Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
G. Zarruk (2005)
Measurement of free surface deformation in PIV imagesMeasurement Science and Technology, 16
W. Peirson (1997)
Measurement of surface velocities and shears at a wavy air–water interface using particle image velocimetryExperiments in Fluids, 23
W. Melville, F. Veron, C. White (2002)
The velocity field under breaking waves: coherent structures and turbulenceJournal of Fluid Mechanics, 454
H. Lin, M. Perlin (1998)
Improved methods for thin, surface boundary layer investigationsExperiments in Fluids, 25
C. Law, B. Khoo, T. Chew (1999)
Turbulence structure in the immediate vicinity of the shear-free air–water interface induced by a deeply submerged jetExperiments in Fluids, 27
P. Stansell, C. Macfarlane (2002)
Experimental Investigation of Wave Breaking Criteria Based on Wave Phase SpeedsJournal of Physical Oceanography, 32
M. Siddiqui, M. Loewen, C. Richardson, W. Asher, A. Jessup (2001)
Simultaneous particle image velocimetry and infrared imagery of microscale breaking wavesPhysics of Fluids, 13
Bernd Jähne (1991)
Digital Image Processing: Concepts, Algorithms, and Scientific Applications
Wave profile measurements are important for computing wave characteristics and for studying the aqueous boundary layer formed beneath surface waves. The measurement technique presented here made use of digital imagery and a detection algorithm referred to as the variable threshold method. The technique can measure wind generated waves as short as 10 pixels (1.44 mm) in wavelength. The average r.m.s. quantization error was found to be ±0.29 pixels (±0.04 mm) using simulated wave profiles and the average bias error was estimated to be 0.07 pixels (0.01 mm) from real still water profiles. The magnitude of all other types of random errors was estimated to be approximately ±0.64 pixels (±0.09 mm) using real wind wave profiles. A series of morphological operations, used to correct for non-uniform seed densities, improved the accuracy of the detected wave profiles by a factor of five. The variable threshold method detected real wind wave profiles 3.5 times more accurately than the standard constant threshold method and had total r.m.s. errors that ranged from ±0.7 (±0.1 mm) to ±1.1 (±0.16 mm) pixels.
Experiments in Fluids – Springer Journals
Published: Nov 12, 2006
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.