Iahr2015 field measurements - do they provide the absolute truth, wenneker, deltares, 30062015

30 June 2015

Field measurements –do they provide the ‘absolute truth’?

Ivo Wenneker and Niels G. Jacobsen

Key questions

Rijkswaterstaat (Netherlands):

“How accurate are field measurements of:• Water levels from measurement poles?• Waves in the surf zone?”

30 June 2015 2

Overview

1. Introduction

2. Case study I: water level measurements from measurement poles

3. Case study II: wave measurements in the surf zone

4. Conclusions

30 June 2015 3

1. Introduction

Let Qtrue be the correct value (‘absolute truth’) of quantity Q at somelocation and some moment in time

Examples of quantity Q:• wave height Hm0• wave period Tm-10• wave period Tm02• water level h• tidal current velocities U and V• …

‘Redundant’ field measurement data: Q has been measured at one locationsimultaneously with different instruments, yielding datasets Q1 and Q2

30 June 2015 4

1. Introduction

If measurements would always provide the ‘absolute truth’, then:

Q1 = Q1 – Qtrue = 0 (measurement error in 1)Q2 = Q2 – Qtrue = 0 (measurement error in 2)

1-2 = Q1 – Q2 Q1 Q2 = 0 (measured difference between 1 and 2)

It appears that, often, 1-2 0. So, Q1 and/or Q2 deviate from the ‘absolute truth’

Van de Casteele plots (probability density plots of 1-2 versus some quantity R):indicate whether there exists a correlation between the measurement accuracy ofquantity Q and some quantity R

30 June 2015 5

1. Introduction

30 June 2015

Example Van de Casteele plot

DLM-radar = hDLM - hradar.

6

30 June 2015

2. Case study I: water levels from measurement poles

7


30 June 2015 8


30 June 2015 9


Stepgauge DLM: Float gauge instilling well

Radar

30 June 2015 10

2. Case study I: water levels from measurement polesIndicative values, applicable for typical Dutch conditions (tidal range of afew meters; wave heights up to a few meters) and Rijkswaterstaatmeasurement poles (diameter 1.5 m; 2 DLM openings; stepgauge and radarat 40 cm resp. a few meters from pole).

DLM Stepgauge RadarA. Properties of measurement technique/instrumentPhase lag between water level outside and inside pole < 1 cm --- ---Density differences outside and inside. meas.pole < 3 cm --- ---Wave diffraction and Bernoulli effect against instrument --- < few cm ---Distance (5 cm) between stepgauge electrodes --- < 1 to 2 cm ---Detection of water surface in rough circumstances --- < few cm < few cmWater surface outside measurement range Seldom Seldom SeldomSpecular reflection due to finite radar footprint --- --- < few cmB. Presence of measurement pole on local hydrodynamicsWave diffraction (run-up/down against pole) < 30 cm < 30 cm < 10 cmBernoulli effect < 5 cm < 5 cm < 0.5 cmC. Determination of vertical reference level (NAP)Determination of vertical reference level (NAP) Possible Possible PossibleD. MiscellaneousClosure of DLM openings Possible --- ---Ice, algae, sediment, damage, floating debris, etc. Possible Possible Possible

30 June 2015 11


Wave diffraction around pole Bernoulli effect due to currents

Depends on: wave height, waveperiod, spectral shape, wave

direction, directional spreading,local depth

Depends on: current velocityand direction

Regular wave: H = 2 m; T = 5, d = 8m

30 June 2015 12


30 June 2015 13

2. Case study I: water levels from measurement polesConclusions for well-calibrated water level measurements from measurementpoles

General:During mild conditions, the errors are small (up to a few cm)During storms, the errors can be very large (10 – 30 cm, and possibly larger).

Accuracy depends on measurement configuration (= instrument + measurementpole):

Interaction between measurement pole and local hydrodynamics:Wave diffractionCurrents

Properties of instrument and measurement techniqueMeasurement configuration with radar provides the most accurate water level data,because farthest away from pole

Improving accuracy:Optimising instrument position wrt measurement pole (in particular:increase the distance between them).30 June 2015 14


30 June 2015 15


30 June 2015 16


Redundant wave observations in both MP6 and MP67• pressure instruments (pressure sensor and S4)• stepgauge

Under mild conditions (Hm0 < 0.3 m)• pressure data stepgauge data

Under storm conditions (Hm0: 2 – 3 m; Tm-10: 7 – 10 s; Tm02: 4 – 6 s)• pressure data stepgauge data

• Hm0(stepgauge) Hm0(pressure) + 0.4 m (~ 20 %)• Tm-10(stepgauge) Tm-10(pressure) – 0.5 s (~ 7 %)• Tm02 (stepgauge) Tm02(pressure) – 0.5 s (~11 %)

30 June 2015 17


Pressure transformation lim lim max

coshˆˆ , min , ,cosh

kdpa K K K K Kg kz

30 June 2015 18

3. Case study II: wave measurements in the surf zoneIndicative values for situation at Petten

30 June 2015 19

Pressuresensor

Stepgauge

A. Properties of measurement technique/instrumentPressure transformation: cut-off frequency to avoid noiseblow-up

Hm0: 5%Tm-10: 5%

Tm02: significantand scatter

---

Pressure transformation: nonlinear wave effects Hm0: smallTm-10: small

Tm02: some scatter

---

Pressure transformation: wave-current interaction Small ---B. Presence of measurement pole on local hydrodynamicsWave diffraction (run-up/down against pole) Small Hm0: 15%

Tm-10: smallTm02: small

C. Instrument gaugingInstrument gauge Small SmallD. MiscellaneousIce, algae, sediment, damage, floating debris, etc. Possible Possible

Conclusions for well-calibrated wave measurements in the surfzone

General:During mild conditions, the errors are smallDuring storm conditions, the errors can be very large (~ 40 cm in waveheight; ~ 0.5 s in wave period)

Accuracy depends on measurement configuration (= instrument +measurement pole):

Pressure transformationWave diffraction around measurement pole

Improving accuracy:Optimising instrument position wrt measurement pole (in particular:increase the distance between them).Put pressure sensor high in water column

30 June 2015


20

Conclusions for well-calibrated water level and wave measurements

GeneralDuring mild conditions: errors can be smallDuring storm conditions: errors can be large

Accuracy depends on measurement configurationA. Properties of measurement technique/instrument, including analysisB. Presence of measurement pole on local hydrodynamics (waves and

currents)C. Determination of vertical reference level / GaugingD. Miscellaneous

Recommendation to improve accuracyAcquire a thorough quantitative understanding of the measurementconfiguration

30 June 2015

4. Overall conclusions

21

Thank you

30 June 2015 22

Documents

Iahr2015 field measurements - do they provide the absolute truth, wenneker, deltares, 30062015