A Spar Buoy Design for Oceanographic

Data Telemetry
Donald 0. Hodgins
Seaconsult Marine Research Ltd, Vancouver, British Columbia
and
Brian N. Lea
Dobrocky Seatech (Nfid) Limited, St John’s, Newfoundland

[Original manuscript received 10 February 1981; in revised form, 3 July 19811

ABSTFLWT The design of a spar buoy, employed as one component of a current

monitoring system deployed during 1980in Davis Strait, and some of its response
characteristics to ocean wavesare presented. The buoy was36.5ft (Il. 13m) in length
with Upperand lower masts0.5ft (15.2 cm) in diameter and buoyancy hulls, centrally
located, 2ft (61.Ocm) in diameter. Powerfor the system wassuppliedfrom lead-acid
batteries in a ballast tank on the lower end. Telemetty electronics werelocatedin a l-ft
(30.5-cm)diameter caseon the Upperend, below the antenna. The buoy weighedabout
1,635lb (746kg) and could be man-handled at sea with relatively light lifting
equipment. It had a dampedperiod of 16sand a signijicant heave responseof about
62%of the significant wave height of theforcing spectrum. Scalemode1testsindicated
that the buoy would be operational in heavy seaswell up to about 20ft in height with
pitching anglesof lessthan 10” off vertical. Observations at seabave shown that the
buoyfollowed swellwaves better than the 62%heave responsefigurewould imply and
had negligiblepitching motions except during severestorms. Thedesignwasjudged to
be successfulinproviding a stablebasefor VHF transmissionand is recommendedfor
usein other applications.

RÉSUMÉ On présente dans cet article les caractéristiques et le comportement dans

les vagues du large, d’une bouée Spar qui forme une composante intégrale d’un
systèmede surveillance du courant dansle détroit de Davis, institué en 1980.La bouée
a 36.5 pieds (11.13m) de long et possèdeun mât supérieur et inférieur de 0.5 pied
(15.2cm) de diamètre chacun, et une coque de jlotabilité de Ipieds (61.Ocm) de
diamètre situé au centre de la bouée.L’alimentation est assuréepar despiles à plomb
et à acide situéesdans un caissonde lest logé dans la partie inférieure. Les circuits
électroniques de télémétrie se retrouvent dans une boîte d’un pied (30.5cm) de
diamètre logéedansla partie supérieureau dessousde l’antenne. La bouéepèse1,635
livres (746kg) environ et peut être manipuléeen mer à l’aide de grues légères.Elle a
une période amortie de 16s et une réponseégale à 62% de la hauteur de la vague
signihcative du spectreforçant. Les épreuvesmenéessur les modèlesrévèlent que la

ATMOSPHERE-OCEAN 19 (2) 1981, 158-171 0705-5900/81/0000-0158$01.25/0

@Canadian Meterological and Oceanographic Society
 A Spar Buoy Design for Oceanographic Data Teiemetry / 159

bouée demeure opérationnelle dans des houles sévères atteignant jusqu’à 20pieds de
hauteur, et l’angle du tangage est inférieur à 10” de la verticale. Les observations en
mer révèlent que la bouée suivait les houles de merplus$dèlement qu’une réponse de
62% aurait suggéré et avait un tangage négligeable excepté au cours des tempêtes
violentes. On juge que la conception de cette bouée est un succès qui offre une base
stable pour la transmission à B.m et l’on recommande son application à d’autres
usages.

1 Introduction
The telemetry of ocean current and water property data gathered on deep
water moorings with conventional instruments is an important method of
acquiring information at sea. It allows these data to be used in a real-time
manner, for example, by offshore drilling operators for detecting interna1
waves or monitoring currents for oil spill and ice motion prediction, and it
offers scientific investigators the ability to greatly increase sampling rates,
since data cari be logged and processed at manned stations with sophisticated
equipment.
A critical element of any system based on VHF transmission is the
surface-piercing buoy containing at a minimum the transmitter and its
antenna. In this paper we report on the design and behaviour of a spar buoy,
deployed during August and September 1980 in Davis Strait, as the surface
component on three separate current-meter moorings. When faced with the
problem of designing the buoy we discovered a dearth of practical experience
to draw upon for the behaviour of a spar light enough to be managed at sea by a
small boat and crew, and yet able to withstand open ocean wave conditions.
Thus, we approached its design from first principles, guided by the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution’s 53-ft spar buoy (see Berteaux, 1976, pp. 89
and 215). Our observations of its behaviour in the field have shown the new
design to be a success; on September 18, for example, it continued to transmit
throughout a severe storm with 45kt winds and a 20-ft sea. (
We felt, therefore, that the buoy design and our observations of its
behaviour would be of interest to other oceanographers who may be
contemplating similar projects. In this paper we have concentrated on the
spar buoy itself - the put-pose and composition of the entire system are topics
covered in a separate communication (Hodgins and Westergard, 1981). TO
provide some background for the project, however, the system configuration
is shown in Fig. 1. Two of the moorings contained two InterOcean 195RX
electromagnetic current meters (15- and 30-m depths) while the third mooring
held three such meters at 15,30 and 120 m. Al1 subsurface moorings were of
conventional design, taking the drag force of the spar buoy into account. The
main subsurface buoyancy was provided with a 58-in. (1.47-m) steel sphere on
each mooring. Reserve buoyancy was obtained with 37-in. (0.94-m) steel
spheres. Each current meter was hardwired to the spar buoy via the tether
connecting the spar to the uppermost subsurface buoy.
 160 / Donald 0. Hodgins and Brian N. Lea

spar buoys -
6
telemetry

Aanderaa
RCM- 4
,a (self-
recording)
200m

I I I
4 n.m. 2 n.m. 1 n.m. 0
South North
west East

Fig. 1 Configuration of the current-metering system deployed in Davis Strait.

Each spar buoy had three functions: it powered the current meters and
transmitters, preprocessed the current data for transmission, and served as a
stable base for the antenna. As shown schematically in Fig.’ 1, the drillship
Ben Ocean Lancer served as the reception base for the data.

2 The buoy design

Our design of the spar buoy was conditioned by the following five objectives:
1) To minimize the total weight and projected area so as to minimize
deployment and recovery problems at sea and water and wind drag
forces, without sacrificing structural rigidity.
2) To optimize the distribution of buoyancy and ballast elements to give the
maximum righting moment while minimizing the heave and pitch
response to swell waves.
3) To optimize the tether point attachment so as to minimize tilt in large
currents, without worsening the buoy response to waves.
4) To make the buoy large enough to withstand the wave climate, and strong
 A Spar Buoy Design for Oceanographic Data Telemetry / 161

Tripod with
liqht 8 radar
rrtlrctor

Transmitter
housing 1’ 0 Al

Upper mart
foam tilled
6”6 Al

Main buoyancy
hull - ‘Opm
tilled
2’ 6 Al

Lower mast
water filled
with drainage

2I*.-
ports
6” d Al pipe

,o MODEL DIMENSIONS
IN INCHES OVER
Ballast tank PROTOTYPE DIMENSIONS
containing batteries
IN FEET
2’ I Al
PROTOTYPE : MODEL = 30 : I

(a) (b)
Fig. 2 Spar buoy a - Prototype design
b - Scale model.

enough to survive some level of ice or supply boat impact sufficiently well
to permit field repair.
5) To utilize readily available materials to meet our fabrication schedule (8
weeks).
The final design is shown in Fig. 2a*. The buoyancy hulls - both the
*Both S.I. and British units are used throughout this paper. Because many manufacturers’
specifications are presently in British units it was necessary to do the design in these units, and we
decided to retain them here in discussing the buoy itself. Wave and mooring data are presented in
S.I. units where practical. Where British units appear first they are followed by their S.I.
equivalent in parentheses.
 162 / Donald 0. Hodgins and Brian N. Lea

cylindrical and tapered sections - were formed from l/4-in. (6.35mm)

6061-T6 aluminum plate. During fabrication the tanks were filled with
expanding polyurethane foam. As shown in Fig. 2 the buoy could be
assembled by bolting the flange plates together between the buoyancy tanks,
making shipping and handling easier. The lower mast extended through the
cylindrical tank and was welded to its upper flange plate increasing the
structural rigidity. Both upper and lower masts were made of 6-in. (15.3-cm)
diameter schedule 40 6351-T6 aluminum pipe. The lower mast filled with
water when submerged through ports adjacent to each end plate thus
effectively increasing the buoy’s mass under dynamic forcing.
Importantly though, the lower mast was also foamed where it passed
through the buoyancy hull so that only the lower 8 ft were water filled.
Similarly the upper mast was foamed to the transmitter housing and welded
to the lower flange plate. The signal processor and transmitter electronics
were contained in the upper housing (l-ft (30.5cm) diameter welded
aluminum, l/4-in. (6.35-mm) thick). Above this we placed a 5-ft (1.52-m)
aluminum tube tripod which held the antenna. Power was supplied to the
upper housing with Brantner sealed cables (through-hull fittings top and
bottom) secured to the exterior of the buoy.
Power was supplied by two lead-acid batteries mounted in the ballast tank.
Additional lead ballast was added to an accessible compartment, separate
from the sealed power supply, to trim the buoys to leave 7 ft of mast above the
still water level (SWL).
The tether point, giving a near-zero overturning moment in the anticipated
3-kt currents, was located on the lower flange of the cylindrical buoyancy hull.
In trials, however, we found that this attachment point could be varied by
about + 12 in. (30.5 cm) without producing any appreciable overturning
tendency. All flange plates were cut from l/2-in. (1.27-cm) 6061 -T6 aluminum
plate.
The half-wave dipole antenna was fastened in a socket to the upper plate of
the tripod. This part of the design proved to be a weak point since we found
that the antenna had broken just above the socket a day or two after a severe
storm on September 25. This failure presumably resulted from a type of
pitch-induced fatigue. In future deployments a lighter and stronger whip
antenna will be used to eliminate this problem.

3 Some response characteristics

a Theoretical Calculations
One of the most important parameters to be determined during the design
process was the heave response to wave forcing. The simplest equation
governing this single degree of freedom motion is (Berteaux, 1976, p. 56):
i + 2n.t + p*x = (F&n,) cos(m + 0) (1)
where
X = the vertical displacement of the buoy water line with respect to the still
water level,
 A Spar Buoy Design for Oceanographic Data Telemetry / 163

Fig. 3 A dimensional sketch showing the observed free heave response of the prototype spar
buoy.

n = b/2 m,,
b = the linear damping coefficient (to be found),
m, = the virtual mass (actual plus added mass),
P = natural heave frequency,
FCI = the exciting force (see below),
0 = the exciting wave frequency,
CJ = the phase angle between the force and the wave (see below).
One of the main difficulties in evaluating solutions to (1) lies in determining
numerical values for b and m,. From the solution for damped free oscillations
the damped period, Td, is related to p and n by
Td = 27&m. (2)
By measuring (or estimating) Td and the amplitude of free oscillations over
successive cycles, IZ can be calculated from the logarithmic decrement of
amplitudes according to
n Td = In (A,&+,). (3)
Figure 3 shows the damped response of our buoy, obtained by submerging
the upper mast nearly to the transmitter housing and allowing it to move
freely. The design proved to be so highly damped that the 16-s period was
difficult to determine accurately, as was the approximately 1-ft amplitude on
the second cycle. The experiment was, in fact, repeated three times and the
period and amplitude values averaged. Periods were obtained by timing the
up-crossing points of the SWL (painted on the buoy) with the sweep second
hand on a watch. We estimate the accuracy here to be about I!I 1 s. One-foot
increments were also marked on the upper mast and used to estimate the
 164 / Donald 0. Hodgins and Brian N. Lea

amplitudes to within kO.25 ft (7.6cm). The effects of these errors on the

calculated heave response are discussed later. Solving (3) for n gives
0.112 s-i. Hence, from (2) the natural heave frequency p = 0.408 s-l, corre-
sponding to a period of 15.4 s.
The restoring constant, C, for the buoy is pg&, where A, is the upper mast
cross-sectional area; C = 12.53 lb ft-’ (182 N m-i) in this design. By defini-
tion p2 = C/m,, hence m, = 75.4 slugs (1100 kg). Since the actual weight is
about 51.1 slugs (746 kg), the added mass, m’, is approximately 24.3 slugs
(355 kg). The submerged volume (to the SWL) is 20.5 ft3 (0.58 m3); thus, with
p = 1.99 slugs fte3 (1024 kg mP3) the added mass coefficient, C,,,, is approxi-
mately 0.66. Finally, b = 2 nm, or 16.9 slugs SK’ (247 kg s-l).
The forced wave solution of (l), written normalized with respect to the
wave amplitude, r, is (Berteaux, 1976, p. 58):

x-=- e-kD (C - m’02)2 + (bo)2

r cp2 -"2)2 + 4n202 cos(“t+++o) (4)
mu J
where
r = forcing wave amplitude
k = 2n/L, the wavenumber,
L = wavelength,
D = the buoy draft,
4 = tan-’ [-2no/(p2 - 02)], and
o = tan-’ [-bo/(C - m ‘02)]
In this solution the wave forces are considered to act on the ballast tank at
draft D; hence, the eekD term in (4).
When cos(ot + 4 + o) = 0 the expression in (4) gives the maximum heave
for a wave component of amplitude r and frequency o. This curve, called the
Response Amplitude Operator (RAO) and denoted by Y(f), evaluated
using the parameters derived above, is shown in Fig. 4a for a range of wave
frequencies covering open-ocean conditions.
A typical energy spectrum, S(f), for offshore Labrador and Davis Strait is
also shown in Fig. 4a, calculated by the Marine Environmental Data Service
from Datawell Waverider buoy data. The peak period is 11.4 s and the
spectrum is characteristic of a sea state where swell predominates. The
corresponding significant wave height, H,, is 6.4 m. Taking this as represen-
tative of a design sea state for the spar buoy, the mean square heave height,

=sm
p, was calculated as the statistical response to this spectrum, i.e.

p =s yY.fwJwf
0
RWd! 0
(5)

where S(f) and Ycf) are defined in Fig. 4a. The heave response spectrum R(f)
= Pcf>.S(f) is shown in Fig. 4b. The shaded portions of Ycf) and R(f) show
the bounds corresponding to the errors in the ,measured values of Td and
AiIAi+1-
 A Spar Buoy Design for Oceanographic Data Telemetry / 165

Denoting the significant heave by h, we found that

h,=&p
= 4.0 m, (6)

analogous to the definition of H,. This value is approximately 62% of the

significant wave height, H, (6.4 m) and results mainly from the separation of
the peaks of Ycf) and S(f). Observations of the spar behaviour during its
deployment indicated that it followed swell waves rather better than this
percentage would imply, suggesting that the buoy’s damped period is slightly
lower than the 16 s indicated in Fig. 3. It is clear, however, that statistically the
buoy tends to heave somewhat less than the wave heights. This is desirable, in
that resonance with swell is not likely to occur, but at the cost of having the
wave crests run up the buoy mast. This feature is discussed further below in
light of the scale-model test results. That resonance can indeed occur in buoys
with low damping is shown in the model results of Adee and Bai (1970).
The estimate of Y(f) is very sensitive to errors in the estimate of p and
hence in Td and Ai/Ai+l , since asp + o the value of Y(p) becomes large. Thus
ifin Fig. 4, p is overestimated, the peaks in Y(j) and S(f) are separated and
such parameters as h, are underestimated. For example, solving for the
significant heave height with Td = 15 s (AJA,,, = 6) gives h, = 5.02 m or
78% of H,. Since this value differs so much from the value found previously,
one must be very cautious in basing the design solely on this type of
calculation.

b Scale Model Tests

Therefore, in order to lend support to the results calculated above, and to
examine the buoy’s pitch response, a number of scale-model tests were
conducted. A drawing of the 30: 1 (prototype:model) scale model is shown in
Fig. 2b. It was made from the same or similar materials as the prototype buoy,
but some compromises were necessary to achieve the correct weight-to-
buoyancy relationship. Specifically the antenna, tripod and’ instrument
housing were omitted and the buoy hull and cone were slightly increased in
size from the true scale.
Five tests were designed to look at the response to swell waves of varying
amplitude. The forcing wave was scaled in time to preserve the ratio of the
prototype wave period (12 s) to the damped heave period (16 s), i.e.

T, (model) = Td (model) x T, (prototype)/T, (prototype)

= 3.1 x 12/16 = 2.3 s, (7)

where the damped model period (3.1 s) was measured in the same way as the
prototype.
To preserve dynamic similitude between the model and prototype wave
and heave motions it remained to establish the correct scaling for the length
scale, C. For modelling the heave motion of axisymmetric floating bodies the
scaling of heave to wave amplitude is a function only of C/h, where h is the
 166 / Donald 0. Hodgins and Brian N. Lea

60
Heave Response
Spectrum

2 40
“E
2
E

20
(b)

1
.! 5
f(Hd
Fig. 4 a - A typical design energy spectrum for waves in the Labrador Sea Scf) and the Response
Amplitude Operator YCf) for the spar buoy
b - The heave response spectrum Rcf)

wavelength of deep water waves (Newman, 1977, p. 42). Since h = 2ng/oz,

c!,:&, is simply related to the wave periods,

a value very close to the model scale. (We note that this scaling is equivalent
to Froude scaling in oscillatory flows. Ordinary Froude scaling is not
applicable since there is no time-steady velocity scale established in the
experiment; in this case, the dimensionless parameter is oe’l\/ge, where u
 A Spar Buoy Design for Oceanographic Data Telemetry / 167

in the Froude number has been replaced by CM. Equation (8) is readily derived
from this expression.)
Three criteria were used to judge the model response: how well it followed
the waves - i.e. did it plunge in the waves and threaten to submerge -, the
wash level, and the tilt angle, both recorded as maxima and defined in Fig. 2b.
The “wash level” is a term coined to describe how far water levels produced
by waves rise above the SWL. The results for the five swell tests are shown
in Table 1 (Nos 1 to 5). An average wave period of 2.5 s was, in fact, obtained,
or about 12.9 s in the prototype.
We found that for swell conditions the tilt of the model always remained
small (less than 10”) and maximum wash levels were the equivalent of about
4.8ft, or 2.2ft below the instrument box, for 15ft wave heights. These values
were scaled from the model tests. As anticipated from the difference between
the damped heave and forcing wave periods, the buoy lagged the wave crest,
allowing the wave to run up the upper mast and produce such a high wash
level. Had the buoy’s damped period been more closely matched to the swell
period it presumably would have followed the waves better, but may also
have been closer to a resonant condition. Thus for swell waves up to about
15 ft in height we did not anticipate any serious problems due to overtopping
or excessive pitching. In fact, the model buoy was found to be very stable
during these tests,
In the remaining three tests the wave periods were reduced and amplitudes
kept large (Nos 6 and 7) and moderate (No. 8). Test No. 7 corresponded to
the largest waves that could be generated in the flume with this wave period
and, in fact, swamped the buoy. The greatest pitching motion at low wash
levels (i.e. where it was not swamped) corresponded to the shortest wave
periods (5.2-s prototype) in test No. 8. These three “short” wave tests were
much more severe than prototype conditions because of flume limitations. In
each case the wave speed was measured together with the period, and the
wavelength calculated. These were compared with the equivalent prototype
wavelengths for deep water waves. When scaled up, the test waves were
found to be only about one-half the length of deep water waves with the
equivalent period and amplitude, and hence much steeper than ocean waves.
Thus, because the buoy performed adequately (taking test No. 6 as its limit)
under these wave conditions we were much more confident that it could do its
job in Davis Strait.
The prototype buoy is shown in Figs 5a and b and the model is seen in Fig.
5c during one of the short-wave tests. Figure 5b is a photograph taken during
towing tests to determine whether this buoy would tilt seriously when
tethered in high currents and to determine how much drag force the buoy
would exert on its subsurface mooring. This is clearly an important parameter
for the mooring design, and our results are shown in Table 2. The prototype
buoy was towed behind a small boat and the tension in the tow line was
measured with a dynamometer in the line. The boat’s speed was obtained
from successive radar fixes on a shoreline building. The measurement
TABLE 1. Results from the model tests

Model Conditions Prototype Conditions

Wave Wave Wave Wave Model Buoy Response

Heighta Period Heighta Period Tilt From
Test f&R T7## HP Wave Wash Heightb Vertical
No. (in.) (9 (ft) Effect (ft) (deg.)

Tethered Buoy
1 2.4 2.5 5.4 12.9 buoy follows -0.7 -0
wave well
2.6 13.4 7, -1.2 -0
2 2.6 5.9
3 3.8 2.5 8.6 12.9 -1.7 -0
4 5.7 2.5 12.8 12.9 buoy follows -2.6 <lo”
wave moderately
well
7,
5 6.5 2.6 14.6 13.4 -4.8 <lo”
Untethered Buoy
6 6.0 1.4 13.5 8.1 1,
-3 -15”
7 6.4 1.2 14.4 7.0 wave interacts -7 < 25”
with buoy
8 3.0 1.0 6.8 5.2 wave-buoy- <3 i; 17
interaction fairly
strong

aCrest-to-trough height.
bHighest water level above the SWL in prototype units (ft).
A Spar Buoy Design for Oceanographic Data Telemetry / 169

(b)
Fig. 5 a - The prototype spar buoy
b - The prototype spar buoy under tow
c - The model buoy during flume tests
 170 / Donald 0. Hodgins and Brian N. Lea

TABLE 2. Summary of towing test results

Buoy
Speed Tension Reynolds Drag
Test number Coefficient Water
No. UDlv 2TIpU’A Conditions

2.1 250 0.93 x iv 0.96 dead

::: 300 1.11 x 10s 0.81 calm
475 1.47 x 105 0.74
2.5 400* 1.11 x 1w 1.08 2-ft
3.0 500* 1.33 x 105 0.94 wind wave
Average: 0.91

*Peak values
v = 1.9 x 10-S ft* s-1
D = mast diameter = 0.5 ft
p = 1.987 slugs ft+
A = projected area, 20.9 ft2
accuracies would be about +5% for tension and kO.2 kt for speed. The drag
coefficient averaged 0.91 and was used in our mooring loading calculations.
As shown, the maximum drag force was approximately 5001b at 3 kt in
choppy waves.
We note that the buoy Reynolds numbers shown in Table 2 are below the
range where appreciable drag reduction can occur. This is due to the choice of
the mast diameter for the length scale. If, however, the Reynolds numbers
are calculated using the hull diameter they do fall in the range where drag
reduction may be anticipated at higher flow speeds. This, indeed, seems to be
borne out by the overall drag coefficients shown in Table 2, which decrease
with increasing speed.
It is also interesting to compare the values of line tension that can be
calculated using published drag coefficients (e.g. see Schlichting, 1968, p. 17)
applied to each element of the buoy below the SWL with the measured
tensions. This calculation is shown for two cases, U = 2.1 and 3.3 kt, in Table
3. The agreement with observed values of T is within the measurement
accuracy. The reduction in the overall buoy CD is also predicted and is
produced by the reduction of drag force on the buoyancy hulls and the ballast
tank corresponding to a reduction in drag coefficient for these elements due
to increasing Reynolds number.

4 Conclusions
Our observations of the buoy’s performance in the field showed it to be good,
exceeding, in fact, our expectations from the tests described in Section 3.
Some general conclusions are:
1) The design is workable with no modification to the overall configuration.
It functioned well in heavy sea states, could be manhandled with light
equipment and was durable enough to withstand deployment and
recovery over the stern roller of a supply boat.
2) The analyses outlined above, together with scale-model tests, were
 A Spar Buoy Design for Oceanographic Data Telemetry / 171

TABLE 3. Predicted drag force and drag coefficient for the spar buoy

7J = 2.1 kt U = 3.3 kt
Area 10-SRe GJa C, Area 10mSRe CDs C,. Area
Buoy Element w W) W)
Upper mast 3.75 0.93 1.2 4.50 1.47 1.2 4.50
Tapered
buoy hull 3.13 2.34b 1.1 3.44” 3.67b 0.7 2.19”
Cylindrical
buoy hull 6.00 3.74 0.7 4.2Oe 5.87 0.3 1.8oC
Lower mast 4.00 0.93 1.2 4.80 1.47 1.2 4.80
Ballast tank 4.00 3.74 0.7 2.80c 5.87 0.3 1.20”
Totals 20.88 20.78 15.01
Predicted T 262 lb 464 lb
values CD 1.00 0.72
Measured T 250 lb 475 lb
values, Table 2 CD 0.96 0.74

aFrom Schlichting (1968)

bBased on average diameter
‘Add 10% for end effects
p = 1.987 slugs ft-’
essential parts of the design process and have proved to be reasonably
accurate and to give answers on the safe side.
We recommend this buoy design for use in similar applications.

Acknowledgements
The development of this buoy and mooring system was part of the 1980
drilling operation at Hekja O-71 in Davis Strait carried out by Aquitaine
Company of Canada Ltd as operator for the Baffin-Labrador Group of
companies comprising Aquitaine Company of Canada Limited, Petro-
Canada Exploration Inc., Home Oil Company Ltd, Hudson’s Bay Oil and Gas
Company Ltd, Murphy Oil Ltd, Pancanadian Petroleum Ltd ang SOQUIP.
We thank Aquitaine, and Mr Howard Westergard of that company, for
encouragement and permission to publish this material. The calculation
shown in Table 3 was pointed out to us by Mr W.H. Bell of the Institute of
Ocean Sciences, Patricia Bay.

References
ADEE, B.H. and K.J. BAI. 1970. Experimental measurement with a real-time system. Proc.
studies of the behaviour of spar type stable Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic
platforms in waves. Report NA-70-4. Col- Conditions, POAC 81, Qu6bec City, Qub.,
lege of Engineering, University of Califor- July 27-3 1.
nia, Berkeley. NEWMAN, J.N. 1977. Marine Hydrodynamics.
BERTEAUX, H.O. 1976. Buoy Engineering. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 402 pp.
John Wiley and Sons, New York, 3 14 pp. SCHLICHTING, H. 1968. Boundary Layer
HODGINS, D.O. and H.G. WESTERGARD. 1981. Theory. 6th Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Internal waves in Davis Strait and their