1 / 17

Argus as an Coastal Engineering Tool - Validation through Comparisons with Traditional Methods

Argus as an Coastal Engineering Tool - Validation through Comparisons with Traditional Methods. Joan Oltman-Shay, Matt Pruis, and Dave Berliner Sponsored (Requested) by: USACE Portland District. Background: Argus Monitoring at North Head.

jamese
Télécharger la présentation

Argus as an Coastal Engineering Tool - Validation through Comparisons with Traditional Methods

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Argus as an Coastal Engineering Tool - Validation through Comparisons with Traditional Methods Joan Oltman-Shay, Matt Pruis, and Dave Berliner Sponsored (Requested) by: USACE Portland District

  2. Background: Argus Monitoring at North Head • Sponsor: US Army Corps of Engineers – Portland District • Project Objectives: • Survey the intertidal zone of Benson Beach, north of the Mouth of the Columbia River • Develop a process understanding of sediment transport on Benson Beach • Provide an “informed” opinion of best location(s) for dredge material disposal within the littoral cell (beneficial use of dredged sands)

  3. Eight cameras looking south 50mm lenses Jetties, MCR, and the great state of Oregon in the distance

  4. 4km 1km North Head Lighthouse Site E MCR 2 miles; 3.22 km

  5. USACE District Experience with Argus • The bosses of Corps project engineers do not “know” Argus from Adam • Proof of Argus methods is therefore needed • e.g., comparison with “traditional” survey methods like RTK GPS • Comparison #1: Where is the painted rock? • Comparison #2: Intertidal bathmetry comparision with RTK GPS • Result: Identification of “best-use” images and parameters for intertidal bathymetry mapping • Only use images collected during flood tides • “Measure” foreshore beach slope for each survey day

  6. 2005 Request: Location of Painted Stones ? Comparison #1:GPS vs Argus: Location of the White Rocks Argus Answer: A creative X,Y, Z solution Results: The contract has continued.

  7. Comparison #2: Traditional vs ArgusIntertidal Bathymetry Surveys • RTK GPS “Traditional” Surveys • Peter Ruggiero and George Kaminsky • USACE Portand District funding • Bi-annual surveys of Benson Beach and the larger Columbia River Littoral Cell • 6 surveys between Feb 2004 and Nov 2005 coincide with Argus acquisition of good images • No fog, Hrms < 2m, large tidal range

  8. Sept 2005 • Argus intertidal bathymetry surveys: • Tools from Delft’s ARE • Shoreline Detection: Pixel Intensity Clustering Method of Aarninkof and Roelvink (1999) • Shoreline Elevation: Zwl = Ztide + Zwvsetup + (Kosc)Zswash (Battjes&Jannsen, 1978; Svendsen, 1984; Stive and DeVriend, 1994; Aarninkof&Roelvink, 1999) Note: Zwvsetup and Zswash are a function of Hrms, Tpk, and foreshore beach slope) Sept 2006 Contours span 4m elevation

  9. Warning: Foreshore beach slope can changea lot…and often The alongshore average (2km) intertidal (0.5-1.5m NAVD88) beach slope determined from an initial (beach slope fixed at 0.025) Argus intertidal bathymetry

  10. Argus and RTK GPS Comparisons: Flood vs Flood & Ebb Tide Images Flood & ebb images Flood only images Argus contour elevations compared with the average elevation of the interpolated GPS-Buggy data along each of the Argus x,y contours (Aarninkhof method).

  11. Argus and RTK GPS Comparisons: Flood vs Flood & Ebb Tide Images

  12. Argus and RTK GPS Comparisons: Fixed vs “Measured” Foreshore Slope

  13. A Picture is Worth A Thousand Words MHW Shoreline

  14. Summary • RMS errors of O(10cm) between RTK GPS and Argus surveys at North Head can be achieved if: • Argus uses only images acquired during flood tides • rms errors reduced by as much as 20cm • the Argus waterline elevation model uses a timely “measured” foreshore slope • An one-step, iterative method of first estimating foreshore slope from Argus contour elevations estimated with a fixed beach slope and then corrected with the “measured” foreshore slope improved comparisons • rms errors reduced by as much as 15cm • you don’t have to re-pick contours to do this

  15. Reprocessing North Head Contour Data • We’re going back through 30+ months of Argus images and constraining (“filtering”) our contour for: • Flood tide images • Flood tidal ranges spanning nominally 1 to 3m NAVD88 • Hrms < nominally 2m* • Tpk < nominally 15sec* • We use autogeom to also help us identify and filter good quality images (good geometry solutions = good images … no fog at North Head) • This is a critically important time saver * Minimizing Hrms and Tpk reduces the magnitude of wave setup and swash (model error); we presently use Hrms < 1m in summer, < 2.5m in winter and do not constrainTpk. This exercise has given us great confidence in the ARE waterline elevation model

  16. NorthWest Research Associates (NWRA)Bellevue, WA NWRA is a scientific research group, owned and operated by its Principal Investigators, with expertise in the geophysical and related sciences.

More Related