You are on page 1of 9

Study on altimeter-based inversion

model of mean wave period


Hongli Miao
Haoran Ren
Xiaoguang Zhou
Guizhong Wang
Jie Zhang

Downloaded From: http://journals.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/16/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Study on altimeter-based inversion model of mean


wave period
Hongli Miao,a Haoran Ren,a Xiaoguang Zhou,a Guizhong Wang,a and
Jie Zhangb
a

Ocean University of China, College of Information Science and Engineering,


Qingdao 266100, China
oumhl@ouc.edu.cn
b
First Institute of Oceanography of State Oceanic Administration, Qingdao 266061, China

Abstract. Based on the strong correlation between nondimensional wave height and wave age,
we propose a quartic polynomial model by piecewise method according to significant wave
height. In order to validate our new model, a validation dataset was created by interpolating
the mean wave period data of ERA-40 to 23 cycles counterpart measuring points of Jason-1
altimeter with bilinear interpolation. We found that (1) the previous inversion models based
on altimeter measurements cannot provide enough accuracy with our global validation dataset;
(2) compared with H98 model, the RMS error and bias were reduced by 0.8949 s and 0.3759 s,
respectively, by piecewise quartic polynomial model. Furthermore, the bias of the new model
is 0.0197 s, which indicates that it offers enough accuracy in the global range. 2012 Society of
Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). [DOI: 10.1117/1.JRS.6.063591]

Keywords: mean wave period; bilinear interpolation; nondimensional wave height; wave age;
piecewise quartic polynomial model.
Paper 12080 received Mar. 28, 2012; revised manuscript received Sep. 12, 2012; accepted for
publication Sep. 26, 2012; published online Nov. 7, 2012.

1 Introduction
Satellite altimeters provide accurate sea state data with high spatial resolution globally. Global
descriptions of wave conditions can be obtained from satellite observations that can also be used
in the inversions of wave parameters. At present, the inversion of significant wave height (H S ) by
satellite altimeters is widely used due to the high precision. However, H S provides only limited
information about the wave spectra, namely about its height and energy. Mean wave period (T),
the mean time that the full wave takes to pass a given point, is another important wave parameter.
However, the retrieval of T from altimeters has not been investigated adequately, and its data are
not contained in the altimeters geophysical data records (GDR) currently.1
Several model-related parameters contained in altimeter GDR data are used to represent the
mean wave period. The first attempt of an altimeter based on a T inversion model is proposed by
Challenor and Srokosz.2 Their model establishes a theoretical relationship between HS and backscatter coefficient ( 0 ) with T. An empirical model based on wave dynamics is advanced by
Hwang et al.3 and buoy observations are used to derive their specific model. New empirical
models based on heuristic arguments are proposed by Gommenginger et al.4 and by Mackay
et al.5 to obtain T measurements from collocated TOPEX altimeter and buoy dataset. A neural
network is used by Quilfen et al.6 to establish a relationship between altimeter H S and 0 with
buoy T based on a collocated data set of TOPEX/Poseidon and National Data Buoy Center
(NDBC) buoy measurements. Considering that the underlying relationship between the variables
is not so clear in the Ref. 6 algorithm and the specific inversion models for different altimeters are
quite different, the Ref. 6 model will not be mentioned here.
Although both the models from Refs. 3 and 4 are based on the NDBC buoy dataset, the
NDBC buoy dataset is restricted to only coastal regions, offering rather limited sea state

0091-3286/2012/$25.00 2012 SPIE

Journal of Applied Remote Sensing

063591-1

Downloaded From: http://journals.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/16/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Vol. 6, 2012

Miao et al.: Study on altimeter-based inversion model of mean wave period

conditions. The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) has completed the ERA-40 reanalysis data based on numerical Wave Model (WAM) data. ERA-40
can provide T data with high precision and spatial resolution globally7. In this paper, a global
validation of the previous T models is performed based on a collocated ERA-40/Jason-1 validation dataset. A new empirical model based on strong correlation between nondimensional wave
height and wave age is given by using an independent development dataset.

2 Collocated ERA-40/Jason-1 Dataset


The ECMWF has completed the computations of the ERA-40 dataset, which is a reanalysis of
global meteorological variables, including the data of ocean surface wind waves from September
1957 to August 2002. The ERA-40 reanalysis data comes on a 1.5 deg by 1.5 deg latitude/longitude grid at synoptic times, and its large subset of the complete ERA-40 dataset on a 2.5 deg by
2.5 deg latitude/longitude grid can be downloaded from http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/
era40_daily/.8 The ERA-40 T measurements are available four times every day, namely
00:00, 06:00, 12:00, and 18:00. The previous investigation on ERA-40 dataset indicates that
its T data agree well with the buoy data that are considered to be the most reliable ocean
wave observations so far, with monthly RMS error below 0.5 s.
There are several different definitions of T. Generally, the definition of mean zerocrossing wave period (T Z ) is widely used because it is an integrated property and it is more
robust. ERA-40 T data are performed by computing the spectral moments of WAM, unfortunately not the mean zero-crossing wave period [Eq. (1)], but the one based on m1 m0 (T 0;1 )
[Eq. (2)]:
T Z m0 m2 12 ;
ZZ
mx

Sf; fx dfd:

(1)
(2)

In this paper, we use the conversion relationship between T Z and T 0;1 , which was proposed
by Li9 [see Eq. (3)] to make the ERA-40s mean wave period data compatible with those of the
altimeter data:
T Z 0.8017T 0;1 :

(3)

In this paper, using the collocated ERA-40 and altimeter dataset, a global validation of the
previous wave period models based on altimeter measurements is performed, which is known for
the first time. The ERA-40 and altimeter data have to be processed to make their time and space
scales compatible. A total of 23 cycles of data of the Jason-1 GDR database, from January 2002
to August 2002, are chosen. In order to match the time of altimeter with ERA-40, the selected
times are before and after 3 min of 00:00, 06:00, 12:00, and 18:00, respectively. The ERA-40 T
data are then bilinearly interpolated to the selected altimeter data locations, and after that the time
and space scales of two databases are compatible. Because the T data at ice and land are constant
as 37267 s, it is easy for us to delete these exceptional data from the above interpolated data.
With this criterion and the applications of standard ice and rain flags from the AVISO Jason-1
GDR dataset, we have selected 73,640 data points acquired from the months of 01, 03, 05, and
07 as validation dataset, and 70,604 data points acquired from the months of 02, 04, 06, and 08 as
development dataset.

3 Development of the New Period Model


Our new empirical model is based on the correlation between nondimensional wave height (H n )
and wave age (). is given by
cp U;
Journal of Applied Remote Sensing

063591-2

Downloaded From: http://journals.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/16/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

(4)
Vol. 6, 2012

Miao et al.: Study on altimeter-based inversion model of mean wave period

where cP is the phase speed of the dominant wave, U is the wind speed, and is a measurement
of the degree of wave development. According to the dispersion relationship for deep water
gravity waves, follows the expression

cP
g

;
U wP U

(5)

where g is the acceleration of gravity, and wP is the peak frequency of spectrum. Based on
wP 2T P , where T p is the peak wave period (T p ), follows the expression

gT P
:
2U

(6)

However, T p is an unstable parameter, especially for large periods, so it is not a good sea state
descriptor.4 Alternatively, the zero-crossing period T Z is an integrated property. It is more robust
than T p and can be used in place of T p . Thus, we use the zero-crossing period T Z as our
mean wave period in this paper. The empirical conversion relationship between T Z and T p
is T p 1.44 T Z .10 Thus the is
1.44

gT Z
:
2U

(7)

Nondimensional wave height (Hn ) is another important parameter of the degree of wave
development:
Hn

gH S
;
U2

(8)

where g is the acceleration of gravity and H S is the significant wave height.


Figure 1 shows a strong correlation between and H n using our development dataset, with a
correlation coefficient of 0.9025. It has also been found that the quartic polynomial is better to fit
the relationship, as is shown in Fig. 1.








gT
gH S
gH S 2
gH S 3
gH S 4

a
:
(9)

a
1.44 Z a0 a1
2
3
4
2U
U2
U2
U2
U2
Using our development dataset, we can determine the model described by Eq. (9) and obtain
the coefficients of the quartic polynomial. Results show that all the coefficients are in line with
the 95% confidence intervals:

Fig. 1 Nondimensional wave height versus wave age for collocated development dataset.
Red line shows quartic polynomial fitting.
Journal of Applied Remote Sensing

063591-3

Downloaded From: http://journals.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/16/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Vol. 6, 2012

Miao et al.: Study on altimeter-based inversion model of mean wave period

Fig. 2 The bias of T Z versus H S . Red line shows linear fitting.

a0 0.617  0.00463;
a3 0.3108  0.099;

a1 4.257  0.0395;

a2 1.416  0.106;

a4 0.02718  0.0253:

In order to improve the quartic polynomial model, the scatter diagrams of the bias of
T Z against significant wave height (H S ), nondimensional wave height (H n ), wave age (),
and wind speed (U) are performed. The bias of T Z is calculated as the mean of
TERA-40 Talt. The correlation between the bias and H S is the highest in the above relationships, and Fig. 2 shows the scatter diagram of the bias against H S . As is shown, the correlation is 0.6581. Thus, an obvious bias trend against H S is noticed after applying the quartic
polynomial model to determine mean wave period. The piecewise fitting method is used to
improve our quartic polynomial model [see Eq. (9)]. We divide the development dataset into
eight segments with 1 m intervals of H S , and calculate the coefficients of the quartic polynomial,
respectively. Results are given in Table 1.
R-square and RMSE of eight segments in the piecewise fitting are given in Table 2.
It is found that the fitting is less effective in the region of 0 < H s 1 and H S > 6 (see
Table 2). Although RMSE of H S > 6 section is much smaller than other intervals, R-square
of H S > 6 section is less effective than that of 1 < H s < 6. Figure 3 shows the occurrences
of the mean wave period by applying the piecewise quartic polynomial model to the development dataset, which indicates that the vast majority of sea state data focuses on 1 < H s < 6. Thus,
the fitting effectiveness in 0 < H s 1 and H s > 6 sections is relatively poor. However, the data
Table 1 Coefficients for piecewise quartic polynomial model, with 95% confidence intervals
given below the coefficients.
0 < Hs 1

1 < Hs 2

2 < Hs 3

3 < Hs 4

4 < Hs 5

5 < Hs 6

6 < Hs 7

7 < Hs 8

a0

0.9672
0.1718

0.6957
0.0318

0.5747
0.0201

0.6256
0.0229

0.5804
0.0286

0.5321
0.03

0.401
0.1027

0.03445
0.26435

a1

6.486
0.664

5.086
0.114

4.563
0.078

3.544
0.094

3.186
0.129

3.035
0.149

3.458
0.696

5.566
2.176

a2

2.858
0.697

1.777
0.116

1.782
0.084

1.22
0.107

1.319
0.157

1.563
0.198

2.674
1.493

7.135
6.045

a3

0.6494
0.2539

0.3556
0.0415

0.4082
0.0316

0.3027
0.0414

0.4533
0.0636

0.5078
0.0887

1.421
1.2208

5.365
6.757

a4

0.05695
0.02904

0.02691
0.00473

0.03479
0.00372

0.02917
0.00498

0.05438
0.00796

0.05328
0.01198

0.3219
0.3205

1.799
2.598

Journal of Applied Remote Sensing

063591-4

Downloaded From: http://journals.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/16/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Vol. 6, 2012

Miao et al.: Study on altimeter-based inversion model of mean wave period

Table 2 R-square and RMSE for piecewise quartic polynomial model.


0 < Hs 1 1 < Hs 2 2 < Hs 3 3 < Hs 4 4 < Hs 5 5 < Hs 6 6 < Hs 7 7 < Hs 8
R-square

0.4988

0.8116

0.8602

0.8405

0.8351

0.8121

0.7446

0.7405

RMSE

1.537

0.6932

0.4860

0.4225

0.3543

0.2470

0.2376

0.2138

Table 3 RMS error and the bias for Refs. 2, 3, and 4 and PQP models.
Ref. 2

Ref. 3

Ref. 4

PQP

RMS (s)

2.4833

1.8922

1.8565

0.9973

Bias (s)

1.9015

0.3956

0.7344

0.0197

quantity in these sections is rather small (Fig. 3), which indicates that the piecewise fitting
performs well as a whole.
In order to validate the piecewise fitting effectiveness, the bias trend is performed. In Fig. 4,
we compare the bias before and after the piecewise fitting is applied in our models. The nonpiecewise quartic polynomial [QP model, see Eq. (9)] and piecewise quartic polynomial model

Fig. 3 Distribution of samples versus H S for collocated development dataset.

Fig. 4 The bias trend before and after piecewise fitting applied.
Journal of Applied Remote Sensing

063591-5

Downloaded From: http://journals.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/16/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Vol. 6, 2012

Miao et al.: Study on altimeter-based inversion model of mean wave period

(PQP model, see Table 1) are used to calculate T(alt). It is evident that the bias of PQP model
decreases to 0 and its bias trend disappears compared with the QP model.
The bias trend clearly disappears in the piecewise fitting method, which indicates that the
piecewise fitting model performs better than the nonpiecewise fitting model.

4 Assessment of Mean Wave Period Models


We start by comparing the behaviors of the previous mean wave period inversion models (from
Refs. 2, 3, and 4) with our piecewise quartic polynomial model. The global validation dataset
established by collocating ERA-40 and Jason-1 GDR datasets is used to assess these mean wave
period models. The previous comparisons of the above inversion models are all based on the
Buoy/Altimeter collocated dataset, which is not a global dataset. Thus this is the first time to
evaluate all the previous inversion models globally. The bias and RMS error are two important
evaluation criteria. The bias is calculated as the mean of TERA-40 Talt and the RMS error
is calculated as the square root of the mean of [TERA-40 Talt].2 The results are given for
each model in Table 3.
With the independent validation dataset, Table 3 shows that the Ref. 2 model performs worse
than others with respect to both RMS error and bias, which indicates that the theoretical inversion model cannot ensure enough precision. The Ref. 3 empirical model performs better than the
Ref. 4 empirical model (see Table 3) with respect to the bias. But both RMS error and the bias are
still higher as compared with our PQP modeling dataset. Because the sea state conditions in the
buoy dataset are relatively limited, the above results may be induced by the buoy data that is used
to establish the Refs. 3 and 4 models. The returned RMS error of the PQP model is under 1 s and
the bias is one order of magnitude smaller than that of the Refs. 3 and 4 models. Thus, the PQP
empirical model is more effective than other models in terms of the RMS error and the bias in the
global range. It indicates that a global dataset such as ERA-40/Jason-1 collocated dataset is more
effective than a buoy-based dataset in establishing the empirical model of the mean wave period.
To fully understand the performance of the PQP inversion model, we compare it with the
Ref. 3 empirical model. The performance of the Refs. 2 and 4 models are not discussed here
because they are less effective in terms of the RMS error and the bias. To obtain a fully independent test of the empirical models, our collocated validation dataset is used here. Figure 5
shows the histogram of distributions of the altimeter retrieved T(alt) data from the Ref. 3
model and the PQP model with respect to the T(ERA-40) data. The mean wave period histogram
for the Ref. 3 model compares poorly with the ERA-40 measurements, particularly near the
peak. In contrast, the PQP model shows a good agreement with the ERA-40 measurements
(see Fig. 5). Also, our results show some differences from the validation results of Gommenginger et al.4 that T(alt) derived from all the previous models compared poorly with the buoy
values when the density of measurements is maximal.

Fig. 5 Histogram of retrieved mean wave period from PQP and Ref. 3 models, against ERA-40
wave period histogram.
Journal of Applied Remote Sensing

063591-6

Downloaded From: http://journals.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/16/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Vol. 6, 2012

Miao et al.: Study on altimeter-based inversion model of mean wave period

Fig. 6 The occurrence of differences between retrieved mean wave period from PQP and
Ref. 3 models.

Finally, Fig. 6 shows the occurrence of differences between T(ERA-40) and T(alt) derived
from the Ref. 3 and PQP models with the validation dataset. The result in Fig. 6 reveals that the
differences based on the PQP model mainly focus on the interval of (1 s, 1 s), and the absolute
value of difference that is greater than 1 s is in the minority. But the differences derived from the
Ref. 3 model behave worse because the sample quantity in the (1 s, 1 s) interval is obviously
lesser than that of the PQP model. We can conclude that the PQP model can reach better
agreement with ERA-40 data than that of the Ref. 3 model in the global range.

5 Conclusion
The previous mean wave period inversion models are validated by the global ERA-40/Jason-1
collocated validation dataset. Because the previous empirical inversion models are all deduced
from the sea state conditions limited buoy dataset, the previous models do not perform well in
terms of the RMS error and the bias of TERA-40 Talt. Thus, the results of the mean
wave period calculated with the previous models cannot have a good agreement with the
ERA-40 one.
A piecewise quartic polynomial model of mean wave period based on the strong correlation
between nondimensional wave height and wave age is proposed. The global ERA-40/Jason-1
collocated development dataset is used to establish the model. It is demonstrated that the new
model developed performs better than the previous models in all metrics that we have considered. Because our new mean wave period model can adapt to global sea state conditions, it is
more effective than the previous models in the global range.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, 41176157).

References
1. AVISO and PODAAC User Handbook for IGDR and GDR Jason Products (Ed. 4.2), NASA
(2012).
2. P. G. Challenor and M. A. Srokosz, Wave studies with the radar altimeter, Int. J. Remote
Sens. 12(8), 16711686 (1991), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01431169108955200.
3. P. A. Hwang et al., A statistical comparison of wind speed, wave height, and wave period
derived from satellite altimeter and ocean buoys in Gulf Mexico region, J. Geophys. Res.
103(C5), 1045110468 (1998), http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/98JC00197.
Journal of Applied Remote Sensing

063591-7

Downloaded From: http://journals.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/16/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Vol. 6, 2012

Miao et al.: Study on altimeter-based inversion model of mean wave period

4. C. P. Gommenginger et al., Measuring ocean wave period with satellite altimeters: a simple
empirical model, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(22), 15 (2003), http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2003GL017743.
5. E. B. L. Mackay et al., A parametric model for ocean wave period from Ku band altimeter data, J. Geophys. Res. 113(03029), 116 (2008), http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/
2007JC004438.
6. Y. Quilfen et al., Calibration/validation of an altimeter wave period model and application
to TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 altimeters, Marine Geodesy 27(34), 535549 (2004),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490410490902025.
7. A. J. Simmons, Development of the ERA-40 data assimilation system, in Proceedings of
the ECMWF Workshop on Re-analysis, ERA-40 Proj. Rep. Ser., Vol. 3, pp. 1130,
Eur. Cent. for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, United Kingdom (2001).
8. S. Caires et al., Global ocean mean wave period data: validation and description, J. Geophys. Res. 110(C02003), 112 (2005), http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002631.
9. R. Li, Study on the relationships of various wind wave periods, Trans. Oceanol. Limnol.
1003(2), 1318 (2007).
10. S. C. Wen et al., Form of deep-water wind-wave frequency spectrum, I. Derivation of
spectrum, Prog. Nat. Sci. 4(4), 407427 (1994).
Hongli Miao is a professor in College of Information Science & Engineering, Ocean University of China. He obtained his BSc and ME in physics.
His current research interests mainly include data processing in altimetry
and LED illumination.

Haoran Ren is a PhD candidate in University of Liverpool. He obtained


his BSc and ME (supervised by Professor Hongli Miao) in physics from
Ocean University of China. His research topics include sea state bias
correction in altimeter and photovoltaic system.

Biographies and photographs of the other authors are not available.

Journal of Applied Remote Sensing

063591-8

Downloaded From: http://journals.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 11/16/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

Vol. 6, 2012

You might also like