Patch Test & Position Check Report

Baltic Sea, 2006

Kriegers Flak Geophysical Project

Final Report
GEO October, 2006
 Kriegers Flak Geophysical Project 8-10 Teglbaekvej
DK-8361 Hasselager – Aarhus,
Denmark

Tel: +45 8628 2011

October 2006 Fax: +45 8628 2111

e-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.eiva.dk

0 Final Report LDA 03/11/2006

Revision Description By Checked Approved Date

Key words Classification

MultiBeam Calibration – Patch test – Position Check Open

Internal

Proprietary

Distribution No of copies

N/A N/A N/A

Patch test report_example.doc i EIVA A/S

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Purpose & Scope......................................................................................................... 1-1

2 DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................... 2-1

3 DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Theoretical Background............................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1 Methods ......................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1.1 Time-calibration ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.1.2 Pitch-calibration ............................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.1.3 Roll-calibration ................................................................................................. 3-3
3.2.1.4 Heading-calibration.......................................................................................... 3-3

4 THE CALIBRATION PERFORMED 28 OCTOBER 2006................................................. 4-5

4.1 Time-calibration ........................................................................................................... 4-5
4.2 Pitch-calibration ........................................................................................................... 4-6
4.3 Roll-calibration ............................................................................................................. 4-8
4.3.1 Final Roll Calibration...................................................................................... 4-9
4.4 Heading-calibration.................................................................................................... 4-10
4.5 Additional checks....................................................................................................... 4-12
4.5.1 Position check.............................................................................................. 4-12
4.5.2 Stability check .............................................................................................. 4-13

5 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 5-16

Patch test report_example.doc ii EIVA A/S

1 INTRODUCTION
In order to facilitate an accurate and unambiguous reference for the subsequent data ac-
quisition, a so-called Patch Test must be performed prior to any MultiBeam survey, in
order to establish the relationship between the Multibeam System and the various sen-
sors - GPS, Gyro and RPH.

The present report identifies the theoretical background of the test, it describes the
methods applied and it finally details on the results of the Patch Test.

1.1 Purpose & Scope

The prime purpose of the present report is to describe the data-acquisition and post-
processing methods applied, from a theoretical as well as from a practical standpoint. In
particular, the report describes the methods used for patch testing in the EIVA soft-ware
suite, since this was employed during the patch test as well as throughout the entirety of
the survey campaign.

A secondary purpose of the report is to describe the analyses performed in order to per-
form an integrated position check of the vessels overall bathymetric survey system, in
which items like geodesy, positioning system, offsets, gyro-calibration are included.

The tertiary objective of the report is to describe the methods applied in order to sub-
stantiate, that the system is adequately stable to allow for raising and lowering the trans-
ducer in and out of the water, on a daily basis, without performing additional patch-
testing.

The scope of the report encompasses the tests performed on 28 October 2006, prior to
the start of the Kriegers Flak Geophysical Survey Campaign, as well as subsequent
check/tests performed.

Patch test report_example.doc 1-1 EIVA A/S

2 DEFINITIONS
In order to facilitate a uniform and unambiguous understanding of the contents of the
Patch Test Report, the following definitions of technical terms and phrases contained in
the text have been included.

Item Description
Accuracy Accuracy is generally a measure for the measurement quality by
which a certain tolerance must be evaluated. Accuracy is as such
typically at least 4-5 times smaller than an associated tolerance.
C-O Correction to observation. A constant and typically the result of a
calibration (Computed minus Observed).
Calibration The physical adjustment of (parts of) an instrument in order to
bring its performance in compliance with the specified tolerance.
DAL Distance Along Line is the distance (in meters) between the pro-
jected position of the present position onto the survey-line and
the start of the survey-line.
DOL Distance Off Line is the perpendicular distance (in meters) from
present position to the survey-line. The distance is positive to
starboard side of sailing/line direction.
GPS Global Positioning System. The navigation/positioning system
consisting of NAVSTAR satellites, their ground stations and
GPS-receivers.
Least Squares An adjustment of observations that fulfil the requirement ∑wr2=
Adjustment min. w is the weight of each individual observation, r is the re-
sidual to a calculated value that fulfils certain criteria. The sum
of the weighted residuals squared must in other words be as
small as possible.
Pitch Defined as the rotation of the vessel around the X-axis of the lo-
cal co-ordinate system (around the ship’s transverse axis). Pitch
is positive if the Y-axis is above the horizontal plane (bow up).
Roll Defined as the rotation of the vessel around the Y-axis of the lo-
cal co-ordinate system (around alongship axis). Roll is positive if
the X-axis is below horizontal plane (starboard down).
Sound Velocity In the present context, Sound Velocity (or SV) is the speed of
sound through the water column
WGS-84 World Geodetic System, the current standard datum for global
positioning and surveying.
Verification Comparing the performance of an instrument to pre-defined tol-
erances or specifications.

Patch test report_example.doc 2-1 EIVA A/S

3 DESCRIPTION

3.1 Introduction
When a Multibeam Echosounder (MBE) is installed on a vessel, the misalignment rela-
tive to the motion sensor and to the gyro as well as the time-offset to the GPS system
must be determined, in order for the results to benefit from the high accuracy as well as
from the large capacity of the system.

3.2 Theoretical Background

During survey operations the MBE data, with appropriate offset corrections, needs to be
relative to true vertical. Any deviations in roll will result in depth measurement errors,
in particular on the outer beams. In the same way, un-modelled pitch-readings will re-
sult in along track position errors.
Similarly heading-offsets between the planes of the MBE transmit beam and the align-
ment of the vessel, as determined through the gyro-calibration will result in position er-
rors on the soundings from the outer beams. These errors will increase both with beam
angle off nadir and water depth.
If the data collection system is not synchronised to GPS time, it is also necessary to de-
termine the latency of the positioning system. The difference in time from the moment
when a position is valid until the position message is sent to the data collection system
must be determined. Commonly used DGPS receivers have latencies ranging from 200
milliseconds to over one second. If the data collection system does not correct for this
latency, the result is a speed dependent position error in the data.
In the EIVA software suite, the tool designed to process Multibeam calibration data is
called ‘Contour’. The purpose of the calibration tool of Contour is to enable the user to
efficiently analyse swath alignment error and to produce reliable calibration values that
can be used to produce highly accurate bathymetric surfaces. To enable the values to be
isolated and quantified, some pre-defined datasets in specific patterns must be collected
and processed in a given sequence. The method associated with this is named ‘Patch
Test’.

3.2.1 Methods
All though, in this report, the listed order of calibration categories is time, pitch roll and
finally heading, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this is always the only correct calibra-
tions sequence. What must however at all times be obeyed, is to reiterate the calibration
calculations, with the obtained C-O values, in order to investigate whether an additional
fine-tuning of the results is required.

3.2.1.1 Time-calibration
The time-calibration is based on two run-lines sailed either in opposite direction on
fairly shallow water or, alternatively, in the same direction but with significant speed
difference. The lines must be sailed on identical runlines and with the centre over one

Patch test report_example.doc 3-1 EIVA A/S

 or, preferably, more recognisable structure(s) or in an area with a significant, identifi-
able depth change along the track. Any latency offset will appear as a constant feature
position offset (or contour shift for a slope) along track between the processed data sets
(see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Theoretical layout of a time-calibration

The time-calibration method implemented in Contour is iterative. If sailed over one or

more features on the seabed, the operator notes the (number of) pair(s) of features to
match. He then changes the time-offsets until he is confident, that a match between the
two profiles is established at the position of the features. The result of the time-
calibration is the time offset that gives the best overall match between the features. Con-
tour will, based on the least squares calculation, propose a C-O value for the time-
calibration. The user can however choose an alternative value if desired.

3.2.1.2 Pitch-calibration
The pitch-calibration is based on two run-lines sailed in opposite direction on deep wa-
ter – at least as deep as the largest depth of the area to be surveyed. The lines must be
sailed with the centre of the multibeam transducer over one or more recognisable struc-
ture(s) or in an area where the depth changes significantly along the track (slope).
The first priority is to find a steep slope with no or little variation in the horizontal
planes, in the sense, that the slope must be steep in a profile along the line, and at the
same time as flat as possible in a profile normal to the line at any point in the slope.
This ideal situation is not easy to find, but the most important factor is to have a homo-
geneous steep slope underneath the vessel. If a suitable slope cannot be found, then it is
possible to use a well-defined feature. A characteristic of pitch offset is that the along-
track displacement is proportional to water depth: the deeper the water the larger the
displacement (compare Figure 1 to Figure 2).

Figure 2 Theoretical layout of a pitch-calibration

The pitch-calibration is to a large extent similar to the time-calibration and alike this
calibration, the pitch-calibration method in Contour is iterative. If sailed over one or
more features on the seabed, the operator notes the (number of) pair(s) of features to
match. He then changes the pitch-offsets until he is confident that a match between the
two profiles is established at the position of the features. The result of the pitch-
calibration is the pitch offset that gives the best overall match between the features.
Contour will, based on the least squares calculation, propose a C-O value for the cali-
bration. The user can however choose an alternative value.

Patch test report_example.doc 3-2 EIVA A/S

3.2.1.3 Roll-calibration
The roll-calibration is based upon a run-line sailed twice in opposite direction. The sur-
vey line should be defined in an area with a flat and, preferably, featureless seabed. As
depicted in Figure 3 below, a roll offset will result in the data sets matching at the center
beam, but diverging with increasing beam angle at both sides. Further, it is obvious, that
the angle between the two profiles gives a good indication of the double error.

Figure 3 Theoretical layout of a roll-calibration

Contour will, instead of employing a set of cross profiles, define an iterative statistical
process, where a longitudinal profile is defined on each side (emulating infinite number
of cross-profiles) and a least square fit is made on the profiles. In this way data from the
entire data-sets is used, even though it appears, that only one cross-section is employed.
This is shown in

Figure 10 below, where the cross-lines on each side are visualised by two longitudinal
profiles. These must match for the calibration to be successful. Contour will calculate
the best fit roll; however, the user can choose an alternative value.

3.2.1.4 Heading-calibration
The basic idea in the heading-calibration module of Contour is to have two run-lines
sailed in same direction. The lines must be sailed with a suitable distance to one or more
recognisable structure between the two lines in question as shown in Figure 4.

Patch test report_example.doc 3-3 EIVA A/S

 Figure 4 Theoretical layout of a heading-calibration

In Contour, the calibration is done by an iterative process, where a least square fit is
made on the profiles generated to starboard side of line 1 and port side of line 2. Based
on this calculation, Contour will calculate the best fit heading error. The user can how-
ever choose an alternative value, should he wish to.

Patch test report_example.doc 3-4 EIVA A/S

4 THE CALIBRATION PERFORMED 28 OCTOBER 2006
The multibeam calibration was performed on 28 October 2006, prior to the execution of
the survey, south of the artificial island Peberholm in the Øresund Strait, in water depths
ranging from approximately 6 to 8 m. The locations are normally chosen with due con-
siderations to the presence of existing features (slopes, Concrete blocks, pipelines etc.)
and suitably homogenous seabed. In the present context however, a calibration site with
well known coordinates in XYZ were chosen for the determination of the pitch, roll and
heading C-O values as well as for intermediate roll calibration.
A final determination of the roll C-O was performed on 3 November offshore at water
depths of approximately 40 m.

SITE LOCATIONS
453 115 E 6 282 807 N 56°41' 13.209" N 008°14' 04.617" E Roll-calibration
356 333.59 E 6 164 422.44 N 55°36’ 16.19399’’N 12° 43’ 10.24221’’E Pitch-, time- and
heading-calibration –
intermediate roll de-
termination

A total of six lines were run to provide adequate data for the calibration calculations.
The lines were run in the sequence given in the table below.

ACQUIRING CALIBRATION DATA

Line Direction Calibration Filename Speed
Kalib_Cent S->N Pitch/Roll (int.) J301N002 3 knots
Kalib_Cent N->S Pitch/Roll (int.) J301N008 3 knots
Kalib_Cent-15 N->S Heading J301N010 3 knots)
Kalib_Cent+15 N->S Heading J301N012 3 knots
Kalib_Cent N->S Time J301N017 6 knots
Kalib_Cent N->S Time J301N019 3knots

The subsequent/final roll-calibration was performed at the following location:

SITE LOCATION
375 176 E 6 108 249 N 55° 06’ 18.802" N 13° 02’ 36.280" E Roll-calibration

The characteristics of the two lines run for this calibration were:

ACQUIRING CALIBRATION DATA

Line Direction Calibration Filename Speed
C000_C N->S Roll (final) J307N005 3 knots
C000_C S->N Roll (final) J307N006 3 knots

4.1 Time-calibration
The following data files were used for the time-calibration:

Logging File Start Time Run Line Direction Speed

J301N017.SBD 28/10/2006 10:10 Kalib_Cent N->S 6 knots
J301N019.SBD 28/10/2006 10:23 Kalib_Cent N->S 3 knots

Patch test report_example.doc 4-5 EIVA A/S

 Figure 5 Visualisation of the time-calibration (result: 0 ms)

As depicted in Figure 5, the result of the time-calibration was 0 ms. This value was used
in connection with the subsequent calibrations and with the survey operations, respec-
tively.

4.2 Pitch-calibration
The data-files below were used for the pitch-calibration:

Logging File Start Time Run Line Direction Speed

J301N002.SBD 28/10/2006 08:10 Kalib_Cent S->N 3 knots
J301N008.SBD 28/10/2006 08:50 Kalib_Cent N->S 3 knots

Patch test report_example.doc 4-6 EIVA A/S

 Figure 6 Visualisation of the pitch-calibration (result: 0.30 deg)

Figure 7 Visualisation of the pitch-value prior to calibration (C-O: 0.00 deg)

Patch test report_example.doc 4-7 EIVA A/S

 As shown in Figure 6, the result of the pitch-calibration was 0.30 deg. This value was
used in connection with the subsequent calibrations and with the survey operations, re-
spectively.

4.3 Roll-calibration
The following data files were used for the intermediate roll-calibration:

Logging File Start Time Run Line Direction Speed

J301N002.SBD 28/10/2006 08:10 Kalib_Cent S->N 3 knots
J301N008.SBD 28/10/2006 08:50 Kalib_Cent N->S 3 knots

Figure 8 Visualisation of the result of the intermediate roll-calibration (result: 0.18 deg)

Patch test report_example.doc 4-8 EIVA A/S

 Figure 9 Visualisation of the roll-value prior to calibration (C-O: 0.00 deg)

As shown in Figure 10, the result of the roll-check was +0.018 deg. This value was used
in connection with the subsequent calibrations and with the survey operations until , re-
spectively.

4.3.1 Final Roll Calibration

The following data files were used for the final roll-calibration performed on 03 No-
vember 2006:

Logging File Start Time Runline Direction Speed

J307N005.SBD 03/11/2006 14:20 C000_C N->S 3 knots
J307N006SBD 03/11/2006 14:36 C000_C S->N 3 knots

Patch test report_example.doc 4-9 EIVA A/S

 Figure 10 Visualisation of the result of the final roll-calibration (result: 0.16 deg)

As shown in Figure 10, the result of the final roll-calibration was +0.16 deg. This value
was used in connection with the subsequent calibrations and with the survey operations,
respectively. Note that the roll-check was performed with a C-O value of +0.18 deg
originating from the intermediate calibration. Therefore the C-O value visualised in
Figure 10 is -0.02 deg (0.18 deg – 0.02 deg = 0.16 deg).

4.4 Heading-calibration
The data files given in the table below were used for the heading-calibration:

Logging File Start Time Runline Direction Speed

J301N010.SBD 28/10/2006 09:02 Kalib_Cent-15 N->S 3 knots
J301N012.SBD 28/10/2006 09:23 Kalib_Cent+15 N->S 3 knots

Patch test report_example.doc 4-10 EIVA A/S

 Figure 11 Visualisation of the results of the heading-calibration (result: -2.60 deg)

Figure 12 Visualisation of the heading-value prior to calibration (C-O: 0.00 deg)

Patch test report_example.doc 4-11 EIVA A/S

 Figure 11 Visualisation of the results of the heading-calibration (result: -2.60 deg)

Figure 11 identifies the result of the heading-calibration to be -2.60 deg.

4.5 Additional checks

In addition to the patch-test itself, the calibration served two objectives:
• The secondary objective of the calibration was to perform an integrated position
check, in which items like geodesy, positioning system, offsets, gyro-calibration
are included.
• The tertiary objective of the calibration was to check, whether the system is ade-
quately stable to allow for raising and lowering the transducer in and out of the
water, on a daily basis, without performing additional patch-testing

4.5.1 Position check

The calibration data were used to establish the observed values of the target and com-
pare these to the known coordinates. The known coordinates were as follows:

Easting Northing Height (DVR90) Height (RH70)

356 333.59 m 6164422.44 m -7.763 -7.788

Patch test report_example.doc 4-12 EIVA A/S

 Figure 13 Position check

Figure 13 visualises the known position (green dot to the left) and the observed position
(blue dot to the right). The observed position is based upon all the files acquired during
the patch-test. The comparison between the two positions yields the C-O values as fol-
lows:

Easting Northing Height (RH70)

Known (C) 356 333.59 m 6164422.44 m -7.79

Observed (O) 356 333.63 m 6164422.43 m -7.81

C-O -0.04 m +0.01 m +0.02

The secondary objective of the calibration, to perform an integrated position check, in

which items like geodesy, positioning system, offsets, gyro-calibration have been in-
cluded, is met, since the C-O values are sufficiently low, compared to the overall posi-
tional requirements to the survey.

Stability check
Upon completion of the patch-test, the echosounder-bracket was raised and re-lowered
back into the fixed position before a subsequent patch test was conducted.

Patch test report_example.doc 4-13 EIVA A/S

 The purpose of this was to establish whether the system is adequately stable to allow for
raising and lowering the transducer in and out of the water, on a daily basis, without
performing additional patch-testing.

Figure 14 Stability check of pitch: result 0.00 deg

Figure 15 Stability check of roll: result 0.00 deg

Patch test report_example.doc 4-14 EIVA A/S

 Figure 16 Stability check of heading: result 0.00 deg c

Note that no stability check of the time-value was performed, since it was concluded,
that this component had no dependency to the raising and lowering. The results of the
three checks were identical to the results of the calibration, hence the system proved
adequately stable to allow for raising and lowering of the system, on a daily basis,
without performing additional patch-testing:

Calibration-type Result of calibra- Files used

tion (C-O)
Time-delay: N/A N/A

Pitch: +0.00 ° J307N013

J307N017
Roll-check: +0.00 ° J307N013
J307N017
Heading: +0.00 ° J307N016
J307N018

Patch test report_example.doc 4-15 EIVA A/S

5 SUMMARY
4B

The table below gives the result of the calibration:

Calibration-type C-O during calibration Result of calibra- Final C-O value

tion (C-O)
Time-delay: +0 ms +0 ms +0 ms
Pitch: +0.00° +0.30 ° +0.30 °
Roll (initial value): +0.00° +0.18 ° +0.18 °
Heading: +0.00° -2.60 ° -2.60 °

The result of the subsequent final determination of the roll-value was as follows:

Calibration-type C-O during check Result of check Final C-O value

(C-O)
Roll (final value): +0.18° -0.02 ° +0.16 °

Further, the results of the stability checks were identical to the results of the calibration,
hence the system proved adequately stable to allow for raising and lowering of the
system, on a daily basis, without performing additional patch-testing:

Calibration-type Result of calibra-

tion (C-O)
Time-delay: N/A
Pitch: +0.00 °
Roll-check: +0.00 °
Heading: +0.00 °

Finally, the position check provided C-O values as follows:

Easting Northing Height (RH70)

Known (C) 356 333.59 m 6164422.44 m -7.79

Observed (O) 356 333.63 m 6164422.43 m -7.81

C-O -0.04 m +0.01 m +0.02

Bearing in mind the requirements to the survey, the secondary objective of the cali-
bration, to perform an integrated position check, has in other words been met.

Patch test report_example.doc 5-16 EIVA A/S