Navigating the Arctic Rush

Heidi Kuusniemi

Professor, Director

Department of Navigation and Positioning

Finnish Geospatial Research Institute (FGI), www.fgi.fi

President

Nordic Institute of Navigation, www.nornav.org

Stanford's 2015 PNT Symposium

13th November 2015

Outline

Defining the Arctic

• Navigation requirements in the Arctic

• Challenges in the Arctic

• Possible solutions

• Conclusions

• Area north of the Arctic circle

• 66° 33′ 46.0″ north of the Equator

• 1/6 of the Earth´s landmass

• 30 mill km2 / 11.5 mill mi2

• 8 countries / 4 mill people

• 24 hours - all time zones

• 25% world reserves of oil & gas

• Shorter shipping routes

Defining the Arctic Source: CIA World Fact Book

• The Arctic is an area of growing strategic

importance

• The European Union has an important

role to play in supporting Arctic cooperation

• protecting and preserving the Arctic and

promoting sustainable use of resources

• Finland is a member of the Arctic Council, a

leading intergovernmental forum promoting

Arctic cooperation, coordination and interaction

• Finland’s Arctic strategy emphasizes creation of new

business opportunities, the region’s security and stability

and international cooperation

• core focus areas are on marine technology and shipping,

mining, energy and renewable energy sources

• increasing Arctic expertise through research

Finnish interest in the Arctic (1) Photo: Finnish Transport Agency

• Over 85% of Finnish gross

national product comes from

goods transported to and/or

from Finland via sea

• All Finnish seaports freeze

during normal winter

• Over 100 years of Finnish ice-

breaking history, starting from

1889

• Expertise in winter navigation

and ice-breaking in the Baltic

Sea

• Transferring the knowledge

more broadly to be applied to

the Arctic

Finnish interest in the Arctic (2)

Photo: Finnish Transport Agency

Ice melt in the Arctic (1) 10-year averages between 1979 and 2008 and yearly averages for 2007, 2012,

and 2015 of the daily ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere

Source: Comiso et al., Current

State of the Sea Ice Cover, NASA,

http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index

.php?section=234

2012

2015

Arctic sea-ice thickness in

October 2010, 2011, 2012 and

2013 based on data from

ESA’s CryoSat mission

Source: ESA

Ice melt in the Arctic (2)

Ice conditions in the Arctic

Types of ice

• New ice (< 10 cm)

• Young ice (10 cm- 30 cm)

• First-year ice (> 30 cm)

• Multi-year ice (2-4 m)

• Glacial ice (<1 m - > 5 m)

• Multi-year and glacial ice

most hazardous to even

ships with high ice-class

Source: Pixabay

Source: Silja Line, Finland

Increased navigation needs (1) • More activity in shipping

• N-W and N-E (Northern) passage

• Shorter distances than with the

traditional routes

• Access to remote areas for logistics Photo: Finnish Transport Agency

Source: Discovering the Arctic, UK

North America

Greenland

Siberia

Pacific

Ocean

North

Atlantic

Ocean

Northern

Sea Route

Northwest

Passage

Trans

Polar

Route?

Arctic

Ocean

Source: Jaakko Savisaari, Atlas Elektronic Finland Ltd.

N-W passage

30 October 2015

Nordica

Fennica

Source: Robin Berglund, VTT, Finland and Arctia Shipping Ltd., Finland

Finnish icebreakers returning from their summer season

ice management missions in the Chukchi Sea, off the coast of Alaska

Route plan with ice concentration

Ice-breaker

URHO

17.9.2015

VIDEO

Arctia Ltd.

Increased navigation needs (2) • More overall activity

• Oil and gas exploration

• Tourism continuously

increasing

• Fishing in new areas, longer

season

• Mapping, surveying, and

scientific observations

• Land and off-shore: seismic

surveys, rig positioning

• Hydrography, marine charts,

seabed mapping

• Environment monitoring

Source: Visit Helsinki

Source: Pixabay

• More aircrafts are flying in the

Arctic

• Small aircrafts and helicopters are

very important for transportation of

goods and people to remote areas

• Increased en-route traffic in

Arctic air space

• Transpolar flights

Increased navigation needs (3)

Source: Pixabay

Source: ESA

Outline

Defining the Arctic

Navigation requirements in the Arctic

• Challenges in the Arctic

• Possible solutions

• Conclusions

• Minimum user requirements by the IMO*

• Horizontal positioning accuracies < 10 m in oceanic and coastal areas

as well as restricted waterways

• Critical traffic areas (ports) < 1 m

• IMO’s International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters (Polar

Code), starting from 2017, takes a stand also on navigation and

receiving information about ice conditions

• In aviation, the LPV 200 (Localizer Performance with Vertical

Guidance) for GNSS-based precision approach, defines the vertical

alert limit at 35 m

• the degree to which knowledge of the aircraft altitude must be protected

• Requirement in Arctic land and off-shore positioning is typically

high accuracy - at least sub-meter

• High integrity and availability

* International Maritime Organization Res. A.915(22), 2002

Navigation requirements in the Arctic

Outline

Defining the Arctic

Navigation requirements in the Arctic

Challenges in the Arctic

• Possible solutions

• Conclusions

Challenges in the Arctic (1) • Environment

• Rough weather

• Marine navigation: drifting ice patches and hull-penetrating multi-year ice

• The area is remote and distances large

• Very late emergency response

• Poorly mapped areas - both at land and sea

• Improved access to geospatial data could help better to predict, understand and react to changes in the Arctic

• Improved sea charts – quality and availability

Source: Canadian Ice Service

Challenges in the Arctic (2) • Darkness and limited visibility

Challenges in the Arctic (3)

• Changing ice conditions

After only one hour

Source: Finnish Transport Agency

Source: Finnish Transport Agency

Challenges in the Arctic (4) • Higher ecological impact of

an accident

• The Arctic environment is vulnerable and very slow in regeneration after for instance an oil spill

• Limitations with navigation technologies

• Poor heading accuracy – both magnetic and inertial

• Degraded GNSS performance

• Lack of communications infrastructure

• Lack of radio-navigation infrastructure

Source: NY Times,

www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/world/americas/24ship.htm

FGI’s test and data collection campaign

– M/S Viking Line ‘Amorella’

Northern Baltic Sea

February 2015

GNSS limitations - geometry

• GPS, Beidou and Galileo satellite

inclination angles: 55º, 55º and 56º

• Low elevation angles in polar areas

• Good for the HDOP

• Bad for VDOP – degraded altitude accuracy

• Multi-GNSS and sensor aiding helps

• Higher noise levels in observations

• Slightly better with GLONASS (65º)

• Difficulties with GNSS augmentation

• Poor visibility of GEO satellites (e.g.

EGNOS and WAAS)

• Sparse infrastructure for GNSS augmentation

Longyearbyen, Norway

~ N 78.2°, E 15.7°

2.1.2015 00:00 (UTC+2)

GNSS limitations - ionosphere (1) • In the Arctic the ionosphere is characterized by an enhanced

electron precipitation causing an increased ionospheric variability

• Solar activity driven ionospheric storms

• Scintillation: not as strong as in Equatorial areas, but may occur at

any time in the day

• Northern lights are a visible

example of the increased activity

at high latitudes

Lapland

NOOA: Intensity and location of the aurora http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/aurora-30-minute-forecast

GNSS limitations - ionosphere (2)

NOOA: Solar Cycle Sunspot Numbers http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression

GNSS limitations - augmentation systems (1)

Source: ESA, Navipedia

SBAS systems either operational, under implementation

or under feasibility studies

GNSS limitations - augmentation systems (2)

Source: Finavia

EGNOS performance at Ivalo airport

Ivalo

68° 39′ N 27° 33′ E At Ivalo:

EGNOS PRN 120 at 8°

EGNOS PRN 136 at 11°

(EGNOS PRN 126 at 11 °)

Year HPE 95% daily

average (m)

VPE 95% daily

average (m) EGNOS availability (%)

2012 1.37 1.99 96.7

2013 1.31 1.97 98.9

2014 1.40 2.26 98.7

ICAO* req. for EGNOS: HPE 95 < 3 m, VPE 95 < 4 m, Availability > 99%

* International Civil Aviation Organization

GNSS limitations - augmentation systems (3)

Source: Finavia

EGNOS performance at Ivalo airport (cont.)

GPS PRNs 9, 16, 19, 23

”Not monitored” by EGNOS

because the are on the border

of EGNOS coverage, not

reached by enough

monitoring stations

Source: ESSP

Kuusamo

EGNOS monitoring

stations

Outline

Defining the Arctic

Navigation requirements in the Arctic

Challenges in the Arctic

Possible solutions

• Conclusions

Possible solutions - ionosphere modeling and monitoring

• Single-frequency use of GNSS will be dominating still the

next 10 years or so in civilian maritime and aviation

• Improving ionosphere time/spatial variability models

• Combination of various types of observations of the

ionosphere

• Multi-frequency GNSS in

the future to compensate

for the ionosphere

• L1 and L5

Source: Pixabay

Possible solutions – GNSS augmentation and integrity • Corrections through

• MEO constellation

• Extensive ground monitoring still needed

• IALA (International Association of Lighthouse

Authorities) differential GNSS beacons

• Limited range and difficulties with maintenance

• Polar orbiting satellites or others

• Expensive (billions of €)

• Long endurance UAVs

• Advanced Receiver Autonomous

Integrity Monitoring (ARAIM)

for integrity Source: Pixabay

Possible solutions - ice-aware routing • Is it possible to create an algorithm that generates optimal maritime

shipping routes, taking into account ice conditions and available ice

breaker assistance?

Photos by Tapio Nyman and the Canadian Coast Guard

What is needed for ice-aware routing?

1. Sea spatial model

2. Ship maneuverability model

3. Sea ice model

• Describes the sea ice conditions

at given point in space and time

4. Ship performance model

• Describes how the ship

performs as a function of ice conditions

• Also, takes into account possible ice

breaker assistance

5. A cost function (A*)

Ice-aware maritime route optimization in the Baltic Sea (1)

Current route (AIS data)

ARCSAT optimized route

Speed near open-water speed

ice-breaker waypoints

*

* *

* *

*

Tallinn

Helsinki

St. Petersburg

The Bay of Bothnia

The Gulf of Finland

The Baltic Sea

Source: Jakub Montewka, FGI

Vessels beset in ice

during winter 2011

Ice-aware maritime route optimization in the Baltic Sea (2)

Current route (AIS data)

ARCSAT optimized route

Speed near open-water speed

ice-breaker waypoints

*

* *

* *

*

Tallinn

Helsinki

St. Petersburg

Data collecting

* Oceanographic and

weather observations

forecasts, and analyses

* Route suggestions

• Icebreakers

• Merchant vessels

• Bridge integrators

• Authorities

• Ice service

• Logistics and port

operators

* Observations

* Engine power

* User needs

Other data sources: AIS, ice

breaker (IB) waypoints

Environmental and ship

models

Ice drift, ice thickness, ice

charts, iceberg monitoring

Route optimisation

Ship parameters

Data delivery

(internal, external)

Earth Observations •Cosmo-SkyMed

•Radarsat

•NOAA

•Modis

•Sentinel-1

Possible solutions - Ice navigation

support system V

O

R

I

C

Enhanced Situational Awareness

to Improve Maritime Safety in the

Baltic (ESABALT)

Common software platform for the

crowdsourcing of maritime

information for the benefit of all

maritime stakeholders

www.esabalt.org

Possible solutions

- Crowdsourcing

Enhanced Situational Awareness

to Improve Maritime Safety in the

Baltic (ESABALT)

Common software platform for the

crowdsourcing of maritime

information for the benefit of all

maritime stakeholders

www.esabalt.org

Possible solutions

- Crowdsourcing

FGI’s projects related to the Arctic • ARCSAT: Arctic Real-Time

Satellite Services for the Public

and Commercial End-Use

• Ice aware navigation for the

Arctic sea

• ESABALT: Enhanced Situational

Awareness to Improve Maritime

Safety in the Baltic

• STORMWINDS: Strategic and

Operational Risk Management for

Wintertime Maritime Transportation

System

• VORIC: Vessel Operations and Routing

in Ice Conditions

• FEGNOS: Finland’s EGNOS Monitoring

and Performance Evaluation

Outline

Defining the Arctic

Navigation requirements in the Arctic

Challenges in the Arctic

Possible solutions

Conclusions

Conclusions and recommendations (1) • Arctic “rush”

• North-East and North-West passages are being probed as

commercial sea routes

• Mining, oil and natural gas extraction industries are moving ever

northwards

• Research stations have sprung up in the Arctic territories of

almost every Northern country

• Governments have started

to invest in policies for

protection and sustainable

development of the fragile

Arctic environment

Wintertime marine highway, Finnish Transport Agency

• The challenges include

• presence of ice and snow

• coverage of GNSS constellations and satellite- or

land-based augmentation systems is not optimal

• access to radio navigation (other than GNSS) and

communications is limited

• atmospheric modelling is

not well-understood

• lack of maps and

sea charts

• The challenge is to attain similar levels of navigation

performance and reliability possible via traditional

technologies at lower latitudes

Source: Finnish Transport Agency

Conclusions and recommendations (2)

• What is needed:

• Cross-nation cross-sector cooperation

• Geodata infrastructure as the common

platform for all Arctic stakeholders

• Maps and sea charts

• Communication technologies

• Denser GNSS observation and

improved GNSS augmentation channels

• Organized crowdsourcing of information

• Knowledge from the Baltic will be

useful to be transferred to the Arctic

• Ice models, traffic data, ship performance,

route optimization, oil combating

Source: National Land Survey, Finland

Source: Finnish Transport Agency

Source: GSA

Conclusions and recommendations (3)

European Navigation Conference 2016

Helsinki, Finland, 30th May – 2nd June 2016

ENC 2016

www.enc2016.eu

Helsinki Finlandia Hall

IMPORTANT DEADLINES

Full-paper submission: 15th February, 2016

(full-paper-review track)

Abstract Submission: 15th February, 2016

(abstract-review track)

Acceptance Notification: 31th March, 2016

Early Registration: 15th April, 2016