Impact of Buoy Attitude Estimation Algorithms on Wave Parameter Retrieval: A Comparative Field Experiment
https://doi.org/10.59887/2073-6673.2025.18(3)-9
EDN: WLUNEY
Abstract
Microelectromechanical inertial sensors with embedded attitude determination algorithms have become standard in modern wave measurement buoys, though their proprietary nature often limits transparency in evaluating wave parameter accuracy. This paper presents the results of a field experiment with a prototype wave measuring buoy, in which raw triaxial accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer data were recorded onto a memory card with minimal preprocessing. Subsequent post-processing was performed using various attitude estimation algorithms with open-source and easily accessible software implementations. The study examined both direct methods based on gravity and magnetic field measurements and more complex approaches, including the complementary filter and its variations (Mahony and Madgwick filters), as well as the Kalman filter and its extended version. The resulting attitude estimates enabled computation of both spectral wave characteristics and bulk parameters including significant wave height, peak period and mean direction. Comparative analysis against reference resistive wave gauge measurements revealed algorithm-dependent performance in the context of sea wave measurement. These findings offer practical insights for scenarios requiring either post-processing of raw buoy data or development of optimized embedded systems where full raw data transmission is not feasible.
Supporting agencies: The research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, grant No. 24-27-00153.
About the Authors
Yu. Yu. Yurovsky
Marine Hydrophysical Institute RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
2 Kapitanskaya Str., Sevastopol, 299011
O. B. Kudinov
Marine Hydrophysical Institute RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
2 Kapitanskaya Str., Sevastopol, 299011
References
1. Rabault J, Nose T, Hope G, et al. OpenMetBuoy-v2021: an easy-to-build, affordable, customizable, open-source instrument for oceanographic measurements of drift and waves in sea ice and the open ocean. Geosciences. 2022;12(3):110. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences12030110
2. Collins CO, Dickhudt P, Thomson J, et al. Performance of moored GPS wave buoys. Coastal Engineering Journal. 2024;1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/21664250.2023.2295105
3. Hope G, Seldal TI, Rabault J, et al. SFY — a lightweight, high-frequency, and phase-resolving wave buoy for coastal waters. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 2025;42(2):133–154. https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D23-0170.1
4. Gryazin DG. Calculation and design of buoys for sea wave measurements. St. Petersburg: SPbGU ITMO; 2000. 134 p. (in Russian).
5. Matveev VV, Raspopov VYa. Fundamentals of strapdown inertial navigation systems. St. Petersburg: Concern CSRI Elektropribor JSC; 2009. 278 p. (in Russian).
6. Black HD. A passive system for determining the attitude of a satellite. AIAA Journal. 1964;2(7):1350–1351. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.2555
7. Davenport PB. A vector approach to the algebra of rotations with applications. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 1968. 25 p.
8. Wu J, Zhou Z, Fourati H, Cheng Y. A super fast attitude determination algorithm for consumer-level accelerometer and magnetometer. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics. 2018;64(3):375–381. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCE.2018.2859625
9. Zhou Z, Wu J, Wang J, Fourati H. Optimal, recursive and sub-optimal linear solutions to attitude determination from vector observations for GNSS/accelerometer/magnetometer orientation measurement. Remote Sensing. 2018;10(3):377. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10030377
10. Valenti R, Dryanovski I, Xiao J. Keeping a good attitude: a quaternion-based orientation filter for IMUs and MARGs. Sensors. 2015;15(8):19302–19330. https://doi.org/10.3390/s150819302
11. Mahony R, Hamel T, Pflimlin J-M. Nonlinear complementary filters on the special orthogonal group. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 2008;53(5):1203–1218. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2008.923738
12. Madgwick SOH, Harrison AJL, Vaidyanathan R. Estimation of IMU and MARG orientation using a gradient descent algorithm. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics; 2011. p. 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICORR.2011.5975346
13. Kalman RE. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Journal of Basic Engineering. 1960;82(1):35–45. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3662552
14. Hartikainen J, Solin A, Särkkä S. Optimal filtering with Kalman filters and smoothers. Espoo: Department of Biomedical Engineering and Computational Science, Aalto University School of Science; 2011. 150 p.
15. Open Source Sensor Fusion. An open source repository of algorithms and datasets for sensor fusion and analytics (Version 4.22 of Freescale Semiconductor’s sensor fusion library). Available from: https://github.com/memsindustrygroup/ Open-Source-Sensor-Fusion/tree/master [accessed 28 March 2025].
16. AHRS: Attitude and Heading Reference Systems. AHRS0.4.0 documentation. Available from: https://ahrs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ [accessed 28 March 2025].
17. Bosch Sensortec. BNO055 intelligent 9-axis absolute orientation sensor. Reutlingen: Bosch Sensortec; 2014. Available from: https://www.bosch-sensortec.com/media/boschsensortec/downloads/datasheets/bst-bno055-ds000.pdf [accessed 28 March 2025].
18. Rainville E, Thomson J, Moulton M, Derakhti M. Measurements of nearshore ocean-surface kinematics through coherent arrays of free-drifting buoys. Earth System Science Data. 2023;15(11):5135–5151. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd 15-5135-2023
19. Feddersen F, Amador A, Pick K, et al. The wavedrifter: a low-cost IMU-based Lagrangian drifter to observe steepening and overturning of surface gravity waves and the transition to turbulence. Coastal Engineering Journal. 2024;66(1):44–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/21664250.2023.2238949
20. Veras Guimarães P, Ardhuin F, Sutherland P, et al. A surface kinematics buoy (SKIB) for wave–current interaction studies. Ocean Science. 2018;14(6):1449–1460. https://doi.org/10.5194/os14-1449-2018
21. Crandle T, Cook M, Cook G, Celkis E. Advances in wave sensing using MEMS. In: Proceedings of OCEANS2016 MTS/IEEE Monterey; 2016. p. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.2016.7761148
22. Tengberg A, Weiss G, Roach D. Directional wave, currents and environmental monitoring from navigation and hydrography buoys: an introduction to MOTUS. In: Proceedings of 2018 OCEANS — MTS/IEEE Kobe Techno-Oceans (OTO); 2018. p. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANSKOBE.2018.8559239
23. Zhou F, Zhang R, Zhang S. Measurement principle and technology of miniaturized strapdown inertial wave sensor. Frontiers in Marine Science. 2022;9:991996. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.991996
24. InvenSense Inc. MPU 9250 product specification. Revision 1.1. San Jose: InvenSense Inc; 2016. Available from: www. invensense.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PS-MPU9250A01-v1.1.pdf [accessed 28 March 2025].
25. Joosten H. Directional wave buoys and their elastic mooring. International Ocean Systems. 2006;10(4):18–21.
26. Bondur VG, Dulov VA, Murynin AB, Yurovsky YY. A study of sea-wave spectra in a wide wavelength range from satellite and in-situ data. Izvestiya. Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics. 2016;52(9):888–903. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433816090097
27. Fairall CW, Bradley EF, Hare JE, et al. Bulk parameterization of air–sea fluxes: updates and verification for the COARE algorithm. Journal of Climate. 2003;16(4):571–591. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)0162.0.CO;2
28. Longuet-Higgins MS, Cartwright DE, Smith ND. Observations of the directional spectrum of sea waves using the motions of a floating buoy. In: Ocean wave spectra: proceedings of a conference. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1961. P. 111–132.
29. Earle MD, Brown R, Baker DJ, McCall JC. Nondirectional and directional wave data analysis procedures. Stennis Space Center: NDBC; 1996. 43 p. (NDBC technical document 96–01). Available from: www.ndbc.noaa.gov/wavemeas.pdf [accessed 28 March 2025].
30. Young IR. The determination of confidence limits associated with estimates of the spectral peak frequency. Ocean Engineering. 1995;22(7):669–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-8018(95)00002-3
31. Rossi GB, Nardone G, Settanta G, et al. Improvement in the post-processing of wave buoy data driven by the needs of a national coast and sea monitoring agency. Sensors. 2023;23(12):5371. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23125371
32. Yurovsky YY, Kudinov OB. Methods and errors of wave measurements using conventional inertial motion units. Physical Oceanography. 2025;32(1):63–83. Available from: http://physical-oceanography.ru/static/assets/files/2025/01/20250105.pdf [accessed 28 March 2025].
33. Pivaev P, Kudryavtsev V, Korinenko A, Malinovsky V. Field observations of breaking of dominant surface waves. Remote Sensing. 2021;13(16):3321. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13163321
Review
For citations:
Yurovsky Yu.Yu., Kudinov O.B. Impact of Buoy Attitude Estimation Algorithms on Wave Parameter Retrieval: A Comparative Field Experiment. Fundamental and Applied Hydrophysics. 2025;18(3):114-128. https://doi.org/10.59887/2073-6673.2025.18(3)-9. EDN: WLUNEY
Views:
97
Email this article 