WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, VOL. 44, W00D19, doi:10.

1029/2008WR006950, 2008

Large-scale particle image velocimetry for measurements

in riverine environments
M. Muste,1 I. Fujita,2 and A. Hauet3
Received 27 February 2008; revised 31 July 2008; accepted 17 September 2008; published 30 December 2008.
[1] Large-scale particle image velocimetry (LSPIV) is a nonintrusive approach to
measure velocities at the free surface of a water body. The raw LSPIV results are
instantaneous water surface velocity fields, spanning flow areas up to hundreds of square
meters. Measurements conducted in typical conditions in conjunction with appropriate
selections of parameters for image processing resulted in mean velocity errors of less than
3.5%. The current article reviews the background of LSPIV and the work of three research
teams spanning over a decade. Implementation examples using various LSPIV
configurations are then described to illustrate the capability of the technique to
characterize spatially distributed two- and three-dimensional flow kinematic features that
can be related to important morphologic and hydrodynamic aspects of natural rivers.
Finally, results and a critique of research methods are discussed to encourage LSPIV use
and to improve its capabilities to collect field data needed to better understand complex
geomorphic, hydrologic, and ecologic river processes and interactions under normal
and extreme conditions.
Citation: Muste, M., I. Fujita, and A. Hauet (2008), Large-scale particle image velocimetry for measurements in riverine
environments, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00D19, doi:10.1029/2008WR006950.

1. Introduction spatial characterization of flow distribution and regimes

[2] Flow discharge is the most common riverine hydrau-
lic measurement being the primary parameter for character-
izing river dynamics. Until recently, discharge measurements
have relied on mechanical velocimeters. These instruments,
applied extensively on a global scale produced a vast
amount of data that still serves as reference for more modern
river flow measuring instruments. The advent of a new
generation of acoustic, radar, and image-based velocity
measurement methods in the 1980s, has improved hydro-
logic and hydraulic measurement efficiency, performance,
and safety. The new instruments are fast, automated and
computerized. They have no moving parts, require fewer
calibrations, and are less intrusive than their predecessors.
The superior efficiency of this new generation of instru-
ments extends conventional applications beyond discharge
measurements, such as documenting river hydrodynamic
features, previously obtained only in laboratory conditions
[Dinehart and Burau, 2005].
[3] This technological development is timely as new con-
cerns with rivers warrant additional data. Issues of channel
reconfiguration, bank stabilization, floodplain reconnection,
in-stream habitat improvement and dam removal require
high-resolution estimates of flow velocity, duration, timing,
and rate of change of total stream discharge [Poff et al.,
1997]. For example, stream restoration projects demand
1
IIHR – Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City,
Iowa, USA.
2
Research Center for Urban Safety and Security, Kobe University, Kobe,
Japan.
3
DTG, Électricité de France, Toulouse, France.
Copyright 2008 by the American Geophysical Union.
0043-1397/08/2008WR006950
within the river reach subjected to retrofitting. Inferences
on ecological habitats’ health conditions can be made by
examining velocity gradients that promote dynamically sta-
ble channel morphologies. These new data needs are expen-
sive or impossible to obtain with conventional techniques.
[4] Currently, the new generation of instruments is
replacing mechanical instruments at a considerable rate.
Most notable is the steady spread of acoustic velocimeters,
significantly assisted by aggressive industrial grade produc-
tion and distribution [Christensen and Herrick, 1982].
Radar-based techniques have also advanced with the direct
support of the USGS’s Hydro 21 Committee [Costa et al.,
2000]. Image-based techniques are less frequently used for
field work in the hydrologic community, despite early atten-
tion received from the same USGS committee [Melcher et
al., 1999]. The acoustic methods measure along verticals in
the water body and the latter two techniques measure at the
stream free surface. These instruments are frequently char-
acterized as nonintrusive, though ‘‘quasi-nonintrusive’’ may
be a more accurate description. Indeed, the instruments
measure along lines or on surfaces away from their physical
location. However, acoustic-based instruments require
deployment of a probe under the water surface and sound
wave-scattering particles suspended in the water to be
measured while image and radar-based tools require distin-
guishable tracer or patterns on the free surface to capture the
underlying water body movement. Extent of intrusiveness
for all newer instruments is, however, minimal compared to
conventional instruments.
[5] Historically, the image-based technique was the first
and continues to serve as an important tool for flow
investigation. The intricate flow patterns depicted in
Leonardo da Vinci’s sketches suggest that the human eye

W00D19 1 of 14
 19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY W00D19

Figure 1. LSPIV measurement sequence: (a) imaging the area to be measured (white patterns indicate
the natural or added tracers used for visualization of the free surface), (b) the distorted raw image, and
(c) the undistorted image with the estimated velocity vectors overlaid on the image.

can sense important qualitative aspects of a river’s flow.
Transfiguring these visual impressions into quantitative
river flow information, however, has only recently become
possible. Developments over the last three decades in
optics, lasers, electronics, and computer-related technolo-
gies have facilitated implementation of image-based techni-
ques for flow visualization and quantitative measurements
in laboratory studies. The first image-based quantitative
instruments, generically labeled as particle image velocimetry
(PIV), have greatly enhanced measurement techniques of
instantaneous velocity vectors in a variety of laboratory
flows [e.g., Adrian, 1991; Raffel et al., 1998]. Despite the
increased PIV popularity in laboratories, image velocimetry
was rarely applied to natural-scale flows. Some early
attempts to investigate natural flows with image velocimetry
were those of Leese et al. [1971] using satellite imagery to
track atmospheric cloud movements, Collins and Emery
[1988] sea ice, and Holland et al. [1997] for swash flow
quantifications in coastal areas.
[6] The first image velocimetry measurements in rivers
were made in Japan in the mid-1990s [Fujita and Komura,
1994; Aya et al., 1995; Fujita et al., 1997]. The technique
has subsequently undergone continuous development and
testing in anticipation of hydraulic applications [Muste et
al., 2004a]. As most of the measurements were taken over
surfaces much larger than those in traditional PIV, the
technique was dubbed large-scale PIV (LSPIV). The present
paper introduces LSPIV to the hydrologic community by
briefly reviewing the methodology, synthesizing its evolu-
tion, providing implementation examples, sharing findings,
and formulating research needs for further technique optimi-
zation for a variety of riverine environment investigations.
2. LSPIV System Components
[7] Conventional PIV entails four components: flow visu-
alization, illumination, image recording, and image process-
ing. Given that LSPIV images cover large areas usually
recorded from an oblique angle to the flow surface, an
additional step is customarily involved: image orthorectifi-
2 of 14
cation. The LSPIV measurement sequence is illustrated in
Figure 1.
2.1. Flow Visualization, Illumination, and Recording
[8] In general these technique components are strongly
interrelated, such that selection of one approach for a
component imposes the types of devices or approaches
available for the remaining components. The selection of
the components and their integrated operation in the con-
ventional PIV is driven by established rules of thumb
regarding the concentration of particles, their size with
respect with the image processing parameters, and the
desirable particle displacement in a series of images
[Adrian, 1991]. Use of these rules is common practice for
PIV measurements in the laboratory environment. Unfortu-
nately, except possibly for sufficiently small channels and
streams [Bradley et al., 2002; Jodeau et al., 2008], less than
desirable laboratory recording conditions require procedural
adjustments when LSPIV is implemented in field measure-
ments. These include finding recording position(s) that
mitigate two pervasive problems that impact flow visuali-
zation in the field. The first is poor or strong illumination
that might occur when only natural light is used. Glare and
shadows on the water surface significantly degrade image
quality [Hauet et al., 2008b].
[9] A second problem is insufficient flow seeding. A
favorable situation is when the free surface is visualized by
naturally occurring tracers/patterns floating at the free
surface (e.g., light floating debris or foam or boils created
at the free surface by turbulence). These tracers are, how-
ever, not always available or in sufficient quantities in
natural streams, therefore they may need to be added at
the free surface. Another favorable situation is when spec-
ular reflection formed by incident light interacting with the
free-surface deformations can be used as seeding surrogate.
These deformations, with typical wavelengths in the 2 to
4 cm range are also used to generate the backscattering in
the measurements with radar-based velocimeters. The free-
surface waviness is generated by wind or large-scale turbu-
lence structures intersecting the free surface. Using the light
intensity variation associated with the free-surface deforma-

W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY
Figure 2. Relationship between the camera and field coordinate systems.
tions, field measurements have been successfully obtained
using this tracer substitute [e.g., Creutin et al., 2002; Fujita
and Hino, 2003]. When none of the above favorable
situations occur, artificial seeding is needed. For both
‘‘naturally occurring’’ and artificial seeding the key require-
ments is that they have to accurately follow local flow
movements. Tracer inertia and submergence are primary
factors determining flow visualization suitability. Adverse
factors for flow seeding can be strong winds at the free
surface or aggregation of the seeding particles induced by
particle-to-particle electrostatic forces or high-velocity gra-
dients in the flow.
[10] The framing of the flow during the recording is
decided by the availability of light and tracers at the free
surface. The size of the image is commensurate with its
resolution and the capability to distinguish movement of the
water body in image pairs. There are situations when several
images are acquired successively from various locations and
subsequently assembled to cover with measurements the
area of interest. Extensive LSPIV measurements acquired in
a wide range of laboratory and field measurement condi-
tions indicate a 30 Hz sampling rate of the conventional
video systems is adequate for capturing velocities encoun-
tered in hydraulic and hydrologic applications. This is in
contrast to the complex and sophisticated laser-based sys-
tems that are employed in conventional PIV. The use of
conventional video systems for LSPIV is advantageous
since the imaging devices continue to improve in spatial
and temporal resolution.
2.2. Image Orthorectification
[11] River surface images are usually recorded from a
bridge or river bank using an oblique angle to the free
surface plane (see Figure 2a). In order to extract accurate
flow data from such images, they have to be rectified by an
appropriate image transformation scheme [Mikhail and
Ackermann, 1976]. Generally, a conventional photogram-
metric relation is applied to produce orthoimages using
known coordinates of ground control points (GCPs) in the
real (X, Y, and Z) and the image (x and y) coordinate
systems, as shown in Figure 2. The mapping relationships
between the two systems is [Fujita et al., 1998]
A1 X þ A2 Y þ A3 Z þ A4 B1 X þ B2 Y þ B3 Z þ B4
x¼ ; y¼ ;
C1 X þ C2 Y þ C3 Z þ 1 C1 X þ C2 Y þ C3 Z þ 1
ð1Þ
3 of 14
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19
where the eleven mapping coefficients A1 – C3 can be
determined by the least square method using the known
GCPs coordinates. A minimum of 6 GCPs are needed for
conducting the transformation. The control points are
surveyed in the field using specialized equipment. The
GCP selection is often dictated by what is accessible out in
the field (e.g., trees, power line poles, building corners, etc.)
rather than what is desirable. The effects of radial lens
distortion throughout an image must be corrected before
establishing the above relations. As a rule, the size of the
non-distorted image should be nearly the same as the size of
the original image.
[12] In addition to the geometrical transformation applied
to homologous points in the two coordinate systems, a
reconstruction of the pixel intensity distribution is simulta-
neously made to obtain the orthorectified (nondistorted)
image. Intensity reconstruction at a point in the transformed
image is obtained using a cubic convolution interpolation of
the intensity in 16 neighboring points of the original image
[Muste et al., 1999]. The nondistorted image contains the
flow image to be analyzed and possibly regions surrounding
the flow which are not needed for analysis. Increased
computational efficiency and processing accuracy are
gained if these regions are discarded (masked) from the
analysis before processing.
2.3. Image Processing
[13] The LSPIV algorithms for estimating velocities are
the same with those used in conventional high-density
image PIV [Adrian, 1991]. In essence, a pattern matching
technique is applied to image intensity distribution in a
series of images, as illustrated in Figure 3. The similarity
index for patterns enclosed in a small interrogation area (IA)
fixed in the first image is calculated for the same-sized
window within a larger search area (SA) selected in the
second image. The window pair with the maximum value
for the similarity index is assumed to be the pattern’s most
probable displacement between two consecutive images.
Once the distance between the centers of the respective
small window is obtained, velocity can be calculated by
dividing it with the time difference (dt) between consecutive
images. This searching process is applied successively to all
IAs in the image.
[14] Our image velocimetry algorithm uses the cross-
correlation coefficient as a similarity index [Fujita et al.,
1998]. Cross correlation is computed between an interroga-
tion area (IA) in the first image and interrogation areas

W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY
Figure 3. Conceptualization of the LSPIV image processing algorithm (the patterns in the images above
are usually formed by clustering of smaller particles of the same nature, i.e., foam, leaves, or artificial
seeding added to the surface for collecting the measurements).
located within a search area (SA) in the second image. The
pair of particles showing the maximum cross-correlation
coefficient is selected as a candidate vector. In this method
the cross-correlation coefficient, Rab, is defined as
P MY
MX P   
axy  axy bxy  bxy
x¼1 y¼1
Rab ¼ (
P
M PY
X M  2 M
P MY 
X P
axy  axy bxy  bxy
x¼1 y¼1 x¼1 y¼1
where MX and MY are the sizes of the interrogation areas,
and axy and bxy are the distributions of the gray-level
intensities (ranging from 0 to 255 for an 8-bit image) in the
two interrogation areas separated by the time interval dt (see
Figure 3). The overbar indicates the mean value of the
intensity for the interrogation area. For improving the
measurement accuracy, subpixel peak detection methods
using Gaussian fitting or parabolic fitting is applied to the
cross-correlation distribution [Fujita et al., 1998].
[15] Our image processing algorithm is similar to the
correlation imaging velocimetry of Fincham and Spedding
[1997]. Both algorithms use a variance normalized correla-
tion, in which each pixel in the IA is equally weighted, such
that the background is just as important as the particle
images. Consequently, the algorithm can estimate velocities
from low-resolution images, such as those captured by
standard video cameras. Another important feature of our
algorithm is the decoupling of the interrogation area from its
fixed location in the first image to any arbitrary location in
the second image (see Figure 3). This process completely
eliminates the velocity bias error [Adrian, 1991]. It also
greatly improves the signal-to-noise ratio in the presence of
large displacements, significantly extending the dynamic
range of the velocity measurement. More importantly, the
algorithm allows the use of relatively small sampling areas,
which significantly increases the available spatial resolution
and reduces the errors encountered when measuring high-
vorticity flows.
3. Measurement Outcomes and Accuracy
[16] The discussion in this section uses for illustration
purposes, results obtained with LSPIV in a laboratory model
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19
[Muste et al., 2004b]. The raw LSPIV measurements are
instantaneous vector fields (see Figure 4b). Each IA encom-
passed in the original free surface image (see Figure 4a) has
a vector attached. The technique is the only available that
provides instantaneous velocity measurements on a plane.
The LSPIV vector field so obtained makes it possible to
conduct Lagrangian and Eulerian analysis for determining
)1=2 ð2Þ spatial and temporal flow features such as the mean velocity
2 field, streamlines, and vorticity (see Figures 4c, 4d, and 4e)
as well as other velocity-derived quantities (strain rates,
fluxes, dispersion coefficients due to shear, etc).
[17] The LSPIV surface velocity in conjunction with
bathymetry can provide flow rates in streams. The method
used for estimation of the discharge is the velocity area
method (VAM), as illustrated in Figure 5. The channel
bathymetry can be obtained from direct surveys using
specialized instruments (e.g., sonars or acoustic Doppler
current profilers). The channel bathymetry can be surveyed
at the time of the LSPIV measurements or prior to them
under the assumption that bathymetry is not changing in the
time interval between the bed and free-surface measure-
ments. Surface velocities at several points along the sur-
veyed cross section (Vi in Figure 5) are computed by linear
interpolation from neighboring grid points of the PIV-
estimated surface velocity vector field (Vs). Assuming that
the shape of the vertical velocity profile is the same at each
point i, (see Figure 5) the depth-averaged velocity at each i
vertical is related to the free-surface velocity by a velocity
index. The discharge for each river subsection (i, i + 1) is
computed following the classical VAM procedure [Rantz,
1982].
[18] The index velocity value was, and continues to be, a
subject of research [Polatel, 2005]. The index is dependent
on the shape of the vertical velocity profile, which is
affected by the flow aspect ratio, Froude and Reynolds
number, micro and macro bed roughness, and relative
submergence of the large-scale roughness elements. An
attempt to articulate this intricate dependence was made
by Polatel [2005] in a series of laboratory experiments with
varying velocity flows over smooth bed and bed roughened
with dunes and ribs. For these experimental conditions, the
velocity index varied between 0.789 and 0.928. The results
showed that the velocity indices are higher for smooth bed
and larger flow depths. Considering the substantial changes
4 of 14
 19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY W00D19

Figure 4. LSPIV results [from Muste et al., 2004b] (with permission from ASCE): (a) video frame of
the upstream reach of a 5 m  40 m hydraulic model, (b) instantaneous vector field superposed on an
undistorted video frame, (c) comparison of LSPIV velocities with ADV velocities in a cross section,
(d) mean vector field, (e) streamlines established on the mean vector field, and (f) vorticity field established
from the mean vector field.

in the roughness conditions, it was, however, concluded that and assemble a matrix of indices covering the range of
the range of variation of velocity indices was fairly small. It natural flow situations. For the LSPIV results presented
is obvious that more research is needed to further explore herein, a value of k = 0.85 for the index velocity is used.
the variation of the indices for other ranges of conditions This value is generally accepted for river flows by the

Figure 5. LSPIV-based discharge measurement procedure.

5 of 14

W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY
hydraulic community and used in conjunction with other
measurement techniques [Costa et al., 2000].
[19] The spatial nature of the LSPIV measurement com-
plicates the LSPIV uncertainty analysis. For instance,
because image perspective distortion is always affecting
the field recorded images, transformed image quality is not
uniform; objects in the near field are better resolved than
those in the far field. Further, nonuniform seeding densities
over the area to be measured will result in inadequate flow
visualization. Consequently the accuracy of the velocity
obtained with LSPIV varies spatially, depending on the
obliqueness of the image distortion, seeding density and
distribution, local illumination and other factors. A total of
27 elemental error sources have been identified that affect
the LSPIV measurements [Kim, 2006]. The errors are
generated in all stages of the LSPIV measurement process,
i.e., illumination, seeding, recording, transformation, and
processing. The sensitivity analysis for the LSPIV velocity
uncertainty, conducted by Kim [2006], indicates that the
relative contribution of the elemental errors to the final
results is mostly affected by (listed in order): seeding
density, identification of the GCPs, accuracy of flow tracing
by the seeding particles, and sampling time.
[20] The present authors attempted to estimate the LSPIV
measurement accuracy using both standardized uncertainty
analysis methodology [American Institute for Aeronautics
and Astronautics, 1995] as well as by comparing LSPIV
with alternative instrument measurements. Most of the
twenty seven elemental error sources needed for conducting
the standardized uncertainty analysis have yet to be esti-
mated because of the prohibitive degree of processing and
expense required for assessment. Use of the American
Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics uncertainty anal-
ysis in conjunction with the best available information on
elemental error sources to a LSPIV measurement situation
in adverse field conditions (low visibility) led to an average
total error in velocity of 10% and maximum error of 35%
[Kim, 2006]. Several assessments of the LSPIV velocity
accuracy were made through direct instrument comparisons.
Comparison of LSPIV velocity was obtained in the labora-
tory by moving a cart over a fixed surface containing
graphical patterns with the cart velocity resulted in average
difference of 3.5% [Muste et al., 1999]. Comparisons of
velocities obtained with LSPIV in field conditions and
acoustic Doppler velocimeters at the same measurement
location displayed differences up to 10% [Muste et al.,
2004b]. The same comparison against mechanical current
meters showed a 16% difference [Bradley et al., 2002].
[21] The accuracy of the discharge measurements using
LSPIV is slightly better compared to the velocity because of
the inherent spatial averaging involved in the estimation of
discharges with the velocity area method [Muste et al.,
2004a]. For example, the LSPIV estimated discharges for a
relatively small creek (width of about 12m) were 2% higher
than those conducted simultaneously with an acoustic
Stream PRO velocity profiler (TeledyneRDI Inc). The
USGS rating curve located at the measurement site indicated
3.5% higher discharge than the LSPIV estimate. Concurrent
measurements in a larger river (width of about 70 m),
displayed LSPIV discharges 5.6% lower than the reading
of the USGS gauging station located at the measurement
6 of 14
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19
site and 1.4% higher than the discharge provided by an
ADCP (TeledyneRDI Inc).
4. LSPIV Evolution
[22] The second author placed the foundation of PIV for
hydraulic applications in the late 1980s [Fujita and Komura,
1988]. Since 1994, three research institutions, Kobe
University, The University of Iowa’s IIHR – Hydroscience
and Engineering (IIHR), and the Institute National Poly-
technique Grenoble (INPG), have been actively collaborating
on LSPIV developments. Efforts at IIHR and Kobe Univer-
sity were initiated by the first two authors, respectively.
Developments at INPG were initiated by Creutin [2001]
and by the third author, an alumna of INPG. For more than
one decade, the authors have collaboratively addressed the
multifaceted aspects of LSPIV. The first decade of LSPIV
development and implementation was dominated by the
adjustment of the conventional PIV techniques and algo-
rithms to measure large-scale flows specific to hydraulic and
hydrologic applications and the transfer of the laboratory
experience to field conditions. Over the years, areas from
100 to 5000 m2 have been mapped nonintrusively with
LSPIV to provide instantaneous surface velocity vector
fields, document flow patterns, and measure river discharges
[Fujita et al., 1998; Fujita and Aya, 2000; Muste et al., 2000;
Bradley et al., 2002; Muto et al., 2002: Creutin et al., 2003;
Muste et al., 2004b; Hauet et al., 2006; Hauet, 2006]. The
initial success of this research has attracted the interest
of other researchers to LSPIV [e.g., Muller et al., 2002;
Admiraal et al., 2004, Harpold and Mostaghimi, 2004,
Weitbrecht et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2007].
[23] Subsequently, the LSPIV flow visualization capabil-
ity and reliability was compared to other measurement
instruments through laboratory investigations [Muste et al.,
2000, Kim et al., 2007, Hauet et al., 2008a]. Error analysis
due to imaging from oblique angles was estimated in a
controlled laboratory environment [Muste et al., 1999, Kim,
2006]. The coupling of image velocimetry and numerical
simulation for inference of flow information outside the
measured area has been investigated through several
approaches [Muste et al., 2000; Bradley et al., 2002; Jodeau
et al., 2008]. More recently, LSPIV was fitted with new
image enhancement and processing algorithms developed by
Fujita et al. [2007a] and Hauet et al. [2008b]. Concurrent,
ongoing hardware improvements are improving LSPIV
configurations and operational capabilities. Most notable is
the advancements of commercial computers, digital cameras,
and surveying equipment. These upgrades have been incor-
porated in new LSPIV configurations as soon as they
became available. A summary of recent LSPIV configu-
rations developed by the present authors is presented in
Figure 6. Each of these LSPIV alternatives was developed to
address a specific purpose (see Figure 6 for more details).
[24] 1. Space-time image velocimetry measures without
seeding.
[25] 2. Large-scale adaptive PIV is used for verification of
image processing and transformation robustness.
[26] 3. LSPIV simulator is used for assessment of the
measurement accuracy.
[27] 4. Real-time LSPIV provides continuous measurements.
[28] 5. Mobile LSPIV uses the technique at ungauged
sites or during floods.
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19

Figure 6. Configurations developed for the improvement of LSPIV performance and capabilities.
MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY

7 of 14
W00D19
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19
MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY

Figure 6. (continued)

8 of 14
W00D19

W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY
Figure 7. Mean flow distribution during floods measured from helicopter (Japan): (a) cross section in
the Katsura River (river width 90 m) and (b) flow distribution measured during a levee breach on the
Shinkawa River (river width 80 m).
[29] 6. Controlled surface wave image velocimetry pro-
vides measurements without seeding.
[30] 7. River digital mapping provides quantitative infor-
mation about the stream velocity and waterway surrounding
(bank, floodplain) using the same instrument.
5. Implementation Examples
[31] The following are sample LSPIV measurements that
aim at illustrating the capabilities of the technique to
quickly and remotely measure whole-velocity fields over
large flow areas. Two types of measurement are portrayed in
this section: measurement and mapping of the flow distri-
bution (1) during floods and (2) in the vicinity of hydraulic
structures. While the examples are not exhaustive, they are
intended to illustrate that LSPIV can quickly and safely take
measurements in natural-scale streams for providing com-
prehensive, quantitative flow information over a wide range
of flow types (uniform, nonuniform) and measurement
conditions (e.g., floods, low, shallow flows) with minimum
or no site preparation.
5.1. Floods
[32] In most cases, flow velocity measurements during
floods cannot be conducted because of the danger posed by
high water velocities on equipment deployment and opera-
tion. A safer alternative is to record images of the flow free
surface from shore or from the air (see Figure 7). Video
recordings of the flooded areas was often the only raw
information needed for measuring flow, as the seeding and
GCPs were readily available in those images [Fujita and
Komura, 1994; Fujita et al., 2007b]. Seeding of various
types can be generated and enhanced by the large velocities
and turbulence occurring during flooding. First, there is
reasonable probability that vigorous kolks, boils, and ripples
generated by the large-scale turbulent eddies moving over
the bed forms and roughness will be observable at the free
surface. These free surface perturbations act as reflectors of
the sun or other dominant ambient light playing the role of
9 of 14
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19
natural seeding for the LSPIV measurements [Fujita et al.,
2007b, Figure 6a]. A second type of tracer that can occur
naturally during floods is created by large-scale turbulent
eddies entraining sediment throughout the flow depth
[Fujita and Hino, 2003, Figure 6b]. The entrainment results
are the sediment ‘‘clouds,’’ patterns that can be distin-
guished by their color gradients. The third tracer type,
ubiquitous during floods, is the floating debris conveyed
by the stream. The latter is easily observable during daylight
irrespective of the illumination situation [Fujita and Komura,
1994].
5.2. Hydraulic Structures
[33] An increasing number of ecohydrological applica-
tions (such as studies of stream restoration, the design of
fish-friendly structures, and creation of suitable riverine
ecohabitat) requires documentation of the flow field along
the river banks, around and through river structures, or over
the entire river reach. LSPIV can provide these flow fields
as it is the only measurement techniques capable of simul-
taneously measuring two-component velocities on a surface,
rather than at isolated points or along lines. Illustrative
sample measurements are provided in Figure 8, where
velocity fields within and over groins in Uji River (Japan)
are measured for a range of flow conditions [Fujita et al.,
2003].
[34] The area encompassed between two consecutive
groins is approximate 40 m by 20 m. To capture details of
the flow structure within the groins required additional
seeding besides the one provided by the naturally occurring
ripples at the free surface. For this purpose, biodegradable
packaging particles were strategically released at few points
in the vicinity of the groins. Recordings of the seeded flow
areas were taken for about five minutes. The measurements
clearly document changes that occur in the flow distribution
within a groin pair when the river flow depth changes (see
Figures 8b and 8c). Assembling multiple recordings of the
flow over consecutive groin pairs allows documenting the
 19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY W00D19

Figure 8. Mean flow distribution documented with LSPIV: (a) raw image of the river flow near groins,
(b) velocity distribution within a nonsubmersed groin pair, (c) velocity distribution over a submersed
groin pair, (d) orthorectified image of the flow area encompassed by four groin pairs, (e) velocity
distribution within three nonsubmersed groin pairs, and (f) velocity distribution over three submersed
groin pairs.

flow distribution over a set of groins, as illustrated in
Figure 8d. The vectors fields plotted in Figures 8e and 8f
clearly illustrate the change in the free surface flow distri-
bution with the change in the river stage.
6. Lessons Learned and Future Research
[35] This section will first review key findings regarding
techniques and later offer research recommendations.
Research and testing conducted by the present research
team strongly suggests that LSPIV is a promising technique
for documenting the hydrodynamics of riverine environ-
ments. Our cumulative experience with digital imagery
facilitated an appreciation of both the capabilities and
limitations of LSPIV as well as increased awareness of
research challenges regarding further applications in field
conditions.
[36] Although the new acoustic and radar-based technol-
ogies can nonintrusively provide velocities at a point on or
10 of 14
along a line, respectively, the key advantage of image
velocimetry is that it instantaneously measures velocities
in a flow plane. The use of images instead of transducer
output such as signals, makes image velocimetry more user
friendly. The technique does not require calibration and
allows reprocessing of the raw information with variable
spatial and temporal resolutions to obtain flow data. The
mean vector field, turbulence characteristics, flow patterns
(streamlines, pathlines), vorticity, and discharges can all be
readily obtained from the raw image-based measured ve-
locities. The grid-attached nature of the measurements
complements efficiently the requirements for the calibra-
tions/validations of the numerical simulations. The above
capabilities have rapidly established image velocimetry as a
preferred choice for documenting detailed turbulence of
two- and three-dimensional laboratory flows.
[37] Selected characteristics of LSPIV compared with other
contemporary river measurement techniques are summarized
in Table 1. Regarding practical LSPIV implementation, the

W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY
Table 1. Comparison of Selected Characteristics of the Acoustic Doppler, Radar-, and Image-Based Velocimeters for Riverine
Environments
Technique or Characteristics Acoustic
Measurement type Profile: along the acoustic
beam path (verticals);
three-component
velocity.
Flow tracers Small particles usually
naturally suspended in
the water column.
Operating constraints Instrument probe in
contact with the flow.
The flow assumed
horizontally
homogeneous.
Output quality Good spatial and temporal
resolution. Inaccurate
for very slow flows.
present authors conclude that if the human eye can detect
the movement of a water body, LSPIV can capture and
quantify it. The relatively low flow velocities in hydrologic
applications allow for the use of simple image registration
devices. Specifically, standard video recording equipment
and natural illumination suffice for acquiring images. These
features contribute to an efficient and inexpensive technique
compared to existing point or line velocity instruments. The
digital domain of the components considerably facilitates
data management and makes LSPIV feasible for real-time
system configurations.
[38] A unique LSPIV feature among the new generation
of river instruments is swift and convenient estimation of
whole-field velocity for stream segments during extreme
flows (i.e., droughts or floods) without flow contact. During
droughts, rivers are shallow and velocities are low, such that
there are few (if any) alternative measurement instruments
to use [Weitbrecht et al., 2007]. For such situations, acoustic
instruments cannot be deployed because of the small flow
depths while radar will not operate in the absence of the
free-surface waviness. LSPIV is the desirable alternative in
high flow measurement situations because the fast velocities
pose risks to equipment and staff operating the acoustic
instruments on one hand and the radar measurements are
compromised by nonuniformity of waviness on the other.
[39] The visualization of the free surface for the presented
LSPIV measurements was accomplished with a variety of
tracers. A favorable measurement situation is when naturally
occurring seeding or patterns are floating at the free surface.
They can consist of foam, light debris or small free-surface
deformations created by turbulent eddies intersecting the
free surface. In the absence of ‘‘natural seeding’’ adequate
measurement conditions must be created. Synthetic material
can be chosen to visually contrast against the background
water body’s color, accurately trace the flow, and be large
enough to be detected at the individual particle level or in
particle clumps. Convenient, natural seeding alternatives are
11 of 14
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19
Radar Image
Point: at the intersection of Surface: instantaneous vector
the beam with the free field at the free surface;
surface; one-component two-component velocity.
velocity.
Small surface waves Foams, debris, ice floes, and
created by wind or by specular reflections on the
flow turbulence at the free surface deformations
free surface. (waves, boils, kolks).
Added seeding.
The ratio between the Survey of minimum six points
Incident electromagnetic within the imaged area.
and water wave Occasionally, additional
wavelengths within seeding and illumination.
specified range.
Instrument aligned with
the dominant velocity.
Limited spatial and Good spatial and
temporal resolution. No temporal resolution.
reverse flows. Inaccurate
for very slow flows.
dry, light vegetation, wood debris or other ecologically
harmless materials such as the biodegradable ecofoam pea-
nuts (an off-the-shelf granular packaging material contain-
ing 99% corn syrup). For accurate data collection, the
particles must closely trace the flow features of interest,
be partially submersed to avoid possible complications due
to wind interference, and be uniformly dispersed onto the
free surface within the measured area.
[40] Properly aiming the camera at the flow area of study
is critical in several respects. Whenever possible, the camera
should be placed at a comparatively high vantage point with
the optical axis perpendicular to the flow direction. Imaging
from a small tilting angle will compromise image integrity
via distortions that are subsequently difficult to correct with
the image transformation algorithms. A tilting angle of
10 degrees was found by Kim et al. [2007] as the acceptable
limit. The presence of glares or shadows on the free surface
will hamper the image processing resulting in erroneous or
absent vectors. Diffuse light or midday recordings are
recommended for minimizing these detrimental illumination
effects. Measures must be taken to minimize transmissions
of extraneous physical vibrations to the camera during
exposures (i.e., gusts of wind, nearby heavy construction,
vehicle traffic, or inadvertent human camera jostling). The
image orthorectification is directly related to the accuracy of
the surveying equipment used for the GCPs. While a totally
stationary survey is always recommended where measure-
ment accuracy is crucial, fast methods such as those based
on laser and radar ranging or handheld Global Positioning
Systems are working alternatives albeit under continuous
scrutiny with respect to their accuracy. An alternative image
orthorectification algorithm that does not require a survey of
GCPs is currently being studied by the authors. The
alternative approach uses a three-dimensional conformal
coordinate transformation [Wolf, 1983], whereby the input
data is the camera orientation, its distance from the water
surface, and the camera optical parameters.

W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY
[41] The present LSPIV applications were recorded with
digital video (DV) cameras, digital cameras, and high-
definition (HD) video cameras. Data suggests the quality
of recordings to be directly related to the size of the imaging
device sensor. HD cameras facilitate detailed measurements
of large-scale turbulence, but require large computer
memory for storage. For most riverine applications, cameras
with approximately 1000  1000 pixels are of sufficient
resolution. The continuous improvements in temporal and
spatial resolutions of the standard image recording equip-
ment hold, however, great promise for enhancements of
LSPIV performance and expanding its applicability at no
cost to the hydrologic and hydraulic communities.
[42] The current LSPIV developmental efforts continue to
be focused on overcoming challenges posed by measure-
ments in natural rivers conditions and making the technique
robust and reliable for a wide range of measurement
environments and conditions. At the time of this writing,
the authors are investigating new visualization means (e.g.,
particles, specular reflection) and their respective flow
tracing accuracy. Recognizing that the ability to detect
motion from a series of digital images is the most critical
issue for LSPIV field applications, this research team is
developing algorithms that will improve image quality for
poor visibility conditions and processing algorithms to more
robustly match image patterns in recordings with low
particle densities. The index velocity used to determine
depth-averaged velocities for various flow conditions and
bed roughness is another subject of research. Additional
efforts are underway to turn the detrimental wind effect into
an advantage: preliminary experiments suggest that a con-
stant wind on the free surface can be successfully used as
tracer for an ‘‘unseeded’’ flow over a wide range of dynamic
conditions [Muste et al., 2005]. With the wind effects
properly identified, the LSPIV wind-affected measurement
can be compensated to provide reliable estimates of under-
lying water body movements. Finally, developing LSPIV
systems capable of continuous day or night operation are
planned.
[43] In addition to the efforts dedicated to improve the
overall performance of the technique, the ongoing research
will also target expansion of the LSPIV measurement
capabilities. Preliminary laboratory tests suggest that for
flow situations where the shallow water theory framework is
valid, LSPIV can be used to determine changes in the
channel bed geometry on the basis of the divergence of
the velocity vector field measured at the free surface [Muste
et al., 2004b; Hauet et al., 2007]. In general, since the
variations of flow velocities within a river reach are related
to variations in channel bed bathymetry, additional flow
kinematic analyses will be elaborated to diagnose more
complex changes in bed geometry.
[44] Another series of preliminary research have identi-
fied correlations between the free surface texture and the
state of the channel. The correlations are determined by the
combined effect of channel roughness, relative roughness
submergence and flow velocity [Polatel, 2006; Polatel et
al., 2006]. Investigations of the relationship between free-
surface appearance and the velocity distribution in the
vertical will continue as this subject is not only critical for
LSPIV discharge measurements, but it is important for the
12 of 14
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19
understanding of gas and heat transfer and sediment trans-
port processes.
7. Conclusions
[45] The application of LSPIV in a measurement situation
requires a full understanding of the instrument underlying
principles and of various parameters involved in image
recording and processing, as well as of the flow subjected
to measurements and its interaction with the surrounding.
Under laboratory conditions the LSPIV approach yields
reliable and accurate measurements. Field measurements
may be confounded by poor free-surface illumination,
scarce seeding, or adverse conditions acting on the free
surface (such as strong winds). These factors can drastically
reduce measurement accuracy or prevent measurements
entirely. In typical flow situations, where almost all LSPIV
requirements are met, the technique provides accurate
velocity measurements compared to point-based and profil-
ing instruments that require considerable efforts to obtain
comparable data. In some situations, such as measurements
during extreme flow events (floods, hurricanes) or very
slow and shallow flows (wetlands, small streams), LSPIV
may be the only measurement alternative. LSPIV should not
be construed as the magic instrument. It is most appropriate
when considered as a complementary alternative of an
overall measurement strategy. In this context, it robustly
supports a variety of measurement purposes.
[46] Since its inception more than a decade ago, LSPIV
has continuously capitalized on the symbiosis of imaging
technology, engineering, and computer science to produce a
promising measurement tool for hydraulics and hydrology.
The mobility, autonomy, and the expedient measurement
procedures make the LSPIV ideal for intensive measure-
ment at sites deemed otherwise difficult to access during
normal and extreme hydrological events. In addition to
conventional one-dimensional river measurements (i.e., dis-
charges), this new technology brings in new measurement
capabilities at reduced costs and increased accuracy (par-
ticularly in extreme conditions). The LSPIV capacity to
provide 2-D and 3-D river information may shed light on
critically important processes, such as interaction between
main channel and overbank (floodplain), floods, the impact
of floodplain flows on riparian vegetation and habitat,
evolution of meandering streams, and the effect of river
structures on the river ecosystem. The higher-dimensional
flow component estimates provided by LSPIV may also
lead to advances in river monitoring of channel stabiliza-
tion, bathymetry change due to dam removal, bank erosion,
stream and wetland ecology, stream corridor restoration, and
environmental impact.
[47] Acknowledgments. The developments described in this paper
were made possible through important contributions by many researchers,
technicians, and shop personnel. LSPIV supporters and developers at
university institutions include A. Kruger, A. Bradley, W. Krajewski, and
Larry Weber (IIHR): S. Komura (Gifu University); S. Aya (Osaka Institute
of Technology); R. Tsubaki (Nagoya University); Y. Muto (Kyoto Univer-
sity); T. Okabe (Tokushima University); and D. Creutin (INPG France).
Several Ph.D. and master’s students have also contributed to developments
(Y. S. Kim, K. Yu, J. Schöne, Z. Xiong, and Z. Li). Funding supporting
LSPIV developments and implementation has been provided by IIIHR;
Iowa Department of Transportation; University of Kobe’s Grant-in-Aid for
Scientific Research, River Environment Fund, Tokushima University; INP

W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY
Grenoble; Cemagref Lyon; and OHM-CV Observatory. The authors grate-
fully acknowledge their contributions.
References
Admiraal, D. M., J. S. Stansbury, and C. J. Haberman (2004), Case study:
Particle velocimetry in a model of Lake Ogallala, J. Hydrol. Eng.,
130(7), 509 – 607.
Adrian, R. J. (1991), Particle-imaging techniques for experimental fluid
mechanics, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 23, 261 – 304.
American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics (1995), Assessment of
wind tunnel data uncertainty, Standard S-071-1995, New York.
Aya, S., I. Fujita, and M. Yagyu (1995), Field observation of flood in a river
by video image analysis, Proc. Hydraul. Eng., 39, 447 – 452.
Bradley, A. A., A. Kruger, E. Meselhe, and M. Muste (2002), Flow mea-
surement in streams using video imagery, Water Resour. Res., 38(12),
1315, doi:10.1029/2002WR001317.
Chen, C., H. Chen, and H. Tang (2007), Large-scale particle tracing velo-
cimetry for modeling free-surface flows, paper presented at 32nd Con-
gress, Int. Assoc. of Hydraul. Eng. and Res., Venice, Italy.
Christensen, J. L., and L. E. Herrick (1982), Mississippi River test, Rep.
DCP4400/300, vol. 1, Straza Div., AMETEK, El Cajon, Calif.
Collins, M. J., and W. J. Emery (1988), A computational method for estimat-
ing sea ice motion in sequential Seasat synthetic aperture radar imagery by
matched filtering, J. Geophys. Res., 93, 9241 – 9251, doi:10.1029/
JC093iC08p09241.
Costa, J. E., K. R. Spicer, R. T. Cheng, F. P. Haeni, N. B. Melcher, E. M.
Thurman, W. J. Plant, and W. C. Keller (2000), Measuring stream dis-
charge by non-contact methods: A proof-of-concept experiment, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 27(4), 553 – 556, doi:10.1029/1999GL006087.
Creutin, J. D. (2001), Local remote sensing of rivers, report, Lab. Etude des
Transferts en Hydrol. et Environ., Grenoble, France.
Creutin, J. D., M. Muste, and Z. Li (2002), Traceless quantitative alterna-
tives for measurements in natural streams, paper presented at Hydraulic
Measurements and Experimental Methods, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., Estes
Park, Colo.
Creutin, J. D., M. Muste, A. A. Bradley, S. C. Kim, and A. Kruger (2003),
River gauging using PIV technique: Proof of concept experiment on the
Iowa River, J. Hydrol., 277(3– 4), 182 – 194, doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(03)
00081-7.
Dinehart, R. L., and J. R. Burau (2005), Averaged indicators of secondary
flow in repeated acoustic Doppler current profiler crossings of bends,
Water Resour. Res., 41, W09405, doi:10.1029/2005WR004050.
Fincham, A. M., and G. R. Spedding (1997), Low-cost, high resolution
DPIV for measurement in turbulent fluid flows, Exp. Fluids, 23, 449 – 462,
doi:10.1007/s003480050135.
Fujita, I., and S. Aya (2000), Refinement of LSPIV technique for monitor-
ing river surface flows, paper presented at Water Resources Joint Con-
ference on Water Resource Engineering and Water Resources Planning
and Management, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., Minneapolis, Minn.
Fujita, I., and T. Hino (2003), Unseeded and seeded PIV measurements of
river flows videotaped from a helicopter, J. Visualization, 6(3), 245 – 252.
Fujita, I., and S. Komura (1988), Visualization of the flow at a confluence,
in Refined Flow Modelling and Turbulence Measurements: Proceedings
of the Third International Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, 26 – 28 July, 1988,
edited by A. Wada, Y. Iwasa, and N. Tamai, pp. 611 – 618, Universal
Acad., Tokyo.
Fujita, I., and S. Komura (1994), Application of video image analysis for
measurements of river-surface flows (in Japanese), Proc. Hydraul. Eng.,
38, 733 – 738.
Fujita, I., S. Aya, and T. Deguchi (1997), Surface velocity measurement of
river flow using video images of an oblique angle, paper presented at
27th Congress, Int. Assoc. of Hydraul. Eng. and Res., San Francisco,
Calif.
Fujita, I., M. Muste, and A. Kruger (1998), Large-scale particle image
velocimetry for flow analysis in hydraulic applications, J. Hydraul.
Res., 36(3), 397 – 414.
Fujita, I., Y. Muto, Y. Shimazu, R. Tsubaki, and S. Aya (2003), Velocity
measurements around non-submerged and submerged spur dykes by
means of large-scale particle image velocimetry, paper presented at
30th Congress, Int. Assoc. of Hydraul. Eng. and Res., Thessaloniki,
Greece.
Fujita, I., H. Watanabe, and R. Tsubaki (2007a), Development of a non-
intrusive and efficient flow monitoring technique: The space time image
velocimetry (STIV), Int. J. River Basin Manage., 5(2), 105 – 114.
Fujita, I., R. Tsubaki, and T. Deguchi (2007b), PIV measurement of large-
scale river surface flow during flood by using a high resolution video
13 of 14
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19
camera from a helicopter, paper presented at Hydraulic Measurements
and Experimental Methods, Am. Soc. of Civ. Eng., Lake Placid, N. Y.
Harpold, A. A., and S. Mostaghimi (2004), Stream discharge measurement
using a large-scale particle image velocimetry prototype, Eos Trans.
AGU, 85(47), Fall Meet. Suppl., Abstract H23E-1173.
Hauet, A. (2006), Discharge estimation and velocity measurement in rivers
using LSPIV (in French), Ph.D. thesis, Grenoble Inst. of Technol.,
Grenoble, France.
Hauet, A., J.-D. Creutin, P. Belleudy, M. Muste, and W. Krajewski (2006),
Discharge measurement using large scale PIV under various flow
conditions—Recent results, accuracy and perspectives, in River Flow
2006, edited by R. M. L. Ferreira et al., pp. 1828 – 1834, Taylor and
Francis, Lisbon.
Hauet, A., P. Belleudy, and M. Muste (2007), Estimation of the bathymetry
of a channel using LSPIV, paper presented at 32nd Congress, Int. Assoc.
of Hydraul. Eng. and Res., Venice, Italy.
Hauet, A., J.-D. Creutin, and P. Belleudy (2008a), Sensitivity study of
large-scale particle image velocimetry measurement of river discharge
using numerical simulations, J. Hydrol., 349(1 – 2), 178 – 190, doi:10.1016/
j.jhydrol.2007.10.062.
Hauet, A., A. Kruger, W. Krajewski, A. Bradley, M. Muste, J.-D. Creutin,
and M. Wilson (2008b), Experimental system for real-time discharge
estimation using an image-based method, J. Hydrol. Eng., 13(2), 105– 110,
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699[2008]13:2(105).
Hauet, A., M. Muste, and H.-C. Ho (2008c), Digital mapping of riverine
waterway hydrodynamic and geomorphic features, Earth Surf, Processes
Landforms, in press.
Holland, K. T., R. A. Holman, T. C. Lippmann, J. Stanley, and N. Plant
(1997), Practical use of video imagery in nearshore oceanographic field
studies, IEEE J. Oceanic Eng., 22(1), 81 – 92, doi:10.1109/48.557542.
Jodeau, M., A. Hauet, A. Paquier, A. Le Coz, and G. Dramais (2008),
Application and evaluation of LS-PIV technique for the monitoring of
river surface velocities in high flow conditions, Flow Meas. Instrum.,
19(2), 117 – 127.
Kim, Y. (2006), Uncertainty analysis for non-intrusive measurement of river
discharge using image velocimetry, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City.
Kim, Y., M. Muste, A. Hauet, A. Bradley, L. Weber, and D. Koh (2007),
Uncertainty analysis for LSPIV in-situ velocity measurements, paper
presented at 32nd Congress, Int. Assoc. of Hydraul. Eng. and Res.,
Venice, Italy.
Kim, Y., M. Muste, A. Hauet, W. F. Krajewski, A. Kruger, and A. Bradley
(2008), Stream discharge using mobile large-scale particle image veloci-
metry: A proof of concept, Water Resour. Res., 44, W09502, doi:10.1029/
2006WR005441.
Leese, J. A., C. S. Novak, and B. B. Clark (1971), An automated technique
for obtaining cloud motion from geosynchronous satellite data using
cross correlation, J. Appl. Meteorol., 10, 118 – 132, doi:10.1175/1520-
0450(1971)010<0118:AATFOC>2.0.CO;2.
Melcher, N. B., R. T. Cheng, and F. P. Haeni (1999), Investigating tech-
nologies to monitor open-channel discharge by direct measurement of
cross-sectional area and velocity floe, paper presented at 28th Congress,
Int. Assoc. of Hydraul. Eng. and Res., Graz, Austria.
Mikhail, E. M., and F. Ackermann (1976), Observation and Least Squares,
Dun-Donnelley, New York.
Muller, G., T. Bruce, and K. Kauppert (2002), Particle image velocimetry:
A simple technique for complex surface flows, in River Flow 2002: Pro-
ceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydraulics, edited by
D. Bousmar and Y. Zech, pp. 1227 – 1234, Balkema, Lisse, Netherlands.
Muste, M., Z. Xiong, and A. Kruger (1999), Error estimation in PIV applied
to large-scale flows, paper presented at 3rd International Workshop on
Particle Image Velocimetry, Univ. of Calif., Santa Barbara, Calif.,
16 – 18 Sept.
Muste, M., R. Ettema, and I. Fujita (2000), Image-based technique for
monitoring ice motion in laboratory and field conditions, paper presented
at International Workshop on River Environments Considering Hydraulic
and Hydrologic Phenomena in Snowy and Cold Regions, Japan Int. Sci.
and Technol. Exch. Cent., Quebec City, Que., Canada.
Muste, M., K. Yu, T. Pratt, and D. Abraham (2004a), Practical aspects of
ADCP data use for quantification of mean river flow characteristics: Part
II: Fixed-vessel measurements, Flow Meas. Instrum., 15(1), 17 – 28,
doi:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2003.09.002.
Muste, M., Z. Xiong, J. Schöne, and Z. Li (2004b), Flow diagnostic in
hydraulic modeling using image velocimetry, J. Hydrol. Eng., 130(3),
175 – 185, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429[2004]130:3(175).
Muste, M., J. Schone, and J.-D. Creutin (2005), Measurement of free-surface
flow velocity using controlled surface waves, J. Flow Meas. Instrum.,
16(1), 47 – 55, doi:10.1016/j.flowmeasinst.2004.08.003.

W00D19 MUSTE ET AL.: LARGE-SCALE PARTICLE VELOCIMETRY
Muto, Y., Y. Baba, and I. Fujita (2002), Velocity measurements in rectan-
gular embayments attached to a straight open channel, in River Flow
2002: Proceedings of the International Conference on Fluvial Hydrau-
lics, edited by D. Bousmar and Y. Zech, pp. 1213 – 1219, Balkema, Lisse,
Netherlands.
Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D.
Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg (1997), The natural flow
regime: A paradigm for river conservation and restoration, BioScience,
47(11), 769 – 784, doi:10.2307/1313099.
Polatel, C. (2005), Indexing free-surface velocity: A prospect for remote
discharge estimation, paper presented at 31st Congress, Int. Assoc. of
Hydraul. Eng. and Res., Seoul, South Korea.
Polatel, C. (2006), Signature of the roughness and the flow regime on the
free surface, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Iowa, Iowa City.
Polatel, C., M. Muste, V. C. Patel, T. Stosser, and W. Rodi (2006), Free
surface response to large-scale bed roughness, paper presented at 7th
International Conference on Hydroscience and Engineering, Int. Assoc.
of Hydraul. Res., Philadelphia, Pa.
14 of 14
19447973, 2008, 4, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008WR006950 by Nat Prov Indonesia, Wiley Online Library on [28/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
W00D19
Raffel, M., C. Willert, and J. Kompenhans (1998), Particle Image Veloci-
metry: A Practical Guide, Springer, New York.
Rantz, S. E., et al. (1982), Measurement and computation of streamflow:
Volume 1: Computation of Discharge, U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Supply
Pap., 2175.
Weitbrecht, V., M. Muste, J. D. Creutin, and G. H. Jirka (2007), Gesch-
windigkeitsmessungen mit Particle-Image-Velocimetry: Labor- und Feld-
messungen, in Wasserbauliches Versuchswesen, BAW Mitt. 90, pp. 79 – 90,
Bundesanst. fuer Wasserbau, Karlsruhe, Germany.
Wolf, P. R. (1983), Elements of Photogrammetry, McGraw-Hill, New York.


I. Fujita, Research Center for Urban Safety and Security, Kobe
University, Kobe 657-8501, Japan. (ifujita@kobe-u.ac.jp)
A. Hauet, DTG, Électricité de France, F-31000 Toulouse, France.
(alexandre.hauet@yahoo.fr)
M. Muste, IIHR – Hydroscience and Engineering, University of Iowa,
323E C. Maxwell Stanley Hydraulics Laboratory, Iowa City, IA 52242,
USA. (marian-muste@uiowa.edu)