See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224234122

Assessment of WERA long-range HF-radar performance from the user's

perspective

Conference Paper · April 2011

DOI: 10.1109/CWTM.2011.5759520 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
14 365

8 authors, including:

Dana K. Savidge Ann Gargett

University System of Georgia Old Dominion University
27 PUBLICATIONS   344 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   203 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daniel Charles Conley George Voulgaris

University of Plymouth University of South Carolina
108 PUBLICATIONS   1,149 CITATIONS    137 PUBLICATIONS   2,188 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Hypoxia View project

SOWFIA project: Streamlining of Ocean Wave Farms Impact Assessment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by George Voulgaris on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the IEEE/OES/CWTM Tenth Working Conference on Current Measurement Technology
Assessment of WERA Long-Range HF-radar
Performance from the User's Perspective
D. Savidge, J. Amft and A. Gargett
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography
Savannah, GA, USA
M. Archer and D. Conley
School Marine Science & Engineering
University of Plymouth
Plymouth, Devon, UK
K.-W. Gurgel
University of Hamburg, Institute of Oceanography
Hamburg, Germany
Abstract - Since April 2006, long range (8.3MHz) WERA HF
radars have been operated on the Southeastern United States
coastline, as part of the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System
(IOOS) and in particular the national HF Radar network. These
radars measure currents operationally, and waves and winds
experimentally across the wide continental shelf of Georgia (GA)
and South Carolina (SC). Half-hourly data at 3km horizontal
resolution are acquired to a range of approximately 200 km,
providing measurements across the wide continental shelf and
into the adjacent Gulf Stream at the shelf edge. Radar
performance in range and quality is discussed. Ease in siting of
these space and cable intensive systems along populated
coastlines, and the feasibility of their operation by non-radar
specialists is also briefly discussed.
Long term in situ measurements of currents, waves and
winds concurrent with the long-term radar measurements were
available. These measurements were also acquired as part of the
U.S. national coastal ocean observatory network, under the
evolving auspices of SABSOON, SEACOOS, and SECOORA.
Wind, wave and ADCP measurements from several instrumented
Navy towers at the 27, 33, and 44 m isobaths are available, and
winds and wave information also exist at the 18m isobath from an
NDBC buoy. Comparisons between radar-derived estimates and
the in situ measurements are examined for a variety of
parameters, including (near) surface currents, significant wave
heights, directional wave spectra, and wind direction and speed.
Radar estimates of surface velocity compare quite well with
in situ ADCP near surface current data, with complex vector
correlation magnitude of 0.95, and phase angle of -0.2 degrees.
The negative sign is consistent with an expected counterclockwise
rotation with depth between the radar surface current estimates
and the subsurface upper water column ADCP measurements.
Tidal amplitudes, which are large and predominantly semi-
diurnal on the GA/SC coast are extremely well reproduced by the
radar estimates.
Radar significant wave height estimates from manufacturer-
supplied software are much noisier than measurements from in
situ pressure sensors or wave buoys, but capture several-hour
low-passed variability fairly well. The spectra from which the
radar significant wave heights are estimated have been examined,
also exhibiting higher variability than indicated by the in situ
estimates.
978-1-4577-0022-4/10/$26.00©2010 IEEE


G. Voulgaris
University of South Carolina
Columbia, SC, USA
L. Wyatt
University of Sheffield
School of Mathematics and Statistics
Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Wind direction estimates from radar using manufacturer-
supplied software were evaluated for a range of wind speeds and
direction (fetch limited or not) and by differentiating between
conditions where the predominant water waves satisfied the long-
wave assumption or not. For non-fetch limited wind speeds in
excess of the Bragg wave propagation speed, and wave fields for
which the long-wave assumption is relevant, correlations between
radar and in situ anemometer wind directions were good, at
approximately 0.7.
HF-radar directional wave spectra estimates are also derived
with aftermarket software from SeaView Sensing Ltd, and are
compared to in situ estimates from a five beam ADCP. These
novel in situ measurements use the ADCP slant beam horizontal
velocities combined with vertical velocities from the vertically
oriented 5th beam to measure wave orbital velocities and derive
directional wave spectra. Wave buoy accelerometer estimates of
directional wave spectra are also available for comparison.
Radar significant wave heights and wind direction from SeaView
software are also being examined.
Keywords - ocean currents; HF-Radar; waves; winds; ocean
observatories.
I. INTRODUCTION
With the growth of observational oceanography in the
United States, increasing numbers of shore-based high
frequency (HF) radars are being installed for the purpose of
measuring surface currents across wide areas of the coastal
ocean. These systems are increasingly being deployed by
groups with no prior history of radar work, with assistance up
the rather steep learning curve being provided by more
experienced users through direct interactions, working group
meetings and email list-servers.
Many of the more recent installations have been CODAR
systems, with which the oceanographic community is
gradually becoming familiar. These direction finding systems
enjoy a reputation of good customer support from the
manufacturer and a scientifically gregarious experienced user
group. However other systems are available: another type of
radar operated in the U.S. is the WEllen RAdar (WERA) [1] to
 Proceedings of the IEEE/OES/CWTM Tenth Working Conference on Current Measurement Technology

[5]. WERA is a system capable operating in both beam Georgia Research Alliance funding. The systems are installed
forming and/or direction finding mode (depending on Rx on St. Catherine's Island in Georgia (31o 41.262' N, 81o 8.016'
antenna configuration) although most WERA users prefer the W), a privately held island in approximately the middle of the
beam forming mode. All systems are available at a range of state's N-S coastline extent, and on Pritchard's Island, SC (32o
operating frequencies and bandwidths, quantities that control 18.172'N, 80o 30.775'W), owned and maintained by the
range coverage. The purpose of the present paper is to University of South Carolina. They are 90 km apart, each
summarize performance of a pair of long-range WERA radars with nominal range of 200 km (actual range examined below).
that have been in operation since April 2006 on the coastline Both systems operate at a frequency of 8.35 MHz, with a
of Georgia and South Carolina in the Southeastern U.S. This frequency modulated continuous wave mode (FMCW) with a
pair constitutes the first deployment of long-range WERA in bandwidth of 40 KHz. The transmit power is quite low,
the U.S., and is an addition to a small number of higher approximately 40W total throughout the sampling interval.
frequency WERA installations nationwide. A further From April 2006 through Feb 2008, the two systems operated
distinction is that until this installation, WERA operation in in ping-pong mode, issuing 1024 consecutive chirps (with Rx
the U.S. had been the exclusive domain of experienced radar switched on continuously throughout) over approximately 8
oceanographers: the University of Miami group led by L. K. minutes. Pritchard’s (PRI) operated on the hour and half hour,
Shay, and the University of Hawaii group led by P. Flament, and St. Catherine’s (STC) sampling began on the 15 and 45
both operating higher frequency systems. As the first novice minute marks of every hour. Range and azimuthal resolution
users of this capable system, a summary perspective on the dependent on chirp width and Rx array length and frequency.
feasibility of its adoption by other oceanographers would be of The configuration described renders 3 km range and 2o
value. azimuthal resolution. At mid-shelf, this is about 3 km,
expanding to 6 km near the shelf edge. In late May - early
WERA systems are manufactured by Helzel Messtechnik
June 2007, additional manufacturer software was installed at
of Germany, after the design of [6]. Each system consists of a
both sites to reduce the influence of radio frequency
transmit array (Tx) and a receive array (Rx), both feeding to a
interference (RFI) [7]. After Feb 2008, the sampling time was
central Tx/Rx Radio unit controlled by a Linux-based
doubled, with 2048 chirps from PRI beginning at the top of the
workstation. The Tx array consists of four frequency-specific
hour lasting approximately 16 minutes, and identical sampling
tuned monopole antennae oriented in a rectangle with long
from STC commencing at the half hours. After Nov 2008,
axis parallel to the shoreline. Required separation between the
simultaneous operation of both STC and PRI began, using
antennae is frequency dependent; with the long axis corners
opposing sweep directions (STC chirped with descending
separated by 1/2 the wavelength of the transmitted radio wave,
frequency, PRI with ascending frequency), providing 16
and front to back spacing of 0.15 wavelengths. The Rx array
minute samples from each station and half hourly combined
in beam-forming configuration consists of several monopole
vector data. In Feb 2010, a third station was installed on
antennas oriented in a line parallel to the shore. These
Jekyll Island GA. The systems all operate simultaneously,
systems typically have 16 Rx antennas, but due to the large
separation required between them for lower frequencies, the
12 antenna option was chosen for GA/SC installations. Since
the system is modular, addition of 4 more antennae at a future
time is possible. Through the installation of tuning coils, the
length of the antennas is minimized for less obtrusive
installation in public areas. WERA system operation in
direction finding mode requires 4 Rx antennas in a square
configuration, minimizing the antenna footprint significantly.
However, the phased array beam-forming arrangement of the
Rx antennae allows unambiguous determination of range and
azimuth for current estimation, and permits use of the second
order returns for determining directional wave spectra on the
same areal grid as current estimates are made, as long as the
signal to noise ratio is sufficient. The latter degrades at ranges
greater than 50% of the range applicable for current estimates.
From the air-conditioned space housing the control computers,
a power cable and a single coax cable run to the Tx array. If
the array is sufficiently distant from the power source, a power
amplifier is installed at the Tx end. Conversely, each Rx
antenna has a separate cable connecting to the corresponding
channel on the Rx Radio unit. In order to maintain constant
phase delays on all cables, identical cables of equal length are
recommended as this ensures identical length variation due to
heating and cooling. Figure 1. Snapshot of surface velocities from WERA installations along the
U.S. Southeastern coast.
The two shore-based WERA HF-radar systems in GA/SC
(Fig. 1) were installed with SEACOOS (through ONR) and


 Proceedings of the IEEE/OES/CWTM Tenth Working Conference on Current Measurement Technology

Figure 3. Radar range for each installation for returns within +- 30 deg of
boresite, for two periods before and after the installation of RFI software.

The error inherent in comparisons between dissimilar data

types has been discussed by [8]. The ADCP sampled
continuously at 2 Hz, forming 6 minute averages, binned into
half meter bins. The bin nearest the surface without sidelobe
contamination at low water is approximately 3 m below low
water, thus the vertical distance between this bin and the
surface layer of the water sampled by the WERA radar varies
with the tide and subtidal wind forcing between 3 and 6 m. .
Figure 2. Percent coverage maps during day and night from period April
2006-May 2007 (pre RFI) and June 2007-January 2008 (post RFI). Radar and ADCP data were preprocessed by removing
outliers (values removed from the mean by >3 standard
deviations). The 6 minute ADCP averages were subsequently
with descending chirps at Jekyll and PRI, ascending chirps at averaged over the half hour periods encompassed by the ping-
STC. Results reported here apply only to operation before the ponged STC and PRI radar sampling.
addition of the Jekyll system. Radar and ADCP surface velocities compare quite well, as
II. OVERALL PERFORMANCE shown in the sample time series of in situ wind, WERA
surface velocities, and ADCP velocities (Fig. 4). Complex
Percent data returns for vector velocities from April 2006 vector correlation magnitude for the period April 11, 2006-
through April 2007 and from May 2007-February 2008 April 26 2007 is 0.95, with phase angle of -0.2o
illustrate the areal coverage achieved (Fig. 2). During the first (counterclockwise rotation with depth). Correlations
year of operation, a strong day-night contrast is evident, with
lower coverage between the hours of 8 and 12 PM local time.
After application of the RFI suppression software in summer
2007, areal coverage improved immediately, and the day/night
contrast evident earlier was almost completely eliminated.
Overall temporal coverage exceeded 50% over a ~30.4 × 103
km2 area. Notice that after the upgrade, the 75% (or greater)
coverage zone extends along the shelf edge approximately 190
km, providing a large window for examining Gulf Stream
(GS) variability. Range of each installation was assessed by
examining the percent return of radial velocities by site,
binned into 5 km extent bins from 0 to 275 km, averaged over
a 60o swath in the center of the radar's 120o coverage area
(Fig. 3). Prior to the installation of RFI software, both STC
and PRI range extended past 200 km (our design criteria) over
50% of the time. RFI reduction software significantly
improved range, both during peak hours and non-peak hours.

III. SURFACE CURRENT MEASUREMENT

Bottom-mounted ADCP currents from tower R2 (Fig. 1)
concurrent with the WERA radar measurements acquired as
part of the U.S. national coastal ocean observatory network, Figure 4. Sample timeseries showing correspondence between radar and
ADCP horizontal velocities. Wave Height, low-passed water level changes
were available. Single point in situ data represent a very small relative to a mean low water, and wind stress from Tower R2 are also shown
sampled region compared to data from the nearest WERA grid for forcing context.
point, which represents sampling over a ~3 × 3 km2 area.
 Proceedings of the IEEE/OES/CWTM Tenth Working Conference on Current Measurement Technology

Figure 5. Estimated M2 (12.42 hour) tidal ellipses (using T-Tide) for radar
velocities and ADCP velocities from several depths in the water column.

calculated over a running 4 day window of the data vary with

time, but show consistently high values (above 0.9), with
phase angles of ~r5o. Relatively poorer correlations appear
in winter of this particular year, corresponding with the season
of relatively high significant wave heights, as derived from in
situ pressure sensors. Whether this correlation reflects
quantifiable error as a function of wave height deserves further
study. Tidal velocities, which are large and predominantly
semi-diurnal on the GA/SC coast, are extremely well
reproduced by the radar estimates (Fig. 5).
To appreciate the advantage of beam-forming in a region
of strong alongshelf velocities, consider the Bragg peaks in the
example single antenna spectrum of Fig. 6, top panel. Each
antenna receives returns from both the southern and northern
areas covered by the radars. At shelf edge ranges, radar
returns from the southern extent reflect a strong component of
Gulf Steam flow towards the radars, while from the northern
extent, radar returns reflect a strong component away from the
radars, with a correspondingly wide range of spread about the
Bragg frequency. This level of spectral spread may be poorly
handled by direction-finding algorithms [9], but poses no
difficulty for beam-forming systems. Fig. 6, lower panels
illustrate the beam-formed spectra from the same example,
where now the components of the Gulf Stream oriented
towards and away from the radar site are separated into the
azimuthal direction from which they originated. Furthermore,
for paired beam-forming installations, both radars will
unambiguously define direction in a mutually consistent way
to determine the two components of any local surface velocity.
This permits relatively high confidence in examining these
data for research purposes. For example, along the shelf edge
Figure 6. Spectra as a function of range for a subset of range bins from one
antenna in a linear Rx array, and spectra from that entire array after
beamforming 45o left and right of the array beam angle, also for a subset of
range bins. (The color table has been manipulated using Adobe Photoshop to
bring out the Bragg reflections.)
off the southeastern U.S., analysis of mooring data has
indicated that several-day period meandering of the Gulf
Stream decays approaching a topographic high along the
continental slope near 31.4oN [10]. Spectra from radar-derived
time series of alongshelf currents at the shelf edge north and
south of 31.4oN, show a large drop in 3-10 day meander
variability from south to north (Fig. 7), consistent with the
expected meander decay. Reasonable confidence in both
magnitude and direction of surface currents, and in the
determination of the location where such currents are
encountered thus allows Gulf Stream meandering at the shelf
edge to be examined within the radar footprint at much higher
spatial resolution and temporal extent and resolution than is
feasible with moorings.
Another good example of the research utility of these
radars is illustrated by the two small eddies apparent in Fig. 1,


 Proceedings of the IEEE/OES/CWTM Tenth Working Conference on Current Measurement Technology
Figure 7. Variance conserving spectra for timeseries of alongshelf velocities
at the shelf edge. Red and green spectra are from locations south and north of
31.7o N respectively, the gray shading shows the 90% confidence interval
from one timeseries. Similar envelopes apply for the others.
situated just shoreward of the Gulf Stream at the shelf edge.
These small eddies were discovered and determined to be
spinning up at the M2 tidal frequency, both from inspection of
the WERA radar data. A subsequent shelf edge mooring,
whose placement within a region of high eddy incidence was
determined from radar data, has illustrated that the eddies
though small and short-lived (surviving 1-3 hours at most), are
transporting momentum, heat and nutrients across the shelf
edge [2]. Without high confidence in the accuracy and
location of the surface velocities measured, and the capacity to
make independent good quality measurements at short (half-
hourly) intervals, these features would likely not have been
detected.
IV. OTHER PARAMETERS
The capacity of radars to measure other oceanic parameters
of interest is an area of active research, involving both
direction-finding and beam-forming radar communities. The
principles upon which these efforts are based are summarized
in several articles in Oceanography Vol 10, No. 2, 1997. For
beam-forming radars, these methods are fairly well developed
and increasingly well validated [11, 12], especially for systems
with 16 element Rx arrays operating at higher frequency. Tests
have been made with lower frequency systems (6 to 12 MHz
Pisces HF radar, which operates at higher power than WERA)
[13], but to date these efforts have utilized systems with 16
antennas in the beam-forming Rx arrays, instead of the 12
used with the GA/SC systems. It should be noted, that as for
any beam forming system, side lobe interference might
diminish data quality, especially for wave processing
algorithms. However, no antenna pattern measurements exist
at present to confirm if this is the case in here.. Nonetheless,
because of the existence of long-term in situ measurements of
wave and wind parameters within the overlapping radar
coverage, comparisons with radar estimates of significant
wave heights, directional spectra, and wind direction have

been undertaken and are briefly discussed below. The results
suggest cautious optimism that these systems may become
useful for measuring these parameters.
A. Wave Parameter Estimates
Estimation of the wave field at discrete grid points is an
advantage of beam-forming systems, and is possible for
WERA using standard distribution software. Wave estimation
is also possible with the CODAR for range rings, averaged
over all azimuths. On the west coast, where depth increases
rapidly with distance from shore, so that a range ring arguably
covers a wave field of fairly homogeneous composition across
all azimuths, this may yield useful results. In locations like
the U.S. East Coast, where the shelf is broad and shallow, and
depths in range rings gradually deepen from look angles near
shore to those perpendicular from shore, the wave field is
likely to be less homogeneous across azimuths, and wave
estimation by range and azimuth becomes desirable.
Currently, two general methods are applied for estimation of
wave parameters from a WERA system: (i) An empirical
method suggested by Gurgel et al. (1999) and which is
included in the science software package that is provided with
the system; and (ii) a WERA-derived spectrum inversion
method marketed by SeaView Sensing, described in, e.g., [14-
16].
The in situ wave measurements used are 1) NOAA/NDBC
Buoy 41008 surface wave measurements, located in the Gray's
Reef National Marine Sanctuary, 2) subsurface pressure
measurements on Navy tower R2 of the SABSOON
observatory, and 3) directional wave spectra from a five-beam
600kHz acoustic Doppler current profiler (VADCP), also
located at R2. Buoy 41008 is situated ~20 km from shore in
~18 m water. Wave parameter estimates from accelerometers
are detailed on the NDBC webpage
(www.ndbc.noaa.gov/wave.shtml). Tower R2 is equipped
with a Paroscientific pressure sensor, situated ~6 m below the
surface (varies with tide) in water depth of ~26 m, sampling
continuously at 2 Hz, from which wave spectra may be
calculated at user defined intervals. For the present analysis, 6
minute intervals are used. The VADCP at R2 samples at one
Hz, with 4 slant beams oriented 30o from vertical, and the 5th
beam leveled to within 0.2o of vertical. For such small
departures from vertical the 5th beam samples vertical
velocities essentially uncontaminated by horizontal velocities
[17]. Directional wave spectra are calculated from the
VADCP utilizing the method of [18], which typically uses the
four slant beam velocities and pressure from standard ADCPs
to construct spectral estimates. Matlab® code obtained from
Greg Dusak of UNC was altered to use the VADCP’s 5th beam
vertical velocity data in place of pressure. Both in situ sites are
approximately 100 km from the PRI station and at angles of
25o and 41o from the radar boresight. The range is at the limits
for wave estimation from 2nd order returns due to signal to
noise limitations.
1) Empirical algorithm
Using the empirical algorithm of [18], sea surface spectra
are estimated at grid points for each radar installation, and for
grid points with adequate information from more than one site,
wave direction by frequency is also derived. Significant wave
 Proceedings of the IEEE/OES/CWTM Tenth Working Conference on Current Measurement Technology
heights are then estimated by integrating the sea surface
spectra over the recorded frequency range. WERA wave
estimates were constructed for May 2007-Feb 2008 (after the
installation of the WERA RFI reduction software). For
comparison to the R2 tower subsurface in situ pressure based
wave measurements, WERA spectral estimates are
transformed to pressure signal at the depth of the pressure
transducer using linear theory that applies a frequency
dependent attenuation with depth.
Scatter plots of in situ vs. radar–derived wave estimates
from the nearest WERA grid point show broad scatter for both
buoy 41008 and tower R2. This is somewhat improved by
averaging WERA spectral estimates over a 3x3 grid point
array nearest the in situ measurements before estimating
significant wave heights (Fig. 8, upper panels). A time series
subset of compared data from tower R2 (Fig. 8, lower panel)
illustrates that while the half-hourly WERA wave height
estimates are noisier, relative to the in situ measurements, the
lower frequency variability in the in situ records is tracked
relatively well by the radar estimates. Implementation of
spectral averaging over several grid points or several time
steps prior to implementation of the wave algorithms in the
radar processing software may prove fruitful to reducing noise
in these estimates.
2) Spectrum Inversion Method
HF-radar directional wave spectra estimates are also
derived with aftermarket software from SeaView Sensing Ltd,
and are compared to in situ estimates from the VADCP. While
neither system can be verified as accurate ground-truth of the
actual directional wave spectra, the correspondence between
the two estimates at the R2 tower is not routinely good.
Figure 8. Comparison of radar and in situ measurements of significant wave
height. Upper left: scatter plot from Grays Reef data. Upper right Scatter plot
from tower R2 data. Lower panel: Sample timeseries from tower R2 showing
scatter of radar significant wave height estimates (blue) about the in situ
pressure based measurements (red).
 
Comparison of the R2 VADCP estimates to a estimates at a
WERA grid point located at tower R7 (same water depth as
R2, but somewhat closer to the PRI radar, not shown here) are
somewhat better, especially for the frequency band between
roughly 0.05 and 0.15 Hz.
3) Wave Comparison Summary
Overall, the occasional close correspondence between the
directional spectra and the low-frequency correspondence of
the radar and in situ significant wave height estimates suggests
there are conditions under which reasonable radar
performance can be expected. However, at this stage we
believe that the wave comparison is compromised both by
suboptimum radar configuration and by the the fact that the in
situ measurements are outside of the footprint where high
quality radar wave estimates would be expected. The quality
of radar second order return deteriorates with increasing angle
from the radar central boresight and increased range. In
addition the beamwidth of a 12 antennae array is wider than
that of a 16 antenna array, which diminishes the angular
resolution of the system. Efforts to improve radar signal to
noise or reduce sidelobe problems could improve results. We
will be assessing both these possible contributors in the future.
It will be possible to add additional antennas to our existing
installations, due to the flexibility of the WERA system. It is
also possible to vary the sampling scheme as well, including
sample timing and interval length, chirp length, and transmit
frequency. Work on improving wave estimates from radars
and identifying conditions when they are more reliable is
ongoing [4], [19].
B. Wind Direction
Both the WERA system manufacturer-supplied software
and the SeaView software use a sech2(ȕș) angular distribution
model [20]. The SeaView solutions, which have not yet been
evaluated for these radar installations, solve for both available
parameters ȕ and wind direction ș. In the WERA distribution
software, ȕ is currently set to a fixed value; future versions
will fit ȕ as well. Wind direction measurements collected at 4
in situ anemometers were compared with the WERA HF radar
over a 20 month period to assess the accuracy of the radar
system. The in situ measurements are from NOAA Buoy
41008, located in the Grays Reef National Marine Sanctuary,
and from the three instrumented U.S Navy Platforms; R2, R6
and R8. Buoy 41008 and tower R2 are in 18 and 27 m water
depths, as previously mentioned, towers R6 and R8 are in ~30,
and ~45 m water depth, respectively. Locations are shown in
Fig. 1. The Grays Reef Buoy is a 3m discus buoy with an
ARES 4.4 payload, and an R.M Young wind monitor 05103
installed at 5m above sea-level, measured at the top of every
hour with a unit-vector averaging time of 10 minutes.
Anemometers at the three tower locations were R.M Young
marine wind monitor 05106, elevation 50m (R2 and R6) or
34m (R8, all recording continuously with a unit-vector
averaging time of 6 minutes, of which hourly subsamples are
used here. The radar data was interpolated to hourly values
An unexpectedly large RMS error of 58.9° was calculated
over all stations with a record-long complex correlation
coefficient of 0.65. A fairly large (~30o) negative bias
between radar and anemometer measurements exists at all
 Proceedings of the IEEE/OES/CWTM Tenth Working Conference on Current Measurement Technology
Figure 9. Correlation magnitude between radar and anemometer wind
directions for all 4 locations, as a function of increasing the wind speed
threshold below which direction data are ignored. Upper panel is correlation,
lower panel shows numbers of data points available above the wind speed
threshold.
compared points, with radar measurements clockwise of the
anemometer readings. Accuracy tends to improve with
increasing wind speed (Fig. 9), as measured by the
anemometers, corrected to standard 10m level according to
[21]. The radar operates at 8.35 MHz, and using this
frequency the phase speed of the ocean wave at the
corresponding Bragg frequency (0.295 Hz) is calculated to be
5.3 ms-1. According to the Pierson-Moskowitz wind-generated
ocean wave spectrum theory, Bragg waves observed during
periods when the winds are smaller than the threshold defined
by 1.17×5.3m/s (U10) = 6.20 m/s, are located at lower
frequencies than the wind-generated waves, and thus not
correlated with local wind conditions. Elimination of data
from such periods improves overall correlation. Note also the
decreasing correlation at Grays Reef for wind speeds above ~8
m/s (Fig. 9). This is due to a combination of shallow water
effect (from all directions) and from wind fetch (when the
wind is from the landward direction). Shallow water
conditions were shown to affect all 4 locations when the
dominant wave period exceeded a threshold limit for each
station, and correlation improved by excluding those periods.
Lower correlations were measured at all stations when the
winds were blowing over the land, thus limiting fetch,
especially at Grays Reef. This set of analyses indicates that
WERA radar wind direction estimates are more accurate under
a fully arisen sea state, with relatively high wind speed
blowing over the open sea, when deep water conditions apply.
When the radar data were corrected for these parameters, the
 
TABLE I. CORRELATION MAGNITUDE BETWEEN THE
RADAR AND ANEMOMETER. FIRST COLUMN: ORIGINAL
MAGNITUDES; SECOND COLUMN: FOR EACH STATION WHEN WIND
-1
SPEED >5.3MS , DOMINANT WAVE PERIOD > THRESHOLD VALUES
(GR-5.4S, R2-6.6S, R6-6.9S, R8-8,6S), AND WHEN WINDS ARE
BLOWING ACROSS OPEN SEA, UNLIMITED BY FETCH (10°< &
<220°).
Station Correlation (before) Correlation (after)
Overall 0.65 0.71
GR 0.56 0.71
R2 0.68 0.71
R6 0.71 0.72
R8 0.72 0.69

grid cells at the 4 stations exhibited no significant difference in
correlation with the in situ measurements (Table 1). For
additional details, see [22].
V. DISCUSSION
We have been pleased with the wealth of data provided by
this system, and its robust and reliable technical performance.
With limited resources but generous and continuing support
from the manufacturer, it has been possible to keep these
systems operating nearly continuously over almost five years,
with relatively few data gaps exceeding more than a few days.
Lightning has been an issue on one occasion, and the on-site
controlling computer is vulnerable to security breaches (as
with any IT technology) and requires the individual user to set
up adequate security. Operation, maintenance, software
upgrades, and the installation of an additional system has been
accomplished by a small staff of primarily masters level
oceanographic research technicians (with occasional IT
support), all with no prior radar training or experience.
As with any observational tool, there are perceived minor
drawbacks. The large number and lengths of cables required
for low-frequency Rx arrays makes the system relatively time-
consuming to install or move about. However, the number of
Rx antennae along the beach, deemed a drawback by many,
has not impeded our ability to install these systems on the
(admittedly rather under-populated) SC and GA coastlines.
Like the higher frequency WERA systems installed by the
University of Miami on public beaches in Florida, our Jekyll
Island system is deployed on a populated beach, with antennas
arrayed along a wooden boardwalk belonging to a set of
private condominiums. Managing the automation of the
processing and post-processing software is complex, and has
required scripting and IT skills somewhat beyond the existing
capabilities of typical oceanographic ‘data-analysis-type’
technicians (though probably not far from the capabilities of
typical oceanographic ‘instrumental-type’ technicians or
marine technicians). Although the documentation is available
online, the lack of a printed field manual makes it somehow
harder to quickly reach relevant background or
troubleshooting assistance. On the other hand, the software is
open source, which is a significant advantage, as it allows for
inspection by the researcher, and modifications by expert users
(e.g., add tidal variation etc). Support of the system is
forthcoming from the supplier, but time-zone difference
sometimes makes direct communication challenging.
 Proceedings of the IEEE/OES/CWTM Tenth Working Conference on Current Measurement Technology

Overall, the high quality of the surface current data has
exceeded expectation. With it we are providing a rich and
reliable realtime data resource for the operational aspirations
of the oceanographic community. Perhaps better still, we are
accumulating research-quality surface current time series of
high temporal and spatial resolution over a broad shelf and
shelf-edge area, including, as with the higher frequency
WERA systems deployed by the University of Miami, the
measurement of Gulf Stream variability at unprecedented
resolution and temporal extent. We are sufficiently
encouraged by the wave and wind comparisons between radar
and in situ sensors to begin investigating avenues for
improvements. The flexibility in the system for both hardware
and software changes will accommodate this pursuit.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The GA/SC radar sites are operated with funding from
NOAA/IOOS as part of the South East Coastal Ocean
Observing Regional Association (SECOORA), and through
NSF research grant NSF OCE-0536326 which also supported
VADCP measurements.
[14] Wyatt L.R. (1990), A relaxation method for integral inversion applied to
HF radar measurement of the ocean wave directional spectrum.
International J. of Remote Sensing, 11,1481-1494.
[15] Wyatt L.R., J.J. Green and A. Middleditch, “HF radar data quality
requirements for wave measurement,” Coastal Engineering, in press.
[16] Gargett, A. E. (1994), Observing turbulence with a modified acoustic
Doppler current profiler, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech., 11(6), 1592-1610.
[17] Terray, E.A., Brumley, B.H. and Strong, B. (1999) Measuring waves
and currents with an upward-looking ADCP. Proc. IEEE 6th Working
Conference on Current Measurement. IEEE Press, 66-71.
[18] Gurgel K.-W., H.H. Essen and T. Schlick (2006), An empirical method
to derive ocean waves from second-order Bragg scattering: prospects
and limitations. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 31(4): 804-811.
[19] Wyatt, LR, JJ Green, KW Gurgel, JC Nieto Borge, K Reichert, K
Hessner, H Gunther, W Rosenthal, M Reistad (2003) Validation and
intercomparisons of wave measurements and models during EuroROSE
experiments. Coastal Engineering 48: 1-28.
[20] Donelan, M.A., Hamilton, J. & Hui, W.H., 1985. Directional spectra of
wind-generated waves. In: Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lon. Ser. A. Vol.
315, 509-562.
[21] Tennekes, H. (1973), The Logarithmic Wind Profile, J. Atmos. Sci. V.
30 234-238.
[22] Archer, M. (2008), WERA HF radar Measurements of wind direction in
the South Atlantic Bight, B.Sc Ocean Science Dissertation, U. Plymouth,
40 pages.

REFERENCES
[1] Voulgaris, G, N. Kumar, K.-W. Gurgel, J.C. Warner and J.H. List
(2011), 2-D Inner-Shelf Current Observations from a Single VHF
WEllen RAdar (WERA). Proceedings of the IEEE/OES Tenth Current,
Waves and Turbulence Measurement Workshop, This Volume.
[2] Savidge, D. K., J. Norman, C. Smith, J. A. Amft, T. Moore, C. Edwards
and G. Voulgaris (2010), Shelf Edge Tide Correlated Eddies along the
Southeastern United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L22604,
doi:10.1029/2010GL045236.
[3] Chavanne, C., P. Flament, and K.-W. Gurgel, (2010), Observations of
strong submesoscale anticyclone and associated frontogenesis near an
island, J. Phys. Ocean., V. 40, pp. 1802-1818.
[4] Haus, B.K., L.KBrian K., Lynn K. Shay, P.Paul A. Work, G. George
Voulgaris, R.Rafael J. Ramos and J., Jorge Martinez-Pedraja (2010),
Wind speed dependence of single site Wave-Height Retrievals from
Phased-array HF radars, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 27(8), pp., 1381-–
1394. doi: 10.1175/2010JTECHO730.1.
[5] Shay, L.K., H.E. Seim, D. Savidge, R. Styles, and R.H. Weisberg
(2008), High frequency radar observing systems in SEACOOS, MTS
Journal, 42(3), 55-67.
[6] Gurgel KW, G Antonischki, HH Essen, and T Schlick (1999), Wellen
Radar (WERA): a new ground-wave HF radar for ocean remote sensing.
Coastal Engineering 37: 219-234.
[7] Gurgel K.-W. and Y. Barbin (2008), Suppressing radio frequency
interference in HF radars. Sea Technology, 39-42.
[8] Essen,H.-H., K.-W. Gurgel, T. Schlick, (2000), On the Accuracy of
current measurements by means of HF radar. IEEE JOE 25(4), pp 1-9.
[9] Seim, H., S. Haines and M. Muglia (2008) Examining the validity of the
Outer Banks HF radar system, AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences Meeting,
Orlando FL, Abstract Volume, p. 364.
[10] Lee, T.N., J. A. Yoder and L. P. Atkinson (1999), Gulf Stream frontal
eddy influence on productivity of the southeast U.S. continental shelf, J.
Geophys. Res., Vol 96, pp 22191-22205.
[11] Wyatt L. R., J. J. Green, A. Middleditch, M D Moorhead, J. Howarth,
M. Holt, S. Keogh (2006), Operational wave, current and wind
measurements with the Pisces HF radar. IEEE Journal of Oceanic
Engineering, 31,819-834.
[12] Green, J.J. & L.R. Wyatt (2006), Row-action inversion of the Barrick-
Weber equations. Journal of Atmos. and Oceanic Technol., 23,501-510.
[13] Wyatt L. R. (2000), Limits to the inversion of HF radar backscatter for
ocean wave measurement. Journal of Atmos. and Oceanic Technol., V
17,1651-1666.

 

View publication stats