1 / 62

Common Data Set Comparison: the GeoSwath Plus Interferometric Sonar vs Beamforming Multibeam Data

Common Data Set Comparison: the GeoSwath Plus Interferometric Sonar vs Beamforming Multibeam Data. Shallow Survey 2008 Tom Hiller, Advanced Products Manager, GeoAcoustics Ltd. James Baxter, Senior Engineer, GeoAcoustics Ltd. Presentation Overview: - Collecting the GeoSwath Dataset

verda
Télécharger la présentation

Common Data Set Comparison: the GeoSwath Plus Interferometric Sonar vs Beamforming Multibeam Data

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. Common Data Set Comparison: the GeoSwath Plus Interferometric Sonar vs Beamforming Multibeam Data Shallow Survey 2008 Tom Hiller, Advanced Products Manager, GeoAcoustics Ltd. James Baxter, Senior Engineer, GeoAcoustics Ltd. WORLD CLASS – through people, technology and dedication

  2. Presentation Overview: • - Collecting the GeoSwath Dataset • Data Processing • The GeoSwath Data Results • Comparison Areas • Conclusions

  3. Collecting the GeoSwath Dataset

  4. GeoSwath Plus Survey of Portsmouth Harbour Survey date: week of 20th July 2008 Sonar: GeoSwath Plus 500KHz Attitude and position: POS MV with RTK GPS

  5. Vessel and mount: R/V Coastal Surveyor - Captain Ben Smith Sonar on vessel’s bow mounted - including subsea POS-MV housing

  6. The GeoSwath interferometric sonar Side scan transmit geometry Simultaneous bathymetry and amplitude data products

  7. Sonar Geometry e d c b a

  8. The GeoAcoustics GeoSwath Plus

  9. Other Equipment Used: • Boat’s bow mount • 500kHz GeoSwath Plus • RTK positioning • POSMV Attitude • POSMV Heading • Valeport Mini-SVS • Valeport SVP sensor • Tritech Echosounder • 1PPS Timing • 50Hz attitude • 10Hz position • Local tide data

  10. Line Planning Depths: 4m to 25m Side-scan search pattern (= every object has a shadow). Used 45m range setting which gave 15 pps (=7pps/side) Survey speed ~6kts = average of 2.3 pings/m In>7m depth: Processed Bathy Swath Width: 80m (40m per side) Line spacing: alternate 30m/60m In<7m depth: Processed Bathy Swath width 70m (35m per side) Line spacing: alternate 25m/50m

  11. Run Lines in 3 areas; near shore, southern and northern

  12. GeoSwath Data Processing Amplitude filtering▼Statistical filtering▼Binning Key steps:

  13. Filtering data in the shallow areas Essentially a very simple methodology: use additional information (e.g. amplitude) and information from dense local data to flag non-matching points as outliers. Outliers will not contribute to gridded depths

  14. Filtering data in the deeper areas

  15. Every point shown (10-250 in each 1m bin) 1m Gridded data

  16. Some Notes on the Ancillary Data

  17. Typical motion data (500s of data shown below) Roll 8 deg Pitch 5 deg Heave 1m

  18. SV Dips Typical SV gives 50cm corrections at swath edges

  19. Three SV Dips in same area 1 hour apart

  20. Three near shore SV Dips

  21. Changes in Sound Velocity at the head Near-Coast Line CTS001 (N-S) 2m/s Sound Velocity at the head

  22. Line CTS005 (N-S) 2m/s Sound Velocity at the head

  23. Line CTS038 (N-S) 2m/s Sound Velocity at the head

  24. Cross-Line CTS060 (E-W) 5m/s Sound Velocity at the head

  25. Sound Velocity compared to dynamic transducer depth Roll Pitch Heave Blue: Pitch (range -2.7º to +2.4º) Black: miniSVS (range 1507.3m/s to 1510.1m/s) Heave range is -0.42m 0.46m, ~5s period 1 minute of data is shown from the middle of line CT038

  26. The Survey Results

  27. The Area Covered: ~4200m x ~1250mabout 20 hours of running lines

  28. Area covered in context

  29. Looking at the Southern Area in more Detail 2km

  30. 1m contours

  31. A profile from the 1m contour

  32. The rocky coastal areas 100m

  33. 100m Near-shore detail 5cm contours, 4m deep (NW corner) to 6m deep (SE)

  34. The GeoSwath Mosaic

  35. Lots of Lobster Pots

  36. Shoals and rocks

  37. A detailed look at part of one line: centre of CT038

  38. Profile along the line (A-B): N B A m

  39. Details of the rocky section

  40. Geology details and a drag mark

  41. Edge of rocks and a flatter section

  42. Small heave artefacts in the flat area 2cm 130m profile along a ~flat part of line CTS038

  43. m Resolving Objects

  44. 3D visualisation and georeferenced mosaic overlay

  45. Data Comparisons

  46. Three data sets with (some) overlap were available • EM3002D • Reson 7125 (to ellipsoid) • GeoSwath Plus 500kHz (to tide datum) • Note that not all the data were available for comparison, see next slide.

  47. GeoSwath and EM3002 overlap Dashed box shows overlap : overlap for available 7125 data was similar

  48. Overall differences of the overlap areas • GeoSwath – EM3002D: 20cm mean difference, 6cm SD • GeoSwath – 7125: 29.48m mean difference, 7cm SD • 7125 – EM3002D: 29.28m mean difference, 5.5cm SD

  49. Notes Processing paths for EM and 7125 data unknown: supplied as 1m xyz, probably smoothed & re-gridded? 7125 was referenced to the ellipsoid. The reason for the bust between EM and GS+ data has not been tracked down yet. The following comparison images have been made after offsetting data to the same mean, for clarity. Slight positioning differences of features in the 3 datsets: grid processing effects?

More Related