Project Deliverable D50 Report on Best Practices ... - ESONET NoE

<strong>Project</strong> contract no. 036851 

ESONET European Seas Observatory Network 

Instrument: Network of Excellence (NoE) 

Thematic Priority: 1.1.6.3 – Climate Change and Ecosystems 

Sub Priority: III – Global Change and Ecosystems 

<strong>Project</strong> <strong>Deliverable</strong> <strong>D50</strong> 

<strong>Report</strong> on Best Practices Workshop n°2 

Due date of deliverable: month 33 

Actual submission date of report: month 33 

Start of project: March 2007 Duration: 48 months 

<strong>Project</strong> Coordinator: Roland PERSON Coordinator 

organisation name: IFREMER, France 

Work Package 2 

Organization name of lead contractor for this deliverable: UniHB 

Lead Authors for this deliverable: Christoph Waldmann 

Other contributing authors: Jean-François Rolin, Ingrid Puillat, Jean-François Drogou, 

Dominique Choqueuse, Henry Ruhl, Jens Greinert, Jérôme Blandin, Joaquim Del Rio, 

Jean-Pierre Hermand, Michel André, Johannes Karstensen, Jean Marvaldi, Marck Smit, 

Eric Delory, Volker Ratmeyer and all participants 

<strong>Project</strong> co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) 

Dissemination Level 

PU Public X 

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) 

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) 

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) 

Update October 2010

<strong>Deliverable</strong> #50 - update October 2010 2

CONTENT 

1 Executive summary ...................................................................................... 5 

2 Introduction .................................................................................................. 6 

3 Organization ................................................................................................. 6 

4 Sessions .......................................................................................................... 7 

4.1 General indications for the panel sessions ................................................................. 7 

4.2 Generic Instrumentation............................................................................................. 7 

4.2.1 Physico-chemical sensors, Metrology................................................................ 7 

4.2.1.1 Introductory text............................................................................................. 7 

4.2.1.2 Panel sessions................................................................................................. 8 

4.2.1.3 Debriefing....................................................................................................... 8 

4.2.2 Acoustic sensors................................................................................................. 9 

4.2.2.1 Introductory text............................................................................................. 9 

4.2.2.2 Panel sessions................................................................................................. 9 

4.2.2.3 Debriefing..................................................................................................... 10 

4.3 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................ 11 

4.3.1 Design comparison – Cabled observatories ..................................................... 11 

4.3.1.1 Introductory text........................................................................................... 11 

4.3.1.2 Panel sessions............................................................................................... 12 

4.3.1.3 Debriefing..................................................................................................... 13 

4.3.2 Design comparison – Stand alone observatories.............................................. 13 



4.3.2.3 Debriefing..................................................................................................... 14 

4.4 Standardisation and Interoperability ........................................................................ 14 

4.4.1 Time series and images: treatment and qualification ....................................... 14 



4.4.1.3 Key note speeches, practices from <strong>Project</strong>s and case study from 

demonstration missions:............................................................................................... 19 

4.4.1.4 Debriefing and conclusions.......................................................................... 27 

4.4.1.5 References .................................................................................................... 27 

4.4.2 Smart sensors and other interface issues.......................................................... 29 



4.4.2.3 Debriefing..................................................................................................... 34 

4.4.3 Underwater intervention and 20 year plus materiel choice.............................. 34 

4.4.3.1 Introductory texts ......................................................................................... 34 

4.4.3.2 White papers................................................................................................. 35 


4.4.3.4 Debriefing..................................................................................................... 40 

Annex A - Agenda ...................................................................................................................... 

Annex B - List of attendees......................................................................................................... 

Annex C - Slides from Anders Tengberg.................................................................................... 

Annex D - Earth sea science in KM3Net neutrino telescope...................................................... 

Annex E - Stand alone observatories 

Annex F ...................................................................................................................................... 



1 Executive summary 

The main goal of ESONET NoE is to build up a community of experts in Europe for the different 

fields of interest related to deep ocean observatories. In the technical field the limits of what is 

technical feasible today will be reached when constructing and operating an ocean observatory and 

therefore there is a significant incentive for the ocean science community to bring all the European 

experts in this field together. Before one can start talking on standard procedures one has to compile 

all the knowledge that is presently available and subsequently provide this to the user community as 

the so called “Best Practices”. Best Practices in this case means that methods and procedures are 

discussed and identified to provide a coherent and efficient approach in the context of ocean 

observatory systems. The following scientific/technical areas have been addressed: 

Experience with existing cabled observation systems 

Scientific sensor systems with high relevance for ocean observatories like acoustic and 

biochemical sensors 

Sensor interfaces standardisation 

Underwater intervention, like instrument deployment, servicing and maintenance procedures 

Although in Europe a significant knowledge and competence in the field of ocean observations exists 

the anticipated activities should be embedded into an international framework. That will allow a more 

efficient and focussed exchange of information worldwide and on the long run also the shared use of 

the established systems. The ARGO project can be seen as a template for a global observing system 

although the technical infrastructure is much simpler. The interoperability in that case was enforced by 

introducing strict standards on the hardware and the data processing. For ocean observatories it will 

not be that straightforward but the discussions have to be started now. 

The 2 nd Best Practices Workshop was split into three thematic groups, instrumentation, infrastructure, 

and interoperability. 

With the choice of acoustic and physico-chemical sensors two groups have been selected that differ 

strongly in regard to the collected experience and the deployment considerations that have to be taken 

into account. For biochemical sensors stability and common calibration procedures is a major issue. 

Acoustic sensing is very well suited for long-term observations. However, the large amount of data 

that accrue is calling for pre-processing algorithms that have to be well defined and made transparent 

to the user. 

In Europe there are already cabled ocean infrastructures in place that allow for testing equipment, 

instrument deployment and data processing procedures. The session has been used to exchange 

information with other ongoing EU projects like KM3NET. Stand- Alone observatory will have a role 

in open ocean observations. They can be seen as extensions to mooring systems where new concepts 

have to be found to extend communication and power supply capabilities. 

The interoperability theme group consisted of a session on data analysis methods, the sensor interface 

standardization session where an observatory reference model has been defined and the underwater 

intervention session. This last session will have a great importance to guarantee the functionality of 

ocean observatories over long time spans. The discussions were focussing on training and simulation 

methods that will allow for an interoperability of European deep-sea intervention tools. 

The 2 nd Best Practices Workshop was held on the 8 th and 9 th of October at IFREMER in Brest. Beside 

the discussion in the sessions attendees had the opportunity to visit the facilities and use this to 

stimulate the discussions. 


2 Introduction 

Background: 

Within the ESONET NoE project all major European research groups and manufacturers being 

engaged in long-term, deep-sea observations came together to plan for and promote ocean 

observatories, and to investigate related scientific and technical topics. The series of best practices 

workshops within ESONET are the forum to present the state of the art in the technical field and to set 

up links to and get groups from observatory initiatives in other countries outside Europe engaged in 

the discussions. 

Ocean observatories are new types of infrastructure that are capable of providing long-term, highresolution 

observations of critical environmental parameters. Although a number of basic instruments 

are ready for long-term deployment, other important parameters cannot be measured over long time 

periods with adequate accuracy. This has to do with the fact that not enough experience with 

according instruments or components and particular technical limitations exist. Deployment of 

infrastructure for long-term deployment requires specific cares. 

The potential scope of instrumentation needs and readiness for ocean observing is very broad, beyond 

what could be covered in a single workshop. Therefore the ESONET Best Practices Workshop will 

focus on the most pressing issues where by bringing according experts together an accelerated 

information exchange process shall be generated. 

Workshop topics: 

In particular the following aspects shall be addressed: 

o Learning from templates where instruments have been well investigated 

o Learning from particular instrument issues with certain parameters 

o Harmonizing procedures of handling instruments 

o Addressing platform specific issues and related intervention procedures 

o Establish quality assurance and standardization procedures 

o Identify future sensor development needs 

One of the aims of ESONET is to define a label that can be assigned to instruments and procedures to 

assure compliance with the developed requirements of long-term observation systems. The Best 

Practices Workshop #2 will contribute to this discussion. Within nine working groups few selected 

presentations will stimulate discussions on according topics. Case studies will help to demonstrate the 

developed procedures. The outcome of the workshop will consist of reports that describe 

recommendations for the according field. 

3 Organization 

The workshop was organized immediately after the All Regions workshop #2 (5-6-7 October in Paris). 

It was convened in Brest at IFREMER campus on October 8 th and 9 th 2009. 

The plenary sessions were targeted on a presentation of the status of ESONET NoE and its 

Demonstration missions (Roland Person), an introduction and presentation of Best Practices workshop 

#1 in Bremen (Christoph Waldmann). The three groups (Generic Instrumentation, Infrastructure and 

Standardisation and interoperability) were presented (see the agenda in Annex A). 

Most presentations are available with videos on the ESONET website http://www.esonetnoe.org/news_and_events/esonet_workshops_and_meetings/2009_11_20_best_practices_2_oral_prese 

ntations. 

70 persons from 11 European countries and USA attended the workshop (see Annex B). 


4 Sessions 

4.1 General indications for the panel sessions 

Presentations of the state of the art and examples from ESONET. 

Discussion of presentations should focus on: 

o Comparison of methodical approaches in various applications and in different 

institutions. 

o Overarching tools and methods. 

o Identification of gaps and strategies for remedies. 

Use cases could for instance cover: 

o Mission based descriptions. 

o Description of an application within demo mission. 

o Application of discussed methods to particular scenarios. 

o Use cases should have broad relevance. 

Summary of sessions within report: 

o Updating of ESONET reports. 

o Split of writing tasks for workshop reports. 

o Recommendations of next steps within ESONET. 

Foreseen time schedule: 

Thursday 8 October. 

11:30-12:30: Introduction to the panel session 

14:00-15:30: Key note speeches and practices from projects 

16:00-18:00: Infrastructure visit 

Friday 9 th October 

09:00-11:30: Case studies from Demonstration Missions 

11:30-12:30: Debriefing by groups: sharing of case studied by session 

14:00-15:00: Establishing or update of reference documents 

15:15-16:00: Plenary: report from chairpersons 

4.2 Generic Instrumentation 

4.2.1 Physico-chemical sensors, Metrology 

4.2.1.1 Introductory text 

The previous Best Practice Workshop in Bremen led to the definition of the generic 

instrumentation in ESONET (see <strong>Deliverable</strong> D6 - Session 4 - Scientific needs in regard to 

generic and specific instrument packages - page 34). A report was issue by the project as 

<strong>Deliverable</strong> 13 - <strong>Report</strong> on science modules, written by Henry Ruhl et al. 

Biofouling protection and calibration methods need to be discussed again in order to 

determine additional tests or intercomparison workshops to be performed. 


The list of sensors issued by the ESONET working group (D13) mentions two level of 

priorities: the minimum list and an extended list. 

This new meeting is intending to finalize the specifications of the "minimum list" and proceed 

in the recommendations for the sensors of the extended list. 

This session specifically addresses the qualification and deployment procedures of the 

individual measuring system. Equipment testing complying with standards such as NFX 10- 

800 or similar must be performed for the qualification. The group should propose a way to 

ensure that all qualifications are performed. 

The session specifically addresses the qualification and deployment constraints of the 

individual measuring system. The metrology necessary before and between each deployment 

will be discussed. The metrology procedures must be related to the international standards and 

agreements of reference laboratories, ensuring long-term traceability and interoperability. 

Objectives: 

Prepare final specifications. Issue recommendations according to the recognized state of the 

art. Recommend comparative tests and qualification tests. Evaluate costs for the purchase and 

operation of these instruments. 

It appears that these issues are an integrating activity inside ESONET, which might last after 

the end of the project as a service part the European infrastructure. 

4.2.1.2 Panel sessions 

Panel P1.1 – “Physico-chemical sensors, Metrology” led by Jens Greinert (NIOZ) and Anders 

Tengberg (AADI). 

Infrastructure visit : Calibration facilities and tour of IFREMER. 

Participants list : 

Names Surnames Institutions Emails 

Lénaig Caradec Illipack noemie.claval@illipack.com 

Jens Greinert NIOZ greinert@nioz.nl 

Noémie Claval Illipack noemie.claval@illipack.com 

Laurent Coppola CNRS-LOV coppola@obs-vlfr.fr 

Laurent Delauney IFREMER laurent.delauney@ifremer.fr 

Marc Le Menn SHOM lemenn@shom.fr 

Dominique Lefevre CNRS-LMGEM dominique.lefevre@univmed.fr 

Jean Marvaldi IFREMER jean.marvaldi@ifremer.fr 

Lionel Paofai Illipack noemie.claval@illipack.com 

Florence Salvetat IFREMER florence.salvetat@ifremer.fr 

Pierre Marie Sarradin IFREMER pierre.marie.sarradin@ifremer.fr 

Anders Tengberg Aanderaa Data Instruments Anders.tengberg@aadi.no 

Séverine Thomas Europôle Mer severine.thomas@univ-brest.fr 

Frank Wenzhoefer MPIMM fwenzhoe@mpi-bremen.de 

4.2.1.3 Debriefing 

See Annex C 


4.2.2 Acoustic sensors 


Acoustic sensors like ADCP and sonar systems are forming the backbone for ocean science 

missions. This session will focus on best practices developed within this context in particular 

in regard to signal processing techniques and data verification strategies for acoustic systems. 

Although ADCPs are based on a very straightforward measuring principle the data processing 

is quite intricate often leaving scientific users in the role of simply applying predefined 

processing steps. A coherent approach on this appears necessary so that users of the data can 

judge on the reliability of the collected data. 

The following issues will be discussed during this session: 

o Application of acoustic systems in different scenarios (ADCPs for currents and 

waves). 

o Known issues of the instruments. 

o Existing or newly developed quality control and assurance procedures. 

o Interaction with manufacturer to derive recommendations for the user. 

Giving reference to a use case selected from demo mission activities like the detection and 

classification of marine mammals by recording acoustic signals the application of discussed 

methods will be highlighted. 


Panel P1.2 – “Acoustic sensors” led by Jean-Pierre Hermand (ULB) and Michel André 

(UPC). 

Infrastructure visit : Calibration facilities and tour of IFREMER. 

Participants list : 


Michel André UPC michel.andre@upc.edu 

Patrice Brehmer IRD pbrehmer@ifremer.fr 

Sylvain Busson ENSIETA sylvain.busson@ensieta.fr 

Gunay Cifci DEU-IMST gunay.cifci@deu.edu.tr 

Jens Greinert NIOZ greinert@nioz.nl 

Michel Hamon IFREMER michel.hamon@ifremer.fr 

Jean-Pierre Hermand ULB jhermand@ulb.ac.be 

Olivier Peden IFREMER olivier.peden@ifremer.fr 

Olivier Pot IPGP pot@ipgp.fr 

Carla Scalabrin IFREMER carla.scalabrin@ifremer.fr 

Cyril Chailloux ENSIETA cyril.chailloux@ensieta.fr 

Seda Okay DEU-IMST seda.okay@deu.edu.tr 



The following text was issued by the participants to the sessions. 

Some acoustic sensing physical and technological constraints 

Abstract: The main distinctive feature of acoustic sensing is the production of a very large 

volume of data in comparison with other standard oceanographic sensors. In addition, active 

sensing requires a higher power supply than passive sensing. 

The co-existence of the above acoustic applications may pose the problem of overlapping 

frequency band occupation that must be addressed by synchronization processes, spatial 

separation and software based-solutions. 

The sensing strategy will be driven by the spatial and temporal scales of investigation, e.g. 

from long-term acoustical tomography applications to the detection of geohazard events, from 

the detection of individual zooplankton specimens to the imaging of the scattering layers. 

In the case of standalone observatories, the power supply, computational load, data storage 

and transmission (acoustic modem, satellite link, etc.) may be limiting factors for quasi realtime, 

long time series acquisition and processing for the whole sensor package. 

In the case of cabled observatories, the raw and/or processed data streams generated by the 

simultaneous use of different acoustic and non-acoustic sensors to land-based or moored 

platform servers may be limited by the data link capacities (copper or optic fiber cables), 

related to the distance and the environment. 

Other issues to be addressed: 

- Calibration procedures (standardization, auto-calibration, in situ). 

- Standardization of raw and processed data format (standardized by ICES). 

- Bio-fouling, fouling. 

Proposition of input from demonstration missions 

Abstract: The DM output will provide information and knowledge to be implemented in 

ESONET. Nevertheless, they cannot cover the full spectrum of acoustic applications such as 

passive acoustic tomography, geoacoustic characterization of gas loaded sediment, active 

tracking of marine mammals or plankton and fish monitoring. 

INPUT from LIDO DM: implementing a modular architecture for a real-time acoustic data 

management in ESONET observatories. 

The objectives of PAM (Passive Acoustic Monitoring) in LIDO, in terms of acoustic and 

bioacoustic data management is the long term monitoring and assessment of the 

anthropogenic sources on marine organisms, especially cetaceans, implying the real-time 

detection, classification and tracking of the sources. 

The stream of data coming from the observatory is directed to a server that distributes it to 

preprocessing servers where the first filters are applied as well as where a further specific 

analysis of the data is performed. A dedicated server compresses and stores the raw data. The 

processed data is then sent to another station where one server allows the safe public access to 

the low-resolution data (compressed in MP3 format for online display and outreach) and 

another one offers the access to high-resolution data to registered users. Both servers are 

separated for safety reasons and spam/virus protection. 


In the marine environment a diversity of sounds is typically found. Physical processes, marine 

organisms and human activities generally contribute to produce these sound sources. 

This constitutes a challenging environment for automated classifiers because (1) the target 

sources are often embedded in background noise (2) non-target sources can cause false 

detections or conversely attenuate the detection of the target sources. There is a need of 

developing a system for the detection of many acoustic events relevant to the monitoring and 

study of the interactions between cetaceans and anthropogenic sounds. The system is to be 

used for the long-term data (several months or years) assessment. It should tag segments that 

contain acoustic events of a particular class, allowing for example (1) mitigation actions to be 

undertaken, (2) to obtain long time series of the occurrence of a particular sound, (3) to avoid 

the unnecessary storage or transmission of data that contains none of the events of interest. 

The output of the Demonstration Mission LIDO is providing such a system in the form of a 

modular architecture that is ensuring the real-time process of the data. The challenge is here to 

be able to find a reliable set of filters or detectors able to extract the interesting information 

that would be superimposed to background-noise, like dolphin calls and sonar, sperm and 

beaked whale clicks, or noise produced by ship engine. 

A schematic overview of the classification system is described in the following text. The 

audio data stream is processed by segments of 22 seconds. The output of the system takes the 

form of tags, which are appended to a segment if the corresponding acoustic event is detected. 

The first stage of the system detects broad classes of events. The second stage classifies 

segments into more specific classes. The system’s modules can be run independently, thereby 

allowing to implement smaller and faster versions, aimed at specific classes of sounds or 

mitigation scenarios, like the detection and tracking of specific whale species, the presence of 

ships or other human activities. New modules can be incorporated into the system. 

The system is being specifically designed to be adapted to different scenarios, shallow vs. 

deep waters, different background noise, different human activities, different marine mammal 

species, etc., following standard procedures in compliance with the GEOSS guidelines for 

interoperability, the standard sensor registration and discoverability of acoustic sensors. 

4.3 Infrastructure 

4.3.1 Design comparison – Cabled observatories 


Several subsea cabled observatories are operated or under final construction. Some elements 

were presented during the First Best Practice Workshop in Bremen. This panel will update 

this information. 

The cost evaluation performed by ESONET WP5 group will be reviewed and compared with 

standalone solutions. The panel will look more carefully at one case, taking into account the 

scientific objectives presented earlier in the week at the All Regions Workshop 2 in Paris. 

System engineering issues for the various components of the infrastructure will be addressed. 

For the remaining integration budget in ESONET, the Steering Committee decided to open a 

call for the partners. The main objective of the call is to promote test of equipment and 

instruments on cabled subsea observatory sites. The results of the two Demonstration Mission 

Calls of ESONET showed a lack in the field of cabled observatories experiment. 

A unified proposal for test on cabled sites is under final acceptance process. It will be 

presented to the panel for discussion and suggestion according to the practices of the 


attendants. 

Objectives: 

One objective is to identify the technical and cost related topics to be addressed either through 

international cooperation, through the direct input of Antares, Nemo (European project 

operating cabled observatories) or through additional activities proposed as a reply to the “test 

call” issued in spring 2009 by ESONET. 

This panel will determine the needed studies necessary to establish what are the common 

practices and corresponding recommendations and write a short report on this matter (report 

to EMSO Preparatory Phase). 


Panel P2.1 – “Design comparison-Cabled observatories” led by Jaume Piera (UPC) and Jean 

Marvaldi (IFREMER). 

Infrastructure visit: Prototype facilities, marine materials labs and tour of IFREMER. 

Participants list: 


Jean Marvaldi IFREMER jean.marvaldi@ifremer.fr 

Jaume Piera CSIC jpiera@cmima.csic.es 

Jean-François Rolin IFREMER jrolin@ifremer.fr 

Paris Pagonis HCMR ppagonis@ath.hcmr.gr 

Carl Gojak CNRS-DT-INSU gojak@dt.insu.cnrs.fr 

Christoph Waldman KDM-UNIHB-MARUM waldmann@marum.de 

Shahram Shariat-Panahi UPC 

G Bazile Kinda ENSIETA kindaba@ensieta.fr 

Benedicte Ferré UIT bferre@ig.uit.no 

No representative of Sicily ESONET Node (Nemo site for KM3Net) were present. 

a) After a presentation of the experience of the attending persons, the sessions were devoted 

to two major case studies. First case is the Snohvit gas field infrastructure where a cable 

connection is foreseen through a cooperation with Statoil. 

b) The second case is the KM3Net earth-sea science extension. Three ESONET sites are also 

KM3Net sites where neutrino telescope construction is planned. The final document of 

KM3Net must reflect this common interest. 

The panel worked on a preliminary version of the TDR (Technical Design <strong>Report</strong>) chapter on 

Earth-Sea science (author Univ. Aberdeen – KM3Net Design study WP9) and an IFREMER 

contribution dated September 2009. 

c) The experiments on cabled observatories have been limited during the first part of 

ESONET. That is why the Steering Committee decided to open a call for tests on cabled 

observatories. The testing areas range from coastal (OBSEA, Koljofjord) to deep sea 

(Antares, NEMO). As a general reflection on the plans for these experiments, the status of the 

proposals to the “Test Call” was reviewed. The group provided comments in order to improve 

the final program of the ESONET test experiments on cabled sites. 



- A document was issued as a contribution of ESONET to the KM3Net. See Annex D. 

- The technological tests to be performed by the “Test Call” merged proposal of 

ESONET were presented as a handout. This document was used for the meeting in 

Barcelona held by the coordinator to define a merged proposal. This work is reported 

in the <strong>Deliverable</strong> D58. 

- The case study on Snohvit would need more input from Statoil to provide 

recommendations from ESONET. 

4.3.2 Design comparison – Stand alone observatories 


This panel benefits from the experience of previous and/ or running projects (Animate 

EuroSites/PAP, Var canyon, Pirata buoys,…) and Demonstration Missions of ESONET. It is 

assumed that on some sites, the stand alone observatories will be deployed to constitute a 

deep sea observatory infrastructure prior to cabled observatories. 

Among the topics of the panel: 

o General design issues (e.g. Rating of components, knock-down prevention, 

materiel in use, software, corrosion), 

o Protection of surface elements: Bio-Invasions (e.g. birds, mussels), Vandalism, 

Safety, 

o Data telemetry issues: underwater & surface ocean 

o Energy management, 

o Extension of deployment duration, 

o Deployment and maintenance procedures, 

o Implementation and exploitation costs, 

o On shore organization: remote sensor control, emergency interventions, 

o Synergy with other observatory components (e.g. AUV use for battery exchange, 

data retrieval). 

Two cost analysis have been performed inside ESONET WP5, one for stand alone winch 

observatories, established by AWI for the ARCTIC conditions, and another one for the stand 

alone acoustic observatories. 

Objectives: 

One objective is to identify the technical and cost related topics to be followed up specifically 

in the Demonstration Missions using stand-alone observatories and corresponding to 

communication. This panel will prepare a paper on common practices and give 

recommendations on technical implementations. 


Panel P2.2 – “Design comparison-Stand alone observatories” led by Johannes Karstensen 

(KDM-IFM-GEOMAR) and Jérôme Blandin (IFREMER). 

Infrastructure visit: Prototype facilities, marine materials labs and tour of IFREMER. 




Dionysios Ballas HCMR dballas@ath.hcmr.gr 

Jérôme Blandin IFREMER jerome.blandin@ifremer.fr 

Jon Campbell NOCS joc@noc.soton.ac.uk 

Johannes Karstensen KDM-IFM-GEOMAR jkarstensen@ifm-geomar.de 

Christophe Laot Telecom Bretagne Christophe.laot@telecom-bretagne.eu 

Benoît Lecomte IPGP blecomte@ipgp.jussieu.fr 

Presentation of experiences were open for discussion: 

Jon Campbell (NOCS): PAP site deployment / telemetry issues 

Dionysis Ballas (HCMR): Tsunami detection platform 

Johannes Karstensen (IFM-Geomar): Overview of Eurosite moorings 

Jérôme Blandin –Julien Legrand (IFREMER): COMMODAC - a comparison of 

acoustic modems. 

On day two, discussions were held on several design issues, including energy 

management, on-shore organization, deployment procedures and extension of 

deployment durations. 


Several design issues, including energy management, on-shore organization, deployment 

procedures and extension of deployment durations have already been addressed by members 

of the ESONET community in the framework of time series stations (PAP, ESTOC etc.). 

A number of common concerns were indentified and the group agreed to keep updated on the 

progress of the next or on-going experiments, in particular the ESONET demo missions. 

(see appendix E) 

4.4 Standardisation and Interoperability 

4.4.1 Time series and images: treatment and qualification 


The purpose of this sub-session is to give an overview on most commonly used 

methods for long time-series analysis of data acquired in the framework of deep-sea 

observatories. 

The sequence of topics discussions will start with data qualification, after the 

systematic quality assurance, when the expertise of the specialists is needed to 

definitively qualify the data, for instance: 

How to detect a slow and low trend on a long time series? 

How to conduct pre and post-deployment calibrations and apply post-deployment 

corrections? 

How to apply various signal-processing methods to different kinds of data and 

objectives? 

How to address gap in time series for signal processing methods? 

We will discuss examples from parameters to be collected by the generic sensor module, as 


defined by ESONET deliverables D11 and D13 including conductivity, temperature, pressure, 

and currents, as well as a set of rather specific examples including seismic, marine acoustics, 

biogeochemical flux, and time-series photography, and ecological community data. 

Objectives: 

An objective of this session will be to document what are the expected products and the best 

practices of time-series data analysis in a report, according to the science objectives and case 

studies. 

This session must be understood as a starting point for further disciplinary or interdisciplinary 

workshops supported by ESONET (participation to existing ones, co-organization or 

organization). 


Panel P3.1 – “Time series & images: treatment and qualification” led by Ingrid Puillat 

(IFREMER) and Henry Ruhl (NOCS). 

Infrastructure visit: Coriolis data center and tour of IFREMER. 



Puillat Ingrid IFREMER Esonet-coordinator@ifremer.fr 

Ruhl Henry NERS NOCS h.ruhl@noc.soton.ac.uk 

Vinci Stefano INGV Stefano.vinci@ingv.it 

Doumaz Fawzi INGV doumaz@ingv.it 

Maurin Aurélien CNRS/CPPM maurin@cppm.in2p3.fr 

Curtil Christian CNRS/ CPPM curtil@cppm.in2p3.fr 

Brosolo Laetitia CNRS/DTINSU brosolo@dt.insu.cnrs.fr 

Ammann Jérôme CNRS/IUEM Jerome.ammann@univ-brest.fr 

Leblond Isabelle IFREMER Isabelle.leblond@ifremer.fr 

Chailloux Cyril ENSIETA Cyril.chailloux@ensieta.fr 

Gautier Olivier IUEM Gautier.olivier@gmail.com 

Pierre Marie Sarradin IFREMER Pierre.Marie.Sarradin@ifremer.fr 

Jozé Sarrazin IFREMER Jozee.Sarrazin@ifremer.fr 

4.4.1.2.1 Introduction talks 

An outline document (§4.4.1.1) was sent a few weeks before the panel session to the 

participants. This document consolidated the contributions of involved partners. The panel 

session started with a general introduction speech presented by I. Puillat (IFREMER) and a 

specific introduction speech presented by H. Ruhl (NOCS). Introductions talks are 

summarized hereafter. 

4.4.1.2.2 General Introduction 

During the first best practices workshop held in Bremen (5th Feb. 2008) a session was 

dedicated to ESONET data management and a first plan was issued (Figure 1). This 


contributed in launching this activity, which is well on the way now and managed by WP9. 

Consequently this is not the topic of this session. Indeed we will go one step beyond data 

management: we are dealing with data analysis by scientists. 

Figure 1: data management plan after the 1 st Best practices workshop held in Bremen, Feb. 

2008 

The purpose of this sub-session is to give an overview on most commonly used methods for 

long time-series analysis of data acquired in the framework of deep-sea observatories. 

4.4.1.2.3 Specific introduction to Generic sensor package description 

Generic sensors and parameters have been defined in the define in the ESONET deliverable 

D13 Section III “Generic Sensor Module” 

Taking only those sensors that are rated to operate at the deepest ESONET sites, have an 

established endurance of approximately a year or more, and are commercially available, the 

remaining sensors make up a rather minimal subset of sensors now available for deep-sea 

research. This minimal set of instruments has been widely accepted by the General Assembly, 

a meeting ESONET workpackage 3 and 5 members, Best Practice workshops, and the 

ESONET Science Council as the best solution. 

Defining a list of ‘generic sensors’ or ‘the’ generic sensor immediately gives rise to 

discussions between members of different research disciplines (biology, geophysics, 

microbiology, oceanography) and working areas (shallow or deep, open ocean or coastal) 

about what a generic sensor should be able to measure. However, defining a list of generic 

sensors and variables is important to ensure a consistent set of data is acquired at the 

ESONET sites. Defining these sensors will help in setting up accuracy, calibration, and data 

handling standards for specific purposes. 


The generic sensor should be available to a very wide group with as little effort as possible 

with respect to purchasing and operating the sensor. Thus, commercially available sensors 

that reliably measure over a long period of time are the most suitable sensors to be used in a 

generic sense. In this respect, a platinum resistance thermometer (PRT) linked to a simple 

logging unit is possibly the most generic sensor. Systems that combine these thermometers 

with other basic sensors are already available from several companies in several countries and 

are frequently used in the scientific community. These are multi-probe, CTD-type 

(conductivity temperature, and depth [pressure]) systems which often come with a basic set of 

sensors and possibilities to add a wide variety of other sensors. The advantage of such 

systems is that data acquisition modules and power supply units already provide basic 

compliance with existing standards. 

The generic variables cover several of the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) 

Essential Climate Variables to contribute to the UN Framework Convention on Climate 

Change (UNFCCC) and the IPCC. Continued interest for these variables is noted in the 

proceedings of the OceanObs’09 Conference (www.OceanObs09.net). To account for the 

different research areas and needs outlined in the scientific objectives of ESONET, a first list 

of sensors/variables has been compiled based on the criteria “most commonly needed", 

"availability", "ease of use", “deep sea compatible” and "capability for long-term monitoring 

(corrosion, calibration periodicity, stability…)" of the water column (Table 1). The presented 

list shows basically a CTD configuration plus a few additional variables. These operation of 

these sensors will need to meet some basic criteria (Table 2) which are currently met by a 

variety of manufacturers (Table 3, This table will be updated as more options are identified). 

Table 1. GCOS Essential Climate Variables. 

Surface Sub-surface 

Sea-surface temperature Temperature 

Sea-surface salinity Salinity 

Sea level Current 

Sea state (how is this quantified?) Nutrients 

Sea ice Carbon (what types?) 

Current Ocean tracers (which ones?) 

Ocean colour (for biological activity) Phytoplankton (via Chl-alone?) 

Carbon dioxide partial pressure 


Table 2: Generic ESONET variables in the water column and at the seafloor surface. 

Variable Geosciences Physical Biogeochemistry Marine 

Oceanography 

Ecology 

Temperature X X X X 

Conductivity X X X X 

Pressure X X X X 

Dissolved O2 X X X X 

Turbidity X X X X 

Ocean currents X X X X 

Passive acoustics X X 

Table3: ESONET Sensor requirements (Please indicate if these need revision). 

Type of sensor Range Accuracy Sampling frequency 

Conductivity 0 to 9 S/m 0.001 S/m 4 Hz* 

Temperature -5 to +35°C 0.01 K 4 Hz* 

Pressure 0 to 600 bar 0.1 % FSR 4 Hz* 

Dissolved oxygen 0 to 500μM 5% 0.01 Hz 

Turbidity 0 to 150 NTU 10% 1 Hz 

Currents 0 to 2 m/s 2% 1 Hz* 

Passive acoustics 50 - 180 dB re 1 μPa +/-3dB 96 KHz 

* high-frequency only needed for a few applications (i.e. those related to turbulence) 

These generic sensors scan be used to directly address a wide range of geo-hazard warning 

and scientific applications related to understanding natural and anthropogenic variation and 

the possible impacts of climate change. The generic systems will also provide supporting data 

to a number of other users. Firstly these systems will be able to detect passing tsunami waves 

and associated low frequency sounds related to earth motions. In the observatory setting these 

data can then be relayed back to shore via seafloor cable satellite telemetry within minutes. 

Because nearly all tide gauges are along shorelines, offshore data can improve warning time. 

The system will be able to detect storm and tide wave loading, sedimentation dynamics that 

influence turbidity such as resuspension, and benthic boundary layer (BBL) dynamics. By 

linking the tide, turbidity, and current meter readings the interaction strengths and thresholds 

for resuspension and sediment transport can be further described. Furthermore determination 

of these parameters at the seabed and in the water column can help determine how seabed 

processes interact with ocean circulation, biogeochemistry, and ecological parameters. 

Combining the generic sensors with specific sensors such as seismometers, geodesy, bubble 

flux observing systems, hydrothermal flow meters and piezometers the remaining key 

questions outlined in <strong>Deliverable</strong> 11 can be addressed. These questions include; how are 

seismic activity, fluid pore chemistry and pressure, and gas-hydrate stability, and slope failure 

related? And, what are the feedbacks between deformation, volcanism, seismic, and 

hydrothermal activity? 

The generic sensors can address fully the questions related to physical oceanography. 

However, a generic sensor module at the surface, midwater and/or at the seafloor can only 

answer these questions partially. The use of salinity and conductivity sensors spaced regularly 

along strings and additional ADCP coverage can, however, fully capture the themes related to 

ocean physics. These include understanding wind driven and deep-ocean circulation, 

planetary waves, and interactions between the BBL and seabed. Mobile systems used in 

conjunction with the fixed infrastructures can also augment the impact of the generic sensors. 


The oxygen sensor in the generic specification can address several aspects of 

biogeochemistry. Oxygen itself is important for aerobic life in the ocean which includes all 

metazoans (e.g. zooplankton, fish, and benthic invertebrates). Oxygen is primarily replenished 

in the ocean by inputs related to photosynthesis and equilibration at the air-sea interface. By 

making some crude assumptions one can estimate how much oxygen has been utilized by 

measuring how much remains compared to saturation levels (apparent oxygen utilisation 

[AOU]), Garcia et al. 2006). So, variations in oxygen minimum zones, as well as oxygen 

dynamics in the rest of the water column are of interest. The generic module will also be able 

to make sensitive measurements of how oxygen consecrations relate to turbidity and 

temperature, which both have connections to time variant respiration and/or remineralisation. 

As sensor technology develops biogeochemical sensors will likely transition from specialized 

to generic in the coming months and years. This will include Chl-a, pCO2, pCH4 and pH. 

Moreover the more specialized measurement of particulate fluxes greatly augments the 

breadth of biogeochemical themes that can be addressed. The most elemental of these themes 

is oceanic carbon and greenhouse gas uptake and storage dynamics and estimating how 

anthropogenic change might alter the efficiency of the biological pump. 

The key ecological sensor in the generic specification is the hydrophone(s) which will be 

capable of detecting marine mammals. Currently there are hydrophone based systems that can 

detect the position and species of mammal sounds and thus come up with estimates of density 

and distribution. Other sounds can also be detected including anthropogenic sounds like those 

of passing ships, rain, and the sounds of certain plankton and fish. Including these systems 

with other ecology systems will provide verification data that is need to improve the detection 

more sounds. ADCP systems are sensitive to zooplankton and fish distributions, as well as 

currents. For example the relative density variations associative with diurnal vertical 

migrations and their variation from hours to decades can be quantified and calibrated (Flagg 

and Smith 1989, Kaufmann et al. 1995). The addition of cameras and active acoustic systems 

like scanning sonar or synthetic aperture systems can greatly augment the quantification of 

abundances. Fluorometers, zooplankton samplers, and advanced microbial sensing systems 

also add to the impact of the generic system to address the diverse set of ecological question 

in <strong>Deliverable</strong> 11. 

4.4.1.2.4 Introduction to specific sensors examples 

Several examples have been presented in key notes speeches and case study during the 

workshop. 

Specific sensors and parameters are those that are not listed as generic ones in the previous 

section. They are specific to the scientific objectives of the studied area, for instance OBS for 

seismic zones like in Marmara Sea. Typical output data are acoustic data, HD video and 

photos, biogeochemical fluxes, and biological and ecological parameters such as population 

density and biodiversity. Several examples have been presented in keynote speeches and case 

studies during the workshop. Many examples are given in the ESONET document “D13 - 

Science Modules of the European Seas Observatory NETwork (ESONET).” 

4.4.1.3 Key note speeches, practices from <strong>Project</strong>s and case study from demonstration 

missions: 


4.4.1.3.1 Instrument setup 

This topic is dealt in the generic instrumentation session (G1 - §4.2)) 

4.4.1.3.2 Scientific Data qualification: steps after automated methods 

The data analysis methods vary according to the data acquisition methods, to the supporting 

infrastructure, the sensors and, of course the parameters. For instance CTD data acquired on a 

profiler and on a mooring will be analysed in different ways. Current-meters data acquired for 

global scale current study will not be processed in the same way as for turbulence study. 

Seismology and bioacoustics studies generate huge amount of acoustic data, which are not 

used in the same way. Noise for one scientific community is data for another community. 

High definition camera and video camera also generate a huge amount of data with many 

applications. 

Data analysis in marine deep-sea observatory science covers a wide list of topics; 

consequently, methods have to be applied according to the sciences objectives and their 

related scale of studied phenomena (Large scale (global), Mesoscale, Small scale and 

Turbulence). Moreover, data can feed several kinds of platforms: for a direct analysis or for 

modelization needs. In this last case there is a need to guaranty a continuous sampling step. 

Most of the data analysis supposes to apply signal processing methods, an introductory paper 

(Schmitt et al,. 2008) has been distributed and H. Ruhl (NOCS), presented common tools for 

time series analysis. 

Then several cases of data analysis have been presented during the panel session: 

o Examples of data acquired on mooring (bottom fixed platform), by I. Puillat, 

IFREMER 

o Antares: a network of moorings and related data processing, by C. Curtil 

(CNRS/CPPM) 

o Vulcanology data processing, by F. Doumaz 

o Ecological communities by H. Ruhl, NOCS 

o Hydrothermal ecosystems from video imagery and temperature time-series, in the 

framework of MOMAR-, by J. Sarrazin et al. 

o Acoustic method for Methane bubbles detection in the framework of MARMARA 

demonstration mission, by I. Leblond, IFREMER 

o Acoustic data processing and management by M. André 

Tools for time series analysis 

For most of the data analyses approaches signal processing methods based on spectral 

analysis with FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) are applied. This requires continuously sampled 

data, which is not well suitable for long term time series acquired on deep sea observatories. 

Indeed, 10-20 year measurements in deep ocean are rare as they are affected byoutage 

because of routine maintenance operations, vandalism, removal of biofouling, failure of the 

instruments, etc…. Consequently data gap filling is needed. Several methods are available, 

the most commonly used are data averaging but it degrades the data, or data interpolation but 

it introduces additional hypothesis on the data structure. Schmitt et al. 2008 presented the 

methodology to extract the frequency information even if the data is not evenly distributed. 

Their method is based on the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function to directly 

compute the power spectrum density. This topic and the article were presented during the 

panel session but not discussed. 


Common topics on time series analysis (Henry Ruhl) 

•Common issues to consider when analysing time-series data include comparing results from 

studies that look at different scales (e.g. seasonal versus interannual); secular trends and 

detrending time series; trends over sub-sections of time series; aliasing such as when data is 

unevenly distributed across time; gap filling; empirical, dynamical, hindcasting, forecasting, 

and jackknife modelling techniques; correcting for calibration; serial autocorrelation; nonlinear 

vs. linear behaviour in observations; parametric and non-parametric assumptions; 

multidimensional analysis; and understanding the spatial applicability of times-series data 

from one or a network of instruments (e.g. Sokal and Rohlf 1981, Hurlbert 1984, Heikkilai 

1988, Clarke 1993, Pyper and Peterman 1998, Clarke Warwick 2001, Perry and Liebhold 

2002, Quinn and Keough 2002, Buckland et al. 2007) 

An example of gap filling can be found in Smith et al. (2009). The figure 2 below illustrates 

particulate organic carbon flux measured using sediment traps (food supply for benthic 

community) in the northeast Pacific where black, green, orange, and blue time-series lines 

representing a composite of POCF estimates from 50 mab (black) and 600 mab (green) 

sediment traps, as well as model-estimated flux combining climate indicators, the Laws 

(2004) export flux model and the vertically generalized production model (Behrenfeld and 

Falkowski 1997) (orange) and the carbon-based production model (Behrenfeld et al. 2006) 

(blue) where possible. The red dashed line is model data that is unincorporated into the 

composite (sensu Smith et al. 2006). The difference between the red dashed line and the black 

line indicates how well the model estimates correspond to measured POC flux values at 50 

mab, thus are an indicator of gap filling quality. 

Examples of data acquired on mooring (bottom fixed platform) 

Author: Ingrid Puillat (IFREMER) 

Full version in Annex F1 

Abstract: The example of ELISA one-year sub surface mooring data is presented. This 

mooring fixed on the bottom was reaching the surface layer near 20m depths. Four 

autonomous CTD + fluorimeter and a current-meter acquired data during one year between 

the surface and ~100m. The time series were interrupted several times due to 2 mooring 


maintenances, and deviations of the instruments. The data retrieval showed unexpected 

sinking of instruments greater than 50 m and until 80-90m due to important mean current. 

Superimposed with the effect of inertial oscillations, the probes acted like a yoyo drawing 

vertical profiles every 18h. Data and sensors could be intercompared and corrected. Here the 

method was presented. 

ANTARES: a mooring network and related data processing 

Author: C. Curtil (CNRS-CPPM) 

Abstract: no abstract, see Slides in Annex F2 

Data management system architecture for multiparameter scientific data: A prototype 

for seafloor observatories 

Authors: F. Doumaz, S. Vinci, L. Beranzoli and P. Favali (INGV) 

Slides in Annex E3 

Abstract: During the last ten years, with the extension of local and regional geophysical 

monitoring networks and the development of new scientific projects, INGV has experienced a 

significant growing of its data patrimony in terms of quantity and variety. Financial and 

human resources have been invested in order to make the data reachable and obtainable via 

queries. The first step included the creation of a data repository as a unique access point 

where to upload and store the data according to a predefined format. The scientist collecting 

measurements have been then requested to respect a strict organization and conversion of 

their datasets that usually come from different instruments and experiments. In a further step 

the repository has been transformed into an advanced structure such as a Relational DataBase 

Management System (RDBMS) providing logical links among datasets originally 

independent. 

The first prototype of the overall management system has been developed around Italian 

vulcanological time series respecting all the described organisational steps. The prototype 

allows for the first time, the simultaneous visualisation and cross-check of various time series 

for Italian volcanoes in a given interval. 

The system is full-web architecture and can be joined using a web browser only, 

independently from any operating system. A user-friendly interface has been designed for the 

data upload, query and graphic outputs. 

As the prototype system was conceived to manage a large variety of geophysical time-series, 

it soon appeared easily adaptable to the marine data management and a useful tool to 

investigate possible relations among Earth processes occurring at the Benthic Boundary Layer 

and along the water column. Accordingly, a new version of the data management prototype is 

now under development around the time-series acquired during the experiments with 

GEOSTAR-class observatories. 

A description of the prototype system is presented and a demonstration of the progressing 

'marine data specific prototype' is shown to point out its capabilities. 


Ecological communities 

Author: H. Ruhl (NOCS) 

Slides in Annex F4 

Abstract: (extracted from Gillooly et al. 2010) Marine life is widely regarded for its diverse 

array of form, splendour, and renewable food resources, but marine organisms also have 

critical biogeochemical and ecosystem functions. Marine ecosystem function maintains key 

services like primary production, climate regulation, carbon sequestration and storage, and 

living resources like fisheries and natural molecular products. Specimens collected from 

marine habitats during observatory operation in deep-sea and extreme environments could 

have potential for cancer, antibacterial, extreme environment enzymes, and other beneficial 

molecular products. 

The oceans are filled with natural and biological sounds, although many artificial sources 

have contributed increasingly to its overall noise budget. How these anthropogenic sources 

are affecting marine life constitutes an issue of considerable interest both to the scientific and 

public community. The design and implementation of research on the effects and control of 

man-made noise in the marine environment will be interdisciplinary and will use information 

provided by existing and future underwater observatories. 

The pace and scale of anthropogenic changes occurring in the oceans and the impact of these 

changes on marine biodiversity and ecosystems are cause for serious concern. Ocean 

observatory research efforts to better understand marine biodiversity will provide the 

knowledge necessary to inform an adaptive management process by linking variations in 

biodiversity, its function, and the ecological and environmental forcing that drive change in a 

comprehensive way. 

The persistent discovery of life in environments that were previously thought to be relatively 

devoid of life continues to redefine the fundamental abundance, distribution, and function of 

life on earth. The discovery of microbial life in hypersaline brine in sediments several 

hundred meters below the seafloor and chemosynthesis-based communities at the seafloor 

continue to redefine understanding of life and ecosystem tolerances. While chemosynthetic 

systems are spatially isolated compared to photosynthetically-driven systems, they provide 

excellent opportunities to study systems which are partly independent from solar energy. 

Quantifying the diversity of form and metabolic function in these extraordinary communities 

continues to be a major research focus with direct links to geoscience (see also <strong>Deliverable</strong>s 

11 and 46 of ESONET NoE). 

References : 

K. L. Smith, H. A. Ruhl, B. J. Bett, D. S. M. Billett, R. S. Lampitt, and R. S. Kaufmann, 

2009, Climate, carbon cycling, and deep-ocean ecosystems, Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, no. 46, pp19211–19218. 

Ruhl HA, et al. Societal need for improved understanding of climate change, anthropogenic 

impacts, and geo-hazard warning drive development of ocean observatories in European Seas, 

Progress in Oceanography (submitted), (<strong>Deliverable</strong> 11 (EU Sixth Framework <strong>Project</strong> 

ESONET NoE contract no. 036851. 2010). 

Gillooly, M, et al., <strong>Report</strong> to EMSO on Implementation Model. <strong>Deliverable</strong> 46 (EU Sixth 

Framework <strong>Project</strong> ESONET NoE contract no. 036851. 2010). 


Hydrothermal ecosystems from video imagery and temperature time-series 

Authors: J. Sarrazin, P-M. Sarradin, O. Gauthier (IFREMER) and M. Grégoire (Telecom 

Bretagne) 

Abstract: Located on oceanic ridges, hydrothermal ecosystems are characterized by strong 

physico-chemical gradients and the presence of a unique fauna, sustained by microbial 

chemosynthesis. Several studies have shown that the spatial distribution and composition of 

vent faunal assemblages were strongly correlated to geological, physical and chemical 

processes at different spatial and temporal scales but almost no data are available on the 

temporal dynamics of these ecosystems. The major objective of this research project is to 

develop a video processing platform to analyze the temporal dynamics of hydrothermal 

ecosystems. This data along with abiotic data measured within the environment (temperature, 

iron and oxygen concentrations) will be analyzed and compared using multivariate statistics 

including PCNM and cluster analyses. Finally, all the data will be fed within a GIS that will 

allow for a graphical representation of all the observed temporal variations. More specifically, 

we are looking to answer the following questions: (i) What biological and geological data can 

be automatically extracted from video imagery to feed the temporal data base, (ii) what are 

the different scales of variations of environmental conditions (e.g. temperature) and (iii) what 

are the links between environmental changes and faunal dynamics in hydrothermal 

ecosystems ? 

Methane bubbles analysis in the framework of MARMARA demonstration mission 

Author: I. Leblond (IFREMER) 

Slides in Annex F5 

Abstract: Observations of fluid plumes in the water column, bubbles of methane for 

example, show an increasing interest since several years. The study of the long-term 

variability of the emitted quantities could be linked to varied works: we can cite prevention of 

natural risks (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc), impact of the methane discharge to climate change, 

etc. So, a bubbles detector demonstrator, with acoustic sensor, has been deployed in 2009 in 

the Marmara sea. The principle of the engine is as follow: the module, named BOB (Bubbles 

OBservatory Module) is put on the seafloor. It’s an autonomous module, and we can expect a 

continuous recording during about one month. At the top of the instrument, we find the 

acoustic sensor (a 120 kHz split-beam echo-sounder, as used in fisheries acoustics), placed on 

a pan & tilt system. With this system, the position of the sounder (geographical sectors for 

example) can be easily changed. The principle of acquisition data is as follow: an acoustic 

signal is emitted by the echo-sounder, in an horizontally position according to previously 

chosen sectors, and the backscattering signal is recorded. 

Post-processing is realised a posteriori, after the recovery of the module. It consists at first to 

compute the volume backscattering vs time (echo-integration principle, used in fisheries 

acoustics). 

A particular attention is made to guaranty quantitative measures and a certain interoperability: 

o Data are recorded in an international format “Hac” (Description of the ICES HAC 

standard data exchange format – ICES Cooperative Research <strong>Report</strong>. 278, 

December 2005). 

o Data are calibrated, which allow quantitative measures and comparisons with other 

acoustic sensors. 

o Data are georeferenced, which allow comparisons with several sensors (acoustic or 

others) or with other surveys. 


Pan & tilt 

system, to find 

the right sector 

Figure 1: Presentation of BOB module 

BOB 

module 

Echo-sounder 

Batteries and 

electronic module 

Acoustic beam 

Figure 4: Principle of data acquisition with BOB module 

Distance 

from sensor 

(in number 

of samples) 

Figure 5: Example of echogram data with bubbles layers 

time 

(in number 

of ping) 

bubbles 

dB 

bubbles 


References: 

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=62519&CultureCode=en 

http://www2.cnrs.fr/presse/communique/1709.htm 

http://www.physorg.com/news177394319.html 

LIDO: acoustic data processing and management 

Authors: M. André, M. Van der Schaar, S. Zaugg, L. Houégnigan (UPC) 

Abstract: The objectives of LIDO in terms of acoustic and bioacoustics data management are 

summarised in Stage 3. Stage 1 and 2 are preliminary steps that must ensure the real-time 

process of the data. We already said that in undersea recordings background noise is always 

present (sea noise). Most of the time, this sea-noise presents little interest but fills terabytes of 

unnecessary storage. The challenge is here to be able to find a reliable set of filters or 

detectors able to extract the interesting information that would be superimposed to this 

background-noise, like dolphin calls and sonar, sperm and beaked whale clicks, or noise 

produced by ship engine. A detector is an algorithm that accepts a segment of audio as input 

and gives a single number as output. The output number is usually designed such that (1) It is 

equal or close to zero if only sea-noise is present in the segment (2) it takes larger values if an 

additional signal is present. By applying a threshold on the output number, the detector can 

take a decision, that is: automatically label the segments as "sea-noise-only" vs "presence of 

interesting signal". 

The concept of the broad categories returned by Stage 1 is to narrow the amount of data 

supplied to the more sophisticated algorithms of Stage 2. These Stage 2 algorithms are 

slightly slower. Hence, narrowing the input in quantity favours the speed of the analysis and 

improves the overall robustness of the system by having a well-defined input. 

Figure 6: LIDO – Audiodata stream 


References : 

http://www.listentothedeep.com/ 

André, M., van der Schaar, M., Zaugg, S., Houégnigan, L., Sánchez, A., Mas, A., Morell, M., 

Solé, M., Castell, J.V., Listening to the deep, Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the 

European Cetacean Society, Stralsund, Germany, 22nd to 24th of March 2010, p.120, Mar 

2010 

Zaugg, S., van der Schaar, M., Houégnigan, L., Gervaise, C., André, M. 2010. Real-time 

acoustic classification of sperm whale clicks and shipping impulses from deep-sea 

observatories, Applied Acoustics, issue doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2010.05.005 

Zaugg, S., van der Schaar, M., Houégnigan, L., André, M., 2009. Real time classification of 

sperm whale clicks and shipping impulses from a deep sea observatory 4th International 

Workshop on Detection, Classification and Localization of Marine Mammals Using Passive 

Acoustics, Sep 2009 

van der Schaar, M., Zaugg, S., Houégnigan, L., André, M., 2009, Real-time processing and 

management of acoustic data streams in LIDO 4th International Workshop on Detection, 

Classification and Localization of Marine Mammals using Passive Acoustics, Sep 2009 

4.4.1.4 Debriefing and conclusions 

o After the panel discussions and presentations, a short debriefing has been given in 

plenary session. (Annex E6). We concluded that the first edition of this panel session 

gave an overview of the possible topics related to time series acquired on to deep sea 

multidisciplinary observatories: 

Time series mathematical considerations: statistics and signal 

processing tools 

Various kinds of data sets: photo/video, Acoustic data (passive and 

active sensors), volcanology data, generic sensor data, ecology data. 

But the list cannot be exhaustive, it is needed to proceed step by step to establish best 

practices in most common acquired data by ESONET Deep sea observatories: with Generic 

data first. A handbook could gather the practices related to methods presented in this panel 

session and would be enriched in the future. 

o Next steps: 

Other data analysis examples are expected for the next steps. For instance data acquired on 

the bottom, from fixed platform, in order to discuss environment constrain coming from the 

bottom: turbidity, fluid flow, etc. It would be of interest to explain data acquisition problems 

and solution/methods for sensors put on the ground (for instance OBS, etc). 

4.4.1.5 References 

André, M., van der Schaar, M., Zaugg, S., Houégnigan, L., Sánchez, A., Mas, A., Morell, M., 

Solé, M., Castell, J.V., Listening to the deep, Proceedings of the 24th Conference of the 

European Cetacean Society, Stralsund, Germany, 22nd to 24th of March 2010, p.120, Mar 

2010 

Behrenfeld MJ, Boss E, Siegel DA, Shea DM (2005) Carbon-based ocean productivity and 

phytoplankton physiology from space. Glob Biogeochem Cycl, 10.1029/2004GB002299. 


Behrenfeld MJ, Falkowski PG (1997) Photosynthetic rates derived from satellite-based 

chlorophyll concentration. Limnol Oceanogr 42: 1–20. 

Buckland, ST et al. (2007) Advanced distance sampling. Oxford Uni. Pr., New York. xvii + 

416 p. 

Clarke, KR (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. 

Aust. J. Ecology 18: 117-143. 

Clarke, KR, RM Warwick (2001) Change in marine communities: an approach to statistical 

analysis and interpretation, 2nd edition. PRIMER-E, Plymouth, UK. 

Flagg, CN, and SL Smith, (1989) On the use of the acoustic Doppler current profiler to 

measure zooplankton abundance. Deep-Sea Research 36: 455–474, 

Heikkilai E (1988) Multicollinearity in regression models with multiple distance measures. J. 

Regional Sci. 28: 345-362. 

Hurlbert, S., (1984) Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. 

Ecological Monographs 54:187-211. 

Kaufmann, R., et al. The effects of seasonal pack ice on the distribution of macrozooplankton 

and micronekton in the northwestern Weddell sea. Mar. Biol. 124, 387. 

Laws EA (2004) Export flux and stability as regulators of community composition in pelagic 

marine biological communities: Implications from regime shifts. Prog Oceanogr 60:343–354. 

Perry, JN, AM Liebhold, et al. (2002) Illustration and guidelines for selecting statistical 

methods for quantifying spatial patterns in ecological data. Ecography 25:578-600. 

Pyper, BJ, and RM Peterman. (1998). Comparison of methods to account for autocorrelation 

in correlation analyses of fish data. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55: 2127–2140. 

Quinn, GP, MJ Keough (2002) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Smith KL, Jr, et al. (2006) Climate effect on food supply to depths greater than 4,000 meters 

in the northeast Pacific. Limnol Oceanogr 51:166–176. 

Schmitt FG, G. Dur, S. Souissi, S.B. Zongo, Statistical properties of turbidity, oxygen and pH 

fluctuations in the Seine river estuary (France), Physica A, 387, 6613-6623, 2008 

Sokal RR, and FJ Rohlf (1981) Biometry. WH Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 859pp. 

Van der Schaar, M., Zaugg, S., Houégnigan, L., André, M., 2009, Real-time processing and 

management of acoustic data streams in LIDO 4th International Workshop on Detection, 

Classification and Localization of Marine Mammals using Passive Acoustics, Sep 2009 

Zaugg, S., van der Schaar, M., Houégnigan, L., Gervaise, C., André, M. 2010. Real-time 

acoustic classification of sperm whale clicks and shipping impulses from deep-sea 

observatories, Applied Acoustics, issue doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2010.05.005 


Zaugg, S., van der Schaar, M., Houégnigan, L., André, M., 2009. Real time classification of 

sperm whale clicks and shipping impulses from a deep sea observatory 4th International 

Workshop on Detection, Classification and Localization of Marine Mammals Using Passive 

Acoustics, Sep 2009 

4.4.2 Smart sensors and other interface issues 


The contribution of ongoing activities within ESONET to OGC/IEEE standardization 

initiatives will be discussed. The following topics are in the foreground: 

o Field bus systems like CAN bus and the CanOpen protocol. 

o IEEE 1451. 

o IEEE 1451/SWE harmonization. 

o Hardware implementations of standards. 

Links to other EU projects/initiatives like KM3NET, EMODNET will be presented. 

As use cases the implementation of IEEE 1451 as part of the OGC Interoperability 

experiments will be demonstrated and discussed. Furthermore the approach towards achieving 

IEEE/SWE harmonization will be presented. 


Panel P3.2 – “Smart sensors and other interface issues” led by Eric Delory (DBSCALE) and 

Joaquim Del Rio (UPC). 

Infrastructure visit: Coriolis data center and tour of IFREMER. 



Christoph Waldmann KDM-UNIHB-MARUM waldmann@marum.de 

Aurélien Maurin CNRS-CPPM maurin.aurelien@gmail.com 

Eric Delory BDSCALE eric.delory@dbscale.com 

Feng Tao NOCS bt2000@gmail.com 

Carl Gojak CNRS-DT-INSU gojak@dt.insu.cnrs.fr 

Jesper Zedlitz University of Kiel jze@informatik.uni-kiel.de 

Joaquim Del Rio UPC joaquin.del.rio@upc.edu 

Jon Campbell NOCS joc@noc.soton.ac.uk 

Klaus Schleisiek SEND Off-Shore kschleisiek@send.de 

Michel Hamon IFREMER michel.hamon@ifremer.fr 

Oussama Kassem Zein ENSIETA oussama.zein@ensieta.fr 

Olivier Peden IFREMER olivier.peden@ifremer.fr 

Tom O’Reilly MBARI oreilly@mbari.org 

Yannick Lenault CNRS-DT-INSU lenault@dt.insu.cnrs.fr 

Yves Auffret IFREMER yauffret@ifremer.fr 

During the panel discussions it became clear that the foremost task of this group meeting 

should be to define a reference model for ocean observatories. This would allow a more 

efficient discussion on standard interfaces and also allows the identification of possible gaps. 


This Reference Model has the objective to take in account a wide range of possible 

implementations. In real world, we will find more simplified observatories where some of the 

blocks can be bypassed. 

The following descriptions apply to figure 7. 

Standards and protocols are proposed to communicate different main blocks or secondary 

blocs: 

Main Blocks: Secondary Blocks 

Instrument Sensor, ADC, Processing, Calibration, Storage 

Concentrator 

Sea Station Controller, Buffer 

Node or Junction Box Switch, Modem 

Shore Station Modem, Controller 

Crystal, CLK 

Operators 

Clients 

Archive 

Main communication protocols and initiatives to take into account in order to communicate 

different blocs are: 

RS232, CAN, RS485, RS422, Ethernet, USB, RF, Acoustic, Satellite and over this physical 

layers CANopen, TCP/IP, UDP, 1451.0, PUCK, Sensor Web Enable (SWE), Sensor 

Observation Service(SOS), Sensor Alert Services(SAS), Sensor Planning Services (SPS), 

ZeroConf, NMEA, PPS; IEEE1588 and NTP. 

Reference Model brief Description 

An instrument is composed by theses main blocs: primary sensors, ADC function, 

Calibration, Processing, storage, and/or Power Supply. 

a: connection a represents communication between primary sensor to ADC. It will be mainly 

analog communication even if could be digital if the primary sensor is digital or quasi-digital. 

Different Instruments can be connected point to point or in a multi-drop network to a 

concentrator. 

b: connection b represents this point to point or multi-drop network to a concentrator. 

Different Concentrators can be connected to a Main Controller (Sea Station) where a buffer 

memory can be used to assure data storage while communication with shore station is off. 

c: connection c represents the connection between different concentrator and the Sea Station 

Controller. 

Different Sea Station Controllers will communicate with shore station through a Node or 

Junction Box, composed by a switch and a modem. 

d: connection d represents the connection between Sea Station Controllers and a 

communication Switch. 


e: connection e represents the connection between the communication Switch and a 

communication Modem. In some cases, Switch block and Modem block could be a single 

block. 

f: connection f represents the connection between marine node or Junction Box and the shore 

station. It can be wired or wireless. 

g: connection g represents communication between communication Modem and Main 

Controller at Shore Station. 

h: connection h represents communication between the Shore Station Controller and a 

Memory Buffer. This buffer doesn’t represent a full database or main archive. 

i: connection i represents how different clients could be accessed Controller Shore Station 

j: connection j represents how an Operator or various Operators communicate with Shore 

Station Controller. 

L. connection L represents how the controller saves data into a full database or Archive. 

k: connection k represent communication between Clients to main Archive. 

m&n: connections m and n represents how a timing clock gets the Controllers at Shore or Sea 

stations 

Proposed and most common standards or initiatives used per connection 

Different standards and protocols have been tested with different observatories topologies. 

Other are well known and commonly used in nowadays observatories. 

Link Standards, Protocols or initiatives to take into account 

a Analog 

b RS232, RS485, RS422, CAN, 1451.X, PUCK, ETH,USB, SWE, ZeroConf 

c Eth, RS485, RS422, CAN, USB, ZeroConf 

d Eth, RS232, CAN, USB, RS422, ZeroConf 

e 

f Eth, RF, Acoustic, Satellite, IEEE1451.0, SWE,ZeroConf 

g Eth, RS232,CAN, USB, RS422, ZeroConf 

h 

i SWE, SOS, DataTurbine, ZeroConf 

j SWE, SPS, SAS, ZeroConf 

k SWE, SOS 

L SWE, ZeroConf 

m PPS+NMEA, IEEE1588 PTP 

n PPS+NMEA, IEEE1588 PTP 

Other standards that may apply 

Time synchronization 

IEEE1588 PTP and NTP over TCP/IP Network 

NMEA over RS232, RS485 and Eth 

PPS over TTL, RS232, RS485 


Instrument 

A/D 

Calibration 

Processing 

a 

Sensor 

Storage 

Instrument 

Instrument 

A/D 

A/D 



Processing 

Processing 

a a 

Sensor 

Sensor 

Storage 

Instrument 

Instrument 

A/D 

A/D 



Processing 

Processing 

a a 

Sensor 

Sensor 

Storage 

Instrument 

Instrument 

A/D 

A/D 



Processing 

Processing 

a a 

Sensor 

Sensor 

Storage 

b 

b 

b 

b 

Instrument 

A/D 


Processing 

a 

Sensor 





Figure 7 : The suggested observatory Reference Model 

Storage 

Storage 

Storage 

Storage 

c 

c 

GPS, Crystal 

CLK 

m 

Sea Station 

Controller 

Buffer 

GPS, Crystal 

CLK 

m 



Buffer 

d 

Node or Junction Box 

Switch 

Modem 

GPS, Crystal 

CLK 

Shore Station 

Modem 

e f g 

h 

<strong>Deliverable</strong> #50 - update October 2010 32 

Buffer 

n 

Archive 

j 


L 

Operator 

i 

Clients 

k

Case Study 

In order to test the Reference Model, it has been used to represent Obsea Observatory as is shown in the next figure. 

This exercise will also be done for other observatories, to find out whether this Reference Model is also applicable to represent many different 

marine infrastructures. 

Instrument CTD 

A/D 


Processing 

a 

Sensor 

www.obsea.es Western Mediterranean Observatory 

OBSEA observatory Simplified schema using the Reference Model 

Storage 

Instrument IP Camera 

Instrument IP Hydrophone 

A/D 

A/D 



Processing 

Processing 

a a 

Sensor 

Sensor 

Storage 

b 

b 

RS232 - PUCK Concentrator 

Etherent 

Storage 

c 

Ethernet 

GPS, Crystal 

CLK 

M, IEEE1588 



uC ColdFire 

Based System 

Buffer 

Bateries 

Ethernet 

Node or Junction Box 

Switch 

e 

Modem 

Ethernet – f 

Cable: Power and Optical 

GPS, Crystal 

CLK 

GPS, IEEE1588 

Shore Station 

Modem 

G Eth 

H Eth 

Buffer 

Archive 

J Eth, IEEE 1451.0 

SNMP, Zabbix 

Controllers 

L Ethernet 

SEA LINK SHORE 

Figure 8 : The Reference Model applied to the OBSEA observatory in Spain 


I IEEE1451 .0 

Operator 

Clients 

K IEEE1451 .0 

SWE-SOS 

DataTurbine 

Zabbix

References: 

[1] Duane R. Edgington, Daniel Davis. “Sensors: Ocean Observing System Instrument 

Network Infrastructure”. A <strong>Report</strong> of the NSF/ORION Workshop. 13-15, 2004. MBARI. 


A practical approach was chosen to map structural elements of the ocean observatory 

acquisition chain with currently available standards that solve the interoperability problem in 

smart sensing. To the best of the participants knowledge, such approach was lacking and is a 

necessary step in order to harmonise future developments and foster the use of such standards 

in ESONET and other ocean observatory initiatives. Second, this effort covers from the 

physical layer to data presentation layer, when most approaches in interoperability generally 

only focus on one or few elements of that chain. Finally, the obtained consensus is more than 

satisfactory as representatives from different initiatives as well as different interests (academic 

and commercial) were present. 

One of the practical follow-ups will consist in the OBSEA test within ESONET NoE, where 

the above concepts will be tested in real-time on a cabled infrastructure. 

4.4.3 Underwater intervention and 20 year plus materiel choice 

4.4.3.1 Introductory texts 

Underwater intervention 

They are no standards or recommended practises covering globally the subject of ROV 

intervention, apart form the NORSOK "U-102 Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) services". 

Most of the know-how is retained by each individual operator, and is hardly exchanged within 

the industry, for obvious reasons of commercial competition. 

However, it would be advisable for the scientific community for which commercial 

competition is a far less present parameter, to build up a database related to ROV 

intervention, collecting data on vehicles performances, tooling and sensors usage feed-back, 

break down statistics, operational hazards, crew manning, maintenance tricks, etc., which 

could lately be the base for a general recommended practise on underwater diverless 

intervention. The work should also cover ultimately the AUV operations, for which the 

underwater community in general, still misses a real feedback. 

The existing intervention equipment (Submarines, ROV and AUV, hybrid vehicles) available 

within the scientific community will govern the early days of intervention procedures on 

underwater observatories (methodology and operational procedures are largely dependant on 

the intervention equipment specifications), it will be beneficial in the long term to work out 

the specifications of standard vehicles, which will offer both performances and versatility, and 

would allow the various laboratories to exchange hardware, operators and know how. 

Objectives: 

The objective of the working group would be to provide the scientific users with proper 

guidelines on what equipment to use for each type of missions, and recommended practices to 


operate it in a safe and productive way. As a case study, it would be interesting to compare 

how an observatory deployed during a demonstration mission (LOOME, MomarD, Lido, 

MODOO...?) would be deployed using existing ROVs. At least two cases are to consider. 

20 years + lifetime material choice 

In the definition of subsea observatories, from the scientific vision to the cost estimates, the 

long term durable operation is a key issue and probably a limitation. Any improvement in the 

limitation of ageing of materials and components is worth being analysed. 

The choice of material and its protection towards corrosion has not yet been addressed 

directly inside ESONET. The panel will start from a white paper issued before the Workshop 

(from ESONET CA Final report). It will work with the practices of the oceanography partners 

but also from offshore oil and gas industry and Navy experience. 

Topics intended: 

1. corrosion protection of steel - cathodic protection, 

2. choices of materials and strength after ageing corrosion due to neighbouring 

materials (components such as connectors, actuators, cables), 

3. thermoplastics and composites - ageing issues. 

ESONET partners already designed equipment for the Demonstration Missions. One or two 

of these equipments could be used as a case study for analysis of the material choice, other 

possible choices and other practices. 

Objectives: 

The first meeting of this panel intends to establish an initial reference paper. Whenever 

possible, the group will recommend rules or standards, check lists and material ageing test 

methods. It will determine the additional work or experiments ESONET could support. 

A question: Can all the ESONET-EMSO equipments (infrastructure and instruments) have a 

life time of 20 to 30 years with state of the art material design? What attendance/ checking 

/maintenance will be needed? 

4.4.3.2 White papers 

White Paper for the Panel 3-3 – Underwater Intervention 

Author: J-F. Drogou (IFREMER) 

(Based on a summary of the first version of the D27 deliverable) 

Abstract: In the frame of ESONET NoE WP2, the D27 deliverable aims to provide the 

scientific users and operators with standard qualified procedures or recommended 

practices to operate equipment in a safe and productive way. 

The construction and maintenance phases of an underwater observatory follows various steps, 

each step calling for specific competences. 

- Site surveys 

- Module lifting and lowering to seabed 

- Cable laying and underwater connections 

- Inspection and maintenance works 

The document is structured by these various steps, and includes three axes of development: 


• (i) Review of existing Best Practices and standards in offshore industry 

and the possible benefits for the scientific community. 

The Offshore industry has a long and comprehensive experience in designing, installing and 

maintaining underwater structures, which stay on seabed for extended periods of time (20 

years +), in water depths not accessible to human diving. 

Various organisations and committees, such as API, ISO and DNV, have developed a certain 

number of standards and recommended practises for the design and the diverless installation 

and maintenance of these subsea infrastructures. 

A complete survey of these standards and their possible benefit to the scientific community 

desiring to design, build, install and maintain large scale seafloor observatories in deep 

waters, was analysed. 

A separate document presents the complete report of this analysis, with an overview in 

appendix 1 and appendix 2 of the D27, which summarizes the main conclusions. 

• (ii) Review of company or institute specifications 

In working practise, the scientific institutes don’t use (or not directly) this source of 

recommendations and standards, and use their own specifications. 

These internally prepared documents are part of “contract” documents and serve as 

contractual standards during execution. They specify performances and acceptance criteria, 

and usually refer to Institute, international or national standards. 

Some of them can be very specific, some others remain pretty general. They are two levels of 

company specifications: 

General specifications: they reflect Company philosophy and expectations on generic 

subjects. 

Detailed specifications: they are usually project specific. They are issued by Company’s 

technical departments to support a specific aspect of a project, which is either new or more 

challenging than usual. Detailed specifications can also reflect particular conditions such as 

environmental conditions, special design or logistic constraints. 

It is in working practise, the first reference documents for the engineers, operators and users 

of scientific institutes. 

Although the detailed specifications represent an endless source of recommendations and 

good practises, they are generally not outside edited and available, and only issued as 

particular operations documents. 

In consequence, the document presents, but non exhaustive and without detailed procedures, 

different existing experiences, with different marine means, company crew experience and 

rules. 

• (iii) General recommendations for marine science observatory intervention. 

It is more than obvious that the existing intervention equipment (Submarines, ROVs, AUVs) 

available within the scientific community will govern the early days of intervention 

procedures on underwater observatories. 

A direct transfer of the offshore philosophy to the installation of underwater scientific 

modules could be detrimental to the scientific community in terms of equipment availability 

and installation costs. As opposed to the offshore philosophy which offers no compromise to 

equipment performance, a more flexible approach should be taken by the scientific 

community by evaluating performances of alternative methods such as smart rigging and 

lower cost of the support ships, versus sea state capability and global cost. 

The document presents general recommendations, taking into account the elements of (i) and 

(ii), giving a guide for general requirements for marine operations. 


White Paper for the Panel 3-3 – 20 years plus components, mechanical issues. 

Author: I.G. Priede (UNIABDN), J.F. Rolin and R.Person (IFREMER) 

Abstract: Although the material choice for long time deployment has not been addressed 

since the beginning of the ESONET NetWork of Excellence, it is a key question as can be 

seen in the excerpt of the ESONET Concerted Action final (2004) report hereunder: 

Materials for subsea observatories 

The material choices were a difficult issue for the telecommunication cable industry. Cable 

thread protection, polyethylene sheathing, glass epoxy composite repeaters were developed 

and now allow high performances. The material choice for long-term underwater deployment 

requires the experience of specialized designers and in some cases analysis of experts. A lot 

of knowledge was acquired through offshore, academic and military projects. The material 

providers are seldom aware of the behaviour of their products in long-term seawater 

exposure: the quantity produced for this market is most of the time negligible with respect to 

the overall production. Research is active in the field of materials in marine environment. The 

processes of corrosion and especially biofouling are requiring tests and theoretical studies. 

Some projects such as Neptune Canada are planning R&D activities on materials in parallel to 

the subsea observatory design and first deployments. EC funded projects have been devoted 

to materials in Marine environment: Composite Housing, BRIE, BRIMON. The hydrothermal 

environment is very corrosive. High temperature and high-pressure systems may be 

encountered with black or white smokers. Hydrogen sulphide, a vast host of metal-rich 

sulphide minerals, carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen are present. Other places are rich in 

chlorides and metals. The monitoring by seafloor observatories will bring very interesting 

scientific data on biodiversity, ecological processes, and time related variations of chemical or 

physical parameters. Specific tests are required to check the design of the observatory. The 

EC FP6 project Exocet/D includes such tests. The deployment of subsea observatories in the 

continental margins means a long immersion at pressures of 2000 to 6000 dbar. This is 

considered as “ultra-deep” because it exceeds the usual offshore oil industry standards. Under 

such pressures, some design parameters and some material behaviours have not been tested 

yet. Therefore, extra tests and studies may be required. 

Future Observatory Designs 

.Use of metals For subsea observatories intended to be deployed during more than 10 years, 

the choice of metallic materials for structural design is limited. 

Steel with cathodic protection is the standard solution. Rules of the offshore industry may be 

applied. For the deep sea, cathodic protection parameters have to be modified: Joint Industry 

<strong>Project</strong>s between oil industry companies and research institutes are addressing this matter. 

The cathodic protection required must be limited by a preliminary protection by Zn and 

painting according to a process guaranteed by the manufacturer. The control and exchange of 

anodes will represent a maintenance cost that must be accounted for in the operating costs. 

Stainless steel. Common stainless steel is liable of cavernous corrosion and must be 

prohibited. Some minor pieces may be built with 316L. Grades designed for seawater 

corrosion (904, superduplex…) are not so common and are quite expensive. 

Nickel alloys.Several grades of Nickel based alloys are available and constitute safe 

solutions: Inconel 625, Hastelloy C22,… 

Titanium alloys The Titanium alloys have been one of the technical enhancements allowing 

deep underwater intervention. Their extensive use is only limited by the cost. For subsea 

observatories, the experience of Geostar housings designed by IFREMER and built by 

Tecnomare with a Russian manufacturer is a good example. Unalloyed titanium (T40) is used 


when the mechanical requirements are not stringent. Alloys in alpha-beta phase such as 6% 

Aluminium and 4% Vanadium (or equivalent Russian grades) are a reliable solution. One 

drawback of titanium alloys is their electrochemical potential which may corrode other 

metals. It is suggested to protect it by painting for instance to limit its active surface. 

Bronze. Among copper alloys, some have a good behaviour for long time exposure to 

seawater. They may have the advantage of intrinsic biofouling protection by release of copper 

ions. 

Aluminium alloys of several kinds are a solution for underwater components. The serie 5000 

(according to Aluminium Association standard nomenclature) is not prone to heavy corrosion 

and may be used unprotected. The powder produced by corrosion may be a disturbance for 

some very precise measurements of particles in the abyss. The 6000 serie and to some extend 

7000 serie (with better mechanical performances) are used with hard anodizing specified for 

marine application. A cathodic protection with Aluminium-Indium alloys anodes is ensuring 

long-term endurance. 

Use of thermoplastic materials Thermoplastic materials have the great advantage to suffer no 

electrochemical corrosion. Their limitation of use is due to the water ingress and creep. 

Thermoplastics with brittle behaviour can only be used in special configurations. They are 

used in cable sheathing and overmoulding, for light mechanical pieces, electrical insulation, 

o-rings view ports for cameras and water-tightness components. Due to the creep 

characteristics, the load must not be permanent for equipments immersed a long time such as 

subsea observatories. PEEK or PCTFE have exceptional behaviours but are quite expensive, 

they are only manufactured into small pieces in sensors and instrumentation. Polyurethane is 

commonly used, but its formula must be especially suited for long-term seawater exposure. 

The polyether type of molecule has acceptable performances. The components of 

polyurethane and of most thermoplastic materials are changing quite often due to environment 

regulations and medical regulations for the workers. This may lead to perform again 

acceptance tests or tests on mechanical characteristics. In general, characteristics for underwater 

ageing is dependent on the crystalline to amorphous ratio. 

However, the improvement of these materials is very promising and may lead to light weight 

equipments with long immersion potentials. 

Use of composite materials The high mechanical characteristics of composite materials and 

the lack of corrosion are excellent arguments for their use at sea. In long-term sea floor 

deployments, these performances have been demonstrated. In the telecom cable industry, 

repeaters in glass epoxy have been produced and used for the last twenty years by Alcatel for 

instance. Components of sensor strings implemented in underwater wells, by industrial 

companies such as Schlumberger or academic institutes like IFREMER, have shown their 

cost effectiveness. In these applications, thick glass epoxy is machined and used as any 

material. Resin The plastic matrix to be reinforced by fibres must be well tested. The criteria 

are, as such, a R&D issue in: water ingress, creep, shock, ageing of matrix-fibre interface. The 

choice of epoxy and vinyl-esther is acceptable. Other matrices such as polyester are not 

recommended. The production methods (responsible of the void ratio) and chemical 

components are changing according to the manufacturer. The qualification is specific, 

unfortunately existing standards are not sufficient. A good example of methodology was 

given by the EC project Composite Housing. Glass fibres. The reinforcement by glass fibre is 

providing good performances for the long term. The high glass/matrix ratios are giving better 

hydrostatic pressure and compressive strength (70 - 80 % in mass). The use of S or R glass for 

the fibre and the choice of manufacturing method such as filament winding, fabric prepreg, 

injection have been qualified in several design of underwater equipment. The lander MAP 2 

using a glass-epoxy hull and several glass-epoxy components such as amplificating flexural 


springs for release has shown its performances for two years deployments in the deep sea (EC 

funded Mast - Alipor project). On offshore oil production templates, more and more 

equipments include glass-epoxy elements. Carbon fibres Lighter structures may be designed 

using carbon fibres. Under tensile or flexural strength design criteria, the additional cost finds 

good arguments. It is more limited for structures dimensioned by the compressive strength. 

The feasibility of carbon epoxy pressure hulls has been demonstrated by the EC project 

Composite Housing. Syntactic foam A composite material made up with very small hollow 

glass spheres inside a plastic matrix is able to provide buoyant material. It has been qualified 

for full water depth floats as well as pipe insulation material. PAGE 231 

Use of brittle materials Brittle materials such as glass or ceramics have exceptional 

compressive strength. But any tensile or shear stress may lead to rupture. They are used for 

electric insulation in connectors with a very stringent manufacturing process. Glass spheres 

are often used for the buoyancy necessary during deployment phases of subsea observatories. 

They are a major component of landers and used as instrument containers (on seismometers 

of GEOSTAR, neutrino detectors of ANTARES…). The rules for deep-sea manned 

submersibles from the international committee PVHO (Pressure Vessels for Human 

Occupancy vehicles) have banned the glass spheres in the vicinity of a submersible. It is still 

the rule for submersible Nautile, Alvin and Shinkai and a few ROV such as ROPOS in 

Canada. Brittle materials may be used provided a reliability study based on their probability 

of failure. The Weibull coefficient must be determined for this purpose. The complete 

interoperability of deep-sea intervention underwater vehicles will have to address the 

acceptance or not of glass spheres. 

Biofouling Any material immersed in seawater will be covered by a first biofilm layer. From 

this layer and thanks to its bonding characteristics, a microscopic fauna will initiate 

colonization by all kind of living species. This phenomenon is site dependent and must be 

analyzed case by case for long-term deployment of subsea observatories. The EC project 

Mispec has proposed a method of evaluation of biofilm on optical components: the Biopam. 

EC projects BRIE and BRIMON have developped and tested protections for oceanographic 

instruments. The main idea is to release biocide from a coating or by active production. The 

limitation is to avoid the use of forbiden substances such as TBT. When biofouling is a main 

issue for the instruments on a subsea observatory, a specific study with in-situ tests is 

necessary: it has been done for neutrino observatories sites such as Antares and is underway 

in EC FP6 project Exocet/D. 


Panel P3.3 – Underwater intervention” led by Volker Ratmeyer (KDM-UNIHB-MARUM), 

Marck Smit (NIOZ), Dominique Choqueuse (IFREMER) and Jean-François Drogou 

(IFREMER). 

Infrastructure visit: Qualification facilities and tour of IFREMER. 



Friedrich Abegg KDM-IFM-GEOMAR fabegg@ifm-geomar.de 

Dominique Choqueuse IFREMER dominique.choqueuse@ifremer.fr 

Jean-François Drogou IFREMER jfdrogou@ifremer.fr 

Nadine Lanteri IFREMER nadine.lanteri@ifremer.fr 



Nicolas Nowald KDM-UNIHB-MARUM nnowald@marum.de 

Volker Ratmeyer KDM-UNIHB-MARUM ratmeyer@marum.de 

Marck Smit NIOZ msmit@nioz.nl 

The panel session devoted to material choice included: 

- Objective - General overview D. Choqueuse (IFREMER) 

Environment 

Material in deep sea 

Protection 

Deep Offshore experience 

- NIOZ field experiences M. Smit (NIOZ) 

- Cathodic protection D.Festy (Corrosion Institute) & D. Leflour (IFREMER) 

Certification 

Modeling 

- Polymers and Composites P. Davies (IFREMER) 

Polymer in seawater 

Case studies 

Buoyancy Materials D. Choqueuse (IFREMER) 

- Cables, Connectors, Moorings, Glass… 


20 year plus Material Choice. 

A final text was issued; it proposes to establish guidelines. 

LONG-TERM DEPLOYMENT: MATERIALS FOR SUBSEA OBSERVATORIES 

In the definition of subsea observatories, from the scientific vision to cost estimates, long-term 

sustainable operation is a key issue and probably constitutes a limitation. Any improvement in 

ageing of materials and components merits further study. 

Based on the experience gained mainly in the offshore industry [1] where materials are 

exposed in deep sea (up to 2000 m) for long time (up to 25 years), in the framework of 

ESONET/EMSO program guideline for the choice and selection of materials for long-term, 

deep-sea exposure was proposed. 

These guidelines, based on existing literature [2], feedback from previous experiences and the 

Best Practices Workshop 2 white paper of this session are under preparation. The following 

points are addressed: 

• Description of the deep-sea environment highlighting the influence of parameters 

behind acting on the degradation process (pressure, oxygen concentration, 

fouling, etc.) 

• Review of materials used in service deep sea applications: 

Metallic material 

Non metallic materials 

• Associated protection 


Cathodic protection, including the choice and design of cathodic protection 

systems 

Paints and coatings 

• Assembly 

• Sub-components: moorings, landers, connectors, junction boxes, pressure houses, 

buoyancy, etc. 

• Guide for performance evaluation 

It must be mentioned that experience feedback is of primary importance for the use of most of 

the materials. Attention must be paid on the assembly of dissimilar material where galvanic 

corrosion could be initiated. 

Design of structure, choice of material and associated protection method should be 

performed by skilled people in order to avoid reinventing solutions already evaluated. 

In general, the long-term behavior of the material is not or is only weakly affected by 

pressure. While pressure loading must be taken into account in terms of mechanical loading 

on hulls for instance, the intrinsic properties of the material are generally not affected by 

pressure. Materials subject to creep such as some thermoplastics can be easily replaced with 

materials having more suitable characteristics. 

In order to avoid most of the problems of corrosion the use of cathodic protection for metallic 

structure is strongly recommended and that will limit the use of “exotic” and “expensive” 

materials, which could be proposed. 

For polymer and composite materials [3] good knowledge of behavior in water has to be 

considered in order to limit the risk of long-term detrimental degradation processes 

(hydrolysis, etc.). However, it must be noted that degradation of such material is generally 

thermally activated and except in really specific areas (black smokers, etc.), temperature is 

low enough (around 4°C) to avoid initiation of degradation processes. 

An approach based on accelerated test using time-temperature equivalence can be used to 

predict long-term performance of polymeric materials [4][5] however good knowledge of 

degradation phenomena is needed in order to guarantee pertinence of the accelerated test. 

For specific materials as syntactic foam, synthetic fiber for mooring cable, knowledge of 

long-term behavior has already been addressed through specific program related to offshore 

industry [6][7]. 

[1] M. Roche, Protection contre la corrosion des ouvrages maritimes pétroliers (1978) 

[2] Materials for marine systems and structures, editor D F. Hasson (1988) 

[3] D. Choqueuse, P. Davies, Durabilité des polymères et composites pour application sous marine, Revue des composites et 

des matériaux avancés, (2002) 

[4] D. Choqueuse, P. Davies, Ageing of composites in underwater applications, in Ageing of composites, Woodhead 

publishing in materials, editor R. Martin, (2008) 

[5] P. Davies, G. Evrard, Accelerated ageing of polyurethanes for marine applications - Polymer Degradation and Stability, 

Volume 92, Issue 8, August 2007, Pages 1455-1464 

[6] F. Grosjean, N. Bouchonneau, D. Choqueuse, V. Sauvant, Comprehensive analyses of syntactic foam behaviour in 

deepwater environment – Journal of materials science 2009; 44 (6) 1462-1468 

[7] G. Desrombise, L Van Scoors, P. Davies, L. Dussud, Durability of aramid ropes in a marine environment, OMAE 2008- 

57199 


Annex A 

AGENDA 


Thursday 8 October 

Time Topic 

09:00 REGISTRATION Auditorium 

09:30 

10:30 

10:30 

11:00 

11:00 

11:15 

11.15 

12.30 

12.30 

14:00 

14:00 

16:30 

16:30 

16:45 

16:45 

18:30 

Plenary 

Groups 

Presentation 

Introduction - Short presentation of the ESONET Demonstration missions ...................................................................................................... Roland Person 

Results of Best Practices Workshop one in Bremen ..................................................................................................................................Christoph Waldmann 

Auditorium 

G1 – Generic Instrumentation 

Presentation of Panels and reference 

documents - Auditorium 

Coffee Break/ Despatching to panels - Auditorium 

Introduction to 

Panels 

Lunch in IFREMER 

Key note 

speeches and 

Practices from 

projects 

P1 – 1 

Armor Room 

P1 – 1 

Armor Room 

Henry Ruhl 

P1 – 2 

Argoat Room 

P1 – 2 

Argoat Room 

Coffee Break / Despatching to visits – Auditorium 

Visits 


Armor/Argoat Rooms 

G2 – Infrastructure 

Presentation of Panels and reference 

documents - Auditorium 

Jean-François Rolin 

P2 - 1 

GM Room 

P2 - 1 

GM Room 


EEP Room 

P2 – 2 

EEP Room 

P2 – 2 

EEP Room 

G3 – Standardisation and interoperability 

Presentation of Panels and reference documents – 

Auditorium 

Christoph Waldmann 

P3 – 1 

Auditorium 

P3 – 1 

Auditorium 

P3 – 2 

NSE Room 

P3 – 2 

NSE Room 

G3 – Standardisation 

and interoperability 

Auditorium / NSE Room 

P3 – 3 

Ocean Lounge 

P3 – 3 

Ocean Lounge 

G3 – Standardisation 

and interoperability 

Ocean Lounge 


Calibration facilities and tour of 

IFREMER Brest 

Laurent Delauney 

Prototype facilities, marine materials lab 

and tour of IFREMER Brest 

Jean-François Rolin 

Coriolis data center and tour 

of IFREMER Brest 

Gilbert Maudire 

18:30 Shuttle to Hotels (2 stops: Rue Monge, near square Loir et Cher and Place de la Liberté, near Office du Tourisme) – download the Brest map 

19:45 Shuttle from Hotels to Oceanopolis 

20:15 Dinner – Oceanopolis Aquarium 

22:30 Shuttle to Hotels 

Qualification facilities 

and tour of IFREMER 

Brest 

Philippe Warnier 


Friday 9 October 

Time Topic 

08:15 Shuttle to IFREMER (2 stops: Rue Monge,near square Loir et Cher and Place de la Liberté, near Office du Tourisme) – download the Brest map 

Groups G1 – Generic Instrumentation G2 – Infrastructure G3 – Standardisation and interoperability 

09:00 

10:15 

10.15 

10.30 

10.30 

11.30 

11.30 

12.30 

12.30 

14:00 

14:00 

15:00 

15:00 

15:15 

15:15 

16:00 

Panels 

Panel case studies 

for instance from 

Demo Missions 

P1 – 1 

Armor Room 

P1 – 1 

Armor Room 

Coffee Break in meeting rooms 

Panel case studies 

for instance from 

Demo Missions 

Debriefing by 

groups 

Lunch in IFREMER 

Panel work – 

Update/establish 

reference 

document 

P1 – 1 

Armor Room 

P1 – 2 

Argoat Room 

P1 – 2 

Argoat Room 

P1 – 2 

Argoat Room 


Sharing case studies 

Armor Room 

P1 – 1 

Armor Room 

Coffee Break - Auditorium 

Plenary 

<strong>Report</strong> from animators 

Auditorium 

16:00 Shuttle to Airport 

P1 – 2 

Argoat Room 

P2 – 1 

GM Room 

P2 – 1 

GM Room 

P2 – 1 

GM Room 



GM Room 

P2 – 1 

GM Room 

P2 – 2 

EEP Room 

P2 – 2 

EEP Room 

P2 – 2 

EEP Room 

P2 – 2 

EEP Room 

P3 – 1 

Auditorium 

P3 – 1 

Auditorium 

P3 – 1 

Auditorium 

P3 – 2 

NSE Room 

P3 – 2 

NSE Room 

P3 – 2 

NSE Room 

G3 – Standardisation and interoperability 


Auditorium 

P3 – 1 

Auditorium 

P3 – 2 

NSE Room 


P3 – 3 

Ocean Lounge 

P3 – 3 

Ocean Lounge 

P3 – 3 

Ocean Lounge 

P3 – 3 

Ocean Lounge

Working 

Groups 

Panels 

Chair 

persons 

Presentation of Panels 

G1 – Generic Instrumentation G2 - Infrastructure G3 – Standardisation and interoperability 

5.1.14.4.4 

1 – 1 

Physico-chemical 

sensors, 

Metrology: 

CTD from physical 

oceanography projects 

Oxygen , metrology 

and standards. 

J. Greinert (NIOZ) 

and A. Tengberg 

(AADI) 

P2 – 1 

P1 – 2 

Acoustic sensors: Design 

comparison – 

Cabled 

observatories: 

ADCP, 

Hydrophones. 

JP. Hermand 

(ULB) 

and 

M. André (UPC) 

Antares, Nemo, Mars, 

Venus, Neptune CDN, 

Koeri/ Marmara. 

J. Piera (UPC) 

and 

J. Marvaldi 

(Ifremer) 

P2 – 2 

Design comparison 

– Stand alone 

observatories: 

Momar, Var Cañon, 

Animate, 

Acoustic telemetry 

issues. 

J. Karstensen (IFM) 

and J. Blandin 

(Ifremer) 

P3 – 1 

Time series and 

images: treatment 

and qualification: 

Time series. Pore 

pressure, seismic data. 

H. Ruhl (NOCS) 

and 

I. Puillat (Ifremer) 

Nota: Two sessions will be filmed. 

Organisation Committee (as decided during Steering Committee in London) 

Christoph Waldmann (Marum - Bremen), Michel André (UPC Barcelona), Mark Smit (NIOZ Texel), 

Jean-François Rolin (Ifremer Brest), Klaus Schleisick (Send Hamburg). 

External support for non-ESONET members: Séverine Thomas (GIS - Europôle Mer Brest) 

P3 – 2 

Smart sensors 

and other 

interface issues: 

UPC, Ifremer/Ensieta, 

Marum. 

E. Delory 

(DBSCALE) and 

J.Del Rio (UPC) 

P3 – 3 


Underwater 

intervention and 

20years plus 

material choice: 

Ropos, Victor 6000, 

Quest, 

Kiel 6000, 

Pegaso. 

Choice of 

thermoplastics and 

protection of steel. 

V. Ratmeyer 

(MARUM), 

M. Smit (NIOZ) 

D. Choqueuse 

(Ifremer) and 

JF. Drogou 

(Ifremer)

Generic session scheme 

Presentations of the state of the art and examples from 

ESONET. 

Discussion of presentations should focus on: 

Comparison of methodical approaches in various 

applications and in different institutions. 

Overarching tools and methods. 

Identification of gaps and strategies for remedies. 

Use cases could for instance cover: 

Mission based descriptions. 

Description of an application within demo mission. 

Application of discussed methods to particular scenarios. 

Use cases should have broad relevance. 

Summary of sessions within report: 

Updating of ESONET reports. 

Split of writing tasks for workshop reports. 

Recommendations of next steps within ESONET. 


Working Group G1 – Generic Instrumentation 

Panel 1-1 : Physico-chemical sensors, Metrology 

Chairs: Anders Tengberg (AADI) and Jens Greinert (NIOZ) 

The previous Best Practice Workshop in Bremen led to the definition of the generic instrumentation in 

ESONET (see <strong>Deliverable</strong> D6 - Session 4 - Scientific needs in regard to generic and specific 

instrument packages - page 34). A report was issue by the project as <strong>Deliverable</strong> 13 - <strong>Report</strong> on 

science modules, written by Henry Ruhl et al. 

Bio fouling protection and calibration methods need to be discussed again in order to determine 

additional tests or intercomparison workshops to be performed. 

The list of sensors issued by the ESONET working group (D13) mentions two level of priorities: the 

minimum list and an extended list. 

This new meeting is intending to finalize the specifications of the "minimum list" and proceed in the 

recommendations for the sensors of the extended list. 

This session specifically addresses the qualification and deployment procedures of the individual 

measuring system. Equipment testing complying with standards such as NFX 10-800 or similar must 

be performed for the qualification. The group should propose a way to ensure that all qualification are 

performed. 

The session specifically addresses the qualification and deployment constraints of the individual 

measuring system. The metrology necessary before and between each deployment will be discussed. 

The metrology procedures must be related to the international standards and agreements of reference 

laboratories, ensuring long term traceability and interoperability. 

Objectives: 

Prepare final specifications. Issue recommendations according to the recognized state of the art. 

Recommend comparative tests and qualification tests. Evaluate costs for the purchase and operation of 

these instruments. 

It appears that this issue corresponds to an integrating activity inside Esonet which might last after the 

end of the project as a service part the European infrastructure. 

How could such a group continue its activities (training, qualification of new sensors ,metrology 

reference, data treatment,...)? 

What are the processes to implement in the Quality management Plan.: recommendation, ESONET 

Label,.... 

Panel 1-2 : Acoustic sensors 

Chairs: Jean-Pierre Hermand (ULB) and Michel André (UPC) 

Acoustic sensors like ADCP and sonar systems are forming the backbone for ocean science missions. 

This session will focus on best practices developed within this context in particular in regard to signal 

processing techniques and data verification strategies for acoustic systems. Although ADCPs are 

based on a very straightforward measuring principle the data processing is quite intricate often leaving 

scientific users in the role of simply applying predefined processing steps. A coherent approach on this 

appears necessary so that users of the data can judge on the reliability of the collected data. 

The following issues will be discussed during this session: 

o Application of acoustic systems in different scenarios (ADCPs for currents and waves). 

o Known issues of the instruments. 


o Existing or newly developed quality control and assurance procedures. 

o Interaction with manufacturer to derive recommendations for the user. 

Giving reference to a use case selected from demo mission activities like the detection and 

classification of marine mammals by recording acoustic signals the application of discussed methods 

will be highlighted. 

Working Group G2 – Infrastructure 

Panel 2-1 : Cabled observatories: design comparison and tests 

Chairs: Jaume Piera (UPC) and Jean Marvaldi (Ifremer) 

Several subsea cabled observatories are operated or under final construction. Some elements were 

presented during the First Best Practice Workshop in Bremen. This panel will update this information. 

The cost evaluation performed by ESONET WP5 group will be reviewed and compared with 

standalone solutions. The panel will look more carefully at one case, taking into account the scientific 

objectives presented earlier in the week at the All Regions Workshop 2 in Paris. System engineering 

issues for the various components of the infrastructure will be addressed. 

For the remaining integration budget in ESONET, the Steering Committee decided to open a call for 

the partners. The main objective of the call is to promote test of equipment and instruments on cabled 

subsea observatory sites. The results of the two Demonstration Missions of Esonet showed a lack in 

the field of cabled observatories experiment. 

A unified proposal for test on cabled sites is under final acceptance process. It will be presented to the 

panel for discussion and suggestion according to the practices of the attendants. 

Objectives: 

One objective is to identify the technical and cost related topics to be addressed either through 

international cooperation, through the direct input of Antares, Nemo (European project operating 

cabled observatories) or through additional activities proposed as a reply to the “test call” issued in 

spring 2009 by Esonet. 

This panel will determine the needing studies necessary to establish what are the common practices 

and corresponding recommendations and write a short report on this matter (report to EMSO 

Preparatory Phase). 

Panel 2-2 : Stand alone observatories: design comparison 

Chairs: Johannes Karstensen (IFM-GEOMAR) Jérôme Blandin (Ifremer) 

This panel benefits from the experience of a large community (Animate, Var canyon, Pirata buoys,…) 

and Demonstration Missions of ESONET. It is assumed that on some sites, the stand alone 

observatories will be deployed to constitute a deep sea observatory infrastructure prior to cabled 

observatories. 

Among the topics of the panel: 

o General design issues (e.g. Rating of components, knock-down prevention, materiel in use, 

software, corrosion), 

o Protection of surface elements: Bio-Invasions (e.g. birds, mussels), Vandalism, Safety, 

o Data telemetry issues: underwater & surface ocean 

o Energy management, 

o Extension of deployment duration, 

o Deployment and maintenance procedures, 

o Implementation and exploitation costs, 

o On shore organization: remote sensor control, emergency interventions, 


o Synergy with other observatory components (e.g. AUV use for battery exchange, data 

retrieval). 

Two cost analysis have been performed inside ESONET WP5, one for stand alone winch 

observatories, established by AWI for the ARCTIC conditions, and another one for the stand alone 

acoustic observatories. 

Objectives: 

One objective is to identify the technical and cost related topics to be followed up specifically in the 

Demonstration Missions using stand alone observatories and corresponding to communication. This 

panel will tend establish what are the common practices to be recommended and write a paper on 

these issues. 


Working group G3 – Standardisation and Interoperability 

Panel 3-1 : Time series and images: treatment and scientific 

validation 

Chairs: Henry Ruhl (NOCS) and Ingrid Puillat (Ifremer) 

The purpose of this sub-session is to give an overview on most commonly used methods for long timeseries 

analysis of data acquired in the framework of deep-sea observatories. 

The sequence of topics discussions will start with data qualification, after the systematic quality 

assurance, when the eyes and know how of the specialists is needed to definitively qualify the data, for 

instance: 

How to detect a slow and low trend on a long time series? 

How to conduct pre and post-deployment calibrations and apply post-deployment 

corrections? 

How to apply various signal processing methods to different kinds of data and objectives? 

How to address gap in time series for signal processing methods? 

We will discuss examples from parameters to be collected by the generic sensor module, as defined by 

ESONET deliverables D11 and D13 (ref.) including conductivity, temperature, pressure, and currents, 

as well as a set of rather specific examples including seismic, marine acoustics, biogeochemical flux, 

and time-series photography, and ecological community data. 

Objectives: 

An objective of this session will be to document what are the expected products and the best practices 

of time-series data analysis in a report, according to the science objectives and cases studies. 

This session must be understood as a starting point for further disciplinary or interdisciplinary 

workshops supported by ESONET (participation to existing ones, co-organization or organization). 

A question: 

What is the effort in man-years necessary in each discipline to reach a level of data analysis 

capacities in adequacy to dataflow and science objectives? 

Panel 3-2 : Smart sensors and other interface issues 

Chairs: Joaquin del Rio (UPC) and Eric Delory (DBSCALE) 

The contribution of ongoing activities within ESONET to OGC/IEEE standardization initiatives will 

be discussed. The following topics are in the foreground: 

o Field bus systems like CAN bus and the CanOpen protocol. 

o IEEE 1451. 

o IEEE 1451/SWE harmonization. 

o Hardware implementations of standards. 

Links to other EU projects/initiatives like KM3NET, SANY(?), EMODNET will be presented. 

As use cases the implementation of IEEE 1451 as part of the OGC Interoperability experiments will be 

demonstrated and discussed. Furthermore the approach towards achieving IEEE/SWE harmonization 

will be presented. 


Panel 3-3 : Underwater intervention and 20years plus material 

choice 

Chairs : Jean-François Drogou (Ifremer), Volker Ratmeyer (Marum) 

Dominique Choqueuse (Ifremer) and Marck Smit (NIOZ) 

Thursday 8th - Underwater intervention 

They are no standards or recommended practises covering globally the subject of ROV intervention, 

apart form the NORSOK "U-102 Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV) services". 

Most of the know how is retained by each individual operator, and is hardly exchanged within the 

industry, for obvious reasons of commercial competition. 

However, it would be advisable for the scientific community for which commercial competition is a 

far less present parameter, to build up a database related to ROV intervention, collecting data on 

vehicles performances, tooling and sensors usage feed-back, break down statistics, operational 

hazards, crew manning, maintenance tricks, etc. , which could lately be the base for a general 

recommended practise on underwater diverless intervention. The work should also cover ultimately 

the AUV operations, for which the underwater community in general, still misses a real feed-back. 

The existing intervention equipment (Submarines, ROV and AUV, hybrid vehicles ) available within 

the scientific community will govern the early days of intervention procedures on underwater 

observatories (methodology and operational procedures are largely dependant on the intervention 

equipment specifications), it will be beneficial in the long term to work out the specifications of 

standard vehicles, which will offer both performances and versatility, and would allow the various 

laboratories to exchange hardware, operators and know how. 

Objectives: 

The objective of the working group would be to provide the scientific users with proper guidelines on 

what equipment to use for each type of missions, and recommended practices to operate it in a safe 

and productive way. As a case study, it would be interesting to compare how an observatory deployed 

during a demonstration mission (LOOME, MomarD, Lido, MODOO...?) would be deployed using 

existing ROVs. At least two cases are to consider. 

Friday 9th - 20 years + lifetime material choice 

In the definition of subsea observatories, from the scientific vision to the cost estimates, the long term 

durable operation is a key issue and probably a limitation. Any improvement in the limitation of 

ageing of materials and components is worth being analysed. 

The choice of material and its protection towards corrosion has not yet been addressed directly inside 

Esonet. The panel will start from a white paper issued before the Workshop (from Esonet CA Final 

report). It will work with the practices of the oceanography partners but also from offshore oil and gas 

industry and Navy experience. 

Topics intended: 

1. corrosion protection of steel - cathodic protection, 

2. choices of materials and strength after ageing corrosion due to neighbouring materials 

(components such as connectors, actuators, cables), 

3. thermoplastics and composites - ageing issues. 

ESONET partners already designed equipment for the Demonstration Missions. One or two of these 

equipments could be used as a case study for analysis of the material choice, other possible choices 

and other practices. 


Objectives: 

The first meeting of this panel intends to establish an initial reference paper. Whenever possible, the 

group will recommend rules or standards, check lists and material ageing test methods. It will 

determine the additional work or experiments ESONET could support. 

A question: Can all the ESONET-EMSO equipments (infrastructure and instruments) have a life time 

of 20 to 30 years with state of the art material design? What attendance/ checking /maintenance will 

be needed? 


Annex B 

List of attendees 


Firstname Lastname Institution Country Email 

Friedrich Abegg IFM-GEOMAR Germany fabegg@ifm-geomar.de 

Jérome Ammann CNRS-IUEM France jerome.ammann@univ-brest.fr 

Michel André UPC Spain michel.andre@upc.edu 

Yves Auffret IFREMER France yauffret@ifremer.fr 

Dionysios Ballas HCMR Greece dballas@ath.hcmr.gr 

Jérôme Blandin IFREMER France Jerome.Blandin@ifremer.fr 

Isabelle Blond IFREMER France isabelle.blond 

Patrice Brehmer IRD France pbrehmer@ifremer.fr 

Laetitia Brosolo CNRS-DT INSU France brosolo@dt.insu.cnrs.fr 

Sylvain Busson ENSIETA France sylvain.busson@ensieta.fr 

Jon Campbell NOCS United Kingdom joc@noc.soton.ac.uk 

Lénaig Caradec ILLIPACK France noemie.Claval@illipack.com 

Cyril Chailloux ENSIETA France cyril.chailloux@ensieta.fr 

Dominique Choqueuse IFREMER France dominique.choqueuese@ifremer.fr 

Gunay Cifci DEU-IMST Turkey gunay.cifci@deu.edu.tr 

Noémie Claval ILLIPACK France noemie.Claval@illipack.com 

Pierre Cochonat IFREMER France pierre.cochonat@ifremer.fr 

Laurent Coppola CNRS-LOV France coppola@obs-vlfr.fr 

Christian Curtil CNRS-CPPM France curtil@cppm.in2p3.fr 

Peter Davies IFREMER France Peter.Davies@ifremer.fr 

Joaquin Del Rio Fernandez UPC Spain joaquin.del.rio@upc.edu 

Laurent Delauney IFREMER France laurent.delauney@laposte.net 

Eric Delory dBscale Spain eric.delory@dbscale.com 

Jean-Francois D'Eu CNRS-IUEM France deu@univ-brest.fr 

Fawzi Doumaz INGV Italy fawzi.doumaz@ingv.it 

Jean-François Drogou IFREMER France jfdrogou@ifremer.fr 

Ebmen Elbek DEU-IMST Turkey selbek@comu.edu.tr 

Benedicte Ferre UiT Norway bferre@ig.uit.no 

Xavier Garcia CSIC Spain xgarcia@cmima.csic.es 

Olivier Gauthier IUEM France gauthier.olivier@gmail.com 

Carl Gojak CNRS-DT INSU France gojak@dt.insu.cnrs.fr 

Jens Greinert NIOZ Netherlands greinert@nioz.nl 

Michel Hamon IFREMER France michel.hamon@ifremer.fr 

Jean-Pierre Hermand ULB Belgium jhermand@ulb.ac.be 

Romain Jan IFREMER France romain.jan@ifremer.fr 

Johannes Karstensen IFM-GEOMAR Germany jkarstensen@ifm-geomar.de 

Oussama Kassem Zein ENSIETA France oussama.zein@ensieta.fr 

G. Bazile Kinda ENSIETA France kindaba@ensieta.fr 

Nadine Lanteri IFREMER France nadine.lanteri@ifremer.fr 

Christophe Laot TELECOM Bretagne France christophe.laot@telecom-bretagne.eu 

Pierre Yves Le Gac IFREMER France pierre.yves.le.gac@ifremer.fr 

Véronique Le Guen IFREMER France veronique.le.guen@ifremer.fr 

Marc Le Menn SHOM France lemenn@shom.fr 

Benoît Lecomte IPGP France blecomte@ipgp.jussieu.fr 

Dominique Lefevre CNRS-LMGEM France dominique.lefevre@univmed.fr 

Julien Legrand IFREMER France julien.legrand@ifremer.fr 

Yannick Lenault CNRS-DT INSU France lenault@dt.insu.cnrs.fr 


Firstname Lastname Institution Country Email 

Cécile Lietard ALTRAN France cecile.lietard@altran.com 

Jean Marvaldi IFREMER France Jean.Marvaldi@ifremer.fr 

Aurelien Maurin CPPM-CNRS France maurin.aurelien@gmail.com 

Nicolas Nowald UniHB Germany nnowald@marum.de 

Seda Okay DEU-IMST Turkey seda.okay@deu.edu.tr 

Tom O'Reilly MBARI USA oreilly@mbari.org 

Paris Pagonis HCMR Greece ppagonis@ath.hcmr.gr 

Albert Palanques CSIC Spain albertp@icm.csic.es 

Lionel Paofai ILLIPACK France noemie.Claval@illipack.com 

Olivier Peden IFREMER France olivier.peden@ifremer.fr 

Jaume Piera CSIC Spain jpiera@cmima.csic.es 

Olivier Pot IPGP France pot@ipgp.fr 

Ingrid Puillat IFREMER France ingrid.puillat@ifremer.fr 

Volker Ratmeyer UniHB Germany ratmeyer@marum.de 

Jean-François Rolin IFREMER France jrolin@ifremer.fr 

Jean-Yves Royer IUEM-CNRS France jyroyer@univ-brest.fr 

Henry Ruhl NOCS United Kingdom h.ruhl@noc.soton.ac.uk 

Florence Salvetat IFREMER France florence.salvetat@ifremer.fr 

Pierre Marie Sarradin IFREMER France Pierre.Marie.Sarradin@ifremer.fr 

Carla Scalabrin IFREMER France carla.scalabrin 

Klaus Schleisiek SEND Germany kschleisiek@send.de 

Shahram Shariat-Panahi UPC Spain 

Marck Smit NIOZ Netherlands msmit@nioz.nl 

Feng Tao NOCS United Kingdom bt2000@gmail.com 

Anders Tengberg Aanderaa Data Instruments Norway anders.tengberg@aadi.no 

Séverine Thomas Europôle Mer France Severine.Thomas@univ-brest.fr 

Stefano Vinci INGV Italy stefano.vinci@ingv.it 

Christoph Waldmann UniHB Germany waldmann@marum.de 

Frank Wenzhoefer MPIMM Germany fwenzhoe@mpi-bremen.de 

Jesper Zedlitz 

Christian-Albrechts- 

University Kiel 

Germany jze@informatik.uni-kiel.de 


Annex C 

Slides from Anders Tendberg 


Fiber optic cable 

Criteria for Observatory Sensors 


Criteria for Observatory Sensors 

Fiber optic cable 

•LONG TERM STABILITY 

•Detailed knowledge about sensor behavior 

•Detailed knowledge about the measured parameter 

•Parallel sensors (different makes) 

•Mass produced with industrial quality control 

•Based on modern industrial standards 

•Traceability (sensor registry) 

•Established reference methods 

•Detailed knowledge about the quality of reference methods 


Argo floats = observatories 

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ 

What can we observe? 

Quality control crucial: Use high quality ship data. 1 

year from collected data to quality assured profile. 

Quality should be an important issue for observatories 

http://www.coriolis.eu.org/ 

2-6 year deployments 


Possible sensor technology for observatories 

Sal, Temp & Pres 

Seismic 

Electrochemical 

•O 2 

•pH 

•H 2 S 

Colorimetric, wet chemistry 

•Nutrients 

•pH 

•PCO 2 

•Mass Spectrometry 

•Raman Spectroscopy 

•Surface Plasmon Resonance 

Optical with membrane 

•Methane 

•Nutrients (FIA) 

•PCO 2 

Voltametric 

Ion selective 

•O2 

•pH 

•NH 4 

•PCO 2 

•Density 

•Light 

•Particle size 

Yellow=not ready Green=go for it 

Absolute Meas Relative Meas 

Optical 

•NO 3 

•Sulfide 

Acoustic 

•Currents 

•Density 

•Fish & plankton 

•Hydrophones 

•Turb 

•Chl 

•Pigments 

•PAH 

•CDOM 

•Various 

cameras 


Possible sensor technology for observatories 

Sal, Temp & Pres 

Seismic 

Electrochemical 

•O 2 

•pH 

•H 2 S 

Colorimetric, wet •Ochemistry 2 

•Nutrients 

•pH 

•PCO 2 

•Mass Spectrometry 

•Raman Spectroscopy 

•Surface Plasmon Resonance 

•O2 

•pH 

•NH 4 

•PCO 2 

ESONET GENERIC SENSORS PACKAGE 

•Conductivity 

•Temperature 

•Pressure 

•Turbidity 

•Currents 

•Passive acoustics 

•Methane 

•Nutrients (FIA) 

•PCO 2 

•Acoustic backscatter 

Optical with membrane 

Voltametric 

Ion selective 

•Density 

•Light 

•Particle size 

Yellow=not ready Green=go for it 

Absolute Meas Relative Meas 

Optical 

•NO 3 

•Sulfide 

Acoustic 

•Currents 

•Density 

•Fish & plankton 

•Hydrophones 

•Turb 

•Chl 

•Pigments 

•PAH 

•CDOM 

•Various 

cameras 


http://www.act-us.info/ 

EURO ACT, long term stability, open ocean? 


Traceable to SI units ? 

Temp Pr Current O2 pH Sal Turb Fluo 

YES YES YES -> ? YES -> ? NO NO NO NO 

Regulated 

bath + Pt25 

reference 

thermometer 

Relative 

pressure 

balance 

(generator + 

reference 

value) 

No norm in 

technology 

Towing canal 

Mixed 

freshwater / 

seawater bath 

+ Winkler 

reference 

Parameters 

pH standard 

solution 

Salinometer 

calibrated by 

IAPSO 

standard 

Calibrations at IFREMER 

Formazin 

solutions 

Fluorescein 


No representativeness (substance matrix, …) 

No relation to SI units 

Not universal in regard to the different technologies 

No reference material or No reference method 


Calibration methods 

Temp Pr Current O2 pH Sal Turb Fluo 

Regulated 

bath + Pt25 

reference 

thermometer 

Relative 

pressure 

balance 

(generator + 

reference 

value) 

Towing canal 

Mixed 

freshwater / 

seawater bath 

+ Winkler 

reference 

Parameters 

Procedures 

pH standard 

solution 

Salinometer 

calibrated by 

IAPSO 

standard 

Formazin 


Fluorescein 


7 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Protocols 

4 1 - 3 3 3 3 3 

Needed: National or international inter-comparisons projects 


Major evolutions : 

• The SCOR/IAPSO WG 127 (UNESCO) decided that : 

- Absolute salinity S A must be used to process thermodynamic properties of 

seawater. 

-S A is recognise to be more accurate that practical salinity S. 

- A reference salinity has been defined from a determined composition of dissolved 

substances. It is calculated with : 

SR = (35,165 04/35). S en g/kg 

- S is always derived from conductivity measurements and from the PSS-78. 

- Absolute salinity is defined by : 

SA = SR + δSA(ϕ, λ, p) 

Where : ϕ = latitude, λ = longitude, p = pressure. 


Which problems remain to be solved ? 

-Mc Dougall, Jackett et Millero published an algorithm to calculate δSA(ϕ, λ, p) for 

Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian ocean from density analyses, S and SiO2, of 811 oceanic 

samples. 

They assessed a typical uncertainty of 0,0048 g/kg to this approach, but it is very rough 

because : 

- In some areas, correlation between SiO2 and the other non-ionic molecules (CO2 , 

dissolved organic matter…) is bad ; 

- There are oceanic areas where SiO2 concentrations are not well knowned : Arctic 

ocean, limits between oceans … 

- 811 samples, that’s not a lot, compared to the ocean volume. Atlas are needed to 

extrapolate in depth… 

- Silicates concentrations varies with organic matters dissolution, rivers sediments 

transports. Then, what behave these corrections ? 

- Do we make samples and analyses for each salinity measurement ? 


Is refractive index the solution to all these problems ? 

-Yes… according to the WG127 of the SCOR/IAPSO (Meeting 6-10 May 2007, 

Italy): 

-‘The refractive index of seawater is the currently most promising parameter to be 

measured for this purpose. The resolution achieved with prototype instruments, the 

accuracy of related experimental data and the feasibility of constructing in-situ 

optical field sensors support this approach. The refractive index can recognise the 

presence of non-dissociated dissolved species like organic silicate which do not 

influence the conductivity of seawater.’ 

-This document gives the requirements to built refractometers: 

-‘The resolution of refractive index measurements as well as the corresponding 

uncertainties of theoretical formulas are required to be 1 ppm at atmospheric 

pressure, and 3 ppm at high pressures…’. 

-But, it is written also that, relations index – S – pressure – Temperature must be 

improved. 

-And more : it misses a sensor usable in situ. 


Tests : 

• Fluorescence sensors : 

- Scufa Turner Designs - Millport island, island, 

Scotland 

- microFlu-chl 

microFlu chl TriOS - Helgoland, Germany 

- Seapoint - Brest - France 

• Transmissometer : Optisens 

- Trondheim, Norway 

• Turbidity : TBD 35 NKE 

- Sainte Anne du Portzic Brest, 

France 

- Mont Saint Michel Bay, Bay, 

France 

• Oxygène Oxyg ne : Optode Aanderaa 

- Sainte Anne du Portzic Brest, France 

Various 

places for test 

Various 

instrumentals 

technologies 


Copper Biofouling protection 

Fluorimeter Seapoint + Hobilabs Hydroshutter 

Ifremer (FR) L. Delauney 

• Copper shutter was mechanically reliable but is quite fragile to to 

handle. 

• Biofouling development has been observed on copper surfaces. 

• Bubbles formation is inherent to the copper oxydation process and 

can be trapped inside the measurement cell. 


Local Protection by electrochlorination 

In situ biofouling prevention efficiency test 

56 days duration March - May Mt St Michel Bay 

Unprotected 

Protected 

Turbidity Measurement - Micrel instrument 


Summary on fouling protection 

• Various techniques are now available to protect windows : 

- Wipers 

- Copper shutter 

- Bleach 

- Local biocide generation 

• The choice can be driven by different aspects : 

Hardware matter : 

- Robustness (depth of use) 

- Mechanical complexity 

- Easiness of adaptation to the existing instrument 

- Level of integration 

Metrological aspect : 

- Adverse effect to the measured parameter. 

- Is system can be turned on and off. 

Economical aspect : 

- Availability on the market. 

- Price. 


WG 1 GENERIC INSTRUMENTATION 

PANEL 1-2 Acoustic Sensors 

Michel André UPC 

Jean Pierre Hermand ULB 

Jean Yves Royer IUEM/CNRS 

Sylvain Busson ENSIETA 

Cyril Chailloux ENSIETA 

Patrice Brehmer IRD/Ifremer/GIS Europole Mer Bretagne 

Carla Scalabrin Ifremer 

Michel Hamon Ifremer/LPO 

Olivier Peden Ifremer/LPO 


Acoustics on observatories 

Co-existence of a set of sensors: 

• Functional acoustics 

– Positioning, communication, remote control,… 

• Passive sensing 

– Arrays of hydrophones, geophones,… 

• Active sensing 

– ADCPs, sonars, echosounders,… 

• may cause problems of overlapping frequency band 

occupation 

• requires synchronization process and software basedsolutions 


Physical and Technological 

constraints 

• large volume of data in comparison with other standard oceanographic 

sensors 

• active sensing requires a higher power supply than passive sensing 

• sensing strategy will be driven by the spatial and temporal scales of 

investigation 

• standalone observatories: 

– the power supply, computational load, data storage and transmission (acoustic 

modem, satellite link, etc.) may be limiting factors for long time series acquisition 

and processing for the whole sensor package 

• cabled observatories: 

– the raw and/or processed data streams generated by the simultaneous use of 

different acoustic and non-acoustic sensors to land-based or moored platform 

servers may be limited by the data link capacities (copper or optic fiber cables), 

related to the distance and the environment 


Other issues (cf. other panels) 

• Calibration procedures (standardization, 

auto-calibration, in situ). 

• Standardization of raw and processed 

data format (e.g. HAC format Simard et 

al., 1997). 

• Bio-fouling, fouling 


Annex D 

EARTH SEA SCIENCE IN KM3Net 

NEUTRINO TELESCOPE 

INFRASTRUCTURE 


Contribution of ESONET Best Practices Workshop 2 to the KM3Net from a version of the 

TDR chapter on Earth-Sea science (author Univ. Aberdeen – KM3Net Design study WP9) 

and an IFREMER contribution dated September 2009. 

What is devoted to Astrophysics infrastructure and what is devoted to Earth-sea 

science infrastructure? 

From an earth-sea science point of view (as represented in Europe by the ESONET Network 

of Excellence and the EMSO infrastructure project), the segments of the network of KM3Net 

used for their community are complying with the component definition and functional 

definition of ESONET. 

The “piggy back” relation with the telescope infrastructure must be an advantage for the 

whole scientific community. 

The list of functions of an ESONET EMSO subsea observatory will be either shared with 

KM3Net telescope (Shared/Telescope) or ensured by the KM3Net telescope (telescope) or 

specific to the Earth-Sea science segments (Specific): 

A – Implement subsea instruments from any scientific discipline on geographically positioned 

sites of key interest, on and under the seafloor and up along the water column. 

A1 – Survey (Shared/Telescope) 

A2 - Design and get agreements (Shared/telescope) 

A3 – Build (Shared/telescope) 

B – Bring data/images to shore from those instruments (Specific optic fibers in a 

shared/telescope cabled backbone infrastructure) 

C – Provide energy for these instruments. (Shared/telescope) 

D – Coordinate instrument acquisition. (Specific) 

D1 - Provide time stamping for the data and images (Specific) 

D2 - Coordinate acquisition for distributed sensor packages (Specific) 

D3- Coordinate acquisition for complementary sensors (Specific) 

E – Ensure calibration and registration of instruments. (Specific) 

E1 - Calibration cycle onshore (Specific) 

E2 - Sensor registry (Specific) 

E3 - In-situ calibration (Specific) 

E4 - Anti-fouling protection (Specific) 

F – Install in the deep sea and onshore. (Specific) 

F1 - Ship operation (Shared/telescope) 

F2 - ROV operation (Shared/telescope) 

F3 - Shore installation (telescope) 

G – Maintain. 

G1- Remotely in real time. (Specific) 

G2 - Visit periodically and modify instrument setting and ensure safety. 

(Shared/telescope) 

G3 - Refurbish periodically (Specific) 

G4 - Spare parts. (Specific) 

H – Decommission on sustainable basis. (Shared/telescope) 


I – Manage data from the above. (Specific) 

J – Build knowledge from the above and train staff. (Specific) 

K – Ensure economical operation. (Shared/telescope) 

The components of the system considered as a subsea observatory are: 

0 – Management of the infrastructure (Specific) 

1- Dissemination and user interfaces (Specific) 

2- Data bases (Specific) 

3 - Technical supervision infrastructure (Specific) 

4 - Onshore network (Specific) 

5 - Land Base termination of sea infrastructure (telescope) 

6 - Land sea communication segment (Shared/telescope) 

7 - Node from branching unit to Main junction box (Shared/telescope) 

8 - Branch extension of the network - uplink (Specific) 

9 – Secondary junction box (Specific) 

10 - Link to instruments - downlink (Specific) 

11 - Individual instrument (Specific) 

Data management issues 

The dataflow from the Earth-sea science sensing to the user and the storage must: 

- allow versatility , easy update, long term preservation and publication 

- be open to all disciplines and therefore able to enrich data archive centres of 

these disciplines, 

- allow sensor registry facilities according to ESONET requirements 

- provide data to operational services, compatible with GMES and integrated 

with GEOSS related earth observation systems, 

- comply with Inspire directives and ease access to environment data, 

- provide real time data (according for instance to Sensor Observation Service) 

and interaction with instruments 

- provide alarm and real time warning for geohazard 

- ensure a safety storage at the Land Base termination level 

- disseminate data to the ESONET/EMSO community of scientists thanks to 

data integration and portal tools which ensure harmonisation of collected data 

and allow access of data in a common way. 

The group could not establish a precise drawing of the dataflow on October 9 th 2009, as some 

tasks in ESONET are not finished yet (ESONET SWE services complementary to Eurosites 

and seaDataNet projects). Due to the importance at European level of the neutrino cabled 

observatories in the plans of future subsea Earth-Sea science observatories, such dataflow 

explanations are needed. 

Earth-Sea science Underwater Components. 

The ESONET group working on smart sensors (participating to the same Best Practices 

Workshop 2 in Brest as Panel 3-2 1 ), proposes an adapted Secondary Junction box 

specification. It takes into account the advances of Neptune Canada design, additional 

1 ESONET participants: Joaquim Del Rio Fernandez UPC and colleagues, Eric Delory dBscale, Christoph 

Waldman Marum, Yves Auffret IFREMER and colleagues, Klaus Schleisieck SEND Offshore invited 

participants: Tom O’Reilly from MBARI USA, Oussama Kassem Zein ENSIETA and colleagues 


interoperability constraints and versatility potential. It is a modified version with respect to an 

initial IFREMER proposal included in the KM3Net CDR. 

- A major input took its root in the KM3Net project thanks to the technological comparison of 

potential technologies for the Secondary Junction Box to instrument downlink (cf NIKHEF 

studies). Fiber optic communication and VDSL2 communication on twisted pairs are both 

able to cope with the high data rate transmission. 

- A project called DeepSeaNet involving a low cost fiber optic without energy transmission 

must also be considered for the future. It will allow to collect data from sites situated several 

km away from the KM3Net position, such as geohazard threatened zones. Validation of this 

technology is taking place in 2010 on Antares site. 

- A low cost connection will be implemented also, allowing to host experiments without 

requiring the purchase of expensive connectors. This feature has been demonstrated during 

several projects (FP5 Assem for instance) and will be implemented on Antares and Neptune 

Canada. 

- Ancilary functions are assumed in the junction box in order to monitor power supply, detect 

faults… 

- In case of temporary stop of upstream connection (for instance due to a request by the 

neutrino telescope operator), a local storage must be implemented. The implementation of this 

feature and the size of the storage will depend on the instrumentation setting of the subsea 

node. 

Node 

or 

JB 400VDC + Eth 

1000LX (fibre) 

1 or 2 fibres (fail‐ 

over, load 

balancing,..) 

Or 

400VDC + xDSL 

(few km network 

extension) 

October 14th, 2009 

Switch(es) 

CoS, QoS, 

PTP 

IEEE 1588 

Boundary 

clock, 

VLAN, LACP, 

port 

Trunk,… 

Extension module: 

RS232/422/485, 

CAN Bus, 

VDSL2 modem… 

Clock synchronization 

Ethernet: PTP/IEEE1588 clock client 

Other: GPS Emulation‐> PPS + NMEA time code 


Optional: Data storage 

Optional: Embedded instrument driver 

Eth 1000LX (fiber) –400VDC –NTP/PTP IEEE 

1588 

Eth 1000LX (fiber) –400VDC –NTP/PTP IEEE 

1588 

Applications: Daisy chain for another JB, power 

equipments: robotics, vertical profiler… 

network extension up to 20km 

Eth 100BT (copper) –48VDC – NTP/PTP IEEE 

1588 

Eth 100BT (copper) –48VDC – NTP/PTP IEEE 

1588 

Applications: Ethernet scientific instruments, 

ex: Seismometer (OBS), still camera , video, 

hydrophone, crawler… 

RS232/422/485/CAN BUS –48VDC – PPS/NMEA 

Applications: Serial scientific instruments (with 

or without PUCK Protocol) ex: ADCP, 

piezometer (pore pressure sensor) , 

seismometer, CTD, chemical analyzer,… 

VDSL2 Modem –400VDC – NTP/PTP IEEE 1588 

Applications: Low cost network extension, 

measurements in water column, instrument or 

instrument cluster up to 5‐6km (low cost 

extension (vs. fiber), seismic network, acoustic 

network,… 

Control/command 

Réseaux câblés et systèmes 

power supplies –faults detection 

instrumentaux 1 

Figure 1: Secondary junction box architecture (Smart sensor group – ESONET). 


Figure 2: Secondary junction box offering various extension and connection 

capabilities. (IFREMER) 

Connector Manifold plate 

This could be like the ROV tool plate with wet mateable connectors. Recommendation for the 

distance between connectors, grabbing pressure, etc will be issued for the design and used for 

the operation guide. 

The connectors and associated hardware can be spaced at a given distance apart and a given 

height above the sea floor. It will require a grab bar for ROV operations with the grab arm. 


Figure 3: Example of docking geometric requirements for the ROV operation. 

Docking unit with foundations 

The experience with subsea observatories used for Earth-Sea science as well as neutrino 

telescope first generation projects demonstrated the need to offer an easy interface for 

connection with an ROV. The connecting phase if utterly critical for the reliability of the 

whole infrastructure. 

A docking underwater structure is supporting the secondary Junction box and allows to reach 

any of the connectors with well defined coordinates, thus enabling to operate the ROV 

according to standard procedures. 


Docking unit is also the structural support for the Secondary Junction Box. Access of the ROV is 

possible from two sides. The Junction Box is retrievable for maintenance. 

The foundations of the junction box frame must be capable of supporting a mass of 

approximately 1000kg and must be capable of resisting accidental impact from an ROV. 


Annex E 

Stand alone observatories 


Infrastructure / Standalone observatories 


P2-2 objectives 

Have a clear idea of the state of the art & current practices 

Share feedback from recent or ongoing experiments 

Identify critical issues requiring R & D 

(Identify technical & cost-related issues to be followed-up during 

Demo Missions) 

Recommend common practices 

Esonet 2 nd BP Workshop, Brest, October 8-9, 2009 

P2-2 issues 

General design issues (including mooring design) 

Data telemetry 

Energy management 

Extension of deployment duration 

Deployment & maintenance procedures 

(Implementation and exploitation costs) 

On shore organization 



1/4 

2/4



Preliminary results 

P2-2 material 

Jon Campbell (NOCS): PAP site deployment / telemetry issues 

Dionysis Ballas (HCMR): Tsunami detection platform 

Johannes Karstensen (IFM-Geomar): Overview of Eurosite moorings 

Jérôme Blandin –Julien Legrand (Ifremer): COMMODAC : a comparison of 

acoustic modems 

tbc Volker Ratmeyer (Marum): The Loome deployment 


Thursday morning 

Thursday afternoon: prepared presentations 

Friday 

Friday 

Eurosite moorings 

Telemetry session 

P2-2 schedule 



3/4 

4/4



P2-2 issues 

General design issues (including mooring design) 

Classification of standalone observatory architectures within 

Europe: 

Without telemetry 

With surface telemetry (or pop-up modules) 

Plus acoustic telemetry 

With sensors cabled on the seabed 

With bottom-surface EO link 

Data telemetry 

Satellite: Meteosat, Iridium, Inmarsat-C, Argos, Globalstar… 

Cellular: GPRS, GSM 

Underwater: acoustic (COMMODAC performance tests), 

inductive 


Energy management 

Power consumption / Power sources 

Extension of deployment duration: Cf P3-3 

Deployment & maintenance procedures 

Without ROV as much as possible 

When ROV mandatory for deployment, recovery may be done 

without 

Legal environmental constraints 

On shore organization 

Workflow for regular servicing 

Emergency situations 

Updated equipement database 

Make deployments possible by other groups (standard 

procedures…) 



5/4 

6/4

Annex F 

Stand alone observatories 


Annex F1: processing of ELISA data 


Annex F1: processing of ELISA data 

During the ELISA project a 9 subsurface mooring network was deployed for 1 year in the 

Algerian Basin. All of them were equipped with current meters and on the central one 

(mooring n# 8 in figure 1) 4 packages of CTD+ fluorimeter were added in the surface layer. 

The central mooring was recovered twice during one year for data upload, cleaning and 

reconditioning. The objective was to study the mesoscale circulation of the zone and its 

relation with the biology. 

Figure 1: 9 mooring network deployed during ELISA project 

This area can be influenced by important current of about 30-60 cm.s -1 in the surface layer as 

showed on figure 2. 


1

Figure 2: currents measured around 100 m depth on mooring #8 

Increasing of the mean current results in sinking of instruments from 10 m to 70 m for 

instance, as shown on depth time series of figure 3 


2

Figure 3: Recorded depth by Mooring n# 8 ‘s CTDs 


3

depth (m) 

Due to inertial currents with a ~19h period the mooring oscillated and probes were able to 

work as a profiler in a ~10-20 m bin for each cycle. Indeed on figure 4 each probe (CTD) is 

represented by a color and each square figure represents the chlorophyll fluorescence values 

recorded each day by the 4 CTDs. Days are indicated in Julian day of July and August 1996. 

12/07 

19/07 

26/07 

02/08 

09/08 

15/08 

Figure 4: Chlorophyll fluorescence recorded by 4 fluorimeters (4 colours), 1 profile per day 

(4h filtered data) 

CTDF were 10-20 m distant each other (nominal depth: 40, 50 , 60, 80 m) 

Considering that probes are 10-20 separated, when one probes deepens more than 10 m during 

one cycle it explores the depths of the probes below. Consequently a nominal depth can be 

sampled by 2 probes during one cycle and an inter-comparison is possible. For instance 

between the 10 and the 15 of August (last line of squatted figures) probes were sampling a 20 

m bin of the water column with important overlapping between 2 adjacent probes. 

This allow us to detect some offsets and trends. 

After corrections and calibration by comparison with CTDF profiles driven from onboard 

during each recovering cruise, we were able to build one profile per 19h. This is shown on 

figure 5. 


4

Figure 5: corrected fluorescence from CTD F 

After what it was possible to work on rebuilt time series in 10m bins on one hand (figure 6) 

and on an other hand it was possible to use all profiles to build some time series of depth 

interpolated data (figure 7). 


5

Figure 6: Rebuilt Time series of salinity and density between July 1996 and July 1997, filtered 

from HF 


6

DEPTH (m) 

c/ 

DEPTH (m) 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Jul 

1997 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

Jul 

1997 

d/ 

CTDFm: 05 Jul 1997 - 23 Jun 1998. 

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 

1998 

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

DENSITE 

SALINITE 

Jan 

1998 

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 

1998 

Feb Mar Apr May Jun 

Figure V.2 (suite) 

Figure 7. Time series of depth interpolated profiles for salinity (top) and density (bottom) 


Jul 

1998 

38.00 

37.90 

37.80 

37.70 

37.60 

37.50 

37.40 

37.30 

37.20 

37.10 

37.00 

36.90 

36.80 

99.00 

28.00 

27.75 

27.50 

27.25 

27.00 

26.75 

26.50 

26.25 

26.00 

25.50 

25.00 

24.50 

7

ANNEXE F2 - M. FAUZI's presentation 

ANTARES : a mooring network and related data processing 


Antares Data, Database 

And 

Data Management 


C. Curtil. Brest, 8 – 9 Oct 2009

40 km 

submarine cable 

-2475m depth 


• 12 Lines 

• 25 Floors / Line 

•3 PMs/ Floor 

• 900 PMs 

• 1 Inst. Line 

14.5 m 

~70 m 

depth : 2500m 

Antares detector 

350 m 

100 m 

One floor 

40 km 

deep sea 

cable 

to shore 

Interlink cables 

Junction 

Box 

© <strong>Deliverable</strong> F. Montanet #50 - update October 2010 100

CTD 

ADCP 

Interdisciplinary 

Instrumentation line 

IL 07 

hydrophones CT 

Camera 

hydrophones 

Camera 

OM 

OM 

ADCP 

hydrophones C-Star 

hydrophone 

Sismomètre 

SV 

14.5m 

80m 

C-Star 

CT 

14.5m 

O 2 

14.5m 

80m 

98m 

ADCP 

Pr 

6 storeys with : 

CTD , SV 

ADCP 

O 2 

C-Star 

Cameras 

Hydrophones for 

acoustic detection 

Deployed in July 07 

Lines Std 

Ligne 12 

IODA (F25) 

Seismometer (BSS) 

Ligne 5 

Dead since Oct 07 

Courantometer 

AquaDopp (F23) 

Ligne 4 

SV–CTD (F24) 

Extension 

Secondary JB 


…

Some examples of time series 

CTD 

•ADCP 

• AquaDopp 

MILOM F1 

MILOM F1 

L5 F23 

IL07 F4 

2005 2006 2007 2008 

Sea current speed 

IL07 F1 & F5 

Bioluminescence activity 

Temperature 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 




Shore Station : M. Pacha 

40km Electro-Optical 

Cable 

Antares 

Data Data Writer Writer 

DB DB Writer Writer 

DATA BASE 

Oracle 10g 

CC Lyon 

File Server 

- ROOT Files 

- Log File 

-… 

- Detector assembly and integration 

- Detector Operation 

- Detector Setup and Configuration 

- Detector Alignment and Calibration 

- RAW Data 

- Parsed Data (Oceano.) 

<strong>Deliverable</strong> #50 - update October 2010 

– Each 6 minutes for Acoustic positioning 

– Each 15 minutes for the Oceanographical sensors 

(CTD, ADCP, O2…) 

105

Recording of the history of each part of the detector (from manufacture to its endof-life) 

Recording of all information about setting of data taking : 

We can adjusted all the parameters of the detector. 

When a parameter is changed, a track is recorded. 

Recording of all information about neutrinos data : 

Run number, size, number of events, 

where file is stored, etc… 

All data are first store in one table the “RAW Data Table”. One parser reads each 

new entry and fills the appropriate table. 

For the oceanographical data, we have no QA/QC information stored in database. 

The access to the database is not easy… 

Summary 

But… 

Neutrinos Data 


Antares 

Database and Web site project 

for interdisciplinary development 

Real time 

Other 

Instrumented line 

as AAMIS 

Antares 

Data Base 

Real time 

Public 

Pages 

Meta 

Data 

Local DB 

Data 

Data 

Quality 

Secure and user friendly interface. 

Data analyse and work space. 

(Analyse tools, elog book, etc…) 

Internet 

Dedicated 

Web Server 

To other 

Data Base 

Administration 

interface 

–Meta Data 

– Data Quality 

–Site Administration 

–… 


Database 

QA/QC information for each set of data. 

Quality level 

Life of sensor followed 

person in charge of the sensor (or set of sensors) clearly definite 

Recording of the raw data at the level as low as possible (Voltage out put). 

To be able to apply calibrations and cross calibration a posteriori. 

Metadata recording of each sensors. The maximum of metadata will be record 

to allow a maximum compatibility with the others dated bases 

Dynamic creation of xml file. 

Web site 

Data management interface. 

– Workspace dedicated to the visualization and/or extraction of the data. 

– Including some tools to apply some quick analyses online. Using Matlab online (?) 

Interdisciplinary dissemination. 

<strong>Deliverable</strong> #50 - update October Research 2010 Engineer for 1 year – WP9 ESONET108

<strong>Deliverable</strong>s / Planning : 

Duration of contract for Research engineer: 12 months. 

– Demonstration of prototype user interface/real time data: September 2009 

– Operational database design description M6 

– Long term archiving concept M3 

– Data granularity and metadata concept M6 

– Metadata exchange protocols according the ESONET 

data management plan M8 

– Real time Web site data management M10 

– Data management Handbook M12 

– Link with “global database” M14 

C. Curtil – Bremen 04/06/2009 


curtil@cppm.in2p3.fr

ANNEXE F3 - E. FAUZI's presentation 


Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia 

Data management system architecture for 

multiparameter scientific data: A prototype 

for seafloor observatories 

Authors: F. Doumaz *, S. Vinci *, L. Beranzoli*, P. Favali* 

(* INGV , Via di Vigna murata, 605, 000143, Rome Italy ) 

Best Practices Workshop #2 

October 8 - 9, 2009 

Ifremer - Brest Center (France) 

<strong>Deliverable</strong> #50 - update October 2010 

October 

2009 

111

High frequency data (RAW 

data) 

Huge files 

RDBMS 

Low frequency data 


Just in time data 

conversion 

Web GUI-Based query 

interface 

RDBMS 

Flat file 

MySql 

MSql 

XML file 

based 

DB 

WEB MAP-Based 

query interface 


STUDY PHASE 

o Identifying the data type (observatory, instruments, sensor, etc...) 

o First data collection (mail, ftp, etc...) 

o Establish the data files content, format 

o Emission of data format specification for data to be uploaded 

OPERATIONAL & data collection PHASE 

o Second data collection (Web upload interface) 

o Real time data conversion 

o Real time data integrity check ( Error handling, users notification ) 

o XML file storage (Metadata and universal exchange) 

o RDBMS on the fly population 

EXHIBITION PHASE 

o Web based query interface 

o Web based download interface 

o Web base time dependent crosscheck data (Plots, time series 

graphics) 




Let’s see it live 

SeaFloor test site 

Paroxysm example (a database for Italian volcanoes) 


ANNEXE F4 - H. Ruhl presentation 


Ecological Communities 

•Species composition and community structure 

•Trophic levels 

•Multidimensional analysis 

•Ecosystem analysis 

•External forcing 

•Resource use 

•Community change 

•Feedbacks to external forcing 


~4,100 m 

depth 

Midwater 

ecosystem 

dynamics 

Primary 

production 

Carbon 

Export 

- 

Benthic food 

supply 

Remineral 

-ization Benthic 

communities 

Climate variation 

3,500 m- 

4,050 m- 

Upwelling 

Surface 

ecosystem 

dynamics 

Winds 

Sediment 

traps 

ENSO forcing 

(NOI) 

Upwelling 

(m 3 s -1 

Net primary prod. 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

Export flux 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

100 m -1 coast) 

Food supply 

(600 mab POCF) 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

Food supply 

(50 mab POCF) 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

Food supply 

(seafloor agg. OC) 

10 

5 

0 

-5 

-10 

-15 

450 

350 

250 

150 

50 

-50 

1500 

1000 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

500 

0 

600 

400 

200 

0 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

45 

35 

25 

15 

5 

Jan-89 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

Jan-90 

Jan-91 

Jan-92 

Jan-93 

Jan-94 

Jan-95 

Jan-96 

Jan-97 

Jan-98 

Jan-99 

Jan-00 

Jan-01 

Jan-02 

Jan-03 

Jan-04 

Jan-05 

Jan-06 

10 

5 

0 

-5 

-10 

-15 

100 m -1 coast) 

Upwelling 

anomaly (m 3 s -1 

400 

250 

Net 

100 

-50 

primary 

-200 

prod 

-350 

350 

200 

50 

-100 

-250 

anomaly 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

Export flux 

anomaly 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

15 

10 

Food 

5 

0 

anomaly 

(600 mab POC) 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

-5 

15 

10 

Food 

5 

0 

anomaly 

-5 

-10 

Time-lapse Time-lapse 

Burial camera system camera 


-5 

50 

35 

20 

5 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

(50 mab POC) 

Food anomaly 

(seafloor agg. OC) 

(mg C m -2 d -1 )

Spatio-Temporal Correlations 

• Time lagged correlations between global SLPA’s and POC flux to 50 

mab indicate that the NOI is good indicator of ENSO scale processes 


Spatio-Temporal Correlations 

• Time lagged correlations between POC flux to 50 mab and southerly 

winds and SST are also sensible. 



Ecological Communities 


E. minutissima 

Ec. rostrata 

Density (ind. m -2 ) 

1.000 

0.100 

0.010 

0.001 

1.000 

0.100 

0.010 

0.001 

Abundance and Body Size 

Jan-89 

Jan-90 

Jan-91 

Jan-92 

Jan-93 

Jan-94 

Jan-95 

Abundances are solid circles and body sizes are in open circles 

(with 13 month running means shown for visualization only) 

Dominant mobile epibenthic megafauna include: E. Minutissima, P. diaphana, P. vitrea, S. globosa, 

O. mutabilis, Ps. Longicauda, A. abyssorum, Sy. profundi, O. bathybia, Ec. rostrata 

Jan-96 

Jan-97 

Jan-98 

Jan-99 

Jan-00 

Jan-01 

Jan-02 

Jan-03 

Jan-04 

60 

40 

20 

0 

100 

75 

50 

25 

0 

Body Size (mm) 

Ruhl & Smith, 2004; Ruhl, 2007 


Community Shifts 

20 40 60 80 100 

Species composition similarity (%) 

Jul-04 

Jun-02 

Oct-04 

Feb-02 

Feb-04 

Oct-03 

Sep-02 

Jun-01 

Oct-92 

Oct-89 

Feb-93 

Feb-90 

Oct-93 

Jul-93 

Feb-94 

Jun-91 

Jun-90 

Oct-91 

Feb-91 

Jun-92 

Feb-92 

Aug-94 

Aug-91 

Jul-91 

Dec-98 

Mar-95 

Oct-94 

Sep-94 

Jun-94 

Jul-92 

Jun-96 

Nov-95 

Oct-96 

Aug-98 

Feb-96 

Jun-95 

Feb-95 

2001-2004 

1989- Aug 1994 

Sep 1994-1998 

(except Jul 1992) 


10-12 months for the RAD 

(r = 0.38; p < 0.05) 

12 mon. for evenness 

(r = 0.33; p = 0.05) 

10-13 mon. for sp. comp. 

(r = 0.48; p < 0.01) 

• Increases in POC flux 

lead to decreases in 

equitability 

• Climatic connections 

extend to community 

levels 

Variation Linked to Resources 

RAD 

(MDS x-ordinate) 

Pielou's Evenness ( j) 

Species comp. 

(MDS x-ordinate) 

POC flux (mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

-2.0 

-1.0 

0.0 

1.0 

2.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

-1.0 

-2.0 

20.0 

15.0 

10.0 

5.0 

0.0 

Jan-89 

Jan-90 

Jan-91 

Jan-92 

Jan-93 

Jan-94 

Jan-95 

Jan-96 

Jan-97 

Jan-98 

Jan-99 

Jan-00 

Jan-01 

Jan-02 

Jan-03 

Jan-04 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Ruhl, 2008 


Images by K. Walz 

Sediment Macrofauna 

Nematoda 

(ind. grab -1 ) 

Arthropoda 


Annelida 


Nemertina 


Mollusca 


500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

150 

100 

50 

0 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Jan-89 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

Jan-90 

<strong>Deliverable</strong> #50 - update October 2010 Ruhl et al., 2008128 

Jan-91 

Jan-92 

Jan-93 

Jan-94 

Jan-95 

Jan-96 

Jan-97 

Jan-98 

Jan-99 

0.006 

0.004 

0.002 

0.000 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

1.00 

0.01 

0.00 

0.00 

1.0000 

0.1000 

0.0100 

0.0010 

0.0001 

Nematoda 

(g grab -1 ) 

Arthropoda 

(g grab -1 ) 

Annelida 

(g grab -1 ) 

Nemertina 

(g grab -1 ) 

Mollusca 

(g grab -1 )

Total density (TAD) (ind. grab -1 ) 

Phyla comp. simil. 

(PCD&B) (MDS x-ord.) 

RAD simil. 

(RADD&B) (MDS x-ord.) 

POC flux (mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

& 

SCOC (mg O2 m -1 d -1 ) 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

3 

2 

1 

0 

-1 

-2 

-3 

2 

1 

0 

-1 

-2 

-3 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Jan-89 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Jan-90 

Jan-91 

Jan-92 

Jan-93 


Jan-94 

Jan-95 

Jan-96 

Jan-97 

Jan-98 

Jan-99 

1.0 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0.0 

Total biomass (TA ) B 

(g grab -1 ) 

Monthly 

POC flux NOI 

Macrofuana parameters 

Density based 

lag n rs p lag n rs p 

Phyla comp. (PCD, mds x-ord.) 4 25 0.33 0.112 10 26 0.38 0.053 

RAD (RADD, mds x-ord.) 4 25 0.33 0.110 9 26 0.31 0.127 

Total abund. (TAD, ind. grab -1 ) 

Phyla density (ind. grab 

4 25 0.38 0.059 9 26 0.36 0.074 

-1 ) 

Nematoda 4 25 0.31 0.135 9 26 0.24 0.246 

Arthropoda 3 25 0.41 0.040 9 26 0.49 0.011 

Annelida 3 25 0.35 0.090 9 26 0.46 0.019 

Nemertina 4 25 -0.28 0.178 9 26 -0.35 0.079 

Mollusca 4 25 -0.17 0.410 6 26 -0.33 0.102 

Biomass based 

Phyla comp. (PC B , mds x-ord.) 7 21 0.45 0.040 10 22 0.32 0.151 

RAD (RADD, mds x-ord.) 7 21 0.61 0.003 13 22 0.27 0.219 

Total abund. (TAB, g grab -1 ) 

Phyla biomass (g grab 

8 21 0.61 0.004 13 22 0.30 0.179 

-1 ) 

Nematoda 4 22 0.48 0.025 5 22 0.30 0.182 

Arthropoda 7 21 0.62 0.003 8 22 0.48 0.025 

Annelida 10 22 0.38 0.081 15 22 0.33 0.139 

Nemertina 4 22 -0.43 0.044 9 22 -0.58 0.005 

Mollusca 8 20 0.33 0.149 19 22 0.73 0.000 



(a)Scatter plots of total density (TAD) and 

total biomass (TAB) vs. observed POC 

flux using time lags presented in Table 1 

(b) average body size vs. POC flux based on 

time lags in Table 1; and body size 

distributions for the top three most 

abundant phyla during an example 

(c) higher-than average flux period in June 

1990 and 

(d) a lower-than-average flux period in June 

1992. The Annelida typically were higher 

in abundance than the Arthropoda (P 

0.05, SI). 

Total density 

(TA D)(ind. grab -1 ) 

Total density 


1000 

160 

120 

80 

40 

0 

100 

0.0100 

0.0010 

0.0001 

0.0000 

a 

b 

June 1990 

(high food supply) 

Nematoda 

0.01 

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 

0 3 6 9 12 15 

POC flux 

c d 

Annelida 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

Arthropoda 

June 1992 

(low food supply) 


Avg. body size 

(g grab -1 ) 

Nematoda 

Arthropoda 

1 

0.1 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Annelida 

Total biomass 

(TA B )(g grab -1 ) 

SCOC 

(mg O 2 m -2 d -1 )

Total density 


PCD&B & RADD&B similarity (MDS x-ord.) 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

2 

1 

0 

-1 

-2 

a 

b 


1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

Total biomass 

(TA B )(g grab -1 ) 

Total density 


375 

325 

275 

225 

Estimated PCD & RADD similarity (MDS x-ordinate) 

-2 -1 0 1 2 

e 

175 

-2 

175 250 325 400 

Estimated Total density 


Yearly metazoan macrofauna regression model (y = POC(a)+NOI(c)+ int.) used to estimate 

density-based community parameters TA D (dots), and PC D (circles) and RAD D similarity 

(crosses). 

Model fits evaluated using the F-test: 

TA D , n7, r 2 0.90, P = 0.011 

PC D , n7, r 2 0.80, P = 0.038 

RAD D , n7, r 2 0.85, P = 0.024 


2 

1 

0 

-1 

PC & RAD similarity 

D D 

(MDS x-ordinate)

Station ALOHA is the Hawaiian 

Ocean Time-series (HOT) study 

site and has been operating 

since 1988. 

Karl & Lukas (1996) & 

K.L. Smith et al. (2002) 

Seasonal Shift at ALOHA 

Primary production 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

POC flux 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 

SCOC 

(mg O2 m-2 d-1) Total density 

(TA D)(ind grab -1 ) 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

3 

2 

1 

0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

a 

b 

c 

d 

Aug-1997 

Oct-1997 

Dec-1997 

Feb-1998 

Apr-1998 

Jun-1998 

Aug-1998 

Oct-1998 

Dec-1998 

300 

200 

100 

0 

-100 

-200 

-300 

-400 

1 

0.5 

0 

-0.5 

-1 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

-1.0 

-2.0 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Primary production 

anomaly 

SCOC anomaly 

Total biomass 

(TA B )(g grab -1 ) & 

POC flux 

anomaly 

TA D (ind. grab -1 ) 

40 

36 

32 

28 

24 

20 

(mg C m 

400 500 600 700 800 

-2 d -1 ) 

e 

Primary Production 

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 

POC flux 

(mg C m -2 d -1 ) 


El Niño Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation (ENSO, NAO) 

Sea Surface Conditions (Winds, Upwelling, SST, etc.) 

Surface Productivity & Particulate Organic Carbon Export Flux 

Time 

Atmosphere to the Abyss 

POC Flux to the Abyssal Seafloor (food supply) 

SCOC Metazoan Mobile Epibenthic 

Macrofauna Megafauna 

Community Structure 


ANNEXE F5 


Fishery Sciences and Technology Department 

www.ifremer.fr 

Isabelle Leblond 

BOB project 

Bubbles OBservatory 

October 2009 





BOB : Bubble OBservatory 

• Natural risk assessment (earthquake, tsunami…) 

• Impact of seafloor methane discharge on climate change 

• Location of hydrogen sources 

October 2009 





October 2009 





Principle of data acquisiton 

October 2009 




Distance 

from 

sounder 

Bubbles 

Time 


Example of echosounding data 

October 2009 





Volume reverberation data 

October 2009 





Cable observatory : SATRA project 

• SATRA : algae acoustic detection alarm system 

• Monitoring tool for algae clogging risk in a nuclear 

power plant 

• Deployed in June 2006 

• Three 120 kHz split-beam echo-sounders 

• Real time data processing since 2006 

October 2009 




Sa (m 2 nm -2 ) 


SATRA project : algae detection 

ALGAE CLOGGING EVENT 

Time (ESU = 1 minute) 

20 minutes 

Distance to sea surface (m) 

October 2009 

Horiz 

Bottom 

Surface 


ANNEX F6 - DEBRIEFING : 


Session P3.1 

Best Practices Workshop#2 


Introduction 

• From the first Best practices workshop 


Objectives 

• to deal with data analysis after first level 

data processing according to Scientific 

objectives 

– What are the expected final products? 

– How to reach them: methodologies and 

procedures? 


Time-Series Analysis Considerations 

•Scales 

•Secular trends 

•Trends over specific time periods 

•Hind and forecasting 

•Gap filling 

•Correlations 

•Aliasing 

•Detrending 

•Calibration correction 

•Parametric vs. non-parametric assumptions 

•Serial autocorrelation 

•Multidimensional analysis 

•Multidimensional scaling and principle component analysis 

•Non-linear vs. linear explanation of variation 

•Principle coordinates of neighbouring matrices 

•Empirical and dynamical modelling 

•Spatial context 


Time-Series Statistics 

A gap filling example 


• CTD F, Bio, etc…. 

Time series 

– From subsurface moorings 

• Problem of sensor deepening with current 

– Example of Antares mooring 




CTD 

ADCP 

Interdisciplinary 

Instrumentation line 

IL 07 

hydrophones CT 

Camera 

hydrophones 

Camera 

OM 

OM 

ADCP 

hydrophones C-Star 

hydrophone 

Sismomètre 

SV 

14.5m 

80m 

C-Star 

CT 

14.5m 

O 2 

14.5m 

80m 

98m 

ADCP 

Pr 

6 storeys with : 

2 CTD , SV 

2 ADCP 

O 2 

2 C-Star 

2 Cameras 

18 Hydrophones 

for acoustic detection 

Deployed in July 07 

Lines Std 

Ligne 12 

IODA (F25) 

Seismometer (BSS) 

Ligne 4 

SV–CTD (F24) 

Extension 

Secondary JB 


…

CTD 

Some examples of time series 

•ADCP 

• AquaDopp 

MILOM F1 

MILOM F1 

L5 F23 

IL07 F4 

2005 2006 2007 2008 

Sea current speed 

IL07 F1 & F5 

Bioluminescence activity 

Temperature 

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 


Influences and Correlations 

• Correlation between Sea current speed and Median Bioluminescence Rate 

2006 to Now… 

W 

N 

W 

N 

NE 

E 

The Mean speed is around 7 cm/s. 

Since the summer 2006, most of time, the sea current 

speed is lower than the “standard” limit (~15 

cm/s) for the data taking. 

Under the influence of the 

Ligure current 

typical speed limit for 

the data taking 


Development of an Automated Protocol to Analyse the Temporal Dynamics of Hydrothermal 

Ecosystems from Video Imagery and Temperature Time-Series 

Sarrazin J., Sarradin P.-M., Gauthier O., Mercier G. 

•Scientific objectives 

•To study community dynamics and succession patterns on high temperature 

hydrothermal edifices;To link faunal dynamics to environmental changes and 

catastrophic disturbances;To start evaluating the role of biotic factors on community 

structure. 

•Realized sampling 

•Tour Eiffel (Lucky Strike; Mid Atlantic Ridge; 1650 m depth) 

•Tempo ecological module: video camera (45 days), [Fe] (6 months), T°C (18 months) 

•High frequency (30 sec) T°C measurements: 24 probes, 11 days 

•Ongoing methodological developments 

•Data quality verification 

•Manual extraction of imagery data & links with environmental factors 

•Automated image analysis (textures, shapes, surfaces...) 

•Modelisation of temporal and spatial T°C variation 

•Trend identification & extraction 

•Principal Components of Neighboor Matrices 

•Identification of optimal analysis parameters (reading frames, sampling frequency...) 

•Automatisation of T analysis 


Acoustic data analysis 

• Methane bubble detection: BOB example 

– Volume backcsattering computation 

• Marine mamals detection method (from 

LIDO) 


Data management 

collaboration with INGV 


Since September 2005: 

All the output off all sensors are readout every 3 minutes and stored in the 

database in a special “RawData” table. 

At the same time, a parser reads this table to fill different tables dedicated to 

each sensor, storing the data timestamp, the parameter values and the reference of 

the line from where it was extracted from the RawData table. 

The typical flow is of 12500 new lines in RawData table per hour (one line per 

oceanographic sensor and other slow control information). 

All these data are processed in quasi real time. 

Current procedure : 

− Each sensor was calibrated before deployment. 

− The acquisition of the oceanographical data is synchronized with the 

ANTARES acquisition data. 

− The data readout method depends on connection type of the sensors : 

For most of the sensors, the connection is done by a serial link RS232. 

For them, the data measurement and their recording is done by slow control 

request. 

The IP camera and the seismometer have an autonomous Ethernet 

connection. 

The IODA has its own system of internal data acquisition and buffering. 

Those data are then send to shore by the Slow Control.

Project Deliverable D50 Report on Best Practices ... - ESONET NoE

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?