Coastal Engineering 68 (2012) 15

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Coastal Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/coastaleng

Short communication

Application of LiDAR technology for measurement of time-varying free-surface

proles in a laboratory wave ume
Chris E. Blenkinsopp , Ian L. Turner, Michael J. Allis, William L. Peirson, Luke E. Garden
Water Research Laboratory, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 1 September 2011
Received in revised form 8 March 2012
Accepted 17 April 2012
Available online 16 May 2012
Keywords:
Wave measurement
LiDAR
Free-surface elevation
Wave transformation
Laboratory wave ume

a b s t r a c t
An experimental study was completed to investigate the ability of a xed, two-dimensional LiDAR instrument to obtain detailed measurements of propagating waves within a laboratory wave ume. The results
show that this technology can be used to obtain synchronous free-surface measurements at a horizontal spatial resolution O(10 mm), with comparable vertical accuracy to that of more conventional, high-precision
capacitance wave probes. The principal advantage of using the LiDAR is that a single, non-intrusive instrument can be utilised to measure the entire wave eld at high resolution allowing detailed evaluation of
wave transformation throughout the experimental domain.
2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Reliable measurements of the time-varying free-surface elevation
in both the laboratory and eld are essential for the investigation of
wave processes such as the evolution of wave groups, wave height
decay in the surf zone and swash hydrodynamics.
In the eld, wave height data in the nearshore are commonly
obtained using xed pressure transducers and wave staffs, while
ultrasonic altimeters have been successfully used in the swash zone
(e.g., Turner et al., 2008). Open ocean studies generally employ
tethered wave buoys to measure surface waves, though in recent
years remote-sensing techniques such as satellite altimetry (e.g.
Queffeulou, 2004) and RaDAR (e.g. Nieto et al., 1998) have become increasingly common, primarily for obtaining time-averaged wave eld
statistics. LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) is an optical remotesensing technology which uses a scanning laser to provide accurate
two or three-dimensional measurements of surface proles. This
technology has become commonly used for coastal eld research
over recent years as aircraft-mounted LiDAR allows rapid collection
of morphology data over large regions of the coastline. Airborne
LiDAR has also been used to obtain wave measurements (e.g. Hwang
et al., 2000), however as the instrument position is constantly moving,
this technique cannot be used to obtain time-series wave height
information.
Laboratory measurements of water surface elevation in both 2D
wave umes and 3D basins are typically obtained using capacitance- or
resistance-type wave probes (e.g. Shepherd, 1997; accuracy O(b1 mm))
Corresponding author. Tel.: + 61 2 80599861; fax: + 61 2 99494188.
E-mail address: c.blenkinsopp@unsw.edu.au (C.E. Blenkinsopp).
0378-3839/$ see front matter 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.coastaleng.2012.04.006

or ultrasonic altimeters (e.g. Gillespie et al., 1982; accuracy O(1 mm))

all of which provide accurate measurements of the time-varying freesurface elevation but are restricted to single point measurements. Thus
large arrays containing multiple instruments are required to capture the
spatial evolution of a series of waves. Previous techniques designed to
capture wave measurements at a greater spatial resolution are restricted
to optical techniques undertaken in 2D wave umes. For example She and
Cannings (2007) used a video camera installed at still water level looking
horizontally through the glass ume-wall to record waves along a length
of the ume. The free-surface prole at the sidewall was extracted using a
thresholding operation and edge detection algorithm. Similar techniques
have been used by Govender et al. (2002) and Blenkinsopp and Chaplin
(2008). However it is noted that by viewing the ow eld from the
side, the actual surface position is obscured by sidewall effects such as
the presence of a meniscus and boundary effects. The use of more sophisticated optical techniques which make use of a light sheet to avoid sidewall effects, such as Laser Induced Fluorescence (e.g. Shand et al., 2009;
accuracy O(0.1 mm)) and Particle Image Velocimetry (e.g. Peirson,
1997; accuracy O(1 m)), has been shown to provide very high-quality
measurements. These techniques are however typically time-consuming
to set up and require signicant post-processing to obtain meaningful
time-series.
While large-scale applications of LiDAR for coastal research are
relatively common, the use of LiDAR to investigate coastal processes
at smaller scales such as the measurement of wave height timeseries, is limited. However the ability of a single instrument to measure complete 2D proles or 3D surfaces unobtrusively at high
spatial and temporal resolution has obvious advantages over the
point-measurement methods outlined above. Belmont et al. (2007)
discussed the use of a vessel-mounted LiDAR system to obtain

C.E. Blenkinsopp et al. / Coastal Engineering 68 (2012) 15

shallow-angle wave height measurements in the ocean. Blenkinsopp

et al. (2010) demonstrated the ability of a single, xed LiDAR instrument to obtain eld measurements of the time-varying swashsurface elevation along a 9 m cross-shore prole at high temporal
(sample rate of 37.5 Hz) and spatial (O(1 cm)) resolution with comparable accuracy to that obtained by an array of 10 ultrasonic altimeters.
This paper will examine the ability and accuracy of a single, xed
LiDAR instrument to obtain detailed measurements of the propagation and shoaling of waves along a 6 m test section within a laboratory wave ume.
2. Instrumentation and methodology
LiDAR measurements are based on the time of ight principle. The
instrument transmits a pulsed laser in the direction of a target. On interaction with the target, the transmitted light is partially reected/
scattered back to the instrument and the time of travel between the
incident and reected pulses determines the distance to target. To obtain measurements of entire 2D proles (see Fig. 1) or 3D surfaces,
the laser is deected by an internal mirror which rotates in one
(2D) or two (3D) planes to produce a fan (2D) or cone-shaped (3D)
scan of multiple measurement points.
The experimental work described in this paper was undertaken
using an LMS200-30106 two-dimensional laser measurement system
manufactured by SICK (2006). This instrument has a low cost of approximately $5000 US and is shown in Fig. 2. The dimensions of this
particular instrument are 185 mm 156 mm 155 mm and it weighs
4.5 kg. The LMS200-30106 uses an eye-safe pulsed laser beam
( = 905 nm) and was congured to obtain measurements at an angular resolution of 0.5 within a 180 eld of view. For the experiment
described here, the measurement range was xed at 8 m and the
sample rate was 37.5 Hz. The instrument manufacturer's specications indicate that at a range of 8 m the instrument has a resolution
of 1 mm and statistical error (dened as one standard deviation of
recorded values over 100 measurement points) of 5 mm.
Laboratory testing of the ability of the LiDAR instrument to measure wave proles was conducted in a two-dimensional wave ume
at the Water Research Laboratory which measures 35 m in length,
0.9 m in width and was lled with fresh water to a depth of 1.05 m.
The wave ume is equipped with a paddle-type wave generator

Fig. 1. Principle of operation of a 2D scanning LiDAR instrument.

Fig. 2. SICK LMS200-30106 LiDAR instrument. The LiDAR measures along a semicircular 2D transect in a plane towards the reader.

which was used to generate one irregular and ve different regular

wave test cases, each lasting 3 min in duration and with wave periods
in the range of 1.02 to 2.02 s and wave heights from 0.16 m to 0.3 m.
A submerged planar slope with a 1:10 gradient and total height of
0.90 m was installed in the base of the ume as shown in Fig. 3.
This caused waves to shoal as they propagated along the ume and
enabled the LiDAR instrument's ability to measure reshaping waves
to be assessed.
The LiDAR was mounted 3.55 m above the ume bed centreline,
6.75 m upstream of the slope crest and orientated to scan along the
length of the ume. The raw data from the instrument was sampled
at the maximum rate of 37.5 Hz. To provide additional measurements
of time-varying free-surface elevation at xed points for verication
of the LiDAR measurements, four capacitance wave probes with an
accuracy of 3 mm were installed along the ume at 1.5 m intervals,
offset 100 mm from the ume centreline (so as to prevent interference with the scanning laser beam) as shown in Fig. 3 and sampled
at a rate of 120 Hz. Note that a plate extended along the roof of the
ume adjacent to the wave paddle and impeded the LiDAR line of
sight for angles smaller than = 39.5 (x = 4 m from the paddle).
Detection of water surfaces using a laser measurement system can
be problematic because reections from a smooth water surface are
specular and so a return is only achieved when the incident angle of
the laser is approximately perpendicular to the surface. To improve
the number of signal returns obtained during the testing described
here, approximately 1 kg of kaolinite, a clay mineral with a particle
size (D50) of 20 m was mixed into the uid. As previously demonstrated by Allis et al. (2011), the presence of particulates greatly increased the number of signal returns obtained from a at water
surface and valid free-surface measurements were obtained over
the full test region between = 39.5 (x = 4.5 m from the wave
paddle) and = 75 and (x = 10.5 m, near the crest of the submerged
planar slope).
The horizontal location xLID on the water surface at each value of
beam angle varies as the free-surface rises and falls and this

C.E. Blenkinsopp et al. / Coastal Engineering 68 (2012) 15

Fig. 3. Schematic detailing laboratory setup and instrumentation.

variation gets larger with increasing beam angle. To remove this effect and allow direct comparison with the point measurements
obtained from the capacitance probes, the LiDAR measurements
were spatially interpolated using linear interpolation to give surface
elevation at 20 mm intervals along the length of the ume.

3. Results
A comparison between the time-series of free-surface measurements obtained from the LiDAR and capacitance probes, both smoothed
using a 3-point running average in the time domain is presented in
Fig. 4, where the wave height is 0.3 m and wave period of 2.02 s. It is evident that where the wave form is approximately sinusoidal at wave
probe locations 1 to 3 (refer Fig. 3), the LiDAR correctly reproduces
the free-surface variation measured by the capacitance wave probes.
At wave probe 4, where the wave is asymmetric as it approaches breaking
good agreement is again achieved, though it is noted that the LiDAR signal
drops out as the steep front face of the wave passes the measurement

Fig. 4. Free-surface elevation measurements obtained by both the LiDAR (thin grey)
and capacitance wave probes (thick dashed) in regular waves (H = 0.16 m,
T = 2.02 s) at four cross-shore locations during a ten second interval. Note that the
wave probe (WP) numbers refer to the positions dened in Fig. 2.

location. This occurs because at this position, the grazing angle between
the LiDAR beam and wave face becomes too acute as the wave face
steepens and no valid signal return is obtained. For the experiment geometry, instrument and seeding material used in this study, the limiting
angle between wave face and LiDAR beam was 28.5. This will however
vary with the geometric setup and potentially the characteristics of the
wave eld. It is noted that results comparable to those presented in
Fig. 4 were obtained for the other regular wave cases and a comparison
of the wave energy spectra for the irregular case showed that both measurement techniques recorded similar spectral characteristics.
In order to investigate further the agreement between the LiDAR
and capacitance probe measurements, Fig. 5. presents a scatter plot
which compares the measurements from the LiDAR to those obtained
using the four capacitance probes resampled at a frequency of 37.5 Hz
over the period shown in Fig. 4. This gure conrms the agreement
between the two instruments and can be used along with Fig. 4 to
further investigate the differences between the LiDAR and capacitance probe measurements. Over the course of the 3 minute test duration, the RMS differences between the measurements obtained
from the two methods are 4.7 mm, 4.9 mm, 6.1 mm and 5.0 mm for
probes 1 to 4 respectively. These differences are equivalent to 1.6%
to 2.0% of the wave height and are of the same order of magnitude
as the estimated accuracy of the capacitance wave probes. It is
noted that the maximum differences between the two sets of data
are typically no greater than 11 mm at all locations. It is noted
that the LiDAR tends to systematically underestimate (overestimate)
free surface elevation at points upstream (downstream) of the instrument location.
The observed differences between the LiDAR and capacitance
probe measurements are attributed to four main reasons: (1) capacitance probes measure surface elevation at a xed horizontal location
while the LiDAR measurements are based on a linear interpolation
between the two closest adjacent measurement points which move
with varying free-surface elevation. (2) The angle between the
LiDAR beam and the water surface is continuously changing as the
waves propagate along the ume. This will alter the amount of light
reected back to the instrument and cause the shape of the measurement spot on the free-surface to deviate from circular, introducing
some uncertainty over the exact location of the measurement point.
The results indicate that for the experimental setup used in this
study, the limiting grazing angle is 28.5, below which no valid signal
returns are obtained by the LiDAR instrument. (3) The diameter of the
circular measurement spot (i.e. the area over which the distance measurement is averaged) increases linearly with measurement distance.

C.E. Blenkinsopp et al. / Coastal Engineering 68 (2012) 15

Fig. 5. Scatter plot of free-surface elevation measurements obtained by the LiDAR (zLID) and capacitance wave probes (zWP) in regular waves (H = 0.16 m, T = 2.02 s) at four crossshore locations during a ten second period. Note that the wave probe (WP) numbers refer to the positions dened in Fig. 2.

(4) There is a 100 mm offset along the wave crest between the LiDAR
and capacitance probe measurements, consequently some of the
differences between the two instruments may be attributed to an
element of three-dimensionality in the wave fronts though there
was no obviously visible cross-tank variations in wave characteristics.
The ability of the LiDAR to measure time-series of wave prole information rather than just point measurements is demonstrated in
Fig. 6. This gure shows a 6 m free-surface prole along the length
of the wave ume at one second intervals as a 0.3 m high regular
wave with a period of 2.02 s propagates along the ume from left to
right. The LiDAR measurements clearly capture the form of the

propagating wave at the different time intervals as it becomes asymmetric and approaches breaking. The high spatial density of the measurements is evident in Fig. 6, with horizontal resolution in the range
of 15 to 55 mm. This technique is ideal for the investigation of wave
transformation as it does not interfere with the ow and can obtain
snapshots of wave shape at high temporal resolution which cannot
be obtained with alternative methods. Note that greater prole
lengths can be achieved by increasing the LiDAR elevation, but a
lower spatial resolution would be achieved.
4. Conclusions
The results presented in this paper demonstrate the use of a xed
LiDAR instrument to obtain free-surface measurements at a horizontal
spatial resolution O(10 mm) along a six metre section within in a laboratory wave ume. The free-surface measurements obtained by the
instrument compared favourably (RMS differences smaller than 2% of
the wave height) with those from four xed wave probes. The response
of the LiDAR is affected by the location of the instrument relative to the
main area of interest and as such, careful consideration should be given
to instrument positioning and initial verication of instrument accuracy
should be carried out on a case-by-case basis. However, these results
provide encouraging evidence that for applications where detailed
measurements of wave prole are required, a single LiDAR instrument
can replace large arrays of conventional wave probes and provide
much higher spatial resolution than can be practically achieved using
conventional laboratory instrumentation.
Acknowledgements

Fig. 6. Free-surface prole measured by the LiDAR at one second intervals during the
passage of a single wave. Note that each cross represents a single measurement
point, the high spatial density of the measurements obscures many of the individual
points at the scale of this plot.

The authors would like to acknowledge the nancial assistance

provided by the Australian Research Council (ARC; DP110101176
and DP0985602).

C.E. Blenkinsopp et al. / Coastal Engineering 68 (2012) 15

References
Allis, M.J., Peirson, W.L., Banner, M.L., 2011. Application of LiDAR as a measurement tool
for waves. Proceedings of the Twenty-rst (2011) International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Maui, Hawaii, USA, June 1924, 2011.
Belmont, M.R., Horwood, J.M.K., Thurley, R.W.F., Baker, J., 2007. Shallow Angle wave
proling LiDAR. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 24, 11501156.
Blenkinsopp, C.E., Chaplin, J.R., 2008. The effect of relative crest submergence on wave
breaking over submerged slopes. Coastal Engineering 55, 967974.
Blenkinsopp, C.E., Mole, M.A., Turner, I.L., Peirson, W.L., 2010. Measurements of the
time-varying free-surface prole across the swash zone obtained using an industrial
LIDAR. Coastal Engineering 57 (12), 10591065.
Gillespie, A.B., Deighton, M.O., Pike, R.B., Watkinds, R.D., 1982. A new ultrasonic technique
for the measurement of liquid level. Ultrasonics 20 (1), 1317.
Govender, K., Alport, M.J., Mocke, G., Michallet, H., 2002. Video measurements of uid
velocities and water levels in breaking waves. Physica Scripta T97, 152159.
Hwang, P.A., Wang, D.W., Walsh, E.J., Krabill, W.B., Swift, R.N., 2000. Airborne measurements of the directional wavenumber spectra of ocean surface waves. Part 1. Spectral
slope and dimensionless spectral coefcient. Journal of Physical Oceanography 30,
27532767.

Nieto, J.C., Reichert, K., Dittmer, J., 1998. Use of nautical radar as a wave monitoring
instrument. Coastal Engineering 37, 331342.
Peirson, W.L., 1997. Measurement of surface velocities and shears at a wavy airwater
interface using particle image velocimetry. Experiments in Fluids 23 (5), 427437.
Queffeulou, P., 2004. Long term validation of wave height measurements from altimeters.
Marine Geodesy 27 (34), 495510.
Shand, T.S., Peirson, W.L., Bailey, D.G., Cox, R.J., 2009. Optical measurements of breaking
water wave proles. WRL Technical Report No 2009/236. Water Research Laboratory,
UNSW.
She, K., Cannings, P., 2007. Geometric study of monochromatic wave breaking on beaches.
Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean EngineeringASCE 133 (5), 334342.
Shepherd, I.E., 1997. Wave measurement methods in laboratory experiments.
Ocean Wave Measurements and Analysis: Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium, Virginia. ASCE, pp. 11551166.
SICK, 2006. Technical description of laser measurement systems LMS200 to LMS291.
SICK AG Division Auto Ident, Waldkirch, Germany.
Turner, I.L., Russell, P.E., Butt, T., 2008. Measurement of wave-by-wave bed-levels in
the swash zone. Coastal Engineering 55 (12), 12371242.