A Technical Guide to Ultra-Short

Baseline (USBL) System Calibration:

Static and Dynamic Methodologies

Foundational Principles of USBL Positioning and the

Imperative for Calibration

The USBL Acoustic Positioning Method

Ultra-Short Baseline (USBL) acoustic positioning is a cornerstone technology in modern

marine operations, providing the capability to track the position of subsea targets such as
Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs), Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs), and towed
sensors relative to a surface vessel.1 The system's name derives from the "ultra-short"
physical distance, typically 10 cm or less, between the individual transducer elements housed
within a single, compact transceiver head mounted on the vessel.3 This design offers a
significant operational advantage over Long Baseline (LBL) and Short Baseline (SBL) systems
by eliminating the need for a pre-deployed, calibrated array of seabed transponders, making
it a highly mobile and rapidly deployable solution.6

The architecture of a USBL system is a tightly integrated suite of surface and subsea
components. The vessel-side installation consists of the USBL transceiver, which is deployed
beneath the hull via a dedicated pole or through a gate valve, and a topside processing unit
that serves as the computational hub of the system.1 The subsea target is equipped with an
acoustic transponder or responder, a device engineered to receive an acoustic interrogation
signal from the vessel's transceiver and reply with its own acoustic pulse.3 Critically, the USBL
system does not operate in isolation. Its ability to determine an absolute geographic position
is fundamentally dependent on a suite of ancillary sensors. These include a high-accuracy
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver to provide the vessel's real-world
coordinates and a Motion Reference Unit (MRU) or, for higher performance, an Inertial
Navigation System (INS), to measure the vessel's dynamic attitude—its pitch, roll, and
heading—with high fidelity.8

The physics of the measurement process are twofold. First, the system calculates the
distance to the subsea target. This is achieved by precisely measuring the two-way travel time
(TWTT) of the acoustic signal—from the moment the transceiver transmits its interrogation
pulse to the moment it receives the transponder's reply. This time interval is converted into a
slant range by applying a calculated speed of sound through the water column.3 Second, the
system determines the bearing, or direction, to the target. As the returning acoustic wavefront
from the transponder passes over the transceiver head, it arrives at each of the closely
spaced transducer elements at slightly different times. The system's electronics measure
these minute time-of-arrival differences (or the resulting phase differences in the signal) to
compute the direction from which the signal originated relative to the transceiver's
orientation.4

This process necessitates a rigorous series of coordinate transformations to translate the raw
acoustic measurements into a meaningful geographic position. The initial range and bearing
calculation yields the transponder's position within the local acoustic reference frame of the
USBL transducer head, often referred to as the u-frame.12 This relative vector is then
transformed into the vessel's reference frame (the b-frame) by applying the instantaneous
pitch, roll, and heading data from the MRU/INS. This step corrects for the vessel's motion.
Finally, this vessel-referenced position is transformed into a global navigation reference
frame, such as the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) projected into a Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid, by applying the vessel's own geographic position and
heading derived from the GNSS and gyrocompass.12 Each step in this transformation chain
introduces potential errors, which collectively form the system's total error budget.

The Error Budget: Deconstructing USBL Inaccuracies

The final positioning accuracy of a USBL system is not a single value but the result of a
complex interplay of various error sources. The performance is typically specified as a
percentage of the slant range to the target, with standard systems achieving accuracies of
0.5% to 1% of slant range, while high-performance systems can achieve accuracies better
than 0.1%.6 Understanding and quantifying the components of this error budget is the
fundamental purpose of calibration. These errors can be categorized into systematic,
environmental, and random sources.

Systematic Errors (Biases): These are persistent, repeatable errors that are the primary
targets for correction through calibration.
●​ Installation Misalignment Angles: This is unequivocally the most significant and
impactful source of systematic error in a USBL system.10 It represents the angular
discrepancy between the physical mounting of the USBL transducer and the
measurement frame of the vessel's attitude sensor (MRU/INS). Even with careful
installation, small misalignments are inevitable. These biases are resolved into three
components: a heading misalignment (​
α), which primarily corrupts the horizontal (X and Y) position; a roll misalignment (β),
which affects the cross-track and vertical (Y and Z) position; and a pitch misalignment
(γ), which affects the along-track and vertical (X and Z) position.12 The magnitude of
these errors is substantial; an uncorrected angular error of just 1 degree can introduce a
positioning error of at least 1.7% of the slant range, while a 0.5-degree error in pitch or
roll can result in a 17.5-meter position error at a slant range of 2,000 meters.10
●​ Lever Arm / Offset Errors: These are errors in the measured 3D vector distances
between the key reference points on the vessel: the GNSS antenna phase center, the
MRU/INS measurement center, and the USBL transducer's acoustic center.12 If these
offsets are not measured with high precision (ideally using terrestrial survey techniques)
and entered correctly into the system, they can introduce large, constant biases into the
final position solution. In many cases, errors in these offsets can be the single largest
contributor to the total calibration error.16
●​ Timing and Latency Errors: In a dynamic environment, the data from the GNSS, MRU,
and USBL are all time-stamped. Any uncompensated delay (latency) in the transmission
or processing of data from one sensor relative to another will result in the position
calculation being performed with mismatched data. For example, if the attitude data is
slightly delayed, the system will apply an old orientation to a new acoustic measurement,
introducing an error that is proportional to the vessel's rate of turn or movement. For
high-accuracy operations, data output must have negligible or precisely quantified
latency.13

Environmental and Measurement Errors:

●​ Sound Speed Errors: The accuracy of the range measurement is entirely dependent on
the accuracy of the sound speed value used to convert the two-way travel time into
distance. The speed of sound in water is not a constant; it varies significantly with
temperature, salinity, and pressure (depth).6 Using an incorrect average sound speed or
an inaccurate profile of sound speed versus depth will introduce a systematic scale factor
error, causing all range measurements to be proportionally too long or too short.4
●​ Acoustic Multipath: This phenomenon occurs when the acoustic signal from the
transponder reaches the transceiver via multiple paths—the direct path and one or more
paths that have reflected off the sea surface, the seabed, or nearby structures like
platform legs or a vessel's hull.6 The reflected signals travel a longer path and arrive later,
contaminating the measurement of the direct arrival and leading to significant errors in
 both range and bearing calculations. Multipath is a particularly severe problem in shallow
water, reverberant environments like harbors, and when operating close to large vertical
structures.18

Random Errors: These are non-systematic, unpredictable variations in measurements that

affect the precision or repeatability of the system. Sources include acoustic noise from the
vessel or environment, timing jitter in the transponder's reply, and the inherent noise floor of
the GNSS and attitude sensors.13 While these errors cannot be eliminated by calibration, their
magnitude can be assessed and minimized through the use of high-quality equipment and
robust statistical processing.

The performance of a USBL system is therefore not an intrinsic property of the acoustic
hardware alone but is a function of the entire integrated "system of systems." The final
accuracy is fundamentally limited by the weakest link in this chain, which includes the GNSS
receiver, the INS/MRU, and the quality of the physical installation survey. Investing in a
high-performance USBL transceiver without also integrating it with a high-quality GNSS (with
real-time corrections) and a high-grade INS (e.g., a Fiber-Optic Gyro) creates a performance
bottleneck. The USBL system can never achieve its full potential if the position and attitude
data fed into its calculations are of poor quality.16 Consequently, a holistic approach to system
design and integration is paramount.

The Rationale for Calibration

Calibration is the rigorous, systematic process of observing a system's outputs under known
conditions to quantify and correct its inherent systematic errors.4 For a USBL system, this is
not an optional "tune-up" but an essential and mandatory procedure required to achieve the
specified accuracy and ensure data integrity.14 While some errors, like lever arms, can be
minimized through precise physical measurement, the critical installation misalignment angles
between the sensor frames cannot be measured directly and must be determined
mathematically through a dedicated calibration procedure.12

An uncalibrated system, even if it is highly precise (meaning its measurements are

repeatable), will be inaccurate. It may consistently report a target's position with very little
scatter, but that position will be biased from its true location by an unknown amount.
Calibration solves for these biases, effectively tying the USBL's relative acoustic
measurements to the vessel's absolute geodetic reference frame with high fidelity.7

The imperative for calibration is both economic and safety-driven. In offshore construction, an
uncalibrated system could lead to a subsea structure being installed hundreds of meters from
its target location. For a vessel operating on dynamic positioning (DP), an inaccurate USBL
position reference could lead to a loss of position and a potentially catastrophic incident. For
scientific research, it could render an entire dataset of samples geographically useless.7 While
operators may be tempted to focus on acoustic performance issues like noise or multipath,
the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that uncorrected installation errors are the dominant
source of inaccuracy. Therefore, the highest priorities during any system mobilization must be
the meticulous physical survey of all sensor offsets and the execution of a comprehensive
calibration routine to solve for the angular misalignments.

Static Calibration Methodologies for USBL Systems

Objectives and Theoretical Framework

Static calibration methodologies are procedures designed to determine the angular

misalignments between the USBL transducer's coordinate system and the vessel's attitude
sensor's coordinate system. The primary goal is to derive correction values for pitch, roll, and
heading that can be applied within the USBL processing software to eliminate these
installation biases.4 The term "static" refers to the state of the vessel during the discrete
periods of data collection; the vessel is held stationary or near-stationary at specific,
geometrically diverse locations relative to a fixed calibration beacon on the seabed.23

The theoretical basis for static calibration lies in creating a dataset with sufficient redundancy
to allow for a mathematical solution of the unknown parameters. By collecting numerous
acoustic measurements from various known vessel positions and orientations to a single
unknown beacon position, an over-determined system of equations is established. This
system can then be solved using a statistical adjustment technique, most commonly a
rigorous least squares adjustment, which finds the single set of parameter values (i.e., the
beacon position and the alignment corrections) that best fits the entire dataset of
observations.4

Procedural Analysis: The Quadrant ("Box-In") Calibration

The quadrant calibration, often referred to as a "box-in," is a widely used static calibration
method. It is more accurate than simpler single-position static methods and provides a robust
dataset for solving the primary alignment parameters.26

The procedure involves a series of well-defined steps:

1.​ Beacon Deployment: A transponder is deployed to the seabed in a location that offers
adequate water depth and clear maneuvering room for the vessel. The initial geographic
position of this beacon is only approximately known and will be precisely determined as
part of the calibration process itself.4
2.​ Vessel Positioning and Data Acquisition: The vessel is maneuvered to a series of
discrete stations arranged in a geometric pattern around the beacon's estimated
position. The classic pattern involves occupying four cardinal points (e.g., North, East,
South, and West of the beacon).10 A common rule of thumb for the horizontal offset from
the beacon to these stations is a distance of approximately one-third to one-and-a-half
times the water depth, as this geometry helps to make the pitch and roll errors more
observable.4
3.​ Data Logging: At each station, the vessel holds its position as steadily as possible while
a statistically significant number of acoustic measurements are logged. For a more
rigorous calibration, data may be collected at several different vessel headings (e.g., 0,
90, 180, and 270 degrees) at each of the four cardinal points.4 This ensures that
heading-dependent errors are fully exposed. In a simpler variant, the vessel may maintain
a single, consistent heading throughout the entire procedure, typically oriented into the
prevailing current or wind for maximum stability.10
4.​ Data Processing: The collected dataset, comprising the vessel's GNSS position, attitude
data, and the corresponding acoustic range and bearing measurements for each ping, is
processed using a least squares adjustment algorithm. This process simultaneously
solves for the most probable values of the unknown parameters.

The parameters solved for in a quadrant calibration typically include:

●​ The precise 3D coordinates of the seabed transponder.
●​ The pitch correction value.10
●​ The roll correction value.10
●​ The orientation (heading) correction value.10
●​ A scale factor, which primarily accounts for the average error in the assumed sound
speed.4

The successful application of these correction values can dramatically improve positioning
accuracy, with studies showing a reduction in position error to the decimeter level.10 This
highlights the dual purpose of the box-in procedure: it is simultaneously a method for
calibrating the vessel's measurement system and a high-accuracy survey method for
establishing geodetic control on the seabed. The same operational procedure that yields the
critical alignment corrections for the vessel also produces a precisely known reference point
on the seafloor, which can then serve as the foundation for an entire subsea project or for the
calibration of other acoustic systems like LBL arrays.27

Procedural Analysis: The Spin Test

The spin test is a distinct and highly valuable procedure, though it is important to recognize its
primary role as a verification tool rather than a primary calibration method for determining the
initial correction values.13 Its purpose is to provide a quick, intuitive, and powerful qualitative
assessment of the residual pitch and roll misalignment errors

after a full calibration has been performed and the corrections have been applied.

The procedure is straightforward, particularly for vessels equipped with dynamic positioning
(DP):
1.​ Positioning: The vessel is carefully maneuvered until the USBL transducer, mounted on
its deployment pole, is positioned vertically directly above the seabed transponder.29
2.​ Maneuver: The vessel then executes a slow, 360-degree rotation in place, maintaining
the USBL pole as the center of rotation.29
3.​ Data Visualization: Throughout the rotation, the calculated position of the transponder
is continuously plotted on the USBL system's display. This creates a track line often
referred to as a "snail trail".29

The interpretation of the resulting plot is direct and unambiguous:

●​ A Well-Calibrated System: If the pitch and roll corrections are accurate, the calculated
position of the stationary seabed beacon will remain stable. The plotted snail trail will
show a tight cluster of positions, with a random scatter that is consistent with the
system's specified precision (e.g., within its 1DRMS, or one-distance root mean square,
value).29
●​ A Poorly-Calibrated System: If significant residual pitch or roll misalignments exist, the
error vector they introduce will rotate with the vessel's heading. This will cause the
calculated position of the beacon to wander, tracing a distinct circular or "doughnut"
shape on the display.29 The diameter of this circle is directly related to the magnitude of
the residual angular error and the water depth.

The spin test serves as an essential litmus test for the system's readiness for dynamic
operations. It is a powerful diagnostic because it isolates and exaggerates the effect of
attitude misalignments. During a normal survey line, a small roll misalignment might manifest
as a subtle, constant cross-track error that is difficult to distinguish from other effects like
currents acting on a towed body. The spin test makes this latent error immediately and visually
obvious. A successful spin test provides a high degree of confidence that the static alignment
is correct and the system is ready for mobile operations.

Dynamic Calibration Methodologies for USBL Systems

Objectives and Theoretical Framework

While static calibration methods are effective at determining fixed installation misalignments,
they are fundamentally incapable of observing errors that only manifest when the vessel is in
motion. Dynamic calibration is a more comprehensive process designed to address this
limitation. Its primary objective is to solve for the full suite of system errors, including not only
the static angular misalignments (pitch, roll, and heading) but also dynamic errors, most
notably timing latency between the various sensor inputs.17

The theoretical framework for dynamic calibration is an extension of the static approach. It
involves collecting a rich dataset of acoustic and ancillary sensor data while the vessel
performs a series of pre-planned maneuvers around a fixed seabed beacon.23 These
maneuvers are specifically designed to ensure that all the error components, including the
dynamic ones, become observable and mathematically separable in the data. By collecting
data across a wide range of headings, speeds, and geometries relative to the beacon, a
robust, over-determined set of observations is generated. This dataset is then processed
using a least squares adjustment to simultaneously solve for all unknown parameters,
providing a more holistic and operationally representative calibration of the entire integrated
system.

Vessel Maneuvering Patterns for Data Acquisition

The effectiveness of a dynamic calibration is critically dependent on the design of the vessel's
track lines. The maneuvers are not arbitrary; they are carefully constructed experiments
designed to provide the mathematical leverage required to isolate and solve for each specific
error source.

The "Patch Test" Routine:

This routine, a standard practice in the calibration of multibeam echosounder systems, is
adapted for USBL calibration to systematically determine angular misalignments and latency.
The procedure involves sailing a series of lines relative to a fixed seabed transponder 31:
●​ Pitch and Latency Lines: A pair of reciprocal lines are run at a constant speed, passing
directly over the transponder. Running the same line in opposite directions causes the
effect of a pitch misalignment to manifest with an opposite sign in the data, making it
observable. If these lines are run at different speeds, the speed-dependent effect of
timing latency can also be isolated and calculated.
●​ Heading (Yaw) Line: A line is run perpendicular to the first pair, again passing over the
transponder. This orthogonal geometry makes the effect of a heading misalignment on
the cross-track position of the beacon most apparent.
●​ Roll Lines: A pair of parallel, reciprocal lines are run with the transponder significantly
offset to one side of the vessel's track (e.g., to starboard). This geometry, where the
acoustic path is not vertical, maximizes the effect of a roll misalignment, allowing it to be
accurately determined.

Dynamic Cardinal Points / Box Pattern:

This pattern provides a comprehensive dataset by ensuring a full 360-degree geometric
coverage around the beacon. A typical execution involves anchoring a transponder and
navigating a series of straight lines over it.33 A thorough pattern might include lines along the
four cardinal headings (North-South, South-North, East-West, West-East) as well as diagonal
lines (e.g., Northeast-Southwest, Northwest-Southeast).33 The purpose of this extensive
pattern is to maximize the observability of all error sources. The full range of vessel headings
makes any heading misalignment highly apparent; sailing directly over the beacon and at
various offsets maximizes the observability of pitch and roll errors; and the use of reciprocal
lines allows for the separation of errors related to vessel offsets and potentially latency.13
The choice of maneuver pattern reveals a deeper principle: the calibration is not merely about
data collection, but about conducting a controlled experiment. A single line of data contains
ambiguous information, where a positional offset could be attributed to several different error
sources. By executing a geometrically diverse set of maneuvers, the unique signature of each
error type (pitch, roll, heading, latency) is imprinted differently on the data from each line. This
allows the least squares adjustment algorithm to successfully de-correlate and solve for each
individual error source with a high degree of confidence.

Data Processing and Parameter Estimation

The computational core of any modern USBL calibration, static or dynamic, is the least
squares adjustment.4 This statistical method takes the large, redundant set of observations
gathered during the maneuvers and finds the single set of values for the unknown parameters
that minimizes the sum of the squares of the residuals (the differences between the observed
measurements and the values predicted by the mathematical model).

The process is typically iterative and involves two main steps, often performed within
specialized survey software 4:
1.​ Beacon Position Solution: The process begins by solving for the most probable 3D
position of the calibration transponder on the seabed. This initial step uses the vessel's
GNSS positions and the raw acoustic range measurements from all the collected data.4
2.​ Simultaneous Correction Solution: Once a stable beacon position is established, the
adjustment is re-configured to simultaneously solve for the system correction
parameters. The algorithm adjusts the values of these unknowns until a solution is found
that best fits all observations. The parameters determined include:
○​ Pitch Correction Angle 4
○​ Roll Correction Angle 4
○​ Heading (Yaw) Correction Angle 4
○​ Scale Factor (for sound speed error) 4
○​ Timing Latency (in dynamic calibrations) 31

This process is repeated. After an initial solution is computed, the results are analyzed. The
corrections are applied to the raw data, and the residuals are examined. Observations with
large residuals, indicating they are likely outliers or "flyers," are identified and de-weighted or
removed from the dataset. The least squares adjustment is then run again with the cleaned
data. This iterative cycle of solving, analyzing residuals, editing data, and re-solving continues
until the solution converges—meaning the calculated correction values no longer change
significantly between iterations—and the statistical quality indicators (such as the
Chi-Squared test and the a posteriori variance factor) are within acceptable limits.4

A successful dynamic calibration is therefore a holistic validation of the entire integrated

positioning system in its true operational state. It moves beyond correcting for static
installation geometry and confirms the proper functioning and time-synchronization of the
complete data flow from every sensor. This provides a much higher degree of confidence in
the system's performance during subsequent mission-critical operations.

A Comparative Analysis: Static vs. Dynamic

Calibration

Core Distinctions in Methodology and Error Targeting

The fundamental distinction between static and dynamic calibration lies in the state of the
vessel during data acquisition and, consequently, the types of errors each method is designed
to address.

Static calibration is performed while the vessel is held stationary at a series of discrete
locations.24 Its primary purpose is to determine the fixed geometric misalignments between
the USBL transducer and the vessel's attitude sensors. It is highly effective at solving for the
constant biases in pitch, roll, and heading that result from the physical installation. However,
because the vessel is not moving in a manner that simulates operational use, static methods
are inherently incapable of detecting or solving for dynamic errors such as timing latency. The
data collected simply does not contain the necessary information to observe these effects.
Static procedures, such as the quadrant method, are generally simpler and can be faster to
execute than a full dynamic calibration.25

Dynamic calibration, in contrast, is performed with the vessel underway, executing a series
of controlled maneuvers.24 This approach is designed to be more comprehensive. It not only
provides a robust dataset for solving the static misalignments but is also specifically
structured to make dynamic errors observable. By collecting data at various speeds and on
reciprocal headings, the effects of timing latency between the position, attitude, and acoustic
sensors can be isolated and quantified.31 This makes dynamic calibration a more complete and
representative test of the system's performance, but it is also a more complex and
time-consuming procedure that often requires favorable weather and sea conditions to be
performed effectively.24

Operational Scenarios and Selection Criteria

The choice between static and dynamic calibration methods is driven by the operational
requirements of the project and the capabilities of the vessel.
●​ Static Calibration (e.g., Quadrant/Box-in) is often sufficient for applications where the
vessel itself is largely stationary during operations, such as on a construction barge, an
anchored vessel, or for tasks where the highest possible dynamic accuracy is not the
primary driver.10 It provides a solid baseline calibration of the geometric installation
errors.
●​ Dynamic Calibration (e.g., Patch Test) is considered mandatory for high-accuracy
applications involving a moving vessel. This includes hydrographic surveying, pipeline
inspection, AUV/towfish tracking, and critical dynamic positioning operations.31 In these
scenarios, even small, uncorrected latency errors can lead to significant positioning
 inaccuracies that compromise the integrity of the work.
●​ Static Verification (e.g., Spin Test) serves a crucial complementary role. It is not a
substitute for a full calibration but is an invaluable and efficient tool for periodically
verifying that an existing calibration remains valid.

In practice, the methods are often used in a combined workflow. An initial, comprehensive
dynamic calibration is performed upon system mobilization to establish the full set of
correction parameters. This is then followed by periodic and much quicker static verifications,
like a spin test, at the start of a new project or even on a daily basis to provide ongoing quality
assurance.29 This tiered approach, as advocated by industry bodies like the IOGP, represents
best practice. The philosophy is to verify the system's performance first; if it fails the
verification, only then is a full recalibration required, thus saving valuable vessel time and
resources.38

Summary Comparison of USBL Calibration Methodologies

The following table provides a concise comparison of the primary USBL calibration and
verification methodologies, outlining their objectives, procedures, and the specific errors they
address. This serves as a practical guide for selecting the appropriate technique based on
operational context and accuracy requirements.

Attribute Static Calibration Static Verification Dynamic

(Quadrant/Box-In) (Spin Test) Calibration (Patch
Test/Cardinal
Lines)

Primary Objective Determine initial Verify existing pitch Determine all static
angular and roll misalignments,
misalignments corrections. scale factor, and
(pitch, roll, dynamic errors
heading) and scale (latency).
factor.

Vessel State Stationary at Rotating on station. Underway on

discrete points. pre-planned lines.

Typical Hold station at 4+ 360° rotation with Reciprocal,

Maneuvers points around USBL pole as pivot. orthogonal, and
 beacon. offset lines relative
to beacon.

Key Errors Pitch, Roll, Heading Residual Pitch and Pitch, Roll, Heading
Addressed Misalignment; Scale Roll Misalignment. Misalignment; Scale
Factor. Factor; Timing
Latency.

Primary Output Correction values Visual "snail trail" Correction values

for pitch, roll, plot for qualitative for pitch, roll,
heading, and scale. pass/fail heading, scale, and
Calibrated beacon assessment. latency. Calibrated
position. beacon position.

Best Practices for High-Integrity Calibration and

Verification

Optimizing the Sensor Suite: The Foundation of Accuracy

The integrity of a USBL calibration is fundamentally limited by the quality of the raw data
inputs. Therefore, best practice begins with ensuring that the entire integrated sensor suite is
optimized for the highest possible performance.
●​ Attitude and Heading Sensors: The MRU or INS is the heart of the vessel's orientation
system, and its quality is paramount. While lower-cost systems based on
Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) are available, high-grade sensors such as a
Fiber-Optic Gyro (FOG) or a Laser Ring Gyro (LRG) provide substantially lower noise,
greater stability, and more accurate dynamic measurements. The use of such
high-performance sensors will vastly improve the quality and reliability of the calibration
result.16
●​ Surface Positioning (GNSS): The vessel's GNSS position is the geodetic anchor for the
entire calibration. The accuracy of the GNSS solution propagates directly into the final
USBL error budget.17 A standalone GNSS receiver will not provide the accuracy required
for a high-integrity calibration. It is essential to use a system that employs real-time
 differential or precise point positioning (PPP) correction services to achieve
decimeter-level or better accuracy.16
●​ Lever Arm Surveys: The 3D offset vectors between the GNSS antenna, the MRU/INS,
and the USBL transducer must be precisely measured. This vessel survey should be
conducted using professional land surveying techniques to achieve millimeter-level
accuracy. Any error in these measured offsets will introduce a direct, systematic bias into
the calibration solution and all subsequent positioning.13

Environmental Characterization and Mitigation

The underwater acoustic environment is complex and variable, and failure to account for its
properties will degrade calibration accuracy.
●​ Sound Speed Profiling: This is arguably the most critical environmental measurement.
An accurate sound speed profile (SSP) for the entire water column at the calibration site
is non-negotiable. This must be acquired using a dedicated instrument, such as a sound
speed profiler or a CTD (Conductivity, Temperature, Depth) probe, deployed immediately
prior to the calibration.8 The speed of sound can change significantly with depth due to
variations in temperature and pressure, and relying on surface values or historical
database estimates is a common and significant source of error.8 The resulting data
allows for accurate conversion of acoustic travel times to ranges and enables ray-tracing
algorithms to account for the bending of the acoustic path.
●​ Acoustic Noise Mitigation: The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is a key factor in the ability
of the USBL system to make a precise measurement. To maximize SNR, the USBL
transceiver should be deployed as deep as is practical to move it away from surface
noise sources (e.g., waves, rain) and as far as possible from the vessel's own primary
noise sources, such as propellers and thrusters.8
●​ Multipath Mitigation: Acoustic reflections can severely corrupt measurements. Several
strategies can be employed to mitigate their effects, particularly in challenging
environments like shallow water:
○​ Geometry: Tilting the transceiver head can sometimes create a more optimal
acoustic path to the target and away from the sea surface, which is a primary source
of multipath.18
○​ Signal Processing: Modern USBL systems often use advanced wideband or
spread-spectrum acoustic signals. These complex, coded signals are inherently more
robust and provide better rejection of multipath interference compared to simple
tonal pings.11
○​ Operational Parameters: In highly reverberant conditions, slowing down the
acoustic interrogation rate (the "ping" rate) allows more time for reflected signal
 energy to dissipate before the next measurement is made, resulting in a cleaner
measurement of the direct path arrival.21

Post-Calibration Verification and Industry Standards

A calibration is not complete until it has been verified.

●​ Verification Run: After the new correction values have been calculated and applied in
the USBL system software, a dedicated verification run must be performed. This is a
critical quality control step to ensure that no gross errors were made during the data
collection or processing phases.16 A spin test is an excellent method for verifying the
pitch and roll corrections, while sailing a line away from the beacon and observing for any
lateral drift in its position is an effective check on the heading correction.29
●​ Industry Guidance: Adherence to established industry standards ensures a consistent,
high-quality, and defensible approach to calibration. Key documents include those from:
○​ IMCA (International Marine Contractors Association): Publishes comprehensive
guidance on the setup, configuration, calibration, and maintenance of vessel USBL
systems for offshore survey and DP operations.39
○​ IOGP (International Association of Oil & Gas Producers): Report 624-01,
"Common Industry Technical Specification for the Calibration & Verification of USBL
Positioning Systems," provides a framework for standardizing procedures. A core
philosophy of this document is to promote a verification-first approach, where a full
calibration is only undertaken if a simpler verification procedure indicates that it is
necessary, thereby optimizing vessel time.38

Ultimately, a high-integrity calibration is not a single event but a comprehensive process. It is

built upon a foundation of high-quality ancillary sensors and meticulous physical
measurements. A successful USBL calibration is the final step in a chain of metrology that
begins with the vessel's initial offset survey and includes the proper calibration of the GNSS,
gyro, and sound speed profiler. A failure in the USBL calibration may not indicate a problem
with the USBL system itself, but could be a symptom of an error in one of these foundational
inputs. Therefore, troubleshooting must involve a systematic review of all upstream data
sources. This leads to a lifecycle approach: a full calibration is performed upon mobilization,
followed by a regime of regular, simpler verifications to continuously monitor the system's
health and trigger a new calibration only when demonstrably necessary.

Advanced Topics and Future Directions

Integrated Systems: The Rise of "Calibration-Free" USBL/INS Solutions

A significant evolution in USBL technology is the development of systems that tightly couple
the USBL transceiver array with a high-grade Inertial Navigation System, often a Fiber-Optic
Gyro, within the same physical housing.11 These integrated systems are often marketed as
being "calibration-free."

This terminology requires careful interpretation. It refers to the fact that the angular alignment
between the inertial sensor's reference frame and the acoustic transducer's reference frame
is precisely measured and fixed during manufacturing in a controlled laboratory
environment.11 This factory calibration eliminates the need for the end-user to perform a
complex at-sea dynamic calibration to solve for the pitch, roll, and heading installation
misalignments between two separate pieces of hardware.13 The primary advantages of this
approach are a dramatic reduction in vessel time required for mobilization and increased
system portability, making them ideal for deployment on vessels of opportunity.41
Furthermore, by co-locating the attitude sensor and the acoustic array, it eliminates a
potential source of error caused by the flexing or bending of a long deployment pole between
a vessel-mounted INS and a pole-mounted transceiver.41

However, the term "calibration-free" does not eliminate all on-vessel setup requirements. The
physical lever arms from the vessel's GNSS antenna(s) to the acoustic reference point of the
integrated USBL/INS unit must still be meticulously surveyed and entered into the system.41
Moreover, while the internal alignment is known, the alignment of the entire integrated unit
relative to the vessel's primary heading source (e.g., the ship's main gyrocompass) must still
be established. Therefore, while the complex multi-parameter least squares adjustment may
be obviated, a verification procedure, such as a spin test or a comparison of heading data
while maneuvering, remains an essential best practice to confirm the final installation
alignment.13 This marks a fundamental paradigm shift in field operations: the primary task
moves from a complex process of mathematical

correction of unknown errors to a more straightforward process of physical verification of a

known alignment.

Recommendations for Operational Planning and Execution

Achieving and maintaining high-integrity USBL positioning requires a disciplined approach
that extends beyond the calibration procedure itself.
●​ Pre-Project Planning: Calibration must be treated as a planned, critical-path activity in
any marine operation. This involves allocating sufficient vessel time in the project
schedule, identifying a suitable calibration area with appropriate water depth and a
low-noise, low-multipath acoustic environment, and ensuring that all necessary
equipment (e.g., sound speed profiler, accurately located seabed weights) and trained
personnel are available.7
●​ Data Management and Documentation: Rigorous documentation is essential for
quality control, traceability, and future troubleshooting. All physical sensor offsets, the
settings of all ancillary systems, the full sound speed profile data, the raw and processed
calibration datasets, and the final report containing the derived correction values and
quality statistics must be meticulously recorded and archived.4
●​ Continuous Improvement and Advanced Methods: The field of acoustic positioning is
continually advancing. Operators should adopt a verification-first philosophy, as
promoted by the IOGP, to optimize vessel time without compromising data quality.38
Furthermore, advanced adjustment models and robust estimation techniques are being
developed that can provide more reliable calibration solutions, particularly when dealing
with noisy data or outliers.12

The future of the highest-precision underwater positioning lies in enhanced data fusion. The
trend is moving away from using USBL as a standalone positioning sensor and towards using
it as a crucial source of external aiding for a more powerful and robust navigation filter,
typically an Extended Kalman Filter, running within an INS. In this architecture, the INS
provides extremely smooth, high-update-rate, and robust navigation in the short term, while
the less frequent but absolute-referenced USBL positions are used to correct for the inherent
long-term drift of the inertial sensors.13 This synergistic fusion of technologies, exemplified by
acoustically-aided INS and concepts like USBL-squared (where both the surface and subsea
assets have integrated USBL/INS packages), represents the state-of-the-art and the future
direction for achieving the highest levels of performance in subsea navigation and
positioning.11

Conclusion

The calibration of an Ultra-Short Baseline acoustic positioning system is a foundational

requirement for any marine operation demanding accurate and reliable subsea positioning. It
is a multifaceted process that transforms an instrument of relative measurement into a tool of
absolute geodetic accuracy. This analysis has demonstrated that achieving this
transformation is dependent not only on the execution of a specific calibration procedure but
also on a holistic understanding of the entire integrated system and its operational
environment.

The distinction between static and dynamic calibration methodologies is critical. Static
methods, such as the quadrant or "box-in" calibration, are effective for determining the fixed
angular misalignments inherent in the system's installation and are essential for establishing a
baseline of accuracy. Dynamic calibration, however, represents a more comprehensive system
validation, capable of solving not only for static biases but also for dynamic errors like timing
latency, which are only observable while the system is operating under realistic conditions.
The choice between them is dictated by the operational requirements, with dynamic
calibration being the prerequisite for high-accuracy survey and construction tasks.
Verification procedures, particularly the spin test, serve as indispensable tools for ongoing
quality assurance, enabling operators to confirm the validity of a calibration efficiently.

Best practices extend far beyond the maneuvers themselves. The ultimate accuracy of a
calibrated USBL system is capped by the quality of its ancillary sensors. High-performance
GNSS and inertial navigation systems, coupled with meticulously surveyed physical offsets,
are not luxuries but prerequisites for achieving high-integrity results. Similarly, a thorough
characterization of the acoustic environment, most critically through on-site sound speed
profiling, is non-negotiable.

The future of the field points towards increasing integration and intelligence. The advent of
pre-calibrated, integrated USBL/INS systems is shifting the operational paradigm from one of
complex field correction to one of streamlined field verification. Ultimately, the highest
echelons of performance will be realized through advanced data fusion, where USBL provides
the critical external aiding to correct the drift of a superior inertial navigation solution. For the
marine professional, a deep, nuanced understanding of these principles—from the physics of
measurement to the statistics of adjustment and the logistics of operational
planning—remains the key to unlocking the full potential of USBL technology and ensuring the
success and safety of operations in the challenging subsea domain.

Karya yang dikutip

1.​ en.wikipedia.org, diakses September 14, 2025,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-short_baseline_acoustic_positioning_system
2.​ What is USBL? Competitors, Complementary Techs & Usage | Sumble, diakses
September 14, 2025, https://sumble.com/tech/usbl
3.​ What is a USBL and how does it work? - Sonardyne, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.sonardyne.com/products-knowledge-base/what-is-a-usbl-and-how
-does-it-work/
4.​ Chapter 16: USBL Calibration, diakses September 14, 2025,
http://linux.geodatapub.com/shipwebpages/winfrog-all/WinFrog%203.10/Docume
 nts/WinFrog%203.10%20User's%20Guide/WFUG%2016%20-%20USBL%20Calibr
ation.pdf
5.​ Acoustic Positioning Systems A Practical Overview of Current Systems, diakses
September 14, 2025,
https://dynamic-positioning.com/proceedings/dp1998/SVickerT.pdf
6.​ Acoustic positioning systems | Underwater Robotics Class Notes - Fiveable,
diakses September 14, 2025,
https://library.fiveable.me/underwater-robotics/unit-7/acoustic-positioning-syste
ms/study-guide/bkm1QFSPtc4TtzyC
7.​ Breakout Session: Shipboard USBL Systems | UNOLS, diakses September 14,
2025,
https://www.unols.org/sites/default/files/201910rvt_breakout03_shipboard_USBL_
systems.pdf
8.​ How do Ultra-Short Baseline systems (USBLs) work? - Applied Acoustics, diakses
September 14, 2025,
https://www.appliedacoustics.com/news/how-do-ultra-short-baseline-systems-u
sbls-work/
9.​ EvoLogics USBL | Advanced Acoustic Positioning, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.evologics.com/usbl
10.​(PDF) Ultra Short Baseline (USBL) Calibration for Positioning of Underwater
Objects, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338294808_Ultra_Short_Baseline_USBL
_Calibration_for_Positioning_of_Underwater_Objects
11.​ Untangling USBL – Comparing the Benefits of USBL-Squared (USBL2) with Classic
and Inverted USBL | Advanced Navigation, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.advancednavigation.com/tech-articles/untangling-usbl-comparing-t
he-benefits-of-usbl-squared-usbl2-with-classic-and-inverted-usbl/
12.​A New Angle-Calibration Method for Precise Ultra-Short Baseline Underwater
Positioning, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/16/14/2584
13.​Optimising Ultra-Short BaseLine (USBL) Positioning from Research Vessels -
UNOLS |, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.unols.org/sites/default/files/2018inm_4_West_Geraint_Acoustics_Ca
meras_101618.pdf
14.​What is An USBL system? - Exail, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.exail.com/resources/knowledge-center/what-is-a-usbl-system
15.​Ultra Short Baseline USBL Calibration Fo | PDF | Waves | Cartesian Coordinate
System, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.scribd.com/document/904889459/Ultra-Short-Baseline-USBL-Calibr
ation-Fo
16.​Calibration tips for Ranger 2 USBL systems - Sonardyne, diakses September 14,
2025,
https://www.sonardyne.com/products-knowledge-base/calibration-tips-for-rang
er-2/
17.​Guidance on - Vessel USBL Systems for Use in Offshore Survey ..., diakses
 September 14, 2025, https://omtc.ua/images/courses/dp/IMCAP302.pdf
18.​Shallow Water USBLs | Applied Acoustics, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.appliedacoustics.com/news/get-the-most-from-your-shallow-water
-usbl/
19.​Sound speed or sound velocity profiling: which is technically correct ..., diakses
September 14, 2025,
https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/sound-speed-or-sound-velo
city-profiling-which-is-technically-correct
20.​Multipath: A Challenge for Position Reference Systems, diakses September 14,
2025,
https://www.lerus.com/articles/multipath-a-challenge-for-position-reference-sys
tems.html
21.​USBL Tracking in Shallow Water: Q&A with applied acoustics, diakses September
14, 2025,
https://www.oceansciencetechnology.com/feature/usbl-tracking-in-shallow-wate
r-qa-with-applied-acoustics/
22.​Optimizing USBL Positioning Systems for Shallow Water Hydrographic Surveys,
diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.oceansciencetechnology.com/feature/optimizing-usbl-positioning-s
ystems-for-shallow-water-hydrographic-surveys/
23.​Investigation on Precise Adjustment Model of the USBL Calibration Observations
for Angular Misalignment - ResearchGate, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373312027_Investigation_on_Precise_A
djustment_Model_of_the_USBL_Calibration_Observations_for_Angular_Misalignm
ent
24.​Chapter 13 The Difference between Dynamic and Static Calibration - Pilkington,
diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.pilkington.com/en-gb/uk/automotive/agr-news/martins-adas-blog/ch
apter-13--difference-between-dynamic-and-static-calibration
25.​Static & Dynamic ADAS Calibration: The Little Known Difference - LocoNav,
diakses September 14, 2025,
https://loconav.com/blog/static-vs-dynamic-adas-calibration/
26.​Schematic of Static Callibration | Download Scientific Diagram - ResearchGate,
diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Schematic-of-Static-Callibration_fig5_33829
4808
27.​How do I calibrate my sparse LBL array? - Sonardyne, diakses September 14,
2025,
https://www.sonardyne.com/products-knowledge-base/how-do-i-calibrate-my-s
parse-lbl-array/
28.​How To - Box-in from a surface vessel using Fusion 2 - YouTube, diakses
September 14, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_ZgdUx7o6k
29.​Can I perform a USBL verification in shallow water without an ROV to deploy or
recover the beacon? - Sonardyne, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.sonardyne.com/products-knowledge-base/can-i-perform-a-usbl-ve
 rification-in-shallow-water-without-an-rov-to-deploy-or-recover-the-beacon/
30.​A SINS/USBL System-Level Installation Parameter Calibration with Improved
RDPSO | Request PDF - ResearchGate, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371895274_A_SINSUSBL_System-Level_
Installation_Parameter_Calibration_with_Improved_RDPSO
31.​USBL CALIBRATION Least Squares, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/app-g-1751-usbl-mbe-
calreport-1
32.​Guidance on position reference systems and sensors for DP operations, diakses
September 14, 2025,
https://media.edapp.com/image/upload/v1606611628/briefcase-documents/uwbe
ns0pbvk5h6gurzsn.pdf
33.​FISHPAC 2010 USBL Testing Report, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://apps-afsc.fisheries.noaa.gov/RACE/surveys/cruise_archives/cruises2010/re
sults_Fairweather_FISHPAC-2010.pdf
34.​Static vs. Dynamic ADAS Calibration: What's the Difference? - Minnetonka
Collision Center, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.minnetonkacollision.com/About-Us/Blog/entryid/139/static-vs-dynam
ic-adas-calibration-whats-the-difference
35.​Comparison of ADAS Static vs Dynamic Calibration: Accuracy, Time, Cost, diakses
September 14, 2025,
https://newsmartsafe.com/industry-news/adas-static-dynamic-calibration
36.​The Differences Between Static vs. Dynamic Calibration | Omni Calibration,
diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.omnicalibration.com/the-difference-between-static-and-dynamic-a
das-calibration
37.​Minimizing positional errors during ROV visual inspection - Hydro International,
diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/minimizing-positional-errors
-during-rov-visual-inspection
38.​Common Industry Technical Specification for the Calibration ... - IOGP, diakses
September 14, 2025,
https://www.iogp.org/bookstore/product/iogp-report-624-01-common-industry-
technical-specification-for-the-calibration-verification-of-usbl-positioning-syste
ms/
39.​Guidance on vessel USBL systems for use in offshore survey, positioning and DP
operations, diakses September 14, 2025,
https://www.imca-int.com/resources/technical-library/document/c5f5885b-c55b-
ee11-8def-6045bdd0ecdb/
40.​Ultra-Short Baseline USBL Subsea Acoustic Positioning - Exail, diakses September
14, 2025,
https://www.exail.com/product-range/ultra-short-baseline-usbl-solutions
41.​How to align Gyro USBL to the vessel frame of reference - Sonardyne, diakses
September 14, 2025,
https://www.sonardyne.com/products-knowledge-base/how-to-align-gyro-usbl-
to-the-vessel-frame-of-reference/