Tuning the CARIS implementation of CUBE for Patagonian Waters.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

List of Tables Table 4.1: Summary of minimum Standards for hydrographic surveys...........................37 Table 4.2: BASE surfaces achieved by different methodologies....................................39 Table 5.1: Sonar model for FANSWEEP 20 (200 kHz)..................................................53 Table 6.1: Different surfaces created and change in CUBE parameters. .........................62 x
List of Figures Figure 2.1: Illustration of multibeam system bottom detection .......................................12 Figure 2.2: Roll, pitch and heading representation .........................................................13 Figure 2.3: Sea bottom mistracking due to extreme seabed geometry.............................24 Figure 2.4: Backscatter signal in areas with different sedimentology..............................25 Figure 2.5: Common range ambiguity............................................................................26 Figure 3.1: Chilean Patagonia. .......................................................................................28 Figure 3.2: Glacial deformation and sedimentology. ......................................................29 Figure 3.3: Sea bottom mistracked in Patagonian fjords.................................................30 Figure 3.4: Noise-data produced by sea bottom mistracking...........................................32 Figure 5.1: Angostura Inglesa survey characteristics......................................................48 Figure 5.2: Peripherals installation parameters...............................................................50 Figure 5.3: Procedures used to compare various CARIS surfaces...................................59 Figure 6.1: SHOA surface achieved using interactive editing method ............................61 Figure 6.2: Capture Distance influence ..........................................................................64 Figure 6.3: Capture Distance Scale decreased to 2 % of the depth..................................68 Figure 6.4: The effect of using multiple grid resolution..................................................70 Figure 6.5: Density and cut-off effect in multiple resolution ..........................................72 Figure 6.6: New configuration (Estimate Offset change)................................................74 Figure 6.7: Differences between multiple and single resolution......................................77 Figure 6.8: Differences between CUBE default and CUBE Patagonia............................80 xi
Page 1 and 2: Tuning the CARIS implementation of
Page 3 and 4: Abstract This thesis is focused on
Page 5 and 6: Resumen Esta tesis está orientada
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements My sincere gratitu
Page 9: 4.3 Bathymetry Associated with Stat
Page 13 and 14: List of Symbols, Nomenclature or Ab
Page 15 and 16: In the case of the bathymetric data
Page 17 and 18: ATLAS FANSWEEP 20 is not one of the
Page 19 and 20: Capture Distance Minimum were modif
Page 21 and 22: • HIPS CUBE deep configuration, t
Page 23 and 24: is performed. Several CARIS surface
Page 25 and 26: are dependent on the nature of the
Page 27 and 28: 2.2 Beamwidth, Resolution and Beam
Page 29 and 30: In the FANSWEEP 20 electronic beamf
Page 31 and 32: For vessel motion compensation ATLA
Page 33 and 34: . Transducer referenced depth: trav
Page 35 and 36: wave lost traveling through the wat
Page 37 and 38: Sea bottom mistracking Figure 2.3:
Page 39 and 40: deal with echoes that arrive at the
Page 41 and 42: Recalling the previous chapter, the
Page 43 and 44: The fjords’ basins are basically
Page 45 and 46: 44m 124m Noise-data 168m Figure 3.4
Page 47 and 48: contained in CARIS HIPS, where main
Page 49 and 50: The advantage for bathymetric data
Page 51 and 52: uncertainty. The BASE surface meets
Page 53 and 54: The algorithm also has built-in che
Page 55 and 56: 4.4.2 Assimilation (Gathering proce
Page 57 and 58: hypothesis. Whether incoming soundi
Page 59 and 60: The Density-Locale rule in HIPS is
Page 61 and 62:
the respective BASE surface. Since
Page 63 and 64:
dimension and Reference Point (RP)
Page 65 and 66:
5.2.3 Construction of a new Device
Page 67 and 68:
Figure 5.3: Estimates of the perfor
Page 69 and 70:
A new Field Sheet called CUBE was c
Page 71 and 72:
In order to get comparison metrics
Page 73 and 74:
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this c
Page 75 and 76:
Table 6.1: Different CUBE configura
Page 77 and 78:
noise-data affecting the surface re
Page 79 and 80:
20% of depth or 2 metres from the n
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 6.3: Capture Distance Scale
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 6.4: The effect of using mul
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 6.5: The CARIS surface gener
Page 87 and 88:
Figure 6.6: (a). The results of CAR
Page 89 and 90:
The grid resolution selected was 5
Page 91 and 92:
6.3.2 CUBE new configurations. Seve
Page 93 and 94:
(a) (b) Figure 6.8: (a). Subset of
Page 95 and 96:
51,23m 88,93m Figure 6.10: Top left
Page 97 and 98:
6.4 Summary of results. 1. SHOA sur
Page 99 and 100:
from the node. Thus, the node estim
Page 101 and 102:
Interactive editing needs to be hel
Page 103 and 104:
CARIS intends future implementation
Page 105 and 106:
References and Bibliography Aber, J
Page 107 and 108:
CARIS, Geomatics Software. (2006a).
Page 109 and 110:
Llewellyn, K. (2006). Correction fo
Page 111 and 112:
APPENDIX A Ancillary sensors of the
Page 113 and 114:
100 APPENDIX B Device model for ATL
Page 115 and 116:
102 APPENDIX C DUMP ATLAS SURF Util
Page 117 and 118:
104 `B' Event Nr. 5 time 152.03 sec
Page 119 and 120:
106 APPENDIX D HVF population. 106
Page 121:
108 Vita Name: Miguel Ernesto Vásq
show all

Tuning the CARIS implementation of CUBE for Patagonian Waters.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?