each ray is determined by the physics of refraction
(Snell's Law) and the SVP. Thus, there are two
aspects to the refraction problem:
0 the error in the launch angle of the acoustic beam
due to poor knowledge of the sound velocity at the
transducer €ace, and
the ray path deviation from the calculated path due
to errors in the SVP.
Instrumental errors of sound velocity profilers
(typically i O . 3 d s ) can be i n s i w c a n t in comparison
to the eflects of under-sampling the sound velocity in
areas where it is subject to moderate temporal and
spatial variability. This is particularly true in the
surface layer where solar heating, tidal mixing and
salinity changes (from fresh water input) can be
significant.
Hydrographers face competing demands when
carrying out a multi-beam survey. On one hand, they
must make cffective use of cxpensive ship time to
gather sounding data. On the other, they must ensure
the data quality is within standards; this may mean
reducing area coverage ratcs in order to allocate more
1002
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
time for the taking OF SVPs. Under-sampling the
sound velocity in the survey arca - either spatially or
temporally - can result in dcpth data of poor quality
To avoid slowing the smooth progress of the survcy, it
may be necessary to use equipment capable of
profiling while underway. CHS is currently
examining the merits of this approach..
Manufacturers of multi-beam sonars do not fully
present, in a quantitative way, the implications of
spatially under-sampling the sound velocity. The
work described here attempts to present the effects of
these errors in a way that helps the hydrographer make
rational decisions about the need to take a new SVP.
2.1 Pointing-Angle Errors
By using a simplified W o r m e r of two elements for
analysis (Fig. l), the launch or pointing angle U of a
beam can be determined using basic physics. The two-
element approach simplifies the analysis and has the same
pointing angle and sensitivity to sound velocity as a multi-
element transducer; only the beam width and directivity
gain are diEerent. M e r a ray is launched from the
transducer, its path is controlled by the SVP <and Sncll's
constant k; k = Sn(B)/c and c is the speed of sound.
The beam pointing angle 0 from vertical, or a From
the central axis of the transducer, is a function of the
actual sound velocity coo and the measured or
estimated sound velocity cmo at the face of the
transducer (in the area AOB in Fig. 1). During a
w e y , values of cm0 are determined by direct
measurement ,using a "sing-around" sensor, or are
I -
estimated from oceanographic conditions primarily
Fig. 1. A simplified two-clement beamformer in which 0
is the pointing angle, pis the roll angle, j3 is the mounting
or sector angle and a is the angle from the central axis of the
transducer sector to the steered beam; a = 0- p p . -
 temperature t and salinity s. A number of empirical
relationships exist for c as a function of t, s and
pressure, p or depth d (Burdic, 1984). These
relationships show typical sound velocity sensitivities
of 4.6m/sl0C, 1.3ddppt of salinity and 0.016ddm of
depth. Using the value cfflo, the beamformer
determines the phase delay # required for each
element in the array in order to steer the beam at the
desired angle (Fig. 1). Clearly, changes in surface
temperature and salinity can have a critical bearing on
phase controlled beamforming.
Design values of phase shift 4 d for each element,
calculated for a given sound velocity cmonear the face
of the transducer, are normally stored in the
beamformer processor as Delay A and Delay B. Once
calculated, these values are constant until a new sound
velocity is input. In Fig. 1, the acoustic ray arriving at
element A of the transducer experiences an actual
phase lag 4a relative to rays arriving at element B.
This phase lag is the acoustic travel time through the
water over the distance OA. At the design pointing
angle under conditions of accurately known sound
-
velocity, #d qja will be zero for every element in an
array. This is equivalent to creating a virtual broad
side array aimed at angle B. Note that while +!+ isi
fixed by the value of cffloinput to the processor, is
determined by the true sound velocity in the water near
the transducer, i.e., in the area O m . If c,, differs
from cm0 there will be errors in the beam pointing
angle, because @d will not equal 45,. This leads to:
'In 0
where
a = S-p-p, (2)
p is the roll angle, ,8 is the mounting angle of the array
measured to the central axis of the transducer or to the
center of the active sector of a circular transducer, d is
the inter-element spacing, and j is the acoustic
acoustic carrier frequency. Angles are defined such
that down is 0' and a horizontal line toward starboard
is +90°. For the lowest side-lobe ratio and the
maximum angular ambiguity resolution in the formed
beam, the value of d is usually selected as one-half the
acoustic wavelength, i.e., U2 (Burdic, 1984).
Using a value of 4 (bC)calculated from Eqn. 1, and
the actual value of c (ca0) in the water, yields'an
expression for the actual launch angle 0, from Eqns. 1
and 2.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
By substituting the expression for Eqn. 1 into Eqn. 3, the
actual beam steering angle can be shown to be:
where 0, is the value of &?om Eqn. 3 when ,c is used
in place of C,O. Note that when p = p= 0, that is, when 0
= a,Eqn. 4 is fundamentally Snell's law for reftaction
(see Eqn. 7). This is not true when p + P;c 0, i.e., when
the transducer is rotated mechanically or electronically.
Thus, when B = a, the pointing angle error has the same
magnitude and sign as the refraction angle that would
result if the ray travelled through a boundary from water
with sound velocity,c into water of velocity c,. It's as if
the desired or calculated pointing angle @d is established
in a fictitious water layer with sound velocity ,c after
which the ray passes into the actual water and takes up an
angle 0,. Eqn. (4) has some intuitive aspects: neglecting
roll, if the mounting angle is the same as the beam
pointing angle, q4 will be zero; i.e., no phase-controlled
beam-steering is needed. Equally, for an installed-level
transducer9if the roll angle equals the desired pointing
angle, #willagain be zero.
The sensitivity of the beam pointing angle to
variations in the speed of sound near the transducer
face can be found by differentiating a rearranged Eqn.
3 with a = B - p - flusing the standard form for Sin-'
followed by some manipulation. To wit:
Therefore, as p and p can be considered fixed,
A B = -Tan(B
''a 0 - p - p> (6)
'a 0
where Acu0 represents the uncertainty in c , ~ .Eqn. 6
indicates that the beam pointing angle error AB
(radians) is a function of both the error in sound
velocity dcaonear the transducer, and the amount of
phase-controlled beam steering needed. For the case
of a flat, level transducer, a pointing angle error of
0.014' occurs when AC,O = I d s and the desired
launch angle is 75'.
The Simrad EM1000 transducer uses a semi-circular
array of elements spaced 1.25"; a 40" sector
containing 31 contiguous elements is selected in
synchronism with the roll angle such that the central
1003
 Table 1. Pointing Angle Errors for Various Multi- The Elac BCC system is similar to the two transducer
beam Sonars at Zero Roll Angle and option for the EM3000 except that the two arrays are
lmls Error in Sound Velocity normally installed at +30° and -30".

System Transducer
1
I
Mounting,
Sector
Angle, p
1
I
Pointing
Errorfor
=Ids
Table 1 displays the pointing angle error of a number
of multi-beam sonar systems for a I d s sound velocity
error. The results in the table cannot be considered alone,
however, as the pointing angle error is only one part of
Simrad the refracton problem - it is tightly linked to the
EMlOOO refraction effect at the point the ray leaves the area AOB
in Fig. 1.

2.2 Ray-Path Errors

Simrad Flat, level 0" 0.06" for
EM3000 16,= 60"
At each layer 0 to n (where 0 represents the transducer) in
0.143" for a horizontaly-stratified ocean in which the SW is known
14 = 75" with adequate detail, the ray angle 8 through the water
Simrad
EM3000 tilted 45" 1 45" 1 0.02" for
14=750
can be determined using Snell's Law (k is Snell's
constant):

Reson Circular, 0" 0.00" for

Sea Bat Sector- all angles
Steered
ELAC Flat, dual 30" 0.02O for
BCC tilted 30" (e( = 60"
0.038" for
161= 75"
axis of the sector is within 0.62" of the desired
pointing angle. In this way, a minimum amount -
only i0.62"- of phase-controlled beam-forming is
needed to create a stabilizedbeam up to angles of 60 O -
p (where p is the roll angle), at which point the
transducer runs out of elements on the high side. Thus,
when roll is zero, the EMlOOO has an inconsequential
-
pointing angle error of Tan(0.62")/1500 radians or
0.0004" up to 0 = *60° for a I d s error in ca0. When
8 = *75 ", the error increases to Tan(75" - 60 ")/1500 =
0.01"
The Reson Sea Bat also has a circular transducer, but
does not stabilize the formed beam for roll. Thus,
while the beam moves with the roll of the vessel, the
pointing angle error due to dcn0 of I d s is incon-
sequential.
The EM3000 employs a flat transducer that is
normally installed level. As an option for wider swath
coverage, two transducers can be installed at angles of
45O and -45O. The beam is not stabilized to
compensate for roll.
The subscript a denoting actual can be omitted from the
general term in Eqn. 7 because Snell's constant operates
at all layers, whether the value of c is actual or measured
(witherrors).
The specialcase of a flat, level transducer (i.e., p = p= 0)
leads to an interesting result from Eqns. 4 and 7: the
deviation in Ou0 created by an uncertainty in coois totally
compensated when the ray reaches water where the sound
velocity is accurate, i.e., where=,c c., In such a case
the actual and the calculated ray angles agree: 8, = 0,.
Note, however, that the ray propagation errors
accumulated up to the layer where c, = ,c,, still
contribute to the overall depth error. Nevertheless, for
errors related to uncertainties in the surface sound
velocity, a flat, level transducer has advantages over other
arrangements. The advantage is reduced in rough
weather when the m e y vessel can roll some *loo, as
will be shown.
By applying Eqns. 4 and 7 to successive layers, a ray of
known travel time (the basic measurement made by the
sonar) can be traced through each layer to the ocean
bottom. TheQ by interpolating the travel time in the final
layer above the bottom, depth and offset can be derived
from the path length and angles. The depth values that
result from two different sound-velocity profiles (SW),
one taken as actual, the second in error by some amounc
canthen be compared to arrive at the depth error.

1004

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 0 EM3000 110.95 EM3000 1 13.09
ry
0.1 43"
I
0.26m

n" 111.17
.... .
iy

0.20m

Fig.2. Simplified ray diagrams (not to scale) for three different bcamforming transducers showing the depth error &, and
lateral position error Ay in 3Om of water. "T" indicates the true bottom;"M"indicates the measured bottom. For a), b) and
c), the actual sound velocity is assumed to be 150lm/s in the surface layer (0 to 0.3m) and 150Ods elsewhere; the mcasured
value is iso-velocity (15oomls) over the full water column. For d), e) and f) the actual sound velocity is 1501ds over the whole
water column; the measurcd protile is iso-velocity (15OOmls). The symbol in each diagram shows tho vertical orientation of
the two element array and the amount of phase-controlled beam steering employed, as measured from the ccntral axis
of the array. The single-transducer Simrad EM3000 and the Elac BCC do not normally operate beyond S O ' ; the ray
plots at 75" arc prcscnted for comparison of generic systems at extreme anglcs.

Using the above approach, ray paths were calculated for a
number of transducers when a I d s error exists in a thin
(0.3m)surface layer at the face of the transducer. Water
depth was assumed to be 30m. Results are shown in Fig.
2 a), b) and c). For comparativepurposes, Fig. 2 d), e)and
illustrate ray paths arising from an o B t of I d s over
the whole SVP. This kind of error may not be unusual;
an SVP instnrment chat is out of calibration by only
0.07% will give approximately I d s error over the
normally encountered range of sound velocities. In this
case, the flat, level array performs poorly because the
pointing angle error persists over the whole my. Table 2
summarir's the depth errors for various transducer
arrangements. Note that not all of the systems can steer
h s to Et75O.
values of 1495ds to lSOSm/s, tapering to 1 5 O O d s at
30% of depth (seeFig. 3). These kinds of profiles are not
atypical: the deeper part of the water column is normally
more stable than the top layer which is affected by solar
heating, tidal nixing and freshwater influx. The
memured SVP was assumadto be iso-velocity at 150Ods.
Using Eqns. 4 and 7,and the approach dcscribcd above,
the expected depth errors for a number of multi-bcam
systems were calculated as a function of surface sound
vdceity error and roll angle. The results are presented in
Fig. 4 and are not at dl intuitive. In &ct, one of the
problems in looking at SVP-indud depth errors is to
find a simplistic way of pmenting the cause and c&ct,
when the error process involves integration over thc
whole water column.

For a detailed look at dcplh errors, a number of SVP's The most interesting feature of Fig. 4 is thc difference
were assumed to represent actual conditions with mrfhce created by electronic rotation (sector selection) in the

1005

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 1.o 1.O 1.o

0- 0-
E*0.5 0.5 E- 0.5
2
B
[I:
2 2tY
w 0.0 % 0.0 0.0
I I I
I- I-
Q
W
k n
LLI
a0.5 E-0.5 ao.5

-1 0 -1. .-
0 -1 0
0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75
RAY ANGLE, degrees RAY ANGLE degrees RAY ANGLE degrees

1.o 1.o

0-
z- 0.5 f 0.5
2
IY
20:
w 0.0 w 0.0
L I
l
i
w kW
0 -0.5 0-0.5

-1 .o -1.o
-75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75 -75 -50 -25 0 25 50 75
RAY ANGLE, degrees RAY ANGLE, degrees
RAY ANGLE, degrees

(4
1.o 1 .o 1.o

a 0.5
i
z 0.5
0-
2 0.5
2LI: 2w s
LI:
w 0.0 w 0.0 I0.0
I I
t
w
t
W w
0 -0.5 D -0.5 ao.5

-1 .o -1 .o -1.o
0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75 0 25 50 75
RAY ANGLE, degrees RAY ANGLE, degrees RAY ANGLE,degrees

Fig. 4. Depth errors for several multi-beam sonars as a function of ray angle from vertical, roll angle, and various
sound velocity profiles with surface differences of -+lm/s,*2.5m/s, and compared to an assumed iso-velocitywater
column. Fig. 3 shows the "actual" S W s . Graphs a), b), c), g), h), and i) are plotted for 0 to 75" ray angles because
each half of the transducer handles opposite quadrants and the errors are symmetrical for positive and negative ray
angles. In d), e), and f) a single transducer covers two quadrants. The single-transducer Simrad EM3000 and the Elac
BCC do not normally measure beyond S O o ; the graphs are plotted to 575" for comparisonof generic systems.

EM1000, by the fixed mechanical rotation (30') in the types of transducer arrangements, plots of depth error
BCC, and by the lack of rotation in the EM3000. vs. surface sound velocity (for zero roll angle) and
depth error vs. roll angle (for a I d s error in surface
To further characterize the error performance of three sound velocity) are shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 .

1006

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Table 2: Depth Errors (YO)for Various
Multi-beam Systems at Zero Roll Angle
sv ps

Circular
EM3000 0.00 -0.01 0.13 0.86
Flat 0 10 20 30
EM3000, 0.17 0.77 0.04 0.08 DEPTH, metres
flat, dual
SWs used in analyzing depth errors for various
45"
multi-beam sonars. Labels on profiles indicate the dif-
Sea Bat 0.20 0.91 -0.07 -0.08 ference in the surface sound velocity compared to 1500m/s.
dual
circular means that further mechanical rotation due to roll angles
Elac BCC 0.13 0.67 0.00 0.18 of up to 10" does not appreciably affect the error
flat dual performance of the extreme beams. The minor
300 differences in Fig. 4 a), b), and c) are discernible on close
inspection.

3. INTERPRETATION
Although the MO standard for the accuracy of charted
depths is 1% for depths greater than 30m, in a realistic
scenario only 0.3% to 0.5% can be assigned to rdi.acton
and pointing angle effects. The remainder of the error
budget is statistically used up by errors from other sources
such as the motion sensor and the bottom detection
hardware and algorithm. Typically, then, the rms depth
error due to sound velocity effects should not exceed about
0.5% or 0.15m in 30m of water.
While it is not shown explicitly in Figs.2 and 4,it should
be obvious that the actual depth has no bearing on the
percentage error in the measured depth; only the
normalized shape of the SVP is important. Thus, a 1 m/s
error in a surface layer 3m thick in 300m of water gives
the same percentage depth error as a 1 m / s error in a
layer 0.3m thick in 30m of water. Note that in water less
than 30m deep, the IHO error limit of 0.3 metres allows
the percentage error to grow as the water becomes
shallower.
Fig. 4 shows, as expected, that all systems have the same
level of error at zero beam angle. In this case, there is no
refraction to contend with and the error is a function only
of the average sound velocity over the ray path. Systems
like the EMlOOO and the SeaBat with circular transducers
have negligible pointing error; practically all of their error
is due to refraction effects. The large amount (WO") of
sector steering (electronic rotation) used in the EMlOOO
The BCC, with a fixed 30' mounting attitude, has less
depth error for a given ray angle than the EM1000, but it
exhibits somewhat more variation in error with roll.
The EM3000 at 0" mounting angle exhibits the lowest
error up to beam angles of *75" at zero roll angle. The
sign of the error for extreme angles is opposite that ofthe
EMlOOO and the BCC (refer to Fig. 2). The error also
shows an interesting change as a function of roll angle.
At p = Oo, the contributions to depth error from average
sound speed and from refraction cancel each other at 8 =
45". This feature has sparked the suggestion @odds,
1994) that through appropriate survey design the 45'
beam from one swath be compared to the 0' beam fiom
an adjacent swath to yield two fairly accurate,
independent measures of depth. Differences could be
used to adaptively fine-tune or interpolate sparse SVP data
until both measures agree. Fig. 3 d), e) and f) indicate
that in conditions of high roll, the ray angle at which the
errors from average sound speed and those from refiraction
cancel each other does not remain constant. Statistically,
however, the errors should be lowest at ray angles near
45".
For the EMlOOO it is clear from Fig. 4 that care has to be
taken to determine the surface sound velocity to -0.7m/s,
ifthe error contribution is to be held below 0.5% at k75'.
It can also be seen from Fig. 4 that the EM3000, with its
better tolerance of surface velocity error, needs a sound
velocity accufacy of only 3 S d s to achieve 0.5% depth
accuracy at 6 0 ' beam angle under conditions of -10"

1007

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 roll. If the sound velocity were known to iO.7m/s, the 2.0 h I 1
EM3000 could bc uscd at beam angles up to &70°
combincd with roll angles up to *loo. 5 1.5
E
The information presented in Fig. 5 highlights the 91. 1.0
rY-
dramatic diEerence between level and sector-steered (or
tilted) sonar arrays when there are errors in the surface
s 0.5
t
Y
W
sound velocity. The graph for the EM1000 explains the E 0.0
depth errors Seen during the testing OF motion sensors for U
I I I
-0.5
multi-beam sonars on the CHS survey vessel Frederick G. I
1 I
BCC t15"
I
Creed The vessel was rolled 4 5 " at a 6-7 second period -1 .o
using its roll-stabilizer fins while under-way at 10 kts. -10
+I"

The Creed, shown bow-on in Fig.7, is a 20m twin-hull
vessel with the sonar transduwr mounted in the starboard
sponson. Consequently, the transducer moves vertically
when the vessel rolls. During the roll tests, the near-
surface sound velocity gradient was on the order of
lm/s/ni and the vertical motion of the transducer was
about MSm, thus the induced depth error to be expected
at 3~75' (from Fig. 5 ) is about 39.4% on alternate roll
peaks. Thus was in general agreement with the
hydrographic data logged at the time,which showed roll-
synchronous errors of the same order of magnitude;
In our evaluation of motion sensorswe initially attributed
the Creed's depth errors to inaccuracies in measuring the
roll angle: an error of 0.06" in roll can also produce a
0.4% error in the depth measured by the 75" beam
(Loncarevic and Scherzinger). The idea of the gradient
causing the error (Hutchins) was subsequently
investigated and in light of that analysis, and a season of
field use with the POS-MV sensor, we believe the error is
properly attributed to the near-surface gradient.
-5 0 5 10
ROLL ANGLE, degrees
Fig. 6. Depth error vs. roll angle for cxtrcmc bcam
angles for various multi-bcam systems when tho surface
layer (0.3m) has an actual sound velocity of lSOlmls,
lm/s highcr than measured. The remaindcr of the water
column is iso-velocity at 1500m/s.
The near-surfhce gradient problem discussed (above is
somewhat unique to twin-hull vessels like Crced.
Moreover, it likely would not appear under n o d survey
conditions for the following reasons: a) the Creed operates
with minimal roll becaw of its level-seeking, dynamic
control system; and b) in conditions rough enough to the
make the vessel roll si@cantly, the surface layer would
be well mixed by wave action, thus making the near
surface sound velocity gradient zero, or close to it.

1.o

0.5
3?
i
4r 0.0
-0.5

-1 .o
-5 0 5
SSV Error, 4 s

Fig. 5. Sensitivityof depth errors to surface sound velocity LTRANSDUCER

(SSV) errors for various multi-beam systems at zcro roll
angle. The surface layer (0.3m) has an actual sound
vclocity of 1501mls, lmls higher than measured. The Fig. 7. Bow-on view of survey vessel Frederick G. Crced
remainder of the water column is iso-velocity at 1500ds. showing the location of the sonar transducer
1008

Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 Fig. 6 shows, that for transducers with non-zero mounting
(or sector) angles (EMlOOO, BCC, Sea Bat), there is very
little modulation of the depth error by roll under
conditions of I d s error in the surface sound velocity
(SSV). This is so because of the limited amount of phase
controlled beam steering required with these
transducers, even for extreme beam angles. The effect
increases more or less in proportion with the SSV error.
In contrast, the EM3000 performance shows an
increasing sensitivity to roll at beam angles of 75".
Note that 75" is outside the normal operating band for
EM3000; calculation shows, however, for a +70" ray
angle, -10" roll and I d s SSV error, that the depth
error is about 0.5%.
4. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have shown: i) that the errors in
estimating the actual sound velocity in the vicinity of
the transducer face can lead to sigmficant errors in the
sea depth calculations, and ii) that the sensitivity to
sound velocity errors is very dependent on the amount
of phase steering needed for beam pointing control.
Phase steering requirements, in turn, were shown to be
a function of the geometry and mounting angle of the
beamforming elements of the transducer. Inasmuch as
vessel roll has the effect of changing the effective
mounting angle, it too, contributes an error to the sea
depth; for flat transducers t h s error becomes highly
nonlinear at large beam angles.
Although particular, commercial, multi-beam sonars
were used in our analysis, the results are applicable to
systems using three generic classes of transducer: a)
flat-level, b) flat-tilted, and c) circular-faced, sector-
steered.
From our analysis, it follows that the survey strategy
pursued must consider the oceanographic conditions
witlvn the project area and must be adjusted to fully
account for the transducer configuration. In addition,
due to the high sensitivity of sound velocity to
temperature and salinity, it also follows that
continuous sound velocity measurements should be
made at the face of the transducer; particularly in
areas of poor mixing when solar heating is strong.
With the contemporary trend in multi-beam mapping
toward the use of small, economical boats that are
given to high pitch and roll, attention should be paid
to the modulation of refraction errors by roll angle.
This is more of a concern with flat-level transducers at
large beam angles.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
The oceanographic conditions (salinity, temperature,
and pressure) which determine the sound velocity
profile have temporal and spatial variability. The
problem of achieving the required depth accuracy is
aggravated in near-shore areas where the influx of
fresh water and tidal mixing could result in rapid
changes in SVPs over short time periods and
distances. It is important to use specific, local
oceanographic knowledge to full advantage in order to
choose the minimum distance between SVP stations
and the maximum period of time between repeat
profiles.
A close examination of the above constraints may well
indicate that in difficult areas, stopping the ship to
characterize the sound velocity in space and in time
will leave too little time for actually surveying. In
such a case, one solution is to use a near-real-time,
sound velocity profiler that is deployed continuously
while the ship is running its survey lines. CHS is
currently examining the feasibility of this approach for
use on its larger vessels and on 10m survey launches.
A second approach is to use adaptive modeling of the
error regime coupled with deliberately-introduced
redundancy in the depth data in an effort to enable
interpolation between temporally and spatially sparse
SVPS.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the gracious help of E.
Vaughan in typing the manuscript, and of G. Steeves
and G. Henderson in reviewing the final document.
6. REFERENCES
Anon, 1987. IHO Standards for Hydrographic
Surveys; International Hydrographic Organization
Special Publication No. 44, Monaco (3rd edition).
Burdic, W.S., Underwater Acoustic System
Analysis, Prentice-Hall Signal Processing Series,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Eagle wood Cliffs, NJ, 07632,
1984.
Cervenka, P., U.C. Herzfield, and C. de Moustier,
Accuracy of the Spatial Representation of the
Seafloor with Bathymetric Sidescan Sonars; Marine
Geophysical Researches, 16: 407-425, 1994.
Dinn, D.F. and B.D. Loncarevic, 1994, An Evaluation
of Ship Motion Sensors; Proceedings of the
Kinematics Systems Conference, Aug. 30 - Sept. 2,
1009
 1994, Dept of Geomatics, University of Calgary,
Banff, Alberta, Canada.
Dodds, D.J., Methods for Correction of Refraction
Errors in Multi Beam Echo Sounders; GeoAcoustics
Inc., Aurora, Ontario, Canada; DFO Contract Report,
FP963-4-3015/01HAL, 1994
Hughes Clarke, J.E. and Godin, A., Investigation of
the Roll and Heave Errors Present in Frederick G.
-
Creed EM-1000 Data When Using a TSS-335B
Motion Sensor; Ocean Mapping Group, University of
New Brunswick, DFO Contract FP707-3-5731, 1993.
Hutchins, R., Applied Analytics Corporation, Malton,
Ontario, Canada. Personal Communication, 1994.
Lachapelle, G, Lu, G. and Loncarevic, B. D., Precise
Shipborne Attitude Determination Using Wide
Antenna Spacing; Proceedings of the Kinematics
Systems Conference, Aug. 30 - Sept. 2, 1994, Dept of
Geomatics, University of Calgary, Banff, Alberta,
Canada.
Loncarevic, B.D. and Scherzinger, B.M.,
Compensation of Ship Attitude for Multi-beam
Sonar Surveys; Sea Technology, 35,. (6), pp. 10-16,
June,1994.
Loncarevic, B.D., and the Shipboard Scientific Party,
Cruise Report: MATTHEW Motion Sensor Trials
(MMST-93); Geological Survey of Canada Open File
Report No. 93-2730, 1993.
Luscombe, J., Enhancement of Multibeam Echo-
sounder Performance by Use of High Accuracy
Motion Sensors; Paper presented at HYDR094, Ninth
Biennial International Symposium, Sept. 13 -15, 1994,
The Hydrographic Society, Aberdeen, Scotland.
1010
Authorized licensed use limited to: Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Downloaded on March 08,2024 at 12:08:38 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
Donald F. Dinn is a professional engineer specializing in
electronic systems. As Manager of Engineering and
Technical Services at Bedford Institute of Oceanography ,
he has been project engineer for various activities in
support of the Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS),
including retrofitthg CHS' DOLPHIN vehicle with an
EM-100 multi-beam sonar, the DOLPHIN handling
system, and the MATTHEW Motion Sensing Trials
(MMST-93). Currently he is part of the team preparing
to commission the Simrad EM3000 multi-beam sonar for
use on 10m survey launches.
Bosko D. Loncarevic a marine geophysicist interested in
measurements of Potential Fields over the oceans. His
work in dynarmc gavimetry has necessitated developing
an understanding of ship behaviour which has led to his
more recent involvement with precision multi-beam
sounders. He has been a key player in evaluating shp
motion sensors and in examining multi-beam sonar error
statistics.
Gerard Costello has been a Hydrographic Surveyor
with the Canadian Hydrographic Service since 1979.
He graduated from the University of New Brunswick
with a degree in Survey Engineering and has worked
in both the Atlantic and Quebec Regions of CHS,
where he developed his expertise in hydrographic
surveying. During the past few years, Mr. Costello
has been managmg the CHS Coastal and Ocean
Mapping Program, where he introduced such new
technologies as the multi-beam survey systems and
associated computer-aided data processing. He has
recently been awarded the DFO Deputy Minister's
Commendation Award, in recognition of his
achievements with CHS.