See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/297646680

Application of an Automated LSPIV System in a Mountainous Stream for

Continuous Flood Flow Measurements

Article in Hydrological Processes · March 2016

DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10836

CITATIONS READS

38 430

5 authors, including:

Qian Liao Honglei Tang

University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee Kunming University of Science and Technology
43 PUBLICATIONS 671 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 104 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

WHRP - WisDOT 0092-13-03: Understanding and Complying with StormWater Mitigation Guidelines from the EPA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Honglei Tang on 25 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
Published online 19 April 2016 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10836

Application of an automated LSPIV system in a mountainous

stream for continuous flood flow measurements
Qi-hua Ran,1 Wei Li,1 Qian Liao,2* Hong-lei Tang1 and Meng-yao Wang1
1
Institute of Hydrology and Water Resources, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA

Abstract:
An imaging-based automated large-scale particle image velocimetry (LSPIV) system for flash flood monitoring is developed and
deployed in a mountainous stream in the Longchi Catchment, Chengdu, China. This system is built from a low-cost Raspberry Pi
board-level computer with a camera module, which can acquire continuous images/videos automatically at programmed
intervals. The minimum quadratic difference algorithm tracks surface patterns as flow tracers to estimate the distribution of
surface velocities. Meanwhile, a stereo imaging-based ‘virtual pole’ method has been developed to reconstruct the three-
dimensional topography with a stereo digital camera, and a cross-sectional bathymetry has been generated without manual
surveying. The varying water stage and water surface gradient, which are critical parameters that affect image rectification and
surface velocity measurements, can also be directly resolved by applying the two imaging modules together. Discharge can then
be estimated with the velocity–area method through selected cross sections.
A flash flood that occurred between 24 July 2014 and 25 July 2014 is selected for analysis. The water surface level reconstructed
from image processing was validated with marked water levels, and a good agreement was found with a root mean square error
of 3.7 cm. The discharge recorded during the flood recession process ranged from approximately 3.5 to 27 m3/s. The rating curve
obtained can be well described by a power function, and the linear regression suggested a Manning’s n roughness coefficient of
0.18 of one specific cross section. Some limitations of the presented large-scale particle image velocimetry system are also put
forward, and possible solutions are provided for future improvements. With these proposed upgrades, the system can provide
valuable datasets of flash floods in steep mountainous streams, which are critically needed for improving our understanding and
modelling of many hydrological processes associated with flood generation, propagation and erosion, as well as for real-time
forecasting. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS LSPIV; flash flood; mountainous stream; discharge estimation; bathymetry reconstruction

Received 21 July 2015; Accepted 1 March 2016

INTRODUCTION In gauged mountainous streams and rivers, traditional

Flash floods are the most common natural disasters in
mountainous catchments where heavy rainfalls are
quickly transformed into run-off, which may also be
accompanied by landslides and debris flows in high
gradient streams and cause devastating damage to the
infrastructure and human society (Borga et al., 2007;
Hapuarachchi et al., 2011). A flash flood is generally
defined as a flow event that responses within less than 6 h
of an intense or excessive rainstorm (Sweeney, 1992).
Essential hydrologic data, including the water stage, flow
velocity and discharge during the rapid process are
critically needed for improving our understanding and
modelling of flood generation and propagation, and for
real-time forecasting.
*Correspondence to: Qian Liao, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, EMS Building,
Milwaukee, WI, USA.
E-mail: liao@uwm.edu
equipment may not perform well because they could be
destroyed by the extreme events or the high flow may
exceed the recordable level (Ruiz-Villanueva et al.,
2013). In addition, rating curves established under normal
flow conditions must be extrapolated to estimate higher
flow rates, which significantly increases the uncertainty of
discharge measurements (Le Coz et al., 2010). A network
of gauging stations in mountainous catchments rarely
exists, and rating curves can hardly be dependable, even
under normal conditions. The dominant run-off response
may change because of the increase of storm severity, and
the lack of reliable field data for flash floods has
hampered our understanding of these processes (Marchi
et al., 2009).
Conventionally, discharge measurements of rivers
without an established gauging station can be conducted
using current metres (i.e. mechanical devices such as
impellers or rotating cups; Rantz, 1982), acoustic Doppler
velocimeters (Muste et al., 2007), acoustic Doppler

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 LSPIV FOR MOUNTAINOUS FLOOD MONITORING
current profilers (Gordon, 1989; Oberg and Mueller,
2007; Simpson, 2001; Yorke and Oberg, 2002), remote
sensing methods (Birkinshaw et al., 2014; Costa et al.,
2006; Getirana and Peters-Lidard, 2013) or estimation by
postevent dendrogeomorphic evidence analysis
(Ballesteros Cánovas et al., 2011; Ruiz-Villanueva
et al., 2010). It is, however, not only time consuming
and labour intensive, but also unsafe and technically
difficult to extend intrusive techniques to conduct field
measurements during high flow events. For hydraulic
applications, remote sensing based on satellite is costly,
and covers large target areas, whose resolution is much
greater than the width of a typical mountainous stream
(Fujita and Kunita, 2011), and repeat observation
frequency usually depends on the orbital period. More-
over, the investigation of flash floods (such as survey or
direct observation) is event-based and opportunistic
which can hardly be prepared in advance (Borga et al.,
2008). Unfortunately, many mountainous catchments in
the world that suffer from recurring flash floods are
ungauged. For example, mountainous streams in South-
western China are generally situated in underdeveloped
regions where resources such as electricity and commu-
nication infrastructures are very limited. It is of a great
challenge to measure and monitor flood flows in these
areas.
The advent of a nonintrusive, short-range remote
monitoring technique, named large-scale particle image
velocimetry (LSPIV), has solved some of these issues
successfully, and can serve as a promising candidate for
flood measurements in mountainous streams. A typical
LSPIV system adopts video cameras to acquire images of
a considerably large water surface area under natural light
conditions. LSPIV relies on natural tracers and surface
patterns (e.g. foam, floating debris, leaves, turbulence
patterns and ripples) for velocity measurements. The
acquired images are divided into small ‘interrogation
areas’ on which statistical methods (e.g. cross-correlation)
are applied repeatedly to estimate tracer displacements on
the surface; hence, the velocity distribution on the water
surface can be derived. Although LSPIV has been a great
progress for stream flow measurements in field or
laboratory settings, it has rarely been employed for
continuous flood monitoring in mountainous catchments
with steep slopes and complex topographies.
In this article, a low-cost LSPIV system is developed to
measure the surface velocity distribution and discharge
continuously in an ungauged mountainous stream in
Southwestern China. Meanwhile, a stereo-imaging
method is applied to reconstruct the channel bathymetry.
Parameters obtained through the 3D topography infor-
mation are also used for water surface profile measure-
ments. The reconstructed channel bathymetry and water
surface elevation are then combined with the surface
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3015
velocity measurement to estimate the discharge. The
automated feature of the LSPIV system makes it widely
applicable and ideally suited for remote sites for
measuring rapid and extreme flows. The measurement
results indicate that the system is reliable and has the
potential to provide valuable hydrologic data that cannot
be easily obtained through conventional methods.
EXPERIMENT SETTINGS
Experimental site
Field experiments were conducted in the Longchi
Catchment, which is approximately 100 km northwest of
the City of Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China. It is a
typical mountainous watershed with the altitude ranging
from 793 to 3290 m above the sea level, and a catchment
area of 66 km2. The average annual rainfall is 800–
900 mm, with about 80% of which occurs in the monsoon
season (from May to September). The Longxi River is the
main stream across the watershed. About 18 km in length,
it flows into the Zipingpu Reservoir, which serves as one
of the primary water supplies for the city of Chengdu with
a population of 14 million. Because of its steep
topography and quick stream flow response to heavy
precipitation events, the Longchi Catchment has a history
of some most severe flash flood-related disasters. This
region is very close to the epicentre of the infamous 2008
Wenchuan earthquake which measured 8.0 Ms in magni-
tude, and caused nearly 70 000 deaths. The earthquake is
also believed to be the major cause of the loose soil and
rock materials distributed on steep slopes (Zhou and
Tang, 2014). A devastating basin-scale debris flow
occurred here during a heavy storm event on 13 August
2010. Landslides and debris flows were triggered
simultaneously in 37 gullies, and the total volume of
debris material reached 778 × 104 m3 in that event (Xu
et al., 2012). Almost every house along the Longxi River
valley was buried in the debris deposition, and many
structures (bridges and concrete-line channel) were
severely damaged (refer to Figure 1a). These recent
catastrophic events have brought some urgent research
needs in the watershed, especially those related to floods
and debris flows. A better understanding of the local
hydrological and hydraulic properties is a key factor for
future risk assessments (Chu et al., 2011). As part of this
research, we have deployed a number of hydrological
sensors including water-level gauges, soil moisture
sensors and rain gauges along the Longxi River. We
were, however, not able to deploy conventional flow
metres, such as acoustic Doppler velocimeters and
acoustic Doppler current profilers, to measure the flow
as a result of the safety concern during dangerous flood
events. Many instruments were damaged or washed away
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
3016 Q. RAN ET AL.

Figure 1. General information about the experimental site and automated system components. (a) Bulk of rocks and stones from the side slope flushed
into the main river channel; (b) components of the automated large-scale particle image velocimetry (LSPIV) system, including a Raspberry Pi board
computer, a camera module, a timer switch and a lithium battery; (c) location of the system deployment (black dot) in the Longchi Catchment; (d)
enclosure of the LSPIV system installed on a steel bridge over the Longxi River

by torrential flows since the field experimental campaign
started. As a result, fundamental hydrological parameters
such as the flow stage, velocity and discharge, are still
missing despite our past efforts.
The primary objective of this study is to test and
calibrate an LSPIV system as a reliable short-range
remote sensing instrument to measure flow speed and
discharge of mountainous rivers under extreme flow
conditions. The system was installed on a steel bridge in
the middle reach of the Longxi River (refer to Figure 1c),
with a wide nonobstructive view on the entire river
surface. Bulks of bed rocks and gravels were washed out,
and the concrete-line channel bed had been destroyed by
a number of flood events since it was constructed in
2011. The hydraulic analysis on this site is challenging
because of the varying channel roughness and bathy-
metry. The hydrologic response here can be attributed to
integrated run-off generation mechanisms, i.e. the Dunne
overland flow and subsurface flow (Ran et al., 2015).
Run-off often occurs abruptly after continuous rainfall
with unpredictable rising and recessing trends, bringing
great difficulties to conduct direct field measurements
during a flood event. An automated LSPIV system, if
well designed and calibrated, can be desirable for
acquiring valuable hydraulic data including the velocity,
water level and discharge. These critical parameters can
be combined with soil water content, rainfall process and
vegetation for a more comprehensive hydrological
analysis.
The automated LSPIV system
Our primary objective is to monitor flash flood
automatically and continuously via simple yet robust
components. The automated LSPIV system developed for
this study comprises four components, including a
Raspberry Pi board computer, a camera module, a
12-volt lithium battery and a timer switch, as illustrated in
Figure 1b. Raspberry Pi (http://www.raspberrypi.org) is a
popular credit card-sized board computer implemented on
a Raspbian platform with extended data acquisition
capabilities. As shown in Figure 1b, a digital camera
module is connected to the Raspberry Pi for capturing
videos or still images of the flow surface. A DC power
timer switch that controls the discharge of a lithium
battery has been programmed to switch on and off for 17
times daily from 8 am to 8 pm, with a 2-min ON time for
every power cycle. The Raspberry Pi is set to run a
Python program automatically at every start-up, which
instructs the camera to take one video clip for 5 s, and
save it as a video file into a SD memory card. With a
20 Ah battery capacity, this configuration allows the

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
 LSPIV FOR MOUNTAINOUS FLOOD MONITORING
system to operate continuously and unattended for about
40 days. The whole system can be assembled in a
compact space, and it only costs approximately 160 US
dollars in total, excluding installation and labour fees.
In this project, the automated system was enclosed in a
weatherproof box, which was approximately
60 × 30 × 25 cm in size. The enclosure box was mounted
on the top of a 3-metre-high iron post which was bolted
down on a concrete block near the bridge abutment at the
left bank (refer to Figure 1d). In the present study, videos
were recorded with the resolution of 1080 pixels
(1920 × 1080 pixels), and the acquisition rate was set to
25 frames per second. The camera has a 3.6 mm fixed-
focus lens which can image a ground surface area of
about 40 m (length) × 30 m (width), with an oblique angle
(with respect to the zenith axis) of 65 degrees,
approximately. The camera module outputs an H264
format videos which are transferred to the storage
memory card (8G) through a CSI ribbon cable. Image
acquisition parameters, including the frame rate, resolu-
tion and compression, can be adjusted flexibly to meet
other specific requirements that optimize the particle
image velocimetry (PIV) interrogation analysis under
various flow conditions.
The automated LSPIV system described in the preceding
texts has been applied from 10 June 2014, which has
captured several floods in situ. We have chosen the largest
one which started at midnight on 24 July 2014 for analysis.
Because illumination light source was not included for the
current configuration, the flow measurement at nights was
not available for the case presented here.
MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
Stream channel bathymetry reconstruction
The bathymetry of the stream channel is a critical
parameter that characterizes the hydraulics of the river




L9ð1Þ x1  L1ð1Þ L10ð1Þ x1  L2ð1Þ

< L4ð1Þ

L9ð1Þ y1  L5ð1Þ L10ð1Þ y1  L6ð1Þ

L ð2Þ x  L ð2Þ

9 2 L10ð2Þ x2  L2ð2Þ

L ð2Þ y  L1ð2Þ L10ð2Þ y2  L6ð2Þ
9 2 5
flow, as well as the energy dissipation and channel bed
erosion under flooding conditions. Like many mountai-
nous streams, the channel of the Longxi River is steep,
rough and highly irregular. It is subject to frequent change
because of successive flood erosion and deposition. This
brings significant challenges to the proposed studies, as
frequent field surveys would be needed after every major
flood event to update the change of channel cross
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3017
sections. Modern survey tools, such as the ground-based
or airborne 3D terrestrial laser scanning, can offer high
resolution and tremendously accurate bathymetry map
(Brasington et al., 2012; Lejot et al., 2007). However, it is
expensive and resource demanding. Because our prima-
rily objective is to develop a low-cost automated flood
monitoring system, a binocular or trinocular stereo vision
method is considered as an alternative for bathymetry
measurement. Such method has been applied for
measuring surface wave motions in the field (Wanek
and Wu, 2006), which can be extended to our application.
The stereo imaging method presented here adopted a
set of direct linear transformation (DLT) equations
(Abdel-Aziz and Karara, 1971) to represent the relation-
ship between image and physical coordinates illustrated
as follows:
L1 X þ L2 Y þ L3 Z þ L4
x¼ ; (1)
L9 X þ L10 Y þ L11 Z þ 1
L5 X þ L6 Y þ L7 Z þ L8
y¼
L9 X þ L10 Y þ L11 Z þ 1
where (X, Y, Z) represents the physical coordinate, and (x,
y) is the image coordinate. Lj (j = 1,2,…,11) are linear
transformation parameters based on the pinhole camera
model.
The DLT equations of a given imaging system can be
obtained through calibration experiment which captures
an image of objects with known physical coordinates. A
least-square approach is then applied to determine the
coefficients of DLT equation uniquely. After calibrating
each camera, reconstruction of the channel bathymetry
can be achieved by matching the image coordinates of a
physical object captured on the stereo image pair.
Denoting the matched image points as (x1, y1) and (x2,
y2), which correspond to the same physical point, its
physical coordinates (X, Y, Z) can then be determined by
the DLT relations of the two cameras, i.e.
8 9
L11ð1Þ x1  L3ð1Þ

( ) >  x1 >
=
L11ð1Þ y1  L7ð1Þ
X L8ð1Þ  y1
L11ð2Þ x2  L3ð2Þ

Y ¼ >
: L4ð2Þ  x2 >
;
(2)
L11ð2Þ y2  L7ð2Þ
Z L8ð2Þ  y2
where the superscripts (1) and (2) on the DLT parameters
represent the two cameras. Because Equation 2 is an over-
determined systems with four equations and three
unknowns, a least-square approach can be applied to
estimate (X, Y, Z), instead of finding the unique solution.
The primary technical challenge is to develop an accurate
and efficient algorithm to match the image coordinates of
the same object on the image pair. Usually, a small
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
3018
subimage window frame centred on an image point is
used for image pattern matching. A searching window
frame with equal dimension is moved around in the
pairing image for the best match. Similar to the PIV
interrogation algorithm, the degree of ‘matching’ can be
quantified by cross-correlation.
In this study, a commercial grade stereo camera
(Fujifilm real 3D W3) was deployed for the 3D channel
topography reconstruction. The bathymetry mapping was
conducted in June 2014, when the river flow rate was low
and the most part of the riverbed was exposed. The
physical axes were defined such that the river streamwise
direction was X, the spanwise direction was Y and the
vertical direction was Z. The origin of 2D planar was
unseen in the image, whilst the zero of the Z-axis was set
in the lowest ground control points (GCPs). Stereo image
pairs were first corrected for lens radial distortion
following the procedures described in previous studies
(Holland et al., 1997; Wanek and Wu, 2006). Then, the
DLT parameters for each of the stereo pair were
determined through 18 equations comprised nine GCPs.
All GCPs were chosen to be on large rocks or on the
concrete channel sidewalls, spreading over the field of
view with varying elevations (i.e. the Z coordinate).
These points were marked with bright yellow spray paint,
the physical coordinates of which were measured using a
land surveying total station (South NTS-302, refer to
Figure 2).
Bechle and Wu (2011) applied an Eulerian ‘virtual
wave gauge’ method for wave surface reconstruction.
Such method aims to find the vertical coordinate (Z) of
the water surface at any given horizontal location (X, Y).
The search for matched image point is conducted along a
virtually place wave gauge at (X, Y). They also applied an
iterative, weighted bisection method to accelerate the
Figure 2. Selected ground control points for stereo-imaging calibration were marked by spray paint in the area of interest. X and Y denote the streamwise
and spanwise directions of the main flow, and Z points upward. A total station (South NTS-302) with a high resolution of 3 mm was used for determining
the physical coordinates of the selected ground control points
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Q. RAN ET AL.
search. In this study, however, the reconstruction of the
3D channel geometry with the ‘virtual wave gauge’
method was not quite successful as it often failed to
converge when searching the paring image patterns along
‘virtual’ gauges, possibly a result of the complexity of the
channel topography. A modified approach (here denoted
as the ‘virtual pole’ in our study) with more reliable
performance was developed, and its procedures are
summarized as the following:
1 The ‘virtual pole’ method starts by choosing specific
river cross sections with Xi coordinates (i = 1, 2, …, m),
and each cross section is divided to a number of equal
segments with Yj coordinates (j = 1, 2 , …, n).
2 For each segment on a cross section with the known
horizontal position (Xi, Yj), a vertical ‘virtual pole’ can
be defined in a vertical range [Zmin, Zmax], which
represents the estimated searching range of the channel
bed elevation at (Xi, Yj).
3 This ‘virtual pole’ is then projected on the stereo image
pairs following Equation 1. For every selected point on
the ‘pole’, the image coordinates are denoted as (x(1),
y(1)) and (x(2), y(2)) for the two images respectively.
4 Particle image velocimetry interrogations are then
applied to the subimages centred on (x(1), y(1)) and
(x(2), y(2)). Because the matching subimages of the
channel bed at (Xi, Yj) must be centred at a certain point
along both ‘pole’ images, the point pair with the
minimum subimage displacement is assumed to be the
matching points, and its Z-value is considered as the
estimated channel bed elevation at location (Xi, Yj).
Specifically for the experiment presented here, 20 cross
sections, with an equal distance of 1.2 m between two
consecutive ones, were selected. Each cross section was
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
 LSPIV FOR MOUNTAINOUS FLOOD MONITORING
divided into 220 segments (X from 3 to 25 m) with an
interval of 0.1 m. For any given horizontal position (Xi,
Yj), we calculated the image displacements on 600 equally
spaced vertical points (from 5 to 7 m) along the two
‘virtual poles’ in order to locate the best-matched point.
Figure 3a shows the example of the reconstructed channel
bed profile at the cross section (X = 8.4 m) and the image
(left camera vision) of a ‘virtual pole’ at (X, Y) = (8.4,
15 m). Figure 3b presents the profile of subimage
displacement computed along this ‘virtual pole’, and the
minimum displacement is located at Z = 0.7 m, which is
then considered as the bed elevation at (X, Y) = (8.4,
15 m). The ‘virtual pole’ method is validated by
comparing the reconstructed bed elevation at the nine
GCPs where the world coordinates are known. The root
mean square error (RMSE) is 2 cm, and the maximum
error is 4 cm.
Three representative cross-sectional profiles denoted as
B, D and F (XB = 9.6 m, XD = 12.0 m and XF = 14.4 m) are
plotted in Figure 4, which shows a stream reach with
Figure 3. Principle of 3D bathymetry reconstruction method. (a) Scattered
points (black circles) indicate the ‘virtual pole’ at (X, Y) = (8.4, 15 m) with
Z varying between [5, 7 m]. (b) Calculating image distances of virtual
pole points between stereo pair images, the actual Z value can be
determined (0.7 m) when the distance reaches minimum (0.18 pixel). After
repeating this process, cross-sectional bathymetry could be achieved [as
plotted by bold black line in (a)]
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3019
Figure 4. Bathymetry profiles of three specified cross sections (X = 9.6,
12.0 and 14.4 m) with the highest and lowest water stages during the flash-
flood event presented in this paper
narrowing cross sections downstream. The riverbed slope
of the field view is quite steep and irregular, as the river
centreline drops more than 2 m in a short reach of 12 m.
This suggests that the water surface will likely have a
strong downslope gradient, and it should not be
considered as horizontal in the following LSPIV analysis.
Water surface-level determination and image
orthorectification
Ideally, a stereo imaging method that can measure the
varying water surface profile is desirable for long-term
unattended applications. However, a stereo imaging
system built with Raspberry Pi cameras is still in
progress. The challenge is to synchronize two or multiple
Raspberry Pi cameras, which is the key for stereo imaging
on the moving water surface. In this project, we have
designed an alternative method to obtain the water surface
stage by projecting bathymetry profiles on to flow
images, as described in the succeeding texts.
The transformative DLT parameters of the Raspberry
Pi camera are first obtained through image calibration
with the same GCPs used in the bathymetry mapping.
Although recorded flow videos showed that strong water
surface fluctuation existed during high flow events, we
were only interested in the averaged water surface profile
and discharge for the duration of each video clip which
lasts for 5 s. The synthetic image of the ‘mean’ flow
surface was then created by arithmetically averaging over
all 125 frames of instantaneous flow images. The
bathymetry lines of stream cross sections were projected
on to the ‘mean’ high flow image (refer to Figure 5a). In
order to estimate the water surface level, we have
assumed that the surface is a function of the streamwise
direction only, whilst it is approximately a constant value
along the spanwise direction. In this study, the nominal
streamwise direction is denoted as X in the world
coordinate, although the stream channel meanders slightly
in the observed reach. Based on this assumption, the
water surface level measured on the river/bank borderline
represents the averaged surface level over the cross
section of the same X coordinate. Theoretically, the
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
3020 Q. RAN ET AL.

Figure 5. Water surface slope estimation method. (a) Reconstructed bathymetric lines are projected on the flow image, intersections of these lines and the
water/bank borderlines are used to estimate the water surface elevation at every cross section; blue lines represent the three cross sections B, D and F
shown in Figure 4; (b) profiles of the water surface and the streambed centreline. Scattered square and circle points are measurements; solid and dashed
lines are linear regression of the data, accordingly

river/bank borderline could be determined from the
synthetic image through image segmentation and edge
detection method; hence, the intercept between the
borderline and the bed cross section can be calculated
from the image. In this study, however, the image
coordinates of these intercept points were selected
manually, e.g. white circles shown in Figure 5a. It should
also be noted that most of the selected points were on the
right bank, as part of the borderline on the left bank may
not be available because of the image occlusion and bank
collapse. The Y and Z coordinates of these points can then
be determined with their image coordinates (x, y) and the
known X position following the calibrated DLT relation
as Equation 1.
To simplify the analysis, we have assumed that the
water surface was a two-dimensional plane, and a linear
regression was applied to estimate the water surface
profile. Figure 5b shows the measured water surface
levels along the streamwise direction (circles, and the
estimated slope is 12.63 degrees) and the representative
channel centreline profile (squares, Y = 18 m, with an
estimated slope of 13.39 degrees). It appears that the
slope of the surface profile did not vary significantly (9.54
degrees to 13.08 degrees) during the process, and it was
approximately parallel to the bottom although some
irregularities existed.
For the field application of LSPIV, the camera usually
captures images at an oblique angle with perspective
distortion that means image pixels have nonuniform
physical resolutions of the water surface. Therefore, a
geometrical transformation (so-called ‘orthorectification’)
is required to correct the projective distortion. Usually,
the transformation assumes that the water surface is a
two-dimensional plane with the elevation considered as a
known constant, which is a reasonable approximation for
natural river reach with very mild surface slope. However,

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
 LSPIV FOR MOUNTAINOUS FLOOD MONITORING
in the case presented here, the steep slope of the water
surface should be considered as a variable and should be
taken into consideration for the orthorectification proce-
dure. The changes of water stage determined in the
preceding texts are critical information not only for the
orthorectification, but also for the calculated wetted area
in discharge estimation.
Figure 6a shows an example of the orthorectified water
surface image after projection on the sloped surface, and
Figure 6b is the transformed image by projection onto a
horizontal plane. The notable difference between the two
transformed images indicated that significant errors might
Figure 6. Comparison of orthorectification results with or without
accounting of water surface slope. (a) Orthorectified surface image
according to the estimated water surface profile, which is assumed to be a
plane with a constant slope; (b) orthorectified surface image assuming a
horizontal surface plane. PIV interrogation is performed on all nodal
points of a triangular mesh, which conforms to the complex topography
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3021
rise if the water surface slope is ignored in mountainous
streams, as a result of the nonuniform spatial resolution
and inaccurate flow direction. As shown in Figure 6a, the
boundary of the river surface was irregular, and the river
width varied frequently. The unstructured triangular mesh
with a nominal size of 20 image pixels (or 40 cm
physically) were generated with PDE toolbox functions
in Matlab, which conforms to the complex boundary
better.
Surface velocity calculation
Outline of LSPIV algorithm. The LSPIV, stemming
from the PIV methodology, is a promising technique used
in field measurement. Under favourable conditions
including proper light illumination and adequate surface
‘natural tracers’, it can provide instantaneous or averaged
velocity vector fields on a large-scale free surface. Kim
(2006) proposed that multiple factors might affect the
accuracy of LSPIV results via an uncertainty analysis,
including illumination, tracers, hardware, algorithm, etc.
More details of this method have been discussed in a
number of previous publications (Bradley et al., 2002;
Creutin et al., 2003; Dramais et al., 2011; Fujita et al.,
1998; Hauet et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2008; Le Coz et al.,
2010; Jodeau et al., 2008; Muste et al., 2008, 2014).
Natural patterns floating at the free surface are much
more preferred in this application, whilst spreading
artificial ‘tracers’ is not a good option for continuous
unattended monitoring. Fujita and Kunita (2011) con-
cluded that river water surfaces exhibit three primary
natural trackable features in flood flow conditions,
including ripples, floating objects and water colour
differences. As a steep mountainous stream, the Longxi
River is rich of all surface patterns listed in the preceding
texts under a variety of flow conditions. Bubbles and
foams are the dominant surface features under high flow
conditions. Large surface ‘eddies’ are also clearly visible
in the format of ‘ripples’. However, we also observed
some unfavourable features such as water jumps at high
flows. It is not clear yet how this can affect the actual flow
speed measurement.
Cross-correlation-based evaluation is extensively used
for LSPIV interrogation analysis. In the study, we
adopted the minimum quadratic difference (MQD)
algorithm which has been approved to be more accurate
for tracking of large and uneven image patterns (Gui and
Merzkirch, 1996, 2000; Suh, 2003). Instead of finding the
correlation peak, the minimum of the grey-value
difference squared is searched to estimate the average
pattern displacement:
1 M 1 N 1
Dðm; nÞ ¼ ∑ ∑ ðg ði; jÞ  g2 ði þ m; j þ nÞÞ2 (3)
M N i¼0 j¼0 1
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
3022 Q. RAN ET AL.

where g1 and g2 are the distributions of pixel grey values

in the interrogation subwindow frame, and M and N are
the sizes of the interrogation frame. As stated in Gui and
Merzkirch (1996), the MQD method shows its superiority
to cross-correlation as a result of an extra tracking term in
the expanded form of Equation 3 which removes the error
as a result of nonuniform-illuminated conditions.
Images recorded in laboratory PIV experiments are
normally featured with disperse ‘bright’ particles illumi-
nated by a laser sheet on a dark or uniform background,
the error, as a result of the nonuniform illumination, is
usually very small, and the difference between MQD and
cross-correlation is negligible. However, ‘tracers’ in
LSPIV images are more likely continuous patterns. In
the present study, we found that in some surface
locations, particularly at low flow conditions, cross-
correlation often failed as a result of a very low peak-to-
background ratio or reported zero displacement, whilst
the MQD could still produce a good result. We also
noticed that at high flows with rich surface patterns, the
average velocities from MQD and cross-correlation were
nearly identical.
The surface velocity vectors were calculated with each
LSPIV interrogation subwindow frame centred on every
nodal point of these triangles. Fast Fourier Transform is
applied in MQD to accelerate the interrogation process,
and the subpixel precision is achieved through a Fourier
space window shifting technique (Liao and Cowen,
2005). A sample result which shows the vector map of
surface velocities averaged in 5 s is illustrated in Figure 7
a, and the corresponding velocity magnitude is presented
as contour maps as shown in Figure 7b. The surface
velocity magnitude mostly ranges from 1 to 5 m/s. The
velocity distribution on a structured mesh or any given
cross section can then be obtained through interpolation Figure 7. Typical results of the LSPIV system. (a) Mean surface velocity
afterwards. This sample result is obtained during a peak field averaged over a five-second video; streamwise velocity distribution
flow period. The streamwise velocity distributions on on three cross sections B, D and F as shown in Figure 4; (b) contour maps
of surface velocity magnitude
three cross sections (B, D and F, as shown in Figure 4) are
also presented in Figure 7a, which indicate that the
velocity distribution is highly nonuniform across the current LSPIV framework. Improvements can be made by
water surface. Flow reversal can be observed on all cross using multiple synchronized video cameras to reconstruct
sections, which suggests that strong horizontal shear and the instantaneous 3D water surface, which is subject to
swirling exist as a result of the complex topography and our future research.
torrential flow condition. Some of the observed surface
flow patterns can be attributed to the 3D surface Validation of LSPIV algorithm. In this study, the
deformation as a result of local hydraulic jumps and LSPIV results have been validated by comparing with
standing waves. The complex 3D surface structure at high the data acquired by a handheld impeller flow metre.
flow conditions can cause velocity and discharge Because of safety concerns, the test was conducted under
measurement errors, as the surface is forced to map to a a low flow condition. Six validation points were selected
two-dimensional plane. For example, positive or negative where impeller flow metre was positioned at about 5 cm
vertical velocity component as a result of the wave effect below the water surface with the holding rod inserted
can be artificially projected as horizontal velocity into the river to keep the flow metre stationary (refer to
components (Dramais et al., 2011). Uncertainties, as a Figure 8). Instantaneous flow speed can be read out from
result of these errors, are not able to be resolved in the a LCD screen of the flow metre. The data displayed on

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
 LSPIV FOR MOUNTAINOUS FLOOD MONITORING
Figure 8. Average velocity field calculated by LSPIV under base flow
condition, and six validation points selected for comparison with an
impeller flow metre
the screen fluctuated because of turbulence. Because the
flow metre does not have a data logger to record the
measurements, the measurement results were represented
by manually recording the maximum and minimum
readings during 1 min. The Raspberry Pi camera was
programmed to record the video continuously through
the entire period of the flow metre measurement. LSPIV
calculations were applied immediately before and after
metre deployment at every validation point, and the
mean velocity averaged over the two intervals (15 s) was
selected for comparison with the average of the flow
metre data. The comparison of the results was shown in
Table I. Relative error was calculated as the ratio of the
difference to the flow metre results (average of the
maximum and minimum reading). Overall, good agree-
ments were found between the two devices with errors
generally less than 8% except at validation Point 3. This
was possibly a result of the lack of surface patterns at
that point, where the water surface was relatively
smooth, and the river bottom was clearly visible. It
Table I. LSPIV and impeller flow metre results at six validation
points
Point no. Impeller flow metre a
LSPIV
1 1.3–1.5 1.3458
2 1.0–1.4 1.2357
3 0.9–1.1 1.1645
4 1.0–1.3 1.0618
5 0.9–1.0 0.9080
6 1.3–1.4 1.2843
a
‘Real’ velocity values: Vi = (Vmax + Vmin) / 2, m/s
b
LSPIV results: Vl, m/s
c
Relative error = |(Vl  Vi) / Vi| * 100%
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3023
should also be noted that the impeller metre, as a
conventional stream flow measurement tool, also has
some uncertainties, which could affect the result of the
comparison. It is expected that the accuracy of LSPIV
could be higher under high flow conditions, with
abundant surface patterns (primarily foams) as natural
tracers.
Discharge computation
To date, a reliable method to estimate the discharge of
flash flood has yet to be developed, largely a result of the
lack of accurate field measurements (Fenton and Keller,
2001; Moyeed and Clarke, 2005). In conjunction with the
average surface velocity measured from LSPIV and water
depth profile determined by reconstructed bathymetry
lines, we are able to calculate the discharge via the
standard velocity–area method (Bradley et al., 2002;
Turnipseed and Sauer, 2010). In this method, a stream
cross section is divided into segments; the total discharge
is then calculated by integrating the flow rate of all
segments, which is estimated as the product of the area of
each subsection and the respective depth-averaged
velocity along the direction perpendicular to the cross
section, i.e.
n
Q ¼ ∑ ai vi (4)
i¼1
where Q is the total discharge across a designated cross
section, ai is the area of subsection i, and vi is the depth-
averaged velocity of each subsection.
Generally, surface velocity can be an estimated
surrogate to the depth-averaged velocity with a modifying
coefficient ranging from 0.76 to 0.90, depending on the
specific sites and flow conditions. Muste et al. (2008)
pointed out that the velocity coefficient should be
determined carefully as it may cause a multiplicative,
systematic discharge error. Theoretically, based on the
assumption of a logarithmic velocity profile, a default
value of 0.85 is widely accepted for river flow studies
(Costa et al., 2000, 2006; Creutin et al., 2003; Rantz,
1982). Uncertainties always exist for the case of steep
mountain flows with complex and dynamic bedforms and
larger bottom roughness. Without a comprehensive study
b
Relative error c
on this issue with a wide range of field experiments, it
remains to be difficult to assess the variation of the
3.87% velocity coefficient under varying hydraulic conditions,
2.98%
16.45% especially in the complex flow conditions (Gunawan
7.67% et al., 2012). According to Jarrett (1991), for steep rivers,
4.42% a logarithmic velocity profile can hardly develop because
4.87% of a drag from rough riverbed and higher velocity on the
water surface. In this study, a more reasonable coefficient
of 0.80 in the lower range is chosen uniformly for all
cases to estimate the stream discharge.
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
3024
RESULTS
Validation of water surface level measurement
An estimation of the water surface level is critical to
determine the river stage variation during the flood. The
measurement with the reconstructed bathymetry method
is validated by comparing with water level marks which
were spray painted with equal intervals (15 cm) on an
almost vertical rock in the field of view, as shown in
Figure 9a. The vertical elevations of these marks were
checked with the total station measurement. After
identifying the intersecting line of water surface and
rock, the depth could be obtained by accounting the
number of pixels submerged. On the other side, the
reconstructed bathymetry line near the marked rock is
selected to obtain the water level following the method
illustrated in the ‘Water surface-level determination and
image orthorectification’ section. The comparison
between the marked (h-mark) and the reconstructed (h-
calculated) during the flood event recorded in this study is
presented in Figure 9b, which shows a good one-on-one
agreement with a RMSE of 0.037 m. The validation
Figure 9. Water surface level measured through imaging compared with
marked levels. (a) Water level marks on a large rock; (b) measured water
level versus marked ones
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Q. RAN ET AL.
indicates that it is of great reliability to determine the
water stage via reconstructed bathymetry lines.
Flood hydrograph
A flood flow that occurred from 8 am on 24 July 2014
to 2 pm on 25 July 2014 is selected for hydrograph
analysis. As explained earlier, the data of flows at nights
were missing, and our measurements were not able to
reveal the flood rising process which occurred during the
night prior to sunrise on July 24. Six cross sections (from
A to F) which occupied the central part of the flow image
are chosen to calculate the discharge during this process.
Figure 10a shows the time series of the mean, maximum
and minimum of discharge values calculated from the six
cross sections. The recorded hydrograph represents the
recessing part of the flood event. The highest value of
discharge recorded was approximately 27 m3/s; it then
decreased back to the basic flow of about 3.5 m3/s. The
peak discharge did not sustain for a long time, as the
rainstorm lasted for several hours only.
The discharge was calculated over six cross sections
which allowed reduction of the site-specific errors. The
observed reproducibility of the method was actually
excellent, whilst a few measurements still showed
variations. The variations may arise from errors of
velocity and bathymetry measurement, the uncertainty
of the velocity coefficient, as well as the effects of
turbulence and short-term unsteadiness of the stream
flow. The mean velocity is an average of flow in 5 s,
which is indeed too short compared with the timescale of
the large ‘eddies’ in the stream, and the timescale of water
surface fluctuation that causes the short-term transient
flow. Increasing the sampling time may help to reduce the
variability of measured discharge at different cross
sections, but will not reduce the uncertainty associated
with the velocity–area method. In the presented case, the
‘error’ of discharge measurement is represented by the
coefficient of variation, which is the ratio of standard
deviation to the mean of discharges calculated at the six
cross sections. The relative error of each case is also
plotted in Figure 10a. In general, errors are acceptable
with an average of about 14%, and the maximum is about
23%. The time series of the deepest cross-sectional water
depth is shown in Figure 10b, indicating that it changed
from the peak value of 1.8 m to a low level of 0.8 m in a
period of 30 h.
The Froude number (Fr) of the stream flow at a given
cross section is defined as
u
Fr ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi (5)
gh
where u is the cross-sectional average velocity, and h ¼
A=T is the hydraulic depth. A is the area of the cross
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
 LSPIV FOR MOUNTAINOUS FLOOD MONITORING 3025

Figure 10. Hydraulic processes of the flood occurred on 24 July 2014. (a) Mean discharge averaged over six cross sections with error bars representing
the range. Crosses represent the data dispersion defined by coefficient of variation; (b) time series of averaged cross-sectional water depth and Fr number

section, and T is the top width of the water surface.
Despite the steep slope, the Froude numbers at all the six
cross sections are less than one during the entire
observation period (refer to Figure 10b), suggesting a
subcritical condition for the entire flood event. However,
it is noticeable that small hydraulic jumps occurred
sporadically at some areas of the water surface, which
suggests a local supercritical flow condition even though
the overall flow is subcritical averaged through the cross
section. These observations agree with recent findings
that the mean flow averaged over long reaches remains
subcritical for most natural high-gradient channels (Grant,
1997; Lumbroso and Gaume, 2012; Tinkler, 1997).
Manning’s n roughness coefficient
Manning’s equation has been well accepted as the
governing law for open channel flow discharge estima-
tion. The general format of the Manning’s equation is as
follows,
1 have assumed that the friction slope can be approximated
Q ¼ AR2=3 S f 1=2
n by the water surface slope (refer to Figure 11). A good
where Q is the discharge (m3/s); R represents the
hydraulic radius (m), which is the ratio of the cross-
sectional area A (m2) over the wetted perimeter P (m); Sf
is the friction slope, and under a uniform flow assumption
that the downslope force of gravity is balanced entirely by
bottom friction, it is equal to the channel bottom slope;
and n is the Manning’s roughness coefficient.
In practice, it is relatively straightforward to determine
geometric parameters, i.e. A and R. In addition, the
Froude number for most river and stream flows is small,
even under flood conditions. This suggests that the
friction slope Sf can be well approximated by the
water surface slope following the momentum balance
analysis. The major challenge to apply the Manning’s
equation in natural streams is the uncertainty associ-
ated with the estimation of the Manning’s n roughness
coefficient, the value of which depends on a number
of factors, e.g. flow depth, turbulence, bed forms,
vegetation, sediment and bed load, cross-sectional
shape, geomorphological processes, floodplain–main
channel interaction, unsteady flow, etc., as suggested
by Trieste and Jarrett (1987). Moreover, the Man-
ning’s roughness coefficient in mountainous streams
may not be a constant, depending on the varying
discharge, friction slope and bed material which is
subject to frequent erosion and sedimentation.
The discharges at cross section B are plotted against
AR2/3Sf1/2 calculated from the known parameters, e.g.
cross-sectional area, hydraulic radius and water surface
slope, as they varied during the recorded event, where we
(6)
linear relation is found, and the least-square regression
suggests that Q = 5.56AR2/3Sf1/2 with the coefficient of
variation R2 = 91%. The linear regression showed that the
Manning’s roughness coefficient can be determined as
n = 0.18 for cross section B. Good linear relations were
found for the other five cross sections as well, and all the
n values were in the interval of [0.14, 0.23]. The
estimated n values agreed well with that proposed by
Zhang et al. (2011) (i.e. n = 0.1~0.3), which was obtained
through the sampling of bed materials at the same
experiment site and the calculation using the model

Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
3026
Figure 11. Measured discharge, Q, plotted against the Manning’s equation
scaling, AR2/3S1/2. The slope of the linear regression is 5.56, which
suggests a Manning’s roughness of n = 0.18
presented by Rickenmann and Recking (2011) that
estimates the flow resistance for gravel-bed rivers.
Despite the good agreement, we noticed that the n
roughness is extremely high, which is possibly a result of
the strong turbulence, energy dissipation and form drags
of partially submerged large rocks. It should be noted that
a flow like this is far from uniform and channel-
controlled. Successions of waterfall-like features and
local hydraulic jumps can be visually observed, which
suggests that the observed stream reach is more likely
cross section-controlled. It is questionable if the Man-
ning’s equation is applicable for such a complex flow.
The observed linear relation between Q and AR2/3Sf1/2
may not be extrapolated because the effective Manning’s
roughness may change as the stage and discharge increase
further (Lumbroso and Gaume, 2012). Nevertheless, the
results presented here demonstrate that LSPIV can be a
Figure 12. Discharge-stage relation with data obtained between 8 am–8
pm, 24 July 2014 and 8 am–2 pm, 25 July 2014 (dots). Data are fitted with
a power-function rating curve
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Q. RAN ET AL.
valuable tool for future research that investigate the
application and uncertainty of the Manning’s equation for
extreme flood flows, where data are rare and critically
needed.
Rating curve
The flow rate at a gauged stream is traditionally
estimated through a stage–discharge relationship (i.e.
rating curve), which can be established by making
repeated measurements of stage and discharge over a
certain range of flow conditions (Kean and Smith, 2010;
Rantz, 1982; Schmidt, 2002). In gauged catchments,
rating curve usually has a higher accuracy under normal
conditions, but it must be extrapolated for high-flow
conditions. The accuracy of the extrapolation is always
questionable despite the possible improvement through
postevent data analysis and numerical simulation (Lang
et al., 2010).
In the present study, discharge time series at cross
section B from the recorded flood event is plotted against
the water stage in Figure 12. A power function is selected
to fit the measured discharge-stage relation, i.e.
Q ¼ aðh  bÞc (7)
where h is the measured stage (m), and b is the stage
corresponding to zero flow rate (m). The three coeffi-
cients a, b and c are determined based on a nonlinear least
square fit function in Matlab, and they are a = 16.79,
b = 0.50 (m) and c = 1.64. These best fitted parameters are
reasonable, as the water stage at a very low flow rate
(Q = 1.0 m3/s) was about 0.5 m (c.f., Figure 10 on 23 July
2014), and the exponent c = 1.64 is close to the theoretical
value of 5/3 for a wide rectangular channel-type of
hydraulic control (Le Coz et al., 2014).
DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Whilst several recent studies have shown LSPIV
applications in mountainous streams (Le Boursicaud
et al., 2016; Le Coz et al., 2010), this paper demonstrates
that an unattended LSPIV system can be applied for long-
term measurements of discharge and other hydrological
processes in ungauged mountainous catchments under a
variety of flow conditions. The system is built with
flexible, robust and off-the-shelf electronic components,
which can grab continuous images/videos automatically.
The computer board (Raspberry Pi) can be easily
programmed with simple commands to control the
camera module to operate at desired intervals. The
overall power consumption is less than 3W. In the
presented application, a 20 Ah battery allows the system
to operate for more than a month with a two-minute duty
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
 LSPIV FOR MOUNTAINOUS FLOOD MONITORING
cycle and 17 intervals per day. Image processing can be
applied to extract water surface velocity distribution with
the LSPIV algorithm. In addition, a modified stereo-
imaging approach, which is referred to as the ‘virtual
pole’ method, has been presented in this paper. With this
method, the stream channel bathymetry can be remotely
reconstructed without manual surveying. The reconstruct-
ed stream cross sections can also be ‘mapped’ onto flow
images to estimate the elevation and slope of the dynamic
water surface. Variations of stage and surface slope
during a flood flow process are important parameters for
surface image orthorectification, and their errors can
significantly affect the accuracy of surface velocity and
discharge measurements, as illustrated through the LSPIV
sensitivity analysis by Le Boursicaud et al. (2016).
Combining the surface velocity distribution and the
channel bathymetry reconstruction, we can estimate the
discharge following the standard velocity–area method.
As a proof-of-concept, the automated LSPIV system is
deployed in a mountainous stream at the Longchi
Catchment from June 2014. A flood event that occurred
on 24 July 2014 is selected for analysis. The surface
velocity measured with the LSPIV system is validated
with an impeller flow metre, and good agreement is found
with acceptable relative errors (lower than 10%). Water
surface level reconstructed from stereo-imaging analysis
is also validated with the marked water depth, and the
result indicates that the accuracy of the imaging method is
less than 4 cm (in terms of the RMSE). The time series of
hydraulic processes is calculated at six cross sections
focussing on the central part of the channel. The
discharge for this flood event ranged from about 3.5 to
almost 27 m3/s, which covers a good portion of the rating
curve interval. Although a stationary rating curve should
not be expected for the Longxi River because of the
varying bathymetry induced by frequent erosion and
deposition, the rating curve obtained from this one event
does show a good power-law relation. The Manning’s n
roughness coefficients can be estimated to be between
0.14 and 0.23, which agrees well with previously reported
values at the same site.
The experimental results suggest that this system can
serve as an applicable and reliable method for flash flood
monitoring in the mountainous catchment. It can provide
a large set of continuous flow data for an ungauged site
with extremely low cost. Hydrological data obtained can
be applied for flood analysis and future model calibration
and prediction.
Despite the advantages presented here, the current
configuration of the LSPIV system has some limitations.
In addition, some uncertainties for flow measurements
may not be solved with the LSPIV approach.
During night time, imaging technique requires light
illumination, which has not been included in the
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3027
preliminary study. Many storm and flow events started
at nights, including the event presented in this study. As a
result, the rising process of the flood was not recorded,
and about one third of the data of the process were
missing. The problem can be solved by applying a
continuous light source or pulsed flashlight to illuminate
the water surface at nights (Chaves, 2012). This will,
however, significantly increase the power consumption.
A solar panel or other source of energy will be needed to
recharge the battery for long-term deployment. Using an
infrared LED array as the light source and an infrared
version of the Raspberry Pi camera could be another
solution for night imaging. The infrared night vision has
the advantage of being more power efficient and having
fewer disturbances to the wildlife.
In the preliminary study, direct stereo imaging is only
applied for bathymetry reconstruction. The reconstruction
of the water surface was indirectly derived by identifying
the water-bank interface, with the assumption that surface
elevation is constant along the cross-stream direction. The
wave deformation, hardly being accounted in quantity
currently, would affect orthorectification accuracy and the
surface velocity direction which will induce errors in
discharge estimation. These limitations can be removed
by applying two synchronized LSPIV cameras with
flexible baseline configuration depending on the viewing
distance. The geometry of the rapidly moving surface can
be directly resolved with the same ‘virtual pole’ method.
However, the low-cost Raspberry Pi camera employed in
this study does not support the hardware external
triggering; thus, it might not be ideal for the stereo
imaging of the moving water surface. Although some
degree of synchronization can be achieved through
software triggering between two computer boards, the
temporal accuracy of this method is not documented, and
some calibration tests are needed to explore this
possibility.
The most significant limitation lies in the discharge
estimation. Firstly, the geometry and area of the stream
cross section can only be measured through imaging
before and after a flood event, when most parts of the
channel bed are exposed. It is, however, not possible to
detect the change of bathymetry during the event, as the
bed is subject to continuous erosion and deposition. The
unknown variation of the cross section can introduce
errors for discharge estimation if we assume that the
bathymetry is stationary. Secondly, the velocity–area
approach depends on an assumed uniform coefficient that
relates the surface velocity to the depth-averaged velocity.
It is almost certain that this coefficient is nonuniform, and
it can change with water stages. Although some
theoretical and experimental analyses on this coefficient
have been conducted in recent studies (Le Coz et al.,
2010), further investigation and experiments are needed
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
3028 Q. RAN ET AL.
in our future research, given the complexity of the
bathymetry of this steep mountainous stream. For the
presented study, it remains difficult to evaluate and
improve the accuracy of discharge measurements that are
based on surface velocity distribution.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research task was financially supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant
nos. 51328901 and 51379184) and the China Scholarship
Council (no. 201406320048). The authors would like to
express their sincere gratitude to their colleagues who
made great assistances to equipment developments and
field measurements in this project, especially Yan Liu,
Liguo Zhang, Dawei Guo, Chenge An, Tianheng Feng
and Yuxin Ma, and the reviewers who proposed valuable
comments. The collaborations of Tsinghua University
(China) and residents of Longchi county are also
appreciated.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Aziz YI, Karara HM. 1971. Direct linear transformation from
comparator coordinates into object space coordinates in close range
photogrammetry. In Proceedings of the ASP/UI Symposium. Close-
Range Photogrammetry: Urbana, IL; 1–18.
Ballesteros Cánovas JA, Eguibar M, Bodoque JM, Díez-Herrero A, Stoffel
M, Gutiérrez-Pérez I. 2011. Estimating flash flood discharge in an
ungauged mountain catchment with 2D hydraulic models and
dendrogeomorphic palaeostage indicators. Hydrological Processes 25
(6): 970–979.
Bechle AJ, Wu CH. 2011. Virtual wave gauges based upon stereo imaging
for measuring surface wave characteristics. Coastal Engineering 58(4):
305–316.
Birkinshaw SJ, Moore P, Kilsby CG, O’Donnell GM, Hardy AJ, Berry
PAM. 2014. Daily discharge estimation at ungauged river sites using
remote sensing. Hydrological Processes 28(3): 1043–1054.
Borga M, Boscolo P, Zanon F, Sangati M. 2007. Hydrometeorological
analysis of the 29 August 2003 flash flood in the Eastern Italian Alps.
Journal of Hydrometeorology 8(5): 1049–1067.
Borga M, Gaume E, Creutin JD, Marchi L. 2008. Surveying flash floods:
gauging the ungauged extremes. Hydrological Processes 22(18): 3883.
Bradley AA, Kruger A, Meselhe EA, Muste MV. 2002. Flow
measurement in streams using video imagery. Water Resources
Research 38(12): 51–1.
Brasington J, Vericat D, Rychkov I. 2012. Modeling river bed
morphology, roughness, and surface sedimentology using high
resolution terrestrial laser scanning. Water Resources Research 48
(11): W11519. DOI:10.1029/2012WR012223
Chaves, H. 2012. A weather independent illumination for field LSPIV.
16th Int Symp on Applications of Laser Techniques to Fluid Mechanics,
Lisbon, Portugal, 09–12 July, 2012.
Chu S, Yu B, Li L, Ma Y, Wu Y, Qi X. 2011. Forming mechanism and
characteristics of debris flow happened on August 13, 2010 in Jianping
Gully. Soil and Water Conservation in China 8: 52–54.
Costa JE, Spicer KR, Cheng RT, Haeni FP, Melcher NB, Thurman EM,
Keller WC. 2000. Measuring stream discharge by non-contact methods:
a proof-of-concept experiment. Geophysical Research Letters 27(4):
553–556.
Costa JE, Cheng RT, Haeni FP, Melcher N, Spicer KR, Hayes E, Barrick
D. 2006. Use of radars to monitor stream discharge by noncontact
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
methods. Water Resources Research 42(7): DOI:10.1029/
2005WR004430
Creutin JD, Muste M, Bradley AA, Kim SC, Kruger A. 2003. River
gauging using PIV techniques: a proof of concept experiment on the
Iowa River. Journal of Hydrology 277(3): 182–194.
Dramais G, Le Coz J, Camenen B, Hauet A. 2011. Advantages of a mobile
LSPIV method for measuring flood discharges and improving stage–
discharge curves. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research 5(4):
301–312.
Fenton JD, Keller RJ. 2001. The Calculation of Streamflow from
Measurements of Stage. Technical Report 01/6, CRC for Catchment
Hydrology, Melbourne, Australia.
Fujita I, Muste M, Kruger A. 1998. Large-scale particle image velocimetry
for flow analysis in hydraulic engineering applications. Journal of
Hydraulic Research 36(3): 397–414.
Fujita I, Kunita Y. 2011. Application of aerial LSPIV to the 2002 flood of
the Yodo River using a helicopter mounted high density video camera.
Journal of Hydro-Environment Research 5(4): 323–331.
Getirana ACV, Peters-Lidard C. 2013. Estimating water discharge from
large radar altimetry datasets. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17
(3): 923–933.
Gordon RL. 1989. Acoustic measurement of river discharge. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 115(7): 925–936.
Grant GE. 1997. Critical flow constrains flow hydraulics in mobile-bed
streams: a new hypothesis. Water Resources Research 33(2): 349–358.
Gunawan B, Sun X, Sterling M, Shiono K, Tsubaki R, Rameshwaran P,
Knight DW, Chandler JH, Tang X, Fujita I. 2012. The application of
LS-PIV to a small irregular river for inbank and overbank flows. Flow
Measurement and Instrumentation 24: 1–12.
Gui L, Merzkirch W. 1996. A method of tracking ensembles of particle
images. Experiments in Fluids 21(6): 465–468.
Gui L, Merzkirch W. 2000. A comparative study of the MQD method and
several correlation-based PIV evaluation algorithms. Experiments in
Fluids 28(1): 36–44.
Hapuarachchi HAP, Wang QJ, Pagano TC. 2011. A review of advances in
flash flood forecasting. Hydrological Processes 25(18): 2771–2784.
Hauet A, Kruger A, Krajewski WF, Bradley A, Muste M, Creutin JD,
Wilson M. 2008. Experimental system for real-time discharge
estimation using an image-based method. Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering 13(2): 105–110.
Holland TK, Holman RA, Lippmann TC, Stanley J, Plant N. 1997.
Practical use of video imagery in nearshore oceanographic field studies.
IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 22(1): 81–92.
Jarrett RD. 1991. Wading measurements of vertical velocity profiles.
Geomorphology 4(3): 243–247.
Jodeau M, Hauet A, Paquier A, Le Coz J, Dramais G. 2008. Application
and evaluation of LS-PIV technique for the monitoring of river surface
velocities in high flow conditions. Flow Measurement and Instrumen-
tation 19(2): 117–127.
Kean JW, Smith JD. 2010. Calculation of stage–discharge relations for
gravel bedded channels. Journal of Geophysical Research, Earth
Surface (2003–2012) 115(F3). DOI: 10.1029/2009JF001398
Kim Y. 2006. Uncertainty Analysis for Non-Intrusive Measurement of
River Discharge Using Image Velocimetry. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Iowa,
Iowa City, USA.
Kim Y, Muste M, Hauet A, Krajewski WF, Kruger A, Bradley A. 2008.
Stream discharge using mobile large-scale particle image velocimetry: a
proof of concept. Water Resources Research 44(9): W09502.
DOI:10.1029/2006WR005441
Lang M, Pobanz K, Renard B, Renouf E, Sauquet E. 2010. Extrapolation
of rating curves by hydraulic modelling, with application to flood
frequency analysis. Hydrological Sciences Journal–Journal des Sci-
ences Hydrologiques 55(6): 883–898.
Le Coz J, Hauet A, Pierrefeu G, Dramais G, Camenen B. 2010.
Performance of image-based velocimetry (LSPIV) applied to flash-flood
discharge measurements in Mediterranean rivers. Journal of Hydrology
394(1): 42–52.
Le Coz J, Renard B, Bonnifait L, Branger F, Le Boursicaud R. 2014.
Combining hydraulic knowledge and uncertain gaugings in the
estimation of hydrometric rating curves: a Bayesian approach. Journal
of Hydrology 509: 573–587.
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)
 LSPIV FOR MOUNTAINOUS FLOOD MONITORING
Lejot J, Delacourt C, Piégay H, Fournier T, Trémélo ML, Allemand P.
2007. Very high spatial resolution imagery for channel bathymetry and
topography from an unmanned mapping controlled platform. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms 32(11): 1705–1725.
Le Boursicaud R, Pénard L, Hauet A, Thollet F, Le Coz J. 2016. Gauging
extreme floods on YouTube: application of LSPIV to home movies for
the post-event determination of stream discharges. Hydrological
Processes 30(1): 90–105.
Liao Q, Cowen EA. 2005. An efficient anti-aliasing spectral continuous
window shifting technique for PIV. Experiments in Fluids 38(2): 197–208.
Lumbroso D, Gaume E. 2012. Reducing the uncertainty in indirect estimates
of extreme flash flood discharges. Journal of Hydrology 414: 16–30.
Marchi L, Borga M, Preciso E, et al. 2009. Comprehensive post-event
survey of a flash flood in Western Slovenia: observation strategy and
lessons learned. Hydrological Processes 23(26): 3761–3770.
Moyeed RA, Clarke RT. 2005. The use of Bayesian methods for fitting
rating curves, with case studies. Advances in Water Resources 28(8):
807–818.
Muste M, Vermeyen T, Hotchkiss R, Oberg K. 2007. Acoustic velocimetry for
riverine environments. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 133(12): 1297–1298.
Muste M, Fujita I, Hauet A. 2008. Large-scale particle image velocimetry
for measurements in riverine environments. Water Resources Research
44(4): W00D19. DOI:10.1029/2008WR006950
Muste M, Hauet A, Fujita I, Legout C, Ho HC. 2014. Capabilities of large-
scale particle image velocimetry to characterize shallow free-surface
flows. Advances in Water Resources 70: 160–171.
Oberg K, Mueller DS. 2007. Validation of streamflow measurements
made with acoustic Doppler current profilers. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 133(12): 1421–1432.
Ran Q, Qian Q, Li W, Fu X, Yu X, Xu Y. 2015. Impact of earthquake-
induced-landslides on hydrologic response of a steep mountainous
catchment: a case study of the Wenchuan earthquake zone. Journal of
Zhejiang University SCIENCE A 16: 131–142.
Rantz SE. 1982. Measurement and computation of streamflow. In
Measurement of Stage and Discharge, Vol. 1, Water-Supply Paper
2175. US Geological Survey: Washington.
Rickenmann D, Recking A. 2011. Evaluation of flow resistance in gravel-
bed rivers through a large field data set. Water Resources Research 47:
W07538. DOI:10.1029/2010WR009793
Ruiz-Villanueva V, Díez-Herrero A, Stoffel M, Bollschweiler M,
Bodoque JM, Ballesteros JA. 2010. Dendrogeomorphic analysis of
Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
View publication stats
3029
flash floods in a small ungauged mountain catchment (Central Spain).
Geomorphology 118(3): 383–392.
Ruiz-Villanueva V, Bodoque JM, Díez-Herrero A, Eguibar MA, Pardo-
Igúzquiza E. 2013. Reconstruction of a flash flood with large wood
transport and its influence on hazard patterns in an ungauged mountain
basin. Hydrological Processes 27(24): 3424–3437.
Schmidt, AR, 2002. Analysis of stage–discharge relations for open-
channel flows and their associated uncertainties (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
Simpson MR. 2001. Discharge Measurements Using a Broad-Band
Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (pp. 01–01). US Department of the
Interior, US Geological Survey, Sacramento, CA USA.
Suh YK. 2003. Multi-Frame MQD-PIV. KSME international journal 17
(10): 1552–1562.
Sweeney TL. 1992. Modernized Areal Flash Flood Guid-ance. In NOAA
Technical Memorandum NWS Hydro 44. National Weather Service:
Silver Spring, MD.
Tinkler KJ. 1997. Critical flow in rockbed streams with estimated values
for Manning’s n. Geomorphology 20(1): 147–164.
Trieste, DJ, Jarrett, RD, 1987. Roughness coefficients of large floods. In
Irrigation and Drainage Speciality Conference, ‘Irrigation Systems for
the 21st Century’, James LG, English MJ (eds). American Society of
Civil Engineers: Portland, OR; 32–40.
Turnipseed DP, Sauer VB. 2010. Discharge Measurements at Gaging
Stations. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey,
Washington, DC, USA: US Government Printing Office.
Wanek JM, Wu CH. 2006. Automated trinocular stereo imaging system
for three-dimensional surface wave measurements. Ocean Engineering
33(5): 723–747.
Xu Q, Zhang S, Li W, van Asch TW. 2012. The 13 August 2010
catastrophic debris flows after the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake, China.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 12: 201–216.
Yorke TH, Oberg KA. 2002. Measuring river velocity and discharge with
acoustic Doppler profilers. Flow Measurement and Instrumentation 13
(5): 191–195.
Zhang L, Fu X, Guo D, Li T. 2011. Flow resistance in gravel- and
boulder-bed streams: a case study of the Longxi River. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering (in Chinese) 44(6): 680–686.
Zhou W, Tang C. 2014. Rainfall thresholds for debris flow initiation in the
Wenchuan earthquake-stricken area, Southwestern China. Landslides
11(5): 877–887.
Hydrol. Process. 30, 3014–3029 (2016)