Simultaneously Improving Glider Position

Estimates and Ocean State ForecastsOASIS, Inc., Patrick Cross, (808) 423-0011, cross@oasislex.com

$404,649

Short term goals: develop and test an iterative method for improved subsurface

position estimates for ocean gliders

Long term goal: integrate method with Navy 4D-Var ocean model data assimilation

Content of Presentation Penta Chart: New method for position estimates Importance – ocean models, raw interpretation State of the Art – Linear dead reckoning, introduces

errors in ocean state calculations/forecasts Customer – Naval Oceanographic Office, IOOS Project Plan and Timeline

Quantitative Goals and Success Criteria Work Tasks/Costs/Level of Effort Customer engagement plan Project Plan and Schedule Transition plan

Questions/Discussion and backup slides1

2

• Improvements in NAVO support capabilities for ASW, MIW, NSW

• Improved interpretation of raw glider data

• Improved ocean model forecasts

Developing a Method to Improve the Accuracy of Glider Subsurface Position Estimates

• Take advantage of state-of-the-art ocean models

• Develop glider kinematic model guided by ocean model

• Input glider data into ocean model at improved positions

Glider data is increasingly prevalent. Improved positional data will greatly enhance its utility.

MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS (Expected)• Develop glider kinematic model

• Develop statistics relating to scale of positional issue by leveraging ONR field test in Phil Sea

• Develop iterative technique, using high-res ocean model, to improve subsurface position estimates

• Field test method in Hawaii using bottom transponders for accurate measured positions

HOW IT WORKS: • Kinematic model incorporates vehicle inertial

mass, surface area, drag coefficients, seawater density, hydrodynamic forces (lift and drag)

• Glider model takes output of ocean model, over time, to predict x, y, and z coordinates of glider position through course of dive

• Glider data (T/S) is input back into ocean model at improved positions

• Process is run iteratively to seek convergence and improved ocean state forecasts

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS:

• Scale of possible positional improvement must exceed grid resolution of ocean model

• Possibility that solution may not converge

• Field validation very important to project

• Gliders in use by Navy and others in growing numbers

• Position during dive based on linear dead reckoning only

• Glider kinematic model

• Iterative technique developed

• Field test in Hawaii

QU

AN

TIT

ATIV

E IM

PA

CT

EN

D-O

F-P

HA

SE G

OA

L

Improved Underwater Glider Positions

STA

TU

S Q

UO

NEW

IN

SIG

HTS

Company: OASIS, Inc. Contact: Patrick Cross Email: cross@oasislex.com Phone: (808) 423-0011

~ 2.5 km

~ 7.5 km

Transponders

Intended glider flight path

Importance Navy is committed to large fleet of ocean gliders (100 or more) through Littoral Battlespace

Sensing, Fusion, and Integration (LBSFI) program

Characterization of Battlespace for ASW, MIW, NSW, EOD applications

Feed broad area ocean models

Glider fleet managed by Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO)

Glider data is used in raw form and ingested into predictive ocean models, such as NAVO’s

Navy Coastal Ocean Model (NCOM)

Gliders obtain GPS fix when on surface, but position is not known accurately once they dive

Can lead to errors in estimation of ocean state, and, when assimilated into an ocean model, errors

in forecast fields

Our concept of using an ocean model, paired with a glider motion model, to provide

enhanced subsurface glider positional accuracy is supported by NAVO (Dr. Frank Bub and

Mr. James Rigney). Also, PMW-120 (Dr. Ed Mozley) has expressed interest in the method

and would pick up funding beyond CEROS as part of LBSFI program.

3

State of the Art(no effort here yet)

Describe the state of the art and the state of the practice

Identify other individuals and research groups who are working on

the problem (including alternative approaches)

Describe the ways in which your project will advance current

knowledge and practice

Describe the technical challenges

Additional detail slide (or two… mindful of existing content already

submitted in your written proposal, and time limits on presentation!)

4

5

Advancing the State-of-the-Art

Ocean Model(such as NCOM)

VelocityField

Estimated gliderx, y, z vs time

Glider Model

Assign glider T/Sto revised x, y, z

considers vehicle inertial

mass, surface area, drag

coefficients, seawater

density, vehicle lift and drag

Crude effort atblock diagram

Customer – Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO)

Project endorsements

Dr. Frank Bub, NAVO Ocean Modeling Technical Lead – interested and pressing endorsement

through CNMOC Advisory Board

Mr. James Rigney, NAVO Chief Scientist – “potentially useful to NAVO”, says CNMOC will

formally endorse

Dr. Ed Mozley, PMW-120 Asst. Program Manager – willingness to fund follow-on work through

LBSFI

Envisioned nature of customer relationships:

Short term: Provision of NCOM model output, Guidance relating to method development

Long term: Operational implementation of method in NAVO Reachback Cell

Other sources of support, or related efforts:

Leveraging SPAWAR PMW-120 EMPath project (part of LBSFI)

Leveraging ONR Code 32 Deep Water Acoustics Philippine Sea 2010 test

Methodology will have benefits in ocean and climate modeling in academia, at NOAA

(IOOS Program), and elsewhere

6

Methodology Develop glider kinematic model Run glider model during ONR Philippine Sea test

Test will span ~5 months of Seaglider deployments Glider model fed with output from NAVO’s NCOM Actual surfacing positions compared with those forecast by glider model to generate

statistics to assess degree of potential positional error

Develop ocean model iterative technique Utilize high-resolution UH ROMS model

Test iterative approach during Hawaii sea test ~ 2 weeks duration off leeward Oahu Utilize field of 8 bottom transponders 1000m dives, through transponder field Compare measured and predicted

positions during analysis phase

7

~ 2.5 km

~ 7.5 km

Transponders

Intended glider flight path

Quantitative Goals and Success Criteria

Capability Current Capability

Minimum Goal

Operational Metrics

(e.g., accuracy, precision, speed, false alarm rate, weight, size, …)

(e.g., accuracy, precision, speed, false alarm rate, weight, size, …)

Affordability Metrics

(e.g., costs per unit, operation & maintenance)

(e.g., costs per unit, operation & maintenance)

TRL

Effectiveness

8

Project Schedule

Tasks Cost OASIS LOE 2010 2011(weeks) Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

1. Purchase Hardware for Field Test $67K 1.4

2. Develop Glider Kinematic Model $48K 13.5

3. Test Glider Model during ONR PhilSea Exp. $63K 5

4. Develop Iterative Technique w/UH ROMS $71K 4

5. At-sea Demonstration off Oahu $80K 6

6. Analysis and Synthesis $45K 5.5

7. Reports and Presentations $24K 3.5

Total $405K 39

Customer Engagement Plan(no effort here so far)

Work Task

Milestone or Result

Person, Organization, or Venue (examples)

Form(s) of engagement

Timing

1 From task 1 Endorsement 1 Informal communication

flexible

2 … task 2 Endorsement 1+2 Written communication

task completed

3 …(intra-task) Conference Abstract and presentation

date certain

4 … task 3 Endorsement 2 Written report task completed

5 …(intra-task) Workshop Presentation date range..

…(3b) …(intra-task) Working Group Specifications/ requirements info

when convened..

…. …. (other) (other) etc..

10

Transition Plans

Short-term transition of glider model, through LBSFI EMPath

program, to NAVO for enhanced glider positional modeling

Longer-term transition of iterative method to NAVO ocean modeling

group, after 4D Var data assimilation becomes operational

Will continue to update NAVO and PMW-120 on progress, and seek

follow-on funds to move toward long-term transition

Identify transition partners

• Obligated funding: none locked in, likely from PMW-120 (Mozley)

• Leveraged funds: OASIS LBSFI funding for EMPath, OASIS/UH funding in

ONR’s Deep Water Acoustics Philippine Sea program

• Partners: Dr. Bruce Howe (bhowe@hawaii.edu), Dr. Brian Powell (

powellb@hawaii.edu) of University of Hawaii – gliders, iterative technique,

field test support

• Endorsements: NAVO, CNMOC, PMW-120

Expected Intellectual Property (IP) - ? 11

Q&A / Discussion

12

Simultaneously Improving Glider Position

Estimates and Ocean State ForecastsOASIS, Inc., Patrick Cross, (808) 423-0011, cross@oasislex.com

$404,649

BACKUP & OPTIONAL SLIDES

13

Heilmeier Questions

(Think these questions through very carefully and have lucid answers prepared)

14

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

Reach TRL4:

TRL 4 ComponentValidation in Lab

TRL 6 Prototype demo in relevant

environment

TRL 7Prototype demo in

operational environment

TRL 9Operationally and

mission proven

Year 5

Program A and Program B leverage CEROS funding.

Organizations and assets in position to benefit from project results and operational transition, but without firm, funded requirements:

Program of Record, funded RequirementsClass-4 Endorsement

TRL 8Integrated

operationally

Potential Interest, but no endorsements: Identify PEOs

Identify Commands Current Systems Current Products

For TRL 5-7: Add functionality, modules, capabilities

Program A $xxx KClass-1 Endorsement

CEROS $xxx K(Support Design/Planning

And Proof of concept)

Program B $xxx KClass-1 Endorsement

Ongoing support, expanded projectClass-2 Endorsement

Facilitate ongoing tests and developmentClass-3 Endorsement

Anticipated Transition PlanClass of Endorsements:

1) “We will help fund …”2) ”If successful, we will do …”3) “We will provide planes, vessels,

people and will mentor and advise.”

4) “We are interested in the outcome.”