Journal of Oceanography

, 65:81 | Cite as

An estimation of the average lifetime of the latest model of APEX floats

  • Taiyo Kobayashi
  • Brian A. King
  • Nobuyuki Shikama
Short Contribution

Abstract

Estimating the average lifetime of floats is very important for Argo, because the total cost of maintaining the monitoring network largely depends on float lifetime. However, the actual lifetime of floats used in Argo is currently unknown. An estimate can be made by examining past float survival, but this is complicated by floats still operating at sea and continuous improvements in float hardware. Because APEX (Autonomous Profiling Explorer) floats are the most widely deployed type of float in the world oceans, in this study we estimate the lifetime of the latest model of APEX powered by alkaline batteries. The expected lifetime is estimated with a statistical method that allows for floats that are still active and that failed because of a known and now fixed hardware fault that should not cause failure in the latest model of floats. As an example, we analyzed the APEX fleets managed by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), because we have access to a JAMSTEC database in which the causes of float failure have been carefully correlated to known hardware problems. Analysis of the JAMSTEC fleet (n = 571, as of 7 May 2008) indicated that the expected lifetime of the latest model of APEX is 134.6 (127.6–141.5, considering standard errors) cycles, equivalent to 3.7 years of 10-day cycles. We conclude that the annual deployment of 813 (773–859) APEX floats is needed to maintain the Argo observational network of 3000 floats. Floats with different hardware configurations (e.g., lithium batteries) or different mission programs (e.g., shallower profiling, deeper profiling every several cycles) may be expected to have an even longer lifetime.

Keywords

Argo project profiling float lifetime 

References

  1. Argo Information Centre (2005): Monitoring/float decay. Web site of Argo Information Centre (available from http://wo.jcommops.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Argo).
  2. Argo Project Office (2005): Report of the Argo executive meeting. Argonautics, Newsletter of the International Argo Project, 6, 6 (available from web site of Argo Project Office, http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/).Google Scholar
  3. Argo Science Team (2000): Report of the Argo Science Team 2nd Meeting. The Argo Science Team 2nd Meeting, 7–9 March 2000, Southampton Oceanography Centre, Southampton, U.K., 35 pp. (available from web site of Argo Project Office, http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/).Google Scholar
  4. Argo Science Team (2001): Argo: the global array of profiling floats. p. 248–258. In Observing the Oceans in the 21st Century, ed. by C. J. Koblinsky and N. R. Smith, Godae Project Office, Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Argo Science Team (2002): Report of the Argo Science Team 4th Meeting. The Argo Science Team 4th Meeting, 12–14 March 2002, Division of Marine Sciences, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, 47 pp. (available from web site of Argo Project Office, http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/).Google Scholar
  6. Argo Science Team (2003): Report of the Argo Science Team 5th Meeting. The Argo Science Team 5th Meeting, 6–8 March 2003, Second Institute of Oceanography, Hangzhou, China, 66 pp. (available from web site of Argo Project Office, http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/).Google Scholar
  7. Argo Science Team (2004): Report of the Argo Science Team 6th Meeting. The Argo Science Team 6th Meeting, 9–11 March 2004, Institut Francais de Recherche pour l’ Exploitation de la Mer, Brest, France, 69 pp. (available from web site of Argo Project Office, http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/).Google Scholar
  8. Argo Steering Team (2006): Report of the international Argo Science Team 7th Meeting. The Argo Steering Team 7th Meeting, 16–18 January 2006, National Center for Ocean Information Services, Hyderabad, India, 99 pp. (available from web site of Argo Project Office, http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/).Google Scholar
  9. Iwasaka, N., T. Suga, K. Takeuchi, K. Mizuno, Y. Takatsuki, K. Ando, T. Kobayashi, E. Oka, Y. Ichikawa, M. Miyazaki, H. Matsuura, K. Izawa, C. S. Yang, N. Shikama and M. Aoshima (2003): Pre-Japan-ARGO: Experimental observation of upper and middle layers south of the Kuroshio Extension region using profiling floats. J. Oceanogr., 59, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Izawa, K., K. Mizuno, M. Miyazaki, A. Inoue, K. Ando, Y. Takatsuki, T. Kobayashi and K. Takeuchi (2002): On the weight adjustment of profiling floats. ARGO Technical Report FY2001, Japan Marine Science and Technology Center, 18–35.Google Scholar
  11. Kaplan, E. L. and M. Meier (1958): Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc., 53, 457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klatt, O., O. Boebel and E. Fahrbach (2007): A profiling float’s sense of ice. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 24, 1301–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Oka, E. (2005): Long-term sensor drift found in recovered Argo profiling floats. J. Oceanogr., 61, 775–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oka, E. and K. Ando (2004): Stability of temperature and conductivity sensors of Argo profiling floats. J. Oceanogr., 60, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reste, S. L., S. L. Bras and G. Loaec (2005): Provor profiling floats performances and improvements. Argo Executive Meeting, 14–16 February 2005, Perth, Australia, 4 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Riser, S. and S. Wijffels (2005): Report from the 1st Argo technical workshop. The 1st Argo Technical Workshop, 19–21 September, University of Washington, Seattle, U.S., 28 pp. (available from web site of Argo Project Office, http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/).Google Scholar
  17. Roemmich, D. (2005): The status of SOLO float technology. Argo Executive Meeting, 14–16 February 2005, Perth, Australia, 2 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Roemmich, D., S. Riser, R. Davis and Y. Desaubies (2004): Autonomous profiling floats: Workhorse for broad-scale ocean observations. Mar. Technol. Soc. J., 38(2), 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shikama, N. (2005): Japanese national report. Argo Executive Meeting, 14–16 February 2005, Perth, Australia, 5 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Shikama, N., E. Oka, K. Ando, H. Nakajima, K. Suehiro, T. Takashiba, K. Mizuno and K. Uehara (2003): Recovery of Argo floats. First Argo Science Workshop, 12–14 November 2003, Tokyo, Japan, Japan Marine Science and Technology Center and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  21. Sybrandy, A. L. and P. P. Niiler (1991): The WOCE/TOGA SVP Lagrangian drifter construction manual. WOCE Rep. 63/91, SIO ref. 91–6, 58 pp.Google Scholar
  22. WOCE International Project Office (1991): Report of the fourth meeting of the WOCE/TOGA Surface Velocity Programme Planning Committee, SVP-4. WOCE Rep. 77/91, 8–9 April 1991, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, U.S.A., 39 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taiyo Kobayashi
    • 1
  • Brian A. King
    • 2
  • Nobuyuki Shikama
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Observational Research for Global ChangeJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and TechnologyKanagawaJapan
  2. 2.National Oceanography CentreSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations