Proceedings of the ASME 2018 37th International

Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering

OMAE2018
June 17-22, 2018, Madrid, Spain

OMAE2018-78037

VALIDATION OF A DETERMINISTIC WAVE AND SHIP MOTION PREDICTION

SYSTEM

Peter Naaijen Kees van Oosten

Delft University of Technology / Next Ocean DAMEN Shipyards
Mekelweg 2 Gorinchem, the Netherlands
2612 CG Delft, the Netherlands
p.naaijen@tudelft.nl /peternaaijen@nextocean.nl

Karel Roozen Riaan van ‘t Veer

Next Ocean Delft University of Technology
Paardenmarkt 1 Delft, the Netherlands
2611 PA Delft, the Netherlands
karelroozen@nextocean.nl

ABSTRACT NOMENCLATURE
The workability of various types of operations offshore are Sσ : 2D Radar Spectrum [-]
largely affected by waves and wave induced motions. Examples
are crew transfer from crew transfer vessels or service k: 2D wave vector [rad/m]
operation vessels to offshore wind turbines for maintenance, η: wave elevation [m]
landing of helicopters in (navy) vessels and various crane a: complex wave mode amplitude [m]
operations. Over the recent years quite some effort has been Ω: wave frequency (acc. to linear dispersion relation)
put in technology aiming to provide a real time on-board [rad/s]
prediction of approaching waves and wave induced vessel U: 2D surface current [m/s]
motions some minutes in advance. Enabling crew to anticipate, ϕ: angular coordinate in polar coordinate system [rad]
thus enhancing the safety and operability of these operations. r: radial coordinate in polar coordinate system [m]
This paper addresses the performance during a field test of the
θ: wave mode propagation direction (‘going-to’) [rad]
system as being under development by Next Ocean enabling
such predictions, based on using an off-the-shelve (non- δσ 0 : radar backscatter related to sea surface waves [-]
coherent) navigation radar system as a remote wave observer. C: scaling factor between backscatter and sea surface
Briefly summarizing (earlier publications on) the technical elevation
approach, focus will be on results obtained from a field test
where the system was validated. Good agreements between ship
σ x2 ,MRU :Variance of measured motion mode j [m2]
j

motions as measured by an on-board motion reference unit and MRU: Motion Reference Unit
predictions obtained by the wave and motion prediction system σ x2 * : Variance of recorded motion mode j [m2]
during a field test on the North Sea near the Dutch coast on a j

42 m patrol vessel will be shown in the results section, from Hs : Significant wave height [m]
which the usefulness of the system for operational decision
support can be concluded.
λp : peak wave length [m]
τ: prediction time [s]
corr : Pearson correlation coefficient [-]

1 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 12/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 INTRODUCTION
There are many applications / situations for which waves and
induced motions of ships are critical. Installation of offshore
wind turbines, crew / cargo transfer from ships to offshore
platforms or wind turbines, the work on the deck of an anchor
handling tug, landing a helicopter on the deck of a (navy) ship
are just a few examples. Common practice is to assess the safety
/workability of such operations from a statistical point of view:
For expected wave conditions, the probability of occurrence of
an undesired event is determined. Then this wave condition is
considered to be workable in case the probability is sufficiently
low. Large safety margins are involved in such workability
assessments, since the risks can be huge. A simplified example
illustrating the consequence of this approach: suppose that a
wave event of 3 m height is the limit up to which a certain
operation is safe. Then sea state 4, with a significant wave
height of 2 m, would generally be considered as not workable,
since the probability of a 3 m wave event is too high. However,
in this sea state, 93 % of the time is part of time windows with a
length of at least 2 minutes, during which the waves are well
below the 3 m limit. So predicting when these higher wave
occur, leaves a lot of time in between to safely operate.
Over the recent years, the first successes with wave and ship
motion prediction systems using radar as remote wave sensing
technique have been reported. ([1]–[3])
Next Ocean is a start-up with the mission to develop and
commercialize a vessel motion prediction system existing of
low cost COTS (commercial off-the-shelve) hardware
components combined with high performance analysis software,
capable of providing on-board real time predictions of ship
motions and waves, presented to the crew via an intuitive user
interface that helps making go / no go decisions during motion
critical offshore operations.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the developed wave prediction is to provide on-
board a real time prediction of the ship motions for the
upcoming tens of seconds to max. 5 minutes. Its main input
source is a ship’s standard navigation radar system: the back
scatter appearing in radar images reveals wave properties which
are analyzed by the system as will be described in the analysis
approach paragraph.
The objective of this paper is to present the performance of
the system during simulations using recorded data from field
test executed in fall 2016 on board a 42 patrol vessel at the
North Sea near the coast of the Netherlands. From the acquired
radar data the wave prediction system computes a prediction of
the vessel’s motions for the upcoming minutes, updated every
roughly 6 seconds. The prediction updates are stored in memory
and the history of the recorded ship motions by a motion sensor
are used to compute the accuracy of the stored prediction
updates.
2 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 12/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
ANALYSIS APPROACH
As mentioned, the presented technology is based on a COTS
ship navigation radar. Advantages such as low cost and no extra
hardware fitting required on-board the vessel are obvious. Main
disadvantages of the standard navigation radar are the fact that
it operates with horizontal (HH) polarization, while wave
observability with radar has been reported to benefit from
vertical (VV) polarization. However, as will be shown in the
proceeding paragraphs, very good results are obtained also at
HH polarization. Besides, being a non-coherent radar,
navigation radar data does not allow for Doppler analysis and
therefor does not provide velocity information of the sea waves,
contrary to coherent radars. The input signal for the wave
analysis is therefore the plane radar backscatter. Since this radar
back scatter is not directly physically related to any sea wave
property, it leaves a scaling issue which will be briefly
discussed in the proceeding.
A brief summary of the approach as previously presented in [3]
is given here.
The analysis exists of mainly two separate branches, being
executed simultaneously during real-time operation, being the
spectral branch and the deterministic branch:
A classical 3D FFT approach combined with dispersion filtering
based on [4] is applied in order to obtain the directional
spectrum Sσ ( k ) of the backscatter data and the surface
current direction and velocity. σ indicates that it concerns a
spectrum of back scatter data (i.e. not of wave elevation) and
k [rad/m] is the 2D wave number ( k x , k y ) defined in an earth
fixed reference frame with x pointing eastward and y
pointing northward. This directional spectrum Sσ ( k ) is used
to select a subset of k , referred to as k solve , representing the
major fraction of the total energy represented by the spectrum.
The deterministic branch solves a phase resolved linear
representation of the directional sea waves, using a sequence of
radar images as input. The sea wave model is given in
equation(1):
 N i ( k n x −Ω ( k n , U ) t ) 
η ( x, t ) = Re  ∑ a ( k n ) e  (1)
 n =1 
Ω represents the wave frequency according to the dispersion
relation, which depends on the 2D wave number k and 2D
surface current vector U . k n refers to the discrete wave
numbers in k solve , their number N typically being in the order
of 1000.
In cylindrical coordinates, (1) can be written as:
 N

η ( r, ϕ , t ) = Re  ∑ a ( k n ) e (
i k n r cos(ϕ −θ n ) −Ω( k n )t )
 (2)
 n =1 
 where r and ϕ are range and azimuth angle in the cylindrical where H j is the transfer function of the considered motion as
axes system respectively. θn is the propagation direction of a function of wave frequency Ω and wave direction relative to
wave component n . the vessel. j refers to the motion mode, j = 1 being
The sea wave related part of the radar back scatter data, δσ 0 , associated with surge motion etc. The wave direction relative
is interpreted as being proportional to the derivative of the sea to the vessel equals θ − Ψ with Ψ being the vessel's heading
surface elevation in range direction: with respect to the used coordinate system's x-axis (i.e. with
δσ 0= C ⋅ ∂ rη ( r, ϕ ) (3) respect to East). τ represents the prediction time and should be
chosen appropriately in order to obtain meaningful predictions,
respecting the maximum achievable prediction horizon. The
where C is a scaling factor to be determined relating the latter depends mainly on the maximum range of the radar and
magnitude of the backscatter data δσ 0 to the derivative of the the sea state as explained in more detail in [5]. The minimum
value of τ representing future predictions (as opposed to ones
surface elevation in range direction ∂ rη . that represent the past) equals the recording time of the latest
Substitution of (2) gives: observed radar data, increased with the time used to solve for
δs 0 ( r, ϕ , t )= C ⋅ the wave representation.
(4) The motion transfer functions for the test vessel were obtained
 N i k r cos(ϕ −θ n ) −Ω( k n )t ) 
Re  ∑ i k n cos (ϕ − θ n ) a ( k n ) e ( n 
by a 2D strip theory potential flow approach (SHIPMO).
 n =1  The unknown scaling factor C is obtained from a scaling
With observations of δσ 0 ( r, ϕ , t ) available from sequences procedure using the recent time history of the recorded ship
motions:
of radar images, a least squares minimization problem is solved
acc. to equation (4) leading to the (still ‘unscaled’) complex σ x2 ,MRU
Cj = j
(6)
wave component amplitudes a ( k n ) ⋅ C . σ x2 *
j

A typical example of a raw radar back scatter image as recorded

where σ refers to the variance. MRU (motion reference
2
during the test is shown by Figure 1.
unit) denotes the measured motion and * denotes the predicted
motion (for τ = 0 , i.e. the ‘now-cast’).
For the length of the used history over which the variances were
determined at each update, 15 minutes was taken.
Ideally, C j would be equal for all 6 motion modes. Using a
motion mode dependent scaling factor however, possibly partly
solves the issue of inaccurate motion transfer functions.

FIELD TEST SET UP AND VESSEL

The field test was executed on 29 September 2016 on board of
the 42 long Damen SPa4207-type cutter named “Gualterio”.
Figure 2 depicts the vessel in action during the test.

Figure 1, example of radar back scatter image

Unscaled ship motions are then computed as follows:

x j ( r , j ,τ ) =
(5)
 N i k r cos(j −θ n ) −Ω( k n )τ ) 
Re  ∑ H j ( Ω ( k n ) , θ n − Ψ (τ ) ) a ( k n ) e ( n 
 n =1 

3 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 12/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Figure 2, test vessel Gualterio during the test on the North
Sea near the Dutch coast
The on-board data acquisition existed of:
- Radar data acquisition unit, digitizing the raw radar
video signal from the vessel’s JRC X-band navigation
radar system with 6 feet antenna rotating at 50 RPM.
- Xsense 6 DOF Motion sensor, providing vessel
motions for all 6 degrees of freedom
- JRC JRL-31 GPS compass, providing GPS position
and vessel heading
All signals were recorded synchronically, sharing one and the
same time base and stored in files, one file per radar antenna
revolution.
Earlier field tests were reported on in [3]. The purpose of the
test presented in this paper was mainly to assess the system’s
performance under very different circumstances.
Conditions as encountered in the presented test are to be
qualified as more challenging than the ones during the trials
presented in [3] for various reasons:
• Steeper waves
Steepness during earlier validation experiments
reported in in [3] amounted to H s λ p ≈ 0.01 , while
the conditions during the trials reported on here was
H s λ p ≈ 0.03 . ( H s and λ p referring to significant
wave height and spectral peak period respectively.)
Significant white capping was observed during the
trials. Figure 3 shows a camera shot over the sea
during the trials, taken from the position of the radar
antenna.
• Shorter waves
Wave peak periods observed from the radar varied
between 7.4 s and 7.8 s during the trials. For [3] this
was between 10.9 s and 14.0 s. for the same prediction
horizon, the relative propagation distance for shorter
4 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 12/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
waves is much larger, making accurate prediction more
challenging than it is for long waves.
• Shallower water
Water depth at the trial location amounted to
approximately 22 m. ([3] concerned deep water: appr.
130 m.) Variations in water depth (bathymetry) which
were indicated by sea bottom topography maps to
amount to up to 4 m may have an effect on the wave
propagation speed.
• Smaller vessel
The vessel used for the trials had a length of 42 m.
being less than half the size of the vessel used in [3].
This makes the vessel more sensitive to shorter waves.
Besides the vessel motions were much larger than
those reported in [3] because of which non-linear
effects may become significant. Also local motions of
the antenna were much larger, leading to higher
inaccuracies in the spatial positioning of the radar
image observation points.
• A much lower antenna position
The antenna of the Gualterio was located app. 11 m
above the water line, while the antenna on the vessel
used in [3] was located more than twice as high. This
results in more severe shadowing, especially given the
fact that on top of this, the wave steepness was higher.
• Moving vessel
The trials described in [3] were done on with vessel
kept very accurately in position and fixed heading by a
DP system. No station keeping was used on the
Gualterio during this test other than the manual control
of the bow thruster in an attempt to keep the heading
constant.
Figure 3, view over the North Sea during test, seen from
radar antenna position
 RESULTS the mean and σ denotes the standard deviation. T denotes the
As mentioned the system runs 2 simultaneous analysis branches, duration of the data set which amounts to appr. 25 minutes.
the first of which applying a spectral analysis of the radar data,
resulting in a directional wave spectrum and current estimate.
Figure 4 shows a sample of the spectrum as obtained during the
test from the spectral analysis of the radar data. As can be seen
the wave condition concerned a uni-modal wind-sea coming
from West-South-Western direction, as is often the case at the
Dutch coast. The peak period amounted to 7.6 s. With the
additional scaling procedure the significant wave height H s
was found to be 2.2 m.
Figure 5, correlation for heave motion prediction against
prediction horizon

Figure 6, correlation for roll motion prediction against

prediction horizon

Figure 4, 2D spectrum as obtained from the spectral branch

of the wave prediction system

In order to assess and quantify the accuracy of the predicted
ship motions, time traces for fixed values of the forecast
horizon τ were created from stored prediction updates and
recorded motions for heave, roll and pitch (j=3,4,5
respectively), enabling a comparison between the predicted and
true motions.
The accuracy of the predictions of the ship motions was
expressed in the correlation coefficient defined as:
corrxj (t ) =
T
x j * ( t ) − x j * x j ,MRU ( t ) − x j ,mru
∫
−1
T ⋅
0
σx * σ x ,mru
j used for the motion prediction, with no exception made for roll.
j
Here, x j * and x j ,MRU x indicate the prediction for a chosen
fixed value of the prediction horizon τ and the actual
measurement of motion j respectively. The upper bar denotes
Figure 7, correlation for pitch motion prediction against
prediction horizon
Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the found correlations
against prediction horizon τ . Samples of time traces of
predicted and measured motions for prediction horizon
τ = 60s are presented in Figure 11, Figure 12 and Figure 13
in ANNEX A.
As can be seen, good correlation is obtained for heave and pitch
with correlation values of at least 0.8 up to prediction horizon
of 60 seconds. Roll correlation is rather poor, as could be
(7) expected due to notoriously non-linear behavior of the roll
dt motion: a simple linear motion transfer function approach was
With roll amplitudes sometimes exceeding 15 deg, poor
agreement for roll was to be expected. (Results from a different
test run with higher forward ship speed showed good agreement
for roll, which can be explained by the higher roll damping

5 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 12/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 provided at forward speed, resulting in more linear roll behavior
with much smaller roll angels (up to 5-6 deg).)
However, for many operational use cases, it is not the actual
time trace of the motions on which go / no go decisions will be
based, but rather the envelope of the motions: it is often crucial
to know whether and when a (group of) large motion events is
upcoming and less important what is the exact phasing of the
motions within this group of high amplitude events. For that
reason, we also assessed the accuracy of the envelope of the
motion. The envelope are shown by the dashed lines in the time
traces in ANNEX A. Correlations of the motion envelope
against prediction horizon τ are presented in Figure 8, Figure
9 and Figure 10.
Figure 8, correlation for envelope of heave motion
prediction against prediction horizon
Figure 9, correlation for envelope of roll motion prediction
against prediction horizon
Figure 10, correlation for envelope of pitch motion
prediction against prediction horizon
As can be seen the envelope correlations are significantly
higher than those for the motion signals themselves. Even for
roll, the correlation exceeds 0.8, meaning that despite the poor
correlation for the actual deterministic roll motion prediction,
6 Copyright © 2018 ASME
Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 12/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
the system is fairly capable of predicting upcoming groups of
relatively high and low roll motions, making it very useful for
decision making purposes. Another observation is that the
correlation of the envelopes holds significantly further into the
future: good envelope predictions are shown to be obtained up
to nearly 2,5 minutes ahead.
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions drawn from the presented field test is that the
developed ship motion prediction performs well, also under
conditions and circumstances that were beforehand considered
rather challenging. Very good agreement between predicted and
measured heave and pitch motions were obtained with
correlations above 0.8 up to at least 60 sec into the future. Roll
prediction performed significantly worse.
Apart from actual motion time traces, a prediction of the
‘severity of motion’ leaving exact phasing of the time traces out
of the consideration was provided by the motion envelopes.
In view of the purpose of the prediction for operational decision
support, these can in many use cases be considered as more
relevant than the actual time traces. Envelope predictions
showed high correlations of well above 0.9 for heave and pitch
and 0.8 for roll up to 140 s ahead, thus providing ample
anticipation time for crew during critical operations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The field tests described in this paper were facilitated by
DAMEN Shipyards in co-operation with Alphatron Marine and
Next Ocean for which they are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] L. K. Alford, R. F. Beck, J. T. Johnson, D. Lyzenga, O.
Nwogu, and A. Zundel, “A Real-Time System for
Forecasting Extreme Waves and Vessel Motions,” in
Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th International
Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, 2015, vol. 11, pp. 1–8.
[2] B. S. H. Connell, W. M. Milewski, J. P. Rudzinsky, J. G.
Kusters, C. S. Brundick, and G. Farquharson,
“Development of an environmental and ship motion
forecasting system,” in Proceedings of the ASME 2015
34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and
Arctic Engineering OMAE2015, 2015, pp. 1–11.
[3] P. Naaijen, D. K. Roozen, and R. H. M. Huijsmans,
“REDUCING OPERATIONAL RISKS BY ON-
BOARD PHASE RESOLVED PREDICTION
OFWAVE INDUCED SHIP MOTIONS,” in
Proceedings of 35th International Conference on
Ocean, Offshore and & Arctic Engineering, 2016.
[4] I. R. Young, W. Rosenthal, and F. Ziemer, “A Three-
Dimensional Analysis of Marine Radar Images for the
Determination of Ocean Wave Directionality and
Surface Currents,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 90, pp. 1049–
1059, 1985.
[5] P. Naaijen, K. Trulsen, and E. Blondel-Couprie, “Limits
 to the extent of the spatio-temporal domain for
deterministic wave prediction,” Int. Shipbuild. Prog.,
vol. 61, pp. 203–223, 2014.

7 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 12/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 ANNEX A

SAMPLE TIME TRACES OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED MOTIONS

Figure 11, sample time trace of predicted and measured heave motion, 60 s ahead

Figure 12, sample time trace of predicted and measured roll motion, 60 s ahead

Figure 13, sample time trace of predicted and measured pitch motion, 60 s ahead

8 Copyright © 2018 ASME

Downloaded From: https://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org on 12/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use