Biblio: separating incident and reflected

biblio/chapters/literature.tex

@@ -1,8 +1,12 @@
 \chapter{Literature Review}
 In this chapter, literature relevant to the present study will be reviewed.
+Three sections will be detailled: the separation of incident and reflected
+components from wave measurements, the modelisation of wave impacts on a
+rubble-mound breakwater, and the modelisation of block displacement by wave
+impacts.
 
 \section{Separating incident and reflected components from wave buoy data}
-
+\subsection{Introduction}
 The separation of incident and reflected waves is a crucial step in numerically
 modeling a sea state. Using the raw data from a buoy as the input of a wave
 model will lead to incorrect results in the domain as the flow velocity at the
@@ -13,7 +17,7 @@ sea states,
 and they can generally be categorised in two types of methods: array methods
 and PUV methods \parencite{inch2016accurate}. Array methods rely on the use of
 multiple measurement points of water level to extracted the incident and
-reflected waves, while PUV methods use colocated pressure and velocity
+reflected waves, while PUV methods use co-located pressure and velocity
 measurements to separate incident and reflected components of the signal.
 
 \subsection{Array methods}
@@ -87,39 +91,75 @@ seabeds, as shoaling is not part of the underlying model.
 
 \subsubsection{Conclusion}
 Array methods have been developped enough to provide accurate results in a wide
-range of situations. However, they require at least two wave gauges to be used.
+range of situations. Sensibility to noise has been reduced, and the influence
+of shoaling has been considered. Those methods can also be applied to irregular
+non-linear waves.
+
+However, they require at least two wave gauges to be used.
 That means that in some situations such as the Saint-Jean-de-Luz event of 2017,
 other methods are needed since only one field measurement location is
 available.
 
 \subsection{PUV methods}
+The goal of PUV methods is to decompose the wave field into incident and
+reflected waves using co-located wave elevation and flow velocity measurements
+\parencite{tatavarti1989incoming}. \textcite{tatavarti1989incoming} presented a
+detailled analysis of separation of incoming and outging waves using co-located
+velocity and wave height sensors. Their method allows to obtain the reflection
+coefficient relative to frequency, as well as to separate incident and
+reflected wave components. Compared to array methods, this method also strongly
+reduces the influence of noise.
 
-\begin{itemize}
-	\item ?? \cite{guza1977resonant}: model of the surf zone as a standing wave
-		combined with a progressive wave. Accurate results of surface elevation and
-		runup for reflectivities over 0.3.
+\textcite{kubota1990} studied the influence of the considered wave theory on
+incident and reflected wave separation. Three methods, based on linear
+long-wave theory, small-amplitude wave theory and quasi-nonlinear long-wave
+theory respectiveley were developped and compared. The results show that the
+quasi-nonlinear approach gave the most accurate results.
 
-	\item ?? \cite{guza1984}: 
+%\textcite{walton1992} applied a separation method based on co-located pressure
+%and velocity measurements on field, studying two natural beaches. This study
+%showed that reflection is not significant on natural beaches. Additionnaly, the
+%method that is used allowed for larger reflected energy than incident energy.
 
-	\item \cite{tatavarti1989incoming}: Decompose colocated random field
-		measurements of wave elevation and currenct velocity into incoming and
-		outgoing components. Less sensitive to noise.
+Research by \textcite{hughes1993} showed how co-located horizontal velocity and
+vertical velocity (or pressure) sensors can be used to extract incident and
+reflected wave spectra. Their method is based on frequency domain linear
+theory, and provided accurate results for full reflection of irregular
+non-breaking waves. Low-reflection scenarii were evaluated against the results
+from \textcite{goda1977estimation}, and showed good agreement between both
+methods. \textcite{hughes1993} also highlights that reflection estimates are
+unreliable for higher frequency, where coherency between the two measured
+series is lower.
 
-	\item \cite{kubota1990}: comparison between different wave theories:
-		quasi-nonlinear long-wave theory gave the best results.
+Following the work of \textcite{tatavarti1989incoming},
+\textcite{huntley1999use} showed how principal component analysis can alleviate
+noise-induced bias in reflection coefficient calculations compared to
+time-domain analysis. They also stuied the influence of imperfect collocation
+of the sensors, showing that the time delay between sensors leads to a peak in
+the reflection coefficient at a frequency related to this time delta.
 
-	\item \cite{walton1992}: application to beaches, possibility to have higher
-		reflected energy than incident energy.
+%%% TODO? %%%
+%\begin{itemize}
+%	\item \cite{sheremet2002observations}:
+%\end{itemize}
 
-	\item \cite{hughes1993}: colocated horizontal and vertical velocities or
-		horizontal velocity and surface elevation. Validation for full reflection
-		of irregular non breaking waves.
+\subsection{Conclusion}
+Numerous methods have been developped in order to separate incident and
+reflected components from wave measurements. Array methods rely on the use of
+multiple, generally aligned, wave gauges, while PUV methods rely on the use of
+co-located sensors, generally a wave height sensor and a horizontal velocity
+sensor. Array methods generally have the advantage of being more cost-effective
+to implement, as the cost of reliable velocity measurement devices can be
+important \parencite{hughes1993}. Nevertheless, PUV methods are generally more
+accurate regarding noise, varying bathymetry, and can be setup closer to
+reflective surfaces \parencite{hughes1993,inch2016accurate}.
 
-	\item \cite{huntley1999use}: principal component analysis technique to avoid
-		noise-induced bias.
-
-	\item \cite{sheremet2002observations}:
-\end{itemize}
+In the case of the 2017 event on the Artha breakwater, the results from a
+single wave gauge are available, which means that the array methods are not
+applicable. A PUV method \parencite{tatavarti1989incoming,huntley1999use}
+should then be used to evaluate the reflection coefficient of the Artha
+breakwater and to separate the incident and reflected wave components from the
+measured data.
 
 \section{Modeling wave impact on a breakwater}
 \subsection{SPH models}

biblio/library.bib

@@ -722,3 +722,11 @@
   publisher={American Society of Civil Engineers}
 }
 
+@incollection{isobe1985method,
+  title={Method for estimating directional wave spectrum in incident and reflected wave field},
+  author={Isobe, Masahiko and Kondo, Kosuke},
+  booktitle={Coastal Engineering 1984},
+  pages={467--483},
+  year={1985}
+}
+

biblio/notes/bibliography_research.tex

@@ -54,5 +54,6 @@ barbano2010large,PARIS20111,biolchi2016}
 \section{Other}
 \cite{miche1951}
 
+\cite{isobe1985method}
 \section{Flow in porous media}
 \paragraph{wave flow porous media} \cite{SHAO2010304}