CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28Hydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesHydraulic flow and structuresFlood Risk Assessment and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle (UAV) image velocimetry for validation of two-dimensional hydraulic model simulations

Open access
Masafu, Christopher, Williams, Richard, Shi, Xiaogang, Yuan, Qiangqiang, Trigg, Mark·2022·Journal of Hydrology
DOI 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128217
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Non-intrusive image-based techniques for measuring surface river velocities have rapidly evolved as a cost-effective and safe means for quantifying flow patterns. Large-scale particle image velocimetry (LSPIV) can provide instantaneous surface velocities over a large spatial footprint rapidly and with little pre-calibration as compared to traditional techniques. Assessment of the spatial distribution of flow velocities in hydraulic models has been comparatively harder to achieve than assessment of depth due to logistical challenges but would be aided using large observational datasets that represent the variability and distribution of flow hydraulics. Additionally, the efficacy of image velocimetry in assessing the accuracy of outputs from 2D hydraulic models has not been addressed. Here, we demonstrate how LSPIV can be used to calibrate and validate 2D model predictions in a gravel bed river reach. LSPIV velocities are depth-averaged using standard velocity coefficients ( α ) and then using the Probability Concept (PC) - a probabilistic formulation of velocity distributions that accounts for non-standard velocity profiles, typical in field settings. UAV surveys were used to acquire video for LSPIV and imagery for Structure from Motion (SfM) topographic modelling. We use spatially dense acoustic doppler current profiler (aDcp) velocity data for benchmark assessment of the velocity outputs of HEC-RAS 2D model simulations. 2D model prediction error, based on seeded LSPIV velocities, was within range (4.2%) of the aDcp parametrised model, with improvements in modelled versus predicted velocity correlations (up to 7.7%) when using PC to depth average LSPIV velocities. Validation bias reduced significantly (11%) with tighter error distributions when compared to the aDcp based model. Although additional hydraulic measurements are required to parametrise the Probability Concept algorithm, the performance of 2D hydraulic models calibrated/validated with LSPIV velocities is on par with traditional techniques, demonstrating the potential of this non-intrusive, low-cost approach.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128217

Cites

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 . Fig. 1. (A) Orthomosaic image of the Swindale (351074E 512754 N, British National Grid) study reach (left) and hillshaded SfM DEM (right) showing the extent of the 2D model domain and investigated sub-reaches; (B, C) aDcp survey transects (black traces); (D, E) LSPIV surface velocity.
Fig. 1 . Fig. 1. (A) Orthomosaic image of the Swindale (351074E 512754 N, British National Grid) study reach (left) and hillshaded SfM DEM (right) showing the extent of the 2D model domain and investigated sub-reaches; (B, C) aDcp survey transects (black traces); (D, E) LSPIV surface velocity.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 2 . Fig. 2. Experimental framework.
Fig. 2 . Fig. 2. Experimental framework.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 3 . Fig. 3. Locations of cross-section velocities acquired using a current meter at sub-reach SW2.
Fig. 3 . Fig. 3. Locations of cross-section velocities acquired using a current meter at sub-reach SW2.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 4 . Fig. 4. Calibration results of 2D model simulations at sub-reach SW1. Model M aDcp (a) and model M LSPIV (b) velocity predictions. Scatter plots of aDcp (c) and LSPIV α (d) velocity observations versus model predictions. (In the box plots, the boundary of the box closest to zero indicates the 25th percentile, the black line within the box marks the median, and the boundary of the box farthest from zero indicates the 75th percentile. Points above or below the plots indicate outliers outside the 10th and 90th percentiles).
Fig. 4 . Fig. 4. Calibration results of 2D model simulations at sub-reach SW1. Model M aDcp (a) and model M LSPIV (b) velocity predictions. Scatter plots of aDcp (c) and LSPIV α (d) velocity observations versus model predictions. (In the box plots, the boundary of the box closest to zero indicates the 25th percentile, the black line within the box marks the median, and the boundary of the box farthest from zero indicates the 75th percentile. Points above or below the plots indicate outliers outside the 10th and 90th percentiles).CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 5 . Fig. 5. Validation results of 2D model simulations at sub-reach SW2. Model M aDcp (a) and model M LSPIV (b) velocity predictions. Scatter plots of aDcp (c) and LSPIV α (d) velocity observations versus model predictions.
Fig. 5 . Fig. 5. Validation results of 2D model simulations at sub-reach SW2. Model M aDcp (a) and model M LSPIV (b) velocity predictions. Scatter plots of aDcp (c) and LSPIV α (d) velocity observations versus model predictions.CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 6 . Fig. 6. (a) Scatter plots of LSPIV PC vs HEC-RAS velocity magnitudes with linear regression fits, 95% confidence (CI) and prediction (PI) intervals; (b) Variation in absolute LSPIV PC velocity error (ε) as compared to modelled velocities across the six cross-sections. Individual velocity error observations are represented by the coloured dots. Horizontal line in the boxplot indicates the median, box shows the interquartile range (IQR), and the whiskers are 1.5*IQR; (c) Absolute percentage errors (ε) in estimating depth-averaged velocity using the standard velocity index (α, white) and the Probability Concept approach (PC, φ) at cross-sections XS1 -3 (red dot indicates mean error). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 6 . Fig. 6. (a) Scatter plots of LSPIV PC vs HEC-RAS velocity magnitudes with linear regression fits, 95% confidence (CI) and prediction (PI) intervals; (b) Variation in absolute LSPIV PC velocity error (ε) as compared to modelled velocities across the six cross-sections. Individual velocity error observations are represented by the coloured dots. Horizontal line in the boxplot indicates the median, box shows the interquartile range (IQR), and the whiskers are 1.5*IQR; (c) Absolute percentage errors (ε) in estimating depth-averaged velocity using the standard velocity index (α, white) and the Probability Concept approach (PC, φ) at cross-sections XS1 -3 (red dot indicates mean error). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)CC-BY · From the PDF
Fig. 7 . Fig. 7. Velocity magnitude error histograms for all LSPIV PC cross-sections (relative to model M LSPIV predictions) with overall error in the background (grey).
Fig. 7 . Fig. 7. Velocity magnitude error histograms for all LSPIV PC cross-sections (relative to model M LSPIV predictions) with overall error in the background (grey).CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 88

  1. Abu-Aly, 2014, Effects of LiDAR-derived, spatially distributed vegetation roughness on two-dimensional hydraulics in a gravel-cobble river at flows of 0.2 to 20 times bankfull, Geomorphology, 206, 468, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.10.017 · DOI
  2. Adrian, 1991, Particle-imaging techniques for experimental fluid mechanics, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 23, 261, 10.1146/annurev.fl.23.010191.001401 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Afshari, 2018, Comparison of new generation low-complexity flood inundation mapping tools with a hydrodynamic model, J. Hydrol., 556, 539, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.11.036 · DOI
  4. Al-mamari, 2019, Real-time measurement of flash-flood in a wadi area by LSPIV and STIV, Hydrology, 6, 27, 10.3390/hydrology6010027 · DOI
  5. Amelinckx, 1971, Classical dynamics of particles and systems, Phys. Bull., 22, 157, 10.1088/0031-9112/22/3/020 · DOI
  6. Annis, 2020, UAV-DEMs for small-scale flood hazard mapping, Water, 12, 1717, 10.3390/w12061717 · DOI
  7. Baird, 2021, Two-dimensional numerical modeling of flow in physical models of rock vane and bendway weir configurations, Water, 13, 458, 10.3390/w13040458 · DOI
  8. Barker, 2018, Kayak drifter surface velocity observation for 2D hydraulic model validation, River Res. Appl., 34, 124, 10.1002/rra.3238 · DOI
  9. Bechle, 2014, An entropy-based surface velocity method for estuarine discharge measurement, Water Resour. Res., 50, 6106, 10.1002/2014WR015353 · DOI
  10. Bernhofen, 2018, A first collective validation of global fluvial flood models for major floods in Nigeria and Mozambique, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 10.1088/1748-9326/aae014 · DOI
  11. Biondi, 2012, Validation of hydrological models: Conceptual basis, methodological approaches and a proposal for a code of practice, Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C, 42–44, 70, 10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.037 · DOI
  12. Brunner, G.W., 2002. Hec-ras (river analysis system), in: North American Water and Environment Congress & Destructive Water. ASCE, pp. 3782–3787.
  13. Cao, 2021, Airborne Feature Matching Velocimetry for surface flow measurements in rivers, J. Hydraul. Res., 59, 637, 10.1080/00221686.2020.1818309 · DOI
  14. Carrivick, 2019, Fluvial and aquatic applications of Structure from Motion photogrammetry and unmanned aerial vehicle/drone technology, WIREs Water, 6, e1328, 10.1002/wat2.1328 · DOI
  15. Cea, 2014, Experimental validation of a 2D overland flow model using high resolution water depth and velocity data, J. Hydrol., 513, 142, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.03.052 · DOI
  16. Chiu, 1987, Entropy and probability concepts in hydraulics, J. Hydraul. Eng., 113, 583, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1987)113:5(583) · DOI
  17. Chiu, 1986, Structure of 3-D Flow in rectangular open channels, J. Hydraul. Eng., 112, 1050, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1986)112:11(1050) · DOI
  18. Chiu, 2006, Probabilistic approach to modeling of velocity distributions in fluid flows, J. Hydrol., 316, 28, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.04.011 · DOI
  19. Creutin, 2003, River gauging using PIV techniques: a proof of concept experiment on the Iowa River, J. Hydrol., 277, 182, 10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00081-7 · DOI
  20. Dal Sasso, 2021, Recent advancements and perspectives in UAS-Based image velocimetry, Drones, 5, 81, 10.3390/drones5030081 · DOI
  21. Dal Sasso, 2021, Increasing LSPIV performances by exploiting the seeding distribution index at different spatial scales, J. Hydrol., 598, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126438 · DOI
  22. DeBell, L., Anderson, K., Brazier, R.E., King, N., Jones, L., 2016. Water resource management at catchment scales using lightweight UAVs: current capabilities and future perspectives 4, 24. · DOI
  23. Dobson, 2014, Fast, large-scale, particle image velocimetry-based estimations of river surface velocity, Comput. Geosci., 70, 35, 10.1016/j.cageo.2014.05.007 · DOI
  24. Dramais, 2011, Advantages of a mobile LSPIV method for measuring flood discharges and improving stage–discharge curves, J. Hydro-environ. Res., 5, 301, 10.1016/j.jher.2010.12.005 · DOI
  25. Eltner, 2019, Flow velocity and discharge measurement in rivers using terrestrial and UAV imagery, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 1–29
  26. Environment Canada, 2004. Procedures for conducting ADCP Discharge Measurements, 1st edition. ed. Environment Canada.
  27. Escobar Villanueva, 2019, DEM generation from fixed-wing UAV imaging and LiDAR-derived ground control points for flood estimations, Sensors (Basel), 19, 3205, 10.3390/s19143205 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Euler, L., 2008. Principles of the motion of fluids. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, Euler Equations: 250 Years On 237, 1840–1854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2008.04.019. · DOI
  29. Fischer, 2015, Validation of a spatial model used to locate fish spawning reef construction sites in the St. Clair-Detroit River system, J. Great Lakes Res., 41, 1178, 10.1016/j.jglr.2015.09.019 · DOI
  30. Flener, 2015, Empirical modeling of spatial 3D flow characteristics using a remote-controlled ADCP system: monitoring a spring flood, Water, 7, 217, 10.3390/w7010217 · DOI
  31. Fujita, 1998, Large-scale particle image velocimetry for flow analysis in hydraulic engineering applications, J. Hydraul. Res., 36, 397, 10.1080/00221689809498626 · DOI
  32. Fulton, 2018, Computing under-ice discharge: a proof-of-concept using hydroacoustics and the Probability Concept, J. Hydrol., 562, 733, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.073 · DOI
  33. Fulton, 2020, QCam: sUAS-based doppler radar for measuring river discharge, Remote Sensing, 12, 3317, 10.3390/rs12203317 · DOI
  34. Fulton, 2020, Near-field remote sensing of surface velocity and river discharge using radars and the probability concept at 10 U.S. geological survey streamgages, Remote Sens., 12, 1296, 10.3390/rs12081296 · DOI
  35. Fulton, 2008, Measuring real-time streamflow using emerging technologies: Radar, hydroacoustics, and the probability concept, J. Hydrol., 357, 1, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.03.028 · DOI
  36. Garcia, 2010, Robust smoothing of gridded data in one and higher dimensions with missing values, Comput. Stat. Data Anal., 54, 1167, 10.1016/j.csda.2009.09.020 · DOI
  37. Hankin, 2019, Integration of hillslope hydrology and 2D hydraulic modelling for natural flood management, Hydrol. Res., 50, 1535, 10.2166/nh.2019.150 · DOI
  38. Hauet, 2018, Velocity profile and depth-averaged to surface velocity in natural streams: a review over alarge sample of rivers, E3S Web Conf., 40, 06015, 10.1051/e3sconf/20184006015 · DOI
  39. Huang, 2018, Estimating uncertainty of streamflow measurements with moving-boat acoustic Doppler current profilers, Hydrol. Sci. J., 63, 353, 10.1080/02626667.2018.1433833 · DOI
  40. James, 2019, Guidelines on the use of structure-from-motion photogrammetry in geomorphic research, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 44, 2081, 10.1002/esp.4637 · DOI
  41. Javernick, 2014, Modeling the topography of shallow braided rivers using Structure-from-Motion photogrammetry, Geomorphology, 213, 166, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2014.01.006 · DOI
  42. Johnson, 2017, Remote determination of the velocity index and mean streamwise velocity profiles, Water Resour. Res., 53, 7521, 10.1002/2017WR020504 · DOI
  43. Kasvi, 2015, Two-dimensional and three-dimensional computational models in hydrodynamic and morphodynamic reconstructions of a river bend: sensitivity and functionality, Hydrol. Process., 29, 1604, 10.1002/hyp.10277 · DOI
  44. Kostaschuk, 2005, Measuring flow velocity and sediment transport with an acoustic Doppler current profiler, Geomorphol. Fluid Flow Sedim. Trans. Process. Geomorphol., 68, 25
  45. Koutalakis, 2019, UAVs for hydrologic scopes: application of a low-cost UAV to estimate surface water velocity by using three different image-based methods, Drones, 3, 14, 10.3390/drones3010014 · DOI
  46. Lane, 1999, The application of computational fluid dynamics to natural river channels: three-dimensional versus two-dimensional approaches, Geomorphology, 29, 1, 10.1016/S0169-555X(99)00003-3 · DOI
  47. Le Coz, 2010, Performance of image-based velocimetry (LSPIV) applied to flash-flood discharge measurements in Mediterranean rivers, J. Hydrol., 394, 42, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.05.049 · DOI
  48. Lee, 2006, Electromagnetic wave surface velocimetry, J. Hydraul. Eng., 132, 146, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2006)132:2(146) · DOI
  49. Legleiter, 2021, Surface flow velocities from space: particle image velocimetry of satellite video of a large, Sediment-Laden River, Front. Water, 3, 10.3389/frwa.2021.652213 · DOI
  50. Lewis, 2018, Integrating unmanned aerial systems and LSPIV for rapid, cost-effective stream gauging, J. Hydrol., 560, 230, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.03.008 · DOI
  51. Liu, 2021, Large-scale particle image velocimetry to measure streamflow from videos recorded from unmanned aerial vehicle and fixed imaging system, Remote Sensing, 13, 2661, 10.3390/rs13142661 · DOI
  52. Marini, 2011, Entropy approach for 2D velocity distribution in open-channel flow, J. Hydraul. Res., 49, 784, 10.1080/00221686.2011.635889 · DOI
  53. McCabe, 2017, The future of Earth observation in hydrology, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3879, 10.5194/hess-21-3879-2017 · DOI
  54. Moramarco, 2017, From surface flow velocity measurements to discharge assessment by the entropy theory, Water, 9, 120, 10.3390/w9020120 · DOI
  55. Moriasi, 2007, Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations, Trans. ASABE, 50, 885, 10.13031/2013.23153 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Mueller, D.S., Wagner, C.R., Rehmel, M.S., Oberg, K.A., Rainville, F., 2013. Measuring discharge with acoustic Doppler current profilers from a moving boat (USGS Numbered Series No. 3-A22), Measuring discharge with acoustic Doppler current profilers from a moving boat, Techniques and Methods. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. https://doi.org/10.3133/tm3A22. · DOI
  57. Muste, 2008, Large-scale particle image velocimetry for measurements in riverine environments, Water Resour. Res., 44, 10.1029/2008WR006950 · DOI
  58. Naves, 2021, Assessing different imaging velocimetry techniques to measure shallow runoff velocities during rain events using an urban drainage physical model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 885, 10.5194/hess-25-885-2021 · DOI
  59. Parsapour-Moghaddam, 2018, Calibration of a 3D hydrodynamic meandering river model using fully spatially distributed 3D ADCP velocity data, J. Hydraul. Eng., 144, 04018010, 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001424 · DOI
  60. Pasternack, 2006, Error propagation for velocity and shear stress prediction using 2D models for environmental management, J. Hydrol. Measurem. Parameteriz. Rainfall Microstruct., 328, 227
  61. Patalano, 2017, Rectification of image velocity results (RIVeR): a simple and user-friendly toolbox for large scale water surface Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and Particle Tracking Velocimetry (PTV), Comput. Geosci., 109, 323, 10.1016/j.cageo.2017.07.009 · DOI
  62. Pearce, 2020, An Evaluation of image velocimetry techniques under low flow conditions and high seeding densities using unmanned aerial systems, Remote Sens., 12, 232, 10.3390/rs12020232 · DOI
  63. Perks, M.T., Sasso, S.F.D., Hauet, A., Jamieson, E., Coz, J.L., Pearce, S., Peña-Haro, S., Pizarro, A., Strelnikova, D., Tauro, F., Bomhof, J., Grimaldi, S., Goulet, A., Hortobágyi, B., Jodeau, M., Käfer, S., Ljubicˇic, R., Maddock, I., Mayr, P., Paulus, G., Pénard, L., Sinclair, L., Manfreda, S., 2020. Towards harmonisation of image velocimetry techniques for river surface velocity observations 15. · DOI
  64. Pilotti, 2020, Dam-break wave propagation in alpine valley with HEC-RAS 2D: experimental cancano test case, J. Hydraul. Eng., 146, 05020003, 10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0001779 · DOI
  65. Pizarro, 2020, Identifying the optimal spatial distribution of tracers for optical sensing of stream surface flow, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5173, 10.5194/hess-24-5173-2020 · DOI
  66. Pizarro, A., Sasso, S.F.D., Perks, M.T., Manfreda, S., 2020b. Identifying the optimal spatial distribution of tracers for optical sensing of stream surface flow. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 13. · DOI
  67. Pumo, 2021, Optical Methods for river monitoring: a simulation-based approach to explore optimal experimental setup for LSPIV, Water, 13, 247, 10.3390/w13030247 · DOI
  68. Ran, 2016, Application of an automated LSPIV system in a mountainous stream for continuous flood flow measurements, Hydrol. Process., 30, 3014, 10.1002/hyp.10836 · DOI
  69. Refsgaard, 2004, Modelling guidelines––terminology and guiding principles, Adv. Water Resour., 27, 71, 10.1016/j.advwatres.2003.08.006 · DOI
  70. Rennie, 2010, Mapping spatial distributions and uncertainty of water and sediment flux in a large gravel bed river reach using an acoustic Doppler current profiler, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 115, 10.1029/2009JF001556 · DOI
  71. Sawyer, 2010, Riffle-pool maintenance and flow convergence routing observed on a large gravel-bed river, Geomorphology, 114, 143, 10.1016/j.geomorph.2009.06.021 · DOI
  72. M. Schumann Andreadis, Rapid Mapping of Small-Scale River-Floodplain Environments Using UAV SfM Supports Classical Theory Remote Sensing 11 2019 982 10.3390/rs11080982. · DOI
  73. Shannon, 1948, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell Syst. Tech. J., 27, 379, 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · DOI · Paper page
  74. Shustikova, 2019, Comparing 2D capabilities of HEC-RAS and LISFLOOD-FP on complex topography, Hydrol. Sci. J., 64, 1769, 10.1080/02626667.2019.1671982 · DOI
  75. Simpson, M.R., 2001. Discharge measurements using a broad-band acoustic Doppler current profiler. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey Reston. · DOI
  76. Smith, 2014, Reconstructing flash flood magnitudes using ‘Structure-from-Motion’: a rapid assessment tool, J. Hydrol., 519, 1914, 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.078 · DOI
  77. Stott, 2020, Ground Control point distribution for accurate kilometre-scale topographic mapping using an RTK-GNSS unmanned aerial vehicle and SfM photogrammetry, Drones, 4, 55, 10.3390/drones4030055 · DOI
  78. Tauro, 2017, Streamflow Observations from cameras: large-scale particle Image velocimetry or particle tracking velocimetry?: STREAMFLOW FROM CAMERAS: LSPIV OR PTV?, Water Resour. Res., 53, 10374, 10.1002/2017WR020848 · DOI
  79. Thielicke, 2014, PIVlab – Towards user-friendly, affordable and accurate digital particle image velocimetry in MATLAB, J. Open Res. Softw., 2, e30, 10.5334/jors.bl · DOI
  80. Tiffan, 2002, Quantifying flow-dependent changes in subyearling fall chinook salmon rearing habitat using two-dimensional spatially explicit modeling, North Am. J. Fish. Manage., 22, 713, 10.1577/1548-8675(2002)022<0713:QFDCIS>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  81. Tokarczyk, 2015, High-quality observation of surface imperviousness for urban runoff modelling using UAV imagery, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4215, 10.5194/hess-19-4215-2015 · DOI
  82. Welber, 2016, Field assessment of noncontact stream gauging using portable surface velocity radars (SVR): FIELD ASSESSMENT OF PORTABLE SURFACE VELOCITY RADARS, Water Resour. Res., 52, 1108, 10.1002/2015WR017906 · DOI
  83. Wilcock, 1996, Estimating local bed shear stress from velocity observations, Water Resour. Res., 32, 3361, 10.1029/96WR02277 · DOI
  84. Wildhaweswater, Site Manager’s Journal: Restoring Swindale Beck. Wild Haweswater 2020 accessed 1.24.21.
  85. Williams, 2013, Hydraulic validation of two-dimensional simulations of braided river flow with spatially continuous aDcp data, Water Resour. Res., 49, 5183, 10.1002/wrcr.20391 · DOI
  86. Williams, 2015, Linking the spatial distribution of bed load transport to morphological change during high-flow events in a shallow braided river: Spatially distributed bedload transport, J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf., 120, 604, 10.1002/2014JF003346 · DOI
  87. Wing, 2017, Validation of a 30 m resolution flood hazard model of the conterminous United States: 30 m Resolution Flood Model Of Conus, Water Resour. Res., 53, 7968, 10.1002/2017WR020917 · DOI
  88. Yalcin, 2020, Assessing the impact of topography and land cover data resolutions on two-dimensional HEC-RAS hydrodynamic model simulations for urban flood hazard analysis, Nat Hazards, 101, 995, 10.1007/s11069-020-03906-z · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Masafu, C., Williams, R., Shi, X., Yuan, Q., & Trigg, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Wuhan University (CN)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Masafu, Christopher
  • Shi, Xiaogang
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Hydrology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-09
Volume
612
Pages
128217
ISSN
0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128217
OpenAlex
W4285809653
Cited by
28
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Hydrology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural Environment Research Council
  • University of Glasgow
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Earth-Surface Processes › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Hydraulic flow and structures
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Flood Risk Assessment and Management
Keywords
large-scale particle image velocimetry, model calibration, river surface velocity, gravel-bed rivers, depth-averaged velocity, probability concepts, velocity distribution, HEC-RAS, acoustic Doppler current profiler, non-invasive flow measurement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review