3.8 Article

Comparison of dense optical flow and PIV techniques for mapping surface current flow in tidal stream energy sites

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40095-022-00519-z

关键词

Tidal stream; Remote sensing; Energy; Drones; UAV; Optical flow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tests two algorithms to derive flow velocity information from video data collected by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) at tidal stream energy sites. Despite the underestimation issue in optical flow, the overall validation results suggest that this low-cost and low-risk data collection method has potential applications in tidal stream energy research.
Marine renewable energy site and resource characterisation, in particular tidal stream energy, require detailed flow measurements which often rely on high-cost in situ instrumentation which is limited in spatial extent. We hypothesise uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAV) offer a low-cost and low-risk data collection method for tidal stream environments, as recently techniques have been developed to derive flow from optical videography. This may benefit tidal and floating renewable energy developments, providing additional insight into flow conditions and complement traditional instrumentation. Benefits to existing data collection methods include capturing flow over a large spatial extent synchronously, which could be used to analyse flow around structures or for site characterisation; however, uncertainty and method application to tidal energy sites is unclear. Here, two algorithms are tested: large-scale particle image velocimetry using PIVlab and dense optical flow. The methods are applied on video data collected at two tidal stream energy sites (Pentland Firth, Scotland, and Ramsey Sound, Wales) for a range of flow and environmental conditions. Although average validation measures were similar (similar to 20-30% error), we recommend PIVlab processed velocity data at tidal energy sites because we find bias (underprediction) in optical flow for higher velocities (> 1 m/s).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据