Effect of Vessel Type and Other Factors on Ship Wind Speed Bias

Bridget R. Thomas 1, Elizabeth C. Kent 2 and Val R. Swail 1

INTRODUCTION 1Environment Canada and 2National Oceanography Centre, Southampton AIR FLOW DISTORTION &
Homogenous marine winds are needed for atmosphere, ocean, RELATIVE WIND DIRECTION
wave, and climate modelling, for trend and variability analysis, and
for verification of remote-sensed near-surface winds. Ship and
buoy winds are inhomogeneous. The greatest source of bias in
RECRUITING COUNTRY NIGHT OR DAY TIME From Taylor et al. 1999: air
measured winds is the difference in anemometer heights (Thomas flow over research vessel
et al. 2004). The Lindau (1995)-adjustment for estimated winds had There were more measured than estimated winds; the proportion of At night or in poor visibility, it is more difficult to visually estimate winds RRS Charles Darwin
estimated winds decreased over the period. Most estimated winds on based on waves. Some ships use anemometers for aid. Do observers
less impact on the mean bias between estimated and buoy winds. showing plume of
west coast were from US recruited ships; on the east coast most were adjust for height or for ship motion? accelerated air above
We examine height-adjusted measured winds and estimated winds
and see other interesting differences in the ship – buoy bias and from US, German, and British ships. Frequency histograms of original  Estimated winds from bridge.
reported winds show differences in preferred speeds, depending on wind Estimated Ship - Ht. Adjusted Buoy Wind Speed
variability, related to factors such as the recruiting country, vessel Difference (%), Pacific NE container and general cargo
method and recruiting country. ships showed a night/day
type, night/day and heading/following wind conditions. We use 60
US
coincident ship and NOMAD buoy reports, from 1980 to 1995. The 50 Container
US
variation, with bias increasing
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 US Ships in the day by 5 to 15%.

Percent Difference
goal is to understand how to correct for these effects and improve 200 7% 300 7% 40
Tankers
General
the marine wind climate record. 180 6% 30 Cargo  Estimated winds from US
Measured, Pacific 250 Measured, Pacific 6% Ships
160
Japan Recruited
5%
US Recruited 20 tankers and British bulk
140 5%
200 5% carriers did not show an

No of obs
No of obs
120 4% 10
100 3% 150 3% 0 overall night/day variation.
80 3%  Measured winds from German From Moat et al. 2005:
-10
60 2%
100 2%
container ships showed a modelling results for
-20
40 1%
50 1%
Night higher bias by day. bow-on flow over
-30 Buoy U >= 4 m/s
20 1% Day bridge of a generic
0 0% 0 0% -40 tanker..
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Ship U (kt) Ship U (kt)

500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
12% 180
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
12% SHIP TYPE Different vessel types have different flow distortion characteristics. Air flow
450 11% Estimated, Atlantic
160
DE (Recruiting Country:
11%
distortion patterns will vary as the wind comes from different directions around
400 10%
Estimated, Pacific 140
Germany) 9% Typical ship types and sizes near the buoys differed by location. the ship . Can we learn anything about air flow d istortion by looking at
350 US Recruited 9%
120 8% Shipping lanes near some buoys resulted in many reports from ship/buoy wind speed differences for a range of relative wind directions, for
No of obs

No of obs
300 7%
Pacific NE: within 100 km of NOMAD Atlantic NW: within 100 km of NOMAD 100 7%
merchant vessels. Tankers provided the majority of observations, of
250 6% different ship types?
buoys on Canada’s west coast buoys on Canada’s east coast 200 5%
80 5%
the identified ship types. Other main merchant vessel types were
60 4%
150 4% container ships, general cargo vessels and bulk carriers. Smaller The Figure below shows that the percentage difference between ship and buoy
100 2% 40 3%
Coast Guard and research vessels, provided many east coast reports.
HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT 50 1% 20 1%
Ship types for many reports were not identified.
winds varies with ship type and relative wind direction. Bow-on winds for both
0 0% 0 0% container ships and tankers are lower than the co-located buoy winds. For
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Anemometer heights were 5 m, 700 Ship U (kt) Ship U (kt)
container ships the winds on the beam and on the rear quarter are around 20%
moored buoys; 20 to 25 m, small
44137
40-45
44138
44139 600

500
higher than those from the buoys. More work is needed to confirm these
interesting results.
10-15 400

ships such as fishing vessels, coast

300

200 Different recruiting countries showed different preferred values:

guard ships, and research vessels; • US estimated winds, nearest 5 knots;
100

and 30 to 40 m, merchant vessels. • German estimated winds, mid-point of the Beaufort intervals;
> 60

> 60

> 60
<= 5

<= 5

<= 5
(5,10]

(5,10]

(5,10]
(10,15]
(15,20]
(20,25]
(25,30]
(30,35]
(35,40]
(40,45]
(45,50]
(50,55]
(55,60]

(10,15]
(15,20]
(20,25]
(25,30]
(30,35]
(35,40]
(40,45]
(45,50]
(50,55]
(55,60]

(10,15]
(15,20]
(20,25]
(25,30]
(30,35]
(35,40]
(40,45]
(45,50]
(50,55]
(55,60]

700

44140 44142
Winds increase logarithmically with 44141
20-25
600

500 • US measured winds, nearest 5 knot and even knots;

height in the surface layer (9% from • Japanese measured winds, more continuous;
400

300

200

5 m to 10 m, 10% from 10 m to 25 m, 100

0
• Canadian government vessel measured winds, 5 knots (not shown).
and 16 % from 10 m to 40 m, for
> 60

> 60

> 60
<= 5

<= 5

<= 5
(5,10]

(5,10]

(5,10]
(10,15]
(15,20]
(20,25]
(25,30]
(30,35]
(35,40]
(40,45]
(45,50]
(50,55]
(55,60]

(10,15]
(15,20]
(20,25]
(25,30]
(30,35]
(35,40]
(40,45]
(45,50]
(50,55]
(55,60]

(10,15]
(15,20]
(20,25]
(25,30]
(30,35]
(35,40]
(40,45]
(45,50]
(50,55]
(55,60]

neutral stability). We adjusted Frequency distribution of ship anemometer

measured winds to 10 m effective heights (m), near each east coast NOMAD
neutral using similarity theory. buoy (Atlantic NW).
HEADING OR FOLLOWING WIND
The ship heading relative to the true wind (and perhaps wave) direction
seems to affect the reported wind. This may be due to the influence of waves,
to errors in determining the true wind from the apparent wind, or may result Frequently reporting large merchant vessels in the VOS fleet: tankers,
Adjustment Factor = 0.84 from differences in relative wind direction. In this study, the ship course and bulk carriers, container vessels, and general cargo ships.
26m the buoy wind direction were used to determine whether the true wind was
40m coming from ahead or astern of the ship’s beam (sides). For heading true
winds, most relative winds are on the bow or forward quarters of the ship.
5m The following wind category includes a wider range of relative wind
directions.
1.5 West Coast
Difference in Ht. Adjusted Ship – Buoy Wind Speed (%), for Tankers and
0.90
1.09 1.4 75% Container Ships, Pacific NE, Binned on Platform Relative Wind
25%
1.3 Median Directions Ranging from Bow-on Flow Around to the Stern.
Adjustment factors for anemometer heights of typical marine platforms
CONCLUSIONS
1.2

(to adjust to 10 m assuming neutral stability and a logarithmic profile. 1.1

1.0
Differing observation practices between VOS recruiting countries, heading or
0.9 following wind conditions, time of day, ship type, and platform relative wind
0.8
direction contribute to bias and variability in ship winds. More work is
950

900
950

900 12%
0.7
Measured Estimated
needed to understand these effects. We plan to extend the dataset to include
850

800
850

800
11% Heading Heading
more recent data with more complete metadata and investigate application to
ICOA DS, the International Comprehensive Ocean-A tmosphere Dataset.
750 750 10% Following Following
700 B_U 700

Ratio of Ship/
BU10NUSE 9%
S_U 650
650 SU10NUSE

600 600 8%

550 550
7% Buoy U10N
REFERENCES
500 500

450 450 6%

400 400
5%
350 350
Lindau, R., 1995: A new Beaufort equivalent scale. Proc. Of Int’l COADS Winds Workshop, 31 May – 2 June 1994, Kiel,
300

250
300

250
4%

3%
 Ship winds, both measured and estimated, were higher with a Germany, (Kiel: Institut fur Meereskunde/Christian-Albrechts-Universitat), pp. 232-252.
heading (true) wind, than with a following wind, by 10% for Moat, B. I., M. J. Yelland, R. W. Pascal and A. F. Molland, 2005: An overview of the airflow distortion at anemometer sites
200 200

150 150 2%

on ships, Int’l J. Clim. (CLIMAR-II Special Issue), 25(7), 997-1006.

 The percentage difference between the buoy winds and those measured by co-
100 100

measured and 15% for estimated winds.

1%
50 50

0 0 0% Taylor, P.K., E.C. Kent, M.J. Yelland, and B. I. Moat, 1999: The Accuracy Of Marine Surface Winds From Ships And Buoys.
 Tanker winds show good agreement with buoy winds up to about located ships of different types and from different countries varies both in sign
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

CLIMAR 99, WMO Workshop on Advances in Marine Climatology, Vancouver, 8 - 15 Sept. 1999, pp. 59-68.
Measured ship (red) and buoy (blue) wind speed distributions, before and 14 ms -1 . For stronger winds, heading winds were reported as and in magnitude Thomas, B. R., E. C. Kent and V. R. Swail, 2005: Methods to Homogenize Wind Speeds from Ships and Buoys, Int’l J.
Clim. (CLIMAR-II Special Issue), 25(7), 979-995.
after adjustment for anemometer height and buoy averaging method. higher than buoy winds and following winds were reported as  Winds from sma ll Canadian Vessels (Research and Coast Guard) are ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
lower. consistently about 15% higher than buoy winds, even after adjustment for The authors acknowledge the contribution made by VOS observers, Port Meteorological Officers, and Meteorological
height Service of Canada Buoy Specialists to the existence of these observations. The Marine Environmental Data Service, of
the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the ICOADS group provided archived reports. The Program of
 In contrast the winds from US tankers are consistently about 5% lower than the Energy Research and Development provided financial support.
buoys