Abstract
This manuscript describes and tests a set of improvements to the cBathy algorithm, published in 2013 by Holman et al. [hereafter HPH13], for the estimation of bathymetry based on optical observations of propagating nearshore waves. Three versions are considered, the original HPH13 algorithm (now labeled V1.0), an intermediate version that has seen moderate use but limited testing (V1.2), and a substantially updated version (V2.0). Important improvements from V1.0 include a new deep-water weighting scheme, removal of a spurious variable in the nonlinear fitting, an adaptive scheme for determining the optimum tile size based on the approximate wavelength, and a much-improved search seed algorithm. While V1.2 was tested and results listed, the primary interest is in comparing V1.0, the original code, with the new version V2.0. The three versions were tested against an updated dataset of 39 ground-truth surveys collected from 2015 to 2019 at the Field Research Facility in Duck, NC. In all, 624 cBathy collections were processed spanning a four-day period up to and including each survey date. Both the unfiltered phase 2 and the Kalman-filtered phase 3 bathymetry estimates were tested. For the Kalman-filtered estimates, only the estimate from mid-afternoon on the survey date was used for statistical measures. Of those 39 Kalman products, the bias, rms error, and 95% exceedance for V1.0 were 0.15, 0.47, and 0.96 m, respectively, while for V2.0, they were 0.08, 0.38, and 0.78 m. The mean observed coverage, the percentage of successful estimate locations in the map, were 99.1% for V1.0 and 99.9% for V2.0. Phase 2 (unfiltered) bathymetry estimates were also compared to ground truth for the 624 available data runs. The mean bias, rms error, and 95% exceedance statistics for V1.0 were 0.19, 0.64, and 1.27 m, respectively, and for V2.0 were 0.16, 0.56, and 1.19 m, an improvement in all cases. The coverage also increased from 78.8% for V1.0 to 84.7% for V2.0, about a 27% reduction in the number of failed estimates. The largest errors were associated with both large waves and poor imaging conditions such as fog, rain, or darkness that greatly reduced the percentage of successful coverage. As a practical mitigation of large errors, data runs for which the significant wave height was greater than 1.2 m or the coverage was less than 50% were omitted from the analysis, reducing the number of runs from 624 to 563. For this reduced dataset, the bias, rms error, and 95% exceedance errors for V1.0 were 0.15, 0.58, and 1.16 m and for V2.0 were 0.09, 0.41, and 0.85 m, respectively. Successful coverage for V1.0 was 82.8%, while for V2.0, it was 90.0%, a roughly 42% reduction in the number of failed estimates. Performance for V2.0 individual (non-filtered) estimates is slightly better than the Kalman results in the original HPH13 paper, and it is recommended that version 2.0 becomes the new standard algorithm.
Highlights
Coastal bathymetry and its change over time are of paramount importance to understanding and modeling coastal morphology and the health of natural coastal systems
Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3996 particular, bathymetry acts as the critical bottom boundary condition for numerical models of nearshore hydrodynamics and sediment transport and, is vital to predictions of coastal evolution needed by coastal communities to understand their vulnerabilities and mitigation options and, thereby, to enable decision support and policy making [1–3]
One of the main improvements is the larger region of successful coverage, defined as the fraction of the domain that yielded bathymetry estimated with a predicted error ≤0.5 m
Summary
Coastal bathymetry and its change over time are of paramount importance to understanding and modeling coastal morphology and the health of natural coastal systems. 2021, 13, 3996 particular, bathymetry acts as the critical bottom boundary condition for numerical models of nearshore hydrodynamics and sediment transport and, is vital to predictions of coastal evolution needed by coastal communities to understand their vulnerabilities and mitigation options and, thereby, to enable decision support and policy making [1–3]. Bathymetry, on the other hand, is often unknown or outdated, such that numerical models, that are all sensitive to bathymetry accuracy, will perform poorly and cannot be trusted [4,5]. This is a particular problem, as the focus shifts to coastal response of the world’s coastlines to climate change [6,7].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call