
































Microsoft Word - 96-111_175.docx


ISSN 2744-1741 
Defense and Security Studies  Original Research 
Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 
https://doi.org/10.37868/dss.v2.id175 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) that allows others 
to share and adapt the material for any purpose (even commercially), in any medium with an acknowledgement of the work's 
authorship and initial publication in this journal. 

 96 

 
 
Turbulent flow height measurement with stereo vision 
 
Ajdin Jašarević1, Marko Hočevar1, Gašper Rak2 
1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 
1 Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 
 
  
 

*Corresponding author:  ajdinjasarevic1995@gmail.com  

© The Author  
2021. 
Published by  
ARDA. 

Abstract 
This paper describes the process of 3D analysis of two water currents with 
method of photogrammetry. Photogrammetry is used in fields such as 
architecture, engineering, police investigation, preserving cultural heritage, 
military and geology. This method can be used in military to reconstruct a site 
with traces of shrapnel or various projectiles. In our case we tried to measure 
height of turbulent flow, where two currents collided at the angle of 90°. In first 
section we introduce our problem and method. Second section describes method 
of photogrammetry and basics of torrential flows. In third section we describe our 
experiment. Fourth section describes the course of getting 3D model. In fifth 
section we analyze results and in sixth section, a conclusion is given. 

 

Keywords: torrential current; confluence of currents; 3D reconstruction; 
photogrammetry; 3D models  

1. Introduction 

With the existence of several types of measurement technologies and their increasing availability, approaches 
to measuring various phenomena in the living environment are also changing. Knowing the situation at the 
confluence, both on watercourses (riverbeds) and on many facilities and water infrastructure (fish paths) is of 
great importance for users and planners of works in this environment. At the confluence of two free-surface 
currents with higher Reynolds and Froud numbers, quasi-stationary standing waves appear, the flow dynamics 
of which are very pronounced. In the past, these properties have been measured with tactile or pressure 
sensors, but they have limited temporal and spatial resolution. In paper, we determined the height of such a 
stream with the help of photogrammetry. At a measuring station with two perpendicular currents, we recorded 
a quasi-standing wave with two high-speed cameras, and with the help of images we made a 3D model of the 
wave after their processing and determined its height. We found that the results were not accurate enough to 
determine the wave height or a more detailed analysis of the topographic structure, and that more accurate 
results would require a larger number of cameras to contribute to more images from several different angles. 

2. Torrential flow and photogrammetry 

In this section we will describe basics of torrential flow and photogrammetry. 

2.1. Torrential flow 

In free-surface flow, different flow regimes occur (subcritical, critical and supercritical). These regimes can 
transition from one to the other on shorter sections. At the available cross-sectional energy and at a given flow 
Q, a critical depth or one of the two conjugate depths occurs (at subcritical or supercritical currents). At low 
velocities and great depths, potential energy predominates. Such a flow is called a steady or subcritical flow. 
At high speeds and shallow depths, kinetic energy predominates. Such a flow is called a supercritical or 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

97 

torrential flow. It is characteristic of a subcritical current that the water moves slower and the current 
conditions are more affected by the downstream conditions, while in the case of a supercritical flow, the 
conditions are more affected by upstream conditions. At the transition from supercritical to subcritical flow 
and vice versa, a strongly turbulent flow occurs, which we call a water jump. There are marked losses of 
kinetic energy in the water jump. The first equation describes the depth for subcritical flow and the second for 
supercritical flow [1], [2]: 
 
 

 
Depth of subcritical 

flow: 
ℎ =

𝑣
2𝑔

2
+

𝑣
2𝑔

4
+

𝑣

2𝑔
∗ ℎ  

 

(1) 

 
 

Depth of supercritical 
flow: ℎ =

𝑣
2𝑔

2
+

𝑣
2𝑔

4
+

𝑣

2𝑔
∗ ℎ  

 

(2) 

 

The following equation states the condition for the occurrence of critical quantities of water flow, by means of 
which the critical depth can be calculated [1]: 
 

𝑄

𝑔
=

𝑆

𝐵
 (3) 

In equations, ℎ  represents depth at subcritical flow, ℎ  is depth at supercritical flow, 𝑣  stands for velocity 
at subcritical flow, 𝑣  represents velocity at supercritical flow and 𝐵  stands for surface width at critical 
flow. 
The free-surface flow regime is described by the dimensionless Froud number (Fr). The Froud number allows 
to describe the ratio of inertia and gravity forces, and is used to describe and model the free-surface flow 
caused by the component of the force of gravity in the downstream direction. We usually neglect the influence 
of viscous, surface and capillary stresses, if the models are not miniature, but if we take into account 
geometric similarities and similarities of boundary conditions, we can also achieve similarity of friction forces 
[2], [3]. 
 

𝐹𝑟 =
𝜌𝑣 𝑙

𝜌𝑔𝑙
=

𝑣

𝑔𝑙
=

𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠

𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠
 

(4) 

 
In equation (4) 𝑔𝑙 is the travel velocity of the gravitational wave, 𝑙 is the characteristic flow length and 𝑣 is 
the water flow velocity. The larger the Froud number, the smaller the influence of gravitational forces and the 
greater the influence of current kinetics, and conversely, the smaller the Fr, the greater the influence of 
gravitational forces [3]. Froud number gives information about the velocity of the flow in the flow, so it can 
be used as a measure of the water flow regime [2]. According to the value of Fr, the flow is divided into: 

- Fr < 1 (subcritical flow), 
- Fr = 1 (critical flow), 
- Fr > 1 (supercritical flow). 

In this research we are dealing mainly with 3D analysis of supercritical flow. 

2.2. Photogrammetry 

Photogrammetry is a method of obtaining reliable information about the properties of surfaces and objects 
without physical contact with objects and measuring and interpreting this information. In addition to 
processing and interpreting photographs, photogrammetry today also includes the processing of videos, 
images from laser scanners, X-ray images, magnetic resonance images, IR images and various devices such as 
sonar, radar, etc. The main purpose of photogrammetry in all the mentioned applications is to obtain 3D data 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

98 

from 2D photos or videos. Many analog, tactile, non-tactile, ultrasonic and optical methods and, above all, 
analytical techniques are used for this purpose. With the development of computing and with increasing 
processing power, the boundaries of application and accuracy of photogrammetry are moving towards 
increasingly realistic representations [4], [5]. 

3. Experiment 

A measuring station was made at the Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy in Ljubljana years ago, which 
replicates the conditions at the confluence of two flows in the natural environment, and is comparable to 
previous researches. The water comes to station from two channels, the main and the side channel. Main 
stream is a total of 6 m long and 0.5 m wide. Side channel is also 0.5 m wide and 1 m long. The confluence of 
two streams therefore occurs 1 m after the water enters the side stream and this length was chosen in order to 
stabilize the flow at the entrance and to achieve the same conditions on both lines before the confluence. The 
conditions at the test site with dimensions in mm are shown in figure 1. 
 

 
Figure 1. Conditions at the test site with dimensions 

Water flow in both channels was measured with separate flow meters installed at inlet channels of both flows. 
above the side channel, a metal stand is installed, which serves to stabilize the cameras, in order to minimize 
the vibrations that can be caused by the current. 3D sketch of test facility is shown in figure 2. To prevent 
reflections of light we installed black matt foil on glass surface of testing facility.  
 

 

 
Figure 2. 3D sketch of test facility 

Area of measurement 

Side channel inlet 

M
ain channel inlet 

O
utlet 

Flow meter 

Side inlet channel 

Main inlet channel 
High speed cameras 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

99 

3.1. High speed cameras 

Two Photron high-speed cameras were used to control the number of frames per second (fps), the aperture 
time and the moment of photo capture, all parameters were selected in Photron's computer software. We also 
synchronized the cameras so that we could set the same parameters for both cameras. We used the following 
cameras: Photron Mini UX100 800K black-white and Photron Mini UX100 800K colour. 
Both cameras enable the mounting of lenses according to C and F standards and the mounting of the housing 
on standard three-axis photo heads with a DIN933 ¼ '' - 20 UNC inch screw. The cameras have 16 GB of 
internal memory, which is enough to record a few seconds depending on the set number of frames per second, 
resolution, etc. The recordings were then transferred to a computer in .bmp format via an Ethernet port with a 
UTP cable. The synchronization and trigger ports were connected to each other with BNC cables. We had to 
move the cameras so far away that we captured what was happening at the confluence and a marker that we 
placed above the confluence so that the edge of the stand could not be seen in the photo. Figure 3 shows a 
view of the placement of the cameras from the direction of the side stream and opposite the side stream. 

  
Figure 3. View of the placement of the cameras from the direction of the side stream (left) and opposite the 

side stream (right) 
 
The original plan of experiment was to set up five speed cameras, with the help of which we could record the 
events at the confluence from several angles and produce a more accurate 3D model. In the end, we managed 
to get two speed cameras, which we placed on a stand made for this purpose. It was important that the 
cameras were at rest and that the vibrations at the confluence and on the testing facility did not affect the 
quality of the photograph. We placed the cameras above the side channel and thus directly recorded the events 
in the confluence from two angles. The camera was positioned so that in the center of the photo there was an 
event on the water surface of the confluence of two flows and a marker above them, so that we shifted them 
by 60 cm, on an imaginary circle the angular distance between them was 30°, as shown in figure 4. 
 

 
Figure 4. Placement of cameras at testing facility 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

100 

There were several influences on the camera placement positions. Since we had a wave that was high, we had 
to position them so that we also caught the top of the wave so that we could measure the area. In addition to 
wanting to capture the top of the wave, we also had to capture the bottom, but we had to be careful not to pull 
the camera too far away from the confluence, as we would lose a lot of information about the topography.  
The position of the edges of the testing facility also influenced the position of the camera, as the edges made it 
impossible for us to capture some shots at the confluence. The angle of 30° was chosen because the Reality 
Capture software, in which we performed the bulk of the reconstruction of photos into 3D models, 
recommends an angle between 15° and 30° depending on how many cameras are being used. Since we only 
used two cameras, we chose the largest possible angle to try to capture as much of the action as possible. If we 
chose a smaller angle, we would not get much more information than if we recorded with a single camera, but 
if we chose a larger angle, the program would not detect common points. 
 

3.2. Lenses 

We used two wide-angle lenses, as we wanted to capture the widest possible viewing angle. We used a lens 
with a focal length of 18 mm. As a result, we captured the glass edges of the measuring station, which we then 
cut off in the Adobe Photoshop software environment. The following lenses were used: 

- AF-S NIKKOR 18-200 mm 3.5-5.6 GED, 
- AF-S NIKKOR 18-55 mm 3.5-5.6 GIIED. 

3.3. Lightning 

Due to the camera settings, which required a lot of light on the sensor, we installed nine different light 
sources. The events were exposed to the sensor for a very short time, as we took thousands of shots in one 
second. Therefore, adequate lighting of the recorded object is crucial. In addition, we had to illuminate 
strongly so that we could set the aperture speed to a low value due to the better sharpness of the recorded 
events. The light sources were positioned so that all the light beams were directed as far as possible towards 
the center of the confluence of flows, as shown in figure 5. If the light were not directed evenly, one part of 
the testing facility or the confluence would be illuminated better than the second part, which would help to 
ensure that the edges of the confluence were not correctly detected when making the 3D model. 
 

 
Figure 5. Lightning at testing facility 

Light sources were installed above the main and side channel, above the confluence, above the drain channel 
and five more halogen lamps, which were installed either directly on the L profile (three lamps) above the 
water surface or with a transverse profile across the channel (two lamps). Four LED lamps and five halogen 
lamps are installed, and the lamp on the diagram, marked with a cross in a circle, is an LED lamp mounted 
directly above the confluence. 

Main channel 

Si
de

 c
ha

nn
el

 

Transverse profile above the channel 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

101 

3.4. Experiment scenarios 

To perform the experiment, we set eight different scenarios. The scenarios differed from each other in the set 
flow on both channels and in the height of opening at inlets. We used three different channel opening heights 
and eight different flow settings, all in supercritical mode. To determine the Froud number, we had to 
calculate the velocities and characteristic dimension for the experiment. The velocity was determined by the 
equation below. We have shown an example of calculating the Froud number in the main channel for the first 
scenario, for the other scenarios in the main channel and in the side channel the procedure is identical. We 
first had to calculate the water velocity in the canal. 
 
 

𝑣 , =
𝑄 ,

̇

𝑆
=

𝑄 ̇

𝐻𝑑
=

0,0158 
𝑚
𝑠

0,010𝑚 ∙ 0,500𝑚
= 3,167 

𝑚

𝑠
 

(5) 

 
   

Here 𝑄 ,
̇  is the water flow in the main channel in , 𝐻 is the opening height and 𝑑 is the width of the main 

channel. We then determined the characteristic length 𝑙, which in our case is the height of the channel 
opening. Using this data, we were able to calculate the Freud number for the first scenario in the main 
channel. The procedure is shown in the equation below. 
 
 

𝐹𝑟 , =
𝑣 ,

𝑔𝑙 ,

=
3,167 

𝑚
𝑠

9,81
𝑚
𝑠

 ∙ 0,01𝑚 

= 10,11 
(6) 

 
All scenarios with calculated velocities and Froud numbers are shown in table 1. 

Table 1: Scenarios for experiment 

Opening 
height 
[𝒎𝒎] 

 
 
 

Scenario 

Flow in 
main 

channel 
(𝑸𝒎)̇  

 
𝒎𝟑

𝒉
 

Flow in 
side 

channel 
(𝑸𝒔)̇  

 
𝒎𝟑

𝒉
 

Velocity 
in main 
channel 

(𝒗𝒎) 
 

𝒎

𝒔
 

Velocity 
in side 

channel 
(𝒗𝒔) 

 
𝒎

𝒔
 

Froud 
number in 

main 
channel 
(𝑭𝒓𝒎) 

 
 

Fround 
number in 

side 
channel 

(𝑭𝒓𝒔) 
 
 

10 
1 57 42 3,17 2,33 10,11 7,45 
2 67 50 3,72 2,78 11,88 8,87 

15 

3 103 77 3,81 2,85 9,94 7,43 
4 122 65 4,52 2,41 11,78 6,28 
5 124 83 4,59 3,07 11,97 8,01 

25 

6 156 112 3,47 2,49 7,00 5,03 
7 174 128 3,87 2,84 7,81 5,74 
8 180 80 4,00 1,78 8,08 3,59 

 

4. Making of 3D model 

In this section, we describe the process of obtaining the results of our experiment. It describes how we 
processed the photos, made and processed the mesh, made a 3D model of the water surface at the confluence 
and finally measured the flow height. 
 
 
 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

102 

To create a 3D model, we used several different software tools, with which we finally came to the desired 3D 
model: 

- Photron FASTCAM Viewer: We used this software to capture photos and transfer photos in bmp 
format to a computer. 

- Adobe Photoshop: A software tool that allows us to convert photos to jpg format and process 
photos, as mentioned in chapter 4.1, which serves to change the color photo to black and white 
and automate this process for all photos in the series. 

- Reality Capture: The central programming environment, with the help of which, as described in 
chapter 4.2, we created a 3D mesh in the format of obj from photographs and initially cut and 
processed the 3D mesh. 

- MeshLab: A software environment that reduces the number of mesh elements without much loss 
of topography information, as described in section 4.3. In the end, we got a 3D mesh in the form 
of a stl format. 

- Autodesk Fusion 360: Using this program, we created a 3D model in iges format from the 3D 
grid, as described in chapter 4.4. 

- NX Siemens: A modelling software who was then able to manipulate the 3D model, measure the 
height as described in section 4.5, and place it in a 3D sketch of the measuring line for easier 
representation. 

4.1. Processing photos before creating 3D mesh 

Figure 6 shows two photos, recorded for scenario 2. One photo is in color and other one is in black and white. 
 

  
Figure 6. Black and white photo recorded with camera 1 (left) and color photo recorded with camera 2 (right) 
 
For further processing, we had to change the photo from .bmp to .jpg format using Adobe Photoshop software, 
as we could not process colored photo in the original format. Using the Batch feature in Adobe Photoshop, we 
did the same with all the photos automatically. Using the same feature and program, we then converted the 
color photos to black and white. 
We then imported all the photos into the Reality Capture software, with the help of which we created the .obj 
model and exported the mesh for further making of the 3D model. We inserted 50 images from the first 
camera and 50 images from the second camera, which were taken in sync, into the program. We did this 
because the program does not allow you to create a model from only two photos, i.e. from one photo on 
camera 1 and from one photo on camera 2. When we imported photos, we selected the Detect Markers 
function in the Reality Capture software, so the program itself detected a marker to determine orientation in 
space. The marker was generated by the Reality Capture software itself using the Generate Markers feature, 
so we were able to print it and the program detected it immediately. The problem arose when the program 
detected only the marker from all the events on the testing facility, so that in reality it produced only a 3D 
representation of the marker, as shown in figure 7. Due to the lack of common points on the water surface at 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

103 

the confluence with the common point on the marker, which software detected in all photos, software 
considered the marker to be the center of our events and thus predicted the need to create only a 3D model of 
the marker. 
 

 
Figure 7. 3D model of marker 

Therefore, we decided to remove the markers from the photo and crop the photos as much as possible in such 
a way that the largest share of the photo is happening at the confluence of flows. In order for Reality Capture 
to better recognize that we want to create a 3D model of the water surface, we have further brightened the 
water, which has also helped to better detect the edges. We did this in the Adobe Photoshop software, where 
we processed all the photos by lightening the flow and darkening the background as much as possible to best 
separate the edges of the water surface from the background. The differences between the photographs before 
processing and after processing are shown in figure 8. 
 

  
Figure 8. Photo before removing markers (left) and after removing markers and enlightening flow (right)  

4.2. Mesh creation 

Based on the reasons presented above, it was decided to remove the markers from the image and undertake the 
3D reconstruction only with photographs of the water. So we first cropped all the photos from both cameras to 
the same resolution, using Adobe Photoshop again, and using the Batch feature, we automated this process for 
all the photos. The photos thus processed were then inserted into the Reality Capture program. Immediately 
after importation, the program itself detected somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 total points in the photos. 
Since we already had enough common points in the photos, we chose the Align images function in the Reality 
Capture software, which created a cloud of common points from the photos, as shown in figure 9. 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

104 

 

 
Figure 9. Cloud of common points on photos 

After creating a point cloud, we were able to start making a 3D mesh. We did this by selecting the Normal 
detail function in the Reality Capture software environment, which means that we used medium-precision 3D 
mesh fabrication. We did not choose higher accuracy because this would greatly slow down the reconstruction 
process and make it impossible to produce a 3D model due to the large number of elements. So we got the 
first coarse3D mesh. Using the Texture function in the same software, we also added a texture to the grid to 
make it easier to process. The coarse mesh is shown in figure 10. 
 

 
Figure 10. Coarse mesh with texture  

We had to process the coarse mesh by trimming anything that didn’t represent water, such as the walls, the 
light reflections from the wall, and various very small droplets that weren’t part of the reconstruction. We first 
trimmed the model so that we only got water at the confluence, then with the help of the Close holes function 
in the Reality Capture software we closed all the holes in the model that would hinder the production of the 
3D model. The Smoothing tool function, which is also part of the Reality Capture software, smoothed our 
surface a bit, thus achieving an even smaller number of elements. Finally, we checked to see if we had any 
more bugs on the model, using the Check topology feature in the same software environment. In the end, we 
got a trimmed mesh. 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

105 

4.3. Processing the mesh 

The model was then exported in the form of obj. From the obj format, we wanted to convert the reconstructed 
object into a 3D model, which can be imported into the modeler and manipulated (we add other elements, 
measure the flow height, determine the topographic properties…). In order to do this, we had to reduce the 
number of elements. We had to do this so that by reducing the elements, the key topographic properties of the 
model are not lost, but that we still get below 10,000 elements. The network was processed using the MeshLab 
program and the Quadratic Edge Collapse Decimation function. The original mesh had 18,189 elements. 
Since the program (Autodesk Fusion 360) for converting a mesh to a 3D model is limited by a finite number 
of elements, which is a maximum of 10,000, we decided to reduce the number of elements twice, and in 
marked places where reducing the number of elements will not lose key topography information. The function 
of the MeshLab software, called Preserve topology, which enables the preservation of topographic properties 
despite the reduction in the number of elements, also helped us to preserve the topography of the model. It is 
important to reduce the number of elements so that not too much information is lost, as shown in figure 11. 
 

 
Figure 11. Mesh with less elements (left) and mesh with more elements (right) [6] 

In the end, we created a mesh with 9,094 elements and saved the mesh in .stl format, which allows the 
creation of a 3D model, but does not allow the preservation of the textural properties of the model contained 
in an .obj file. Textures were no longer needed at this stage, as we only needed them in the initial process to be 
able to separate the water at the confluence from the other elements. Figure 12 shows the difference between 
the mesh before processing in MeshLab and the mesh after processing. We notice that the differences in 
topography are smaller despite the two reductions of the elements, and we can also notice that the mesh has no 
texture after processing. 
 

  
Figure 12. Mesh before element reduction (left) and after element and texture reduction (right) 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

106 

4.4. Creation of 3D model 

We started creating a 3D model in Autdesk Fusion 360 software. After importing mesh into a software, we 
chose the Mesh to BRep function, which creates a 3D model from the mesh. Once the program created a 3D 
model, we exported it in .iges format to obtain a 3D model, as shown in figure 13. 
 

 
Figure 13. 3D model of confluence of two flows 

Then, for easier presentation, we made a rough shape of the testing facility and placed the water surface model 
inside the created testing facility model in the NX Siemens software, as shown in figure below. 
 

 
Figure 14. 3D model of confluence in testing facility model 

We can see that the model has almost no depth, it is also very roughly trimmed, as shown in figure 15. It 
doesn’t have depth because we only captured with two high-speed cameras, so we captured a very small angle 
of action. Since it is very difficult to determine the boundaries of the confluence from the surroundings due to 
the transparency of the water, we cut off a large part of the model, which apparently belonged to the water 
confluence. This makes it difficult to determine where the bottom of the model is or where the starting point 
for measuring height is. 
 
 

Main channel 

Side channel 

3D model  
of 
confluence 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

107 

 

  
Figure 15. 3D model of confluence from left (left) side and right side (right) 

4.5. Turbulent flow height measurement 

After importing the 3D model into the modeler, we were able to measure the wave height. We would have to 
scale the 3D model first, as we only got the shape, not the real dimensions. In order to be able to scale, we 
would need a reference height or some reference length measure in the photo in at least one scenario, but we 
did not perform this measurement, so the heights are given only in some scale, and for further measurements 
we would need a more accurate reference length measure which could scale our 3D model.  
An example of height measurement in the Siemens NX software environment is shown in figure 16, shown 
below. 
 

 
Figure 16. Turbulent flow height measurement 

We managed to create models for seven of the eight scenarios performed. The height was measured at the 
highest point in the model, the unscaled results are shown in table 2, where parameters of all scenarios with 
measured turbulent flow heights were shown. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

108 

Table 2: Parameters of all scenarios with measured turbulent flow heights 

Opening 
height 
[𝒎𝒎] 

 
 
 

Scenario 

Flow in 
main 

channel 
(𝑸𝒎)̇   

 
𝒎𝟑

𝒉
 

Flow in 
side 

channel 
(𝑸𝒔)̇   

 
𝒎𝟑

𝒉
 

Velocity 
in main 
channel 

(𝒗𝒎) 
 

𝒎

𝒔
 

Velocity 
in side 

channel 
(𝒗𝒔) 

 
𝒎

𝒔
 

Froud 
number in 

main 
channel 
(𝑭𝒓𝒎) 

 
 

Fround 
number in 

side 
channel 

(𝑭𝒓𝒔) 
 
 

Wave height 
measurement 

(𝑯𝒘) 
[𝒎𝒎] 

10 
1 57 42 3,17 2,33 10,11 7,45 10,80 
2 67 50 3,72 2,78 11,88 8,87 23,13 

15 

3 103 77 3,81 2,85 9,94 7,43 38,32 
4 122 65 4,52 2,41 11,78 6,28 44,24 
5 124 83 4,59 3,07 11,97 8,01 24,23 

25 

6 156 112 3,47 2,49 7,00 5,03 18,03 
7 174 128 3,87 2,84 7,81 5,74 / 
8 180 80 4,00 1,78 8,08 3,59 36,60 

 

5. Discussion 

At first glance, we can see that neither the shape nor the height of the flow correspond to the real situation, so 
we can conclude that the reconstruction failed. This can already be seen in figure 17, which shows a photo we 
took with a high-speed camera and a 3D model we made. The very rough shape is reconstructed correctly (in 
2D shape) but when recording water there are many factors that affect the quality of the shot. 
 

  
Figure 17. High speed camera photo (left) and 3D model (right) 

The first thing we notice is that the edges and shape are not precise. This happened because the software could 
not accurately separate the water from the environment around water. This happened because we directed so 
much light into one part of the confluence (into the part of the water where the dynamics were greatest) that 
the other part remained virtually unlit. Thus, one part of the confluence is too illuminated, where losing the 
topographic properties of the current occurred, and the other part is poorly visible. To make the original, 
coarsest shape, we should direct the light as evenly as possible across the entire water flow. 
Another problem associated with lighting is that light on water reflects differently at different angles. In other 
words, one drop or any other water part can be seen differently on photo from one camera than on photo from 
other camera, which means that making a 3D model was difficult because the program did not find some 
common droplets because it did not detect them as uniform in both photos due to different lighting. The 
solution would be a light source that is as evenly directed and scattered across the water surface. We also 
found that it is possible to increase the brightness of the water quite effectively with software processing, so 
that such lighting is not required, as it can be replaced in software photo processing. 
 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

109 

The third problem is that we didn’t capture the same frame with both cameras. This was made impossible for 
us by the configuration of the testing facility itself, as we were limited by the glass edge of the channel, which 
made it impossible for us to capture the frames located behind the wall of the channel. We were able to 
capture this shot with one camera, but not with another. An example of a photograph with both cameras is 
shown in figure 18, where we notice that a large part of the frame on camera 2 is missing. This could be 
corrected by changing the flows so that the action would take place in the middle of the channel, where the 
footage could be captured on both cameras. 
 

  
Figure 18. Frame shot on camera 1 (left) and camera 2 (right) 

The next problem was the marker. The marker is used so that the program can orientate from where the photos 
are taken, depending on how far the marker is moved to one or the other side. With the help of a marker, it 
then makes a reconstruction of the object located around the marker. Because we placed the marker outside 
the center of events, the program practically made only a 3D model of the marker, and did not detect water at 
all. For better results and in general for the use of the marker, it would be sensible to place the marker in the 
center of events, preferably directly in the watercourse of the confluence so that the marker is visible in all 
photographs, as seen in figure below on right, where 3D reconstruction of cavitation structures was discussed. 
We can see that in this case the marker is placed so that it is located in the center of the event or movement of 
the ultrasound probe. It would also make sense to place a few objects in the confluence that would be visible 
on all cameras (a small marble that is attached to the confluence with a string, but does not affect flow 
conditions), differently colored segments of water or testing facility visible on all cameras, and it would also 
help to install more markers, but it is crucial that they are all visible in all photos. 
 

  
Figure 19. Placing a marker outside the center of events in our experiment (left) and placing a marker in the 

center of events in the experiment (right) [4] 
 
The biggest problem, however, is the number of cameras. Since we used two cameras, we met only the 
minimum requirements for the number of cameras, so that it is theoretically possible to make a 3D model. The 
original purpose was to shoot with a high-speed camera, so that we could create more 3D models in a short 
time (less than half a second), and then create 3D models depending on the time change of the water level. We 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

110 

would need more speed cameras for this purpose. To make our model, however, we would only need as many 
cameras as possible and not speed cameras, which would be placed in as many places around the confluence 
as possible, thus capturing events from several angles. 
It would be important to have as similar a sensor as possible, so it would be ideal to shoot with the same 
cameras that have the same aperture speed and that are synchronized. For the purpose of capturing 
topographies at a given moment, it is not necessary to have fast cameras as slow cameras can be used, which 
are also cheaper. It would also be helpful if all the cameras were producing colored photos as this would give 
us more information. With two cameras recording a 30° angle of view, representing only 1/12 of the total 360 
° frame, we obtained very little data on the depth and topographic structure of the water surface. It is clear 
from the 3D model that we lack the depth that we would gain with a larger number of cameras or a larger 
viewing angle. Given that the recommended distance of the cameras from the center of the event is 15-30°, it 
would be optimal to install between 12 and 24 cameras, depending on a certain angle of distance between the 
cameras. It would also be important to install at least one, and preferably five high-speed cameras above the 
confluence, with which the topography would also be recorded from above. The cameras above the 
confluence are not essential for determining the flow height, but they are important for making the 3D model 
as accurate as possible. 
It would also make sense to capture photographs from different distances from confluence, i.e. closer for a 
more accurate capture of topographic details or more remote for better edge detection of the 3D model. 

6. Conclusions 

In this article the subject of the method of measuring the height of a turbulent flow at the confluence of two 
flows with the photogrammetry method was considered. At the test site, the confluence was filmed with two 
high-speed cameras placed above the side-flow channel. The photographs were then processed accordingly, 
with the help of the Reality Capture software, a 3D reconstruction of the confluence was made and the wave 
height was measured. 
Following was found out: 

 we found out that it is possible to make a 3D model of the confluence with the method. 
 It was found out that the method is not accurate if only two high-speed cameras are used, and that the 

key to the accuracy of the method is to use as many cameras as possible from as many confluence 
angles as possible. 

 We showed that the marker should be placed in the center of events for greater accuracy of 3D 
modeling. 

 We also found out that in order to measure the wave height at the confluence, it is necessary to have a 
reference length in the photograph, with help of which we can subsequently determine the exact wave 
height. 

 We proposed corrections when performing the experiment. 
 We also made suggestions for improving the reconstruction process. 

The obtained results provide an appropriate basis for the basic starting point of repeating the experiment with 
all the proposed corrections. These suggestions allow for good planning of both the execution of the 
experiment and the further processing of the obtained photographs all the way to the production of 3D models. 
We believe that the proposed corrections will enable a successful and accurate reconstruction of the 
confluence. 

Declaration of competing interest 

The authors declare that they have no any known financial or non-financial competing interests in any 
material discussed in this paper. 

Funding information  

No funding was received from any financial organization to conduct this research. 

 

 



 DSS Vol. 2, May 2021, pp.96-111 

111 

References  

[1] F. Steinman, Hydraulics, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, 2010. 

[2] G. Rak, Topological structure of water level at the confluence at torrential flow, PhD Thesys, 
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Ljubljana, 2017. 

[3] P. Novak, A. I. Moffat, C. Nalluri, Hydraulic structures, Taylor & Francis, 2007. 

[4] G. Kozmus, Reconstruction of dynamics and topology of cavitation structures on an ultrasound probe, 
Master thesys, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ljubljana, 2019. 

[5] E. M. Mikhail, J. S. Bethel, J. C. McGlone, Introduction to modern photogrammetry, John Wiley & 
Sons, New York, 2001. 

[6] Free 3D, Hair toon 3 quality mesh, Availible at: https://free3d.com/3d-model/hair-toon-2-quality-mesh-
6253.html. 

 

 

 
 
 


