Testing Di Single Beam Echosounder River Surveying. Case Study: Siret River

International Journal of
Geo-Information
Case Report
Testing Different Interpolation Methods Based on
Single Beam Echosounder River Surveying.
Case Study: Siret River
Maxim Arseni *, Mirela Voiculescu , Lucian Puiu Georgescu, Catalina Iticescu and Adrian Rosu
Faculty of Science and Environment, European Center of Excellence for the Environment, “Dunarea de Jos”
University of Galati, 111, Domneasca Street, 800201 Galati, Romania; mirela.voiculescu@ugal.ro (M.V.);
lucian.georgescu@ugal.ro (L.P.G.); catalina.iticescu@ugal.ro (C.I.); adrian.rosu@ugal.ro (A.R.)
* Correspondence: maxim.arseni@ugal.ro; Tel.: +40-746407084

Received: 12 September 2019; Accepted: 6 November 2019; Published: 10 November 2019
Abstract: Bathymetric measurements play an important role in assessing the sedimentation rate,
deposition of pollutants, erosion rate, or monitoring of morphological changes in a river, lake, or
accumulation basin. In order to create a coherent and continuous digital elevation model (DEM) of a
river bed, various data interpolation methods are used, especially when single-beam bathymetric
measurements do not cover the entire area and when there are areas which are not measured.
Interpolation methods are based on numerical models applied to natural landscapes (e.g., meandering
river) by taking into account various morphometric and morphologies and a wide range of scales.
Obviously, each interpolation method, used in standard or customised form, yields different results.
This study aims at testing four interpolation methods in order to determine the most appropriate
method which will give an accurate description of the riverbed, based on single-beam bathymetric
measurements. The four interpolation methods selected in the present research are: inverse distance
weighting (IDW), radial basis function (RBF) with completely regularized spline (CRS) which uses
deterministic interpolation, simple kriging (KRG) which is a geo-statistical method, and Topo to
Raster (TopoR), a particular method specifically designed for creating continuous surfaces from
various elevation points, contour, or polygon data, suitable for creating surfaces for hydrologic
analysis. Digital elevation models (DEM’s) were statistically analyzed and precision and errors were
evaluated. The single-beam bathymetric measurements were made on the Siret River, between 0 and
35 km. To check and validate the methods, the experiment was repeated for five randomly selected
cross-sections in a 1500 m section of the river. The results were then compared with the data extracted
from each elevation model generated with each of the four interpolation methods. Our results show
that: 1) TopoR is the most accurate technique, and 2) the two deterministic methods give large errors
in bank areas, for the entire river channel and for the particular cross-sections.
Keywords: interpolation; river bathymetry; single-beam echosounder; river cross-section; Siret River
1. Introduction
The assessment of water bodies (lakes, rivers, etc.) properties makes use of knowledge regarding
water quality, temperature, salinity, volumetric and depth measurements. The last contributes to the
accurate maintenance of dredging, and the bathymetric mapping of supraglacial lakes, rivers, and
streams, etc. The bathymetric models are the best solution to define the bottom surface of any type of
lakes or rivers, and these models are obtained by means of depth measurements. The bathymetric light
detection and ranging (LIDAR) scanning technology is currently the most applied surveying method
for data collection, and it is applied to capture land and seafloor simultaneously, to create a detailed
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 507; doi:10.3390/ijgi8110507 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijgi

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 507 2 of 21
3D elevation model along the coastline [1]. Although this is an effective and cost-efficient method, it
cannot provide enough detail about the stream or river bathymetry, due to its inability to measure
depth accurately where the water is cloudy or turbid [2]. In some cases, additional independent
measurements are required to confirm LIDAR bathymetry performance, especially in deep, turbid
waters or river cloudy waters, as mentioned e.g., by Kinzel [3] and Saylam [4]. Thus, if no bathymetric
LIDAR is available, an accurate DEM (digital elevation model) for river beds can be obtained, when
real-time kinematic (RTK) global positioning system (GPS) technologies are combined with multibeam
or single-beam echosounders [5,6].
River bathymetry or the so-called “bed topography” plays a critical role in flow dynamics
numerical modeling, in sediment transport modeling, geomorphologic modeling or in ecological
assessments [7]. The best way to collect precise data for a river is by surveying it on a specific direction,
namely on transversal cross-sectional paths [8,9]. The bathymetry measurement method is based on
a boat-mounted single-beam or multibeam echosounder device combined with a global positioning
system (GPS) with real-time kinematic (RTK) correction. Using this combination of measurements,
a series of three-dimensional data (x, y, z) can be collected. The spatial resolution of collected data
can be improved either by using a very expensive echosounder or by applying different methods
of spatial interpolation in a post-processing step. Spatial interpolation of scattered data points has
been an active research topic during the last decade since it has been applied in various fields. For
example, Li and Heap [10] present a review of 53 comparative studies which assess the performance of
72 interpolation submethods and combined methods, used in different domains. Special attention is
paid to the use of spatial interpolation techniques in hydrology, for interpolating scattered elevation
data in order to create digital elevation models (DEM), which include the minor bed of river channel.
According to Liffner [11], and Merwade [12] and Merwade [13], the DEM is affected directly by the
type of interpolation methods used.
The present study aims at demonstrating the importance of choosing the appropriate spatial
interpolation methods for interpolating river channel bathymetry data. The performance of four different
interpolation techniques were analyzed by applying different statistical methods of performance
assessment, such as: Minim value (MinV), maxim value (MaxV), mean error (ME), mean absolute error
(MAE), mean square error (MSE), root mean square error (RMSE), root mean square standardized error
(RMSSE) and standard deviation (SD) [13–18].
Study Area
The Siret hydrographic basin is located in the eastern part of Romania and it is the drainage basin
of River Siret, which is the largest and most important tributary of the Danube [19]. The Siret River
basin covers an area of 42,890 km2 in Romania, 28.116 km2 of which are managed by the Siret Water
Directorate [20] under the name Siret Hydrographic Space (SHS). The study area covers a 35 km section
upstream River Siret, along Galati–Sendreni–Independenta, i.e., from its confluence with the Danube,
up to Independenta village. River Siret forms a natural border between Galati and Braila counties.
Figure 1 shows an aerial map of the area under scrutiny.
The Siret riverbed material is composed of a combination of fine sand and silt [21]. The river
bankfull along the studied area is approximately 100 m wide. Since no accurate bathymetric
measurements have been made in this area [22], analyzing the bathymetry of this watercourse is
scientifically relevant. Moreover, the measurements and three-dimensional information corresponding
to this river section are of utmost contribution for enlarging the existing national databases.
The single-beam echosounder (SBES) is the most common instrument used in ports and in lake
and river surveys, because it is an efficient, low cost and accessible instrument. The SBES uses acoustic
depth measurements, which are based on measuring the elapsed time that an acoustic pulse takes
in order to travel from a transducer to the waterway bottom and back. The general formula of the
corrected depth is given by [23]:
1
d = ( v ∗ t ) + k + dr . (1)
2
ISPRS Int. J. Geo‐Inf. 2019, 8, 507 3 of 21
1
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 507 𝑑 1 𝑣∗𝑡 𝑘 𝑑 (1)
3 of 21
𝑑 2 𝑣∗𝑡 𝑘 𝑑 (1)
2
where: d = corrected depth; v = average velocity of sound in the water; t = time from transducer to
where: d = corrected depth; v = average velocity
bottom and back; k = system index constant; d of sound in the water; t = time from transducer to
where: d = corrected depth; v = average velocity of sound in the water; t = time from transducer to
r = distance from reference water surface to transducer.
and back; k = system index constant; drr = distance from reference water surface to transducer.
bottom and back; k = system index constant; d
bottom = distance from reference water surface to transducer.

Figure 1. The study area located at the confluence of River Siret with the Danube. The 35 km area
measured is positioned between the yellow lines.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.1. Materials
2.1. Materials
The bathymetry
The bathymetry data
data were
were collected
collected by
by using
using aa boat-mounted
boat‐mounted single-beam
single‐beam acoustic
acoustic depth
depth
The bathymetry data were collected by using a boat‐mounted single‐beam acoustic
sounder (SBES) linked to a real‐time kinematic (RTK) global positioning system (GPS), which can depth
sounder (SBES) linked to a real-time kinematic (RTK) global positioning system (GPS), which can
sounder (SBES) linked to a real‐time kinematic (RTK) global positioning system (GPS), which can
provide sub‐decimeter accuracy for the surveyed points. Figure 2 shows several photos taken during
provide sub-decimeter accuracy for the surveyed points. Figure 2 shows several photos taken during
provide sub‐decimeter accuracy for the surveyed points. Figure 2 shows several photos taken during
data collection.
data collection.
data collection.

Figure 2. Left:
Figure 2. Bathymetric depth
Left: Bathymetric depth measurements with SonarMite
measurements with SonarMite single-beam
echosounder (SBES)
single‐beam echosounder (SBES)
Figure 2. Left:
(mounting Bathymetric
method depth measurements
on a fiberglass with to
rigid boat) linked SonarMite single‐beam
South S82-V RTK GNSS;echosounder
middle: (SBES)
(mounting method on a fiberglass rigid boat) linked to South S82‐V RTK GNSS; middle: GNSS and GNSS
(mounting method on a fiberglass rigid boat) linked to South S82‐V RTK GNSS; middle: GNSS and
and
SBES SBES instruments
instruments and and accessories;
accessories; right:
right: total
total station
station and
and SouthS82‐V
South S82-VRTK
RTK GNSS
GNSS used
used for
for
SBES instruments
topographic and
measurements.
topographic measurements. accessories; right: total station and South S82‐V RTK GNSS used for
topographic measurements.
Bathymetric depths were measured using an Ohmex SonarMite/BTX single-beam echosounder,
Bathymetric depths were measured using an Ohmex SonarMite/BTX single‐beam echosounder,
with a 235 kHz frequency. The accuracy of the of
The accuracy echo sounding
the equipment
echo sounding used to collect
with Bathymetric depths were measured using an Ohmex SonarMite/BTX single‐beam echosounder,
a 235 kHz frequency. equipment used the
to bathymetric
collect the
depth
with data
a is
235 ±0.025
kHz cm, with
frequency. a
The ±4-degree
accuracy beam
of spread,
the echo able to operate
sounding between
equipment 0.30
used
bathymetric depth data is ±0.025 cm, with a ±4‐degree beam spread, able to operate between 0.30 m m
to to 75.00the
collect m
depth range (software limited). The sound velocity in water ranges between 1400 to 1600 m/s, but,
bathymetric depth data is ±0.025 cm, with a ±4‐degree beam spread, able to operate between 0.30 m
to 75.00 m depth range (software limited). The sound velocity in water ranges between 1400 to 1600
when a sound velocity profiler (SVP) is not (SVP)
available, theavailable,
echosounder uses a 1500 m/s
to 75.00 m depth range (software limited). The sound velocity in water ranges between 1400 to 1600
m/s, but, when a sound velocity profiler is not the echosounder average
uses value.
a 1500 m/s
Depending on the water depth, the echosounder applies 3 to 6 Hz ultrasonic ping rate, with an output
m/s, but, when a sound velocity profiler (SVP) is not available, the echosounder uses a 1500 m/s
data range of 2 Hz [24].
average value. Depending on the water depth, the echosounder applies 3 to 6 Hz ultrasonic ping
average value. Depending on the water depth, the echosounder applies 3 to 6 Hz ultrasonic ping
rate, with an output data range of 2 Hz [24].
rate, with an output data range of 2 Hz [24].
The measurements were made in 5 days, within the interval 22.03.2017–01.04.2017. Each
The measurements were made in 5 days, within the interval 22.03.2017–01.04.2017. Each
bathymetry point is characterized by the longitude and latitude obtained from the RTK GPS, and by
The measurements were made in 5 days, within the interval 22.03.2017–01.04.2017. Each bathymetry
bathymetry point is characterized by the longitude and latitude obtained from the RTK GPS, and by
the elevation (z), which is obtained by subtracting the water depth from the water surface elevation
point is characterized by the longitude and latitude obtained from the RTK GPS, and by the elevation
the elevation (z), which is obtained by subtracting the water depth from the water surface elevation
recorded at gauge station. The variation of the daily water level was obtained from the Sendreni
(z), whichat
recorded is gauge
obtained by subtracting
station. the water
The variation of the depth from the
daily water water
level was surface elevation
obtained recorded
from the at
Sendreni
gauge station. As Figure 3 shows, the water level during the measurement campaign varied between
gauge station. The variation of the daily water level was obtained from the Sendreni gauge station.
gauge station. As Figure 3 shows, the water level during the measurement campaign varied between
435 and 460 cm.
As Figure 3 shows, the water level during the measurement campaign varied between 435 and 460 cm.
435 and 460 cm.
460
Water level (cm)
460
450
Water level (cm)
450
440
440
430
430
420
420 22/03/2017 23/03/2017 29/03/2017 30/03/2017 1/4/2017
22/03/2017 23/03/2017 29/03/2017 30/03/2017 1/4/2017
Date (dd/mm/year)
Date (dd/mm/year)

Figure 3. Water level at Sendreni gauge station recorded during the measurements campaign. Flood
levels: C.A. (attention level) = 550; C.I. (flood level) = 600; C.P. (risk level) = 650.
The bathymetry data for the surveyed area (Figures 4 and 5) comprise a set of 216816 (x, y, z)
points or approximately 45,000 points/km
points or approximately 45,000 points/km22 measured along the river channel bed.
2
measured along the river channel bed.
points or approximately 45,000 points/km measured along the river channel bed.

Figure 4. Top and middle: Ortopthomap views of sections S1 (downstream)–S4 (upstream); the blue
line shows the trajectory of the boat; the river banks are marked in yellow. Bottom: ortopthomap view
line shows the trajectory of the boat; the river banks are marked in yellow. Bottom: ortopthomap
line
of theshows
wholethe trajectory survey
bathymetric of the boat; the river
area, with banks
the first fourare marked in yellow. Bottom: ortopthomap
sections.
view of the whole bathymetric survey area, with the first four sections.
view of the whole bathymetric survey area, with the first four sections.
Figures 4 and 5 present the 9 sections of the whole surveyed area. The total length of the surveyed
Figures 4 and 5 present the 9 sections of the whole surveyed area. The total length of the
path Figures
reached 4 103.22
and 5 km with an
present the average boatof
9 sections speed of 1.75surveyed
the whole knots (0.9area.
m/s).The
Thetotal
distance between
length of the
surveyed path reached 103.22 km with an average boat speed of 1.75 knots (0.9 m/s). The distance
the cross-section ranges from 25 to 100 m. This distance depends on the linearity or sinuosity of
surveyed path reached 103.22 km with an average boat speed of 1.75 knots (0.9 m/s). The distance
between the cross‐section ranges from 25 to 100 m. This distance depends on the linearity or
the main the
between rivercross‐section
channel being larger
ranges in areas
from 25 to where theThis
100 m. riverdistance
track is depends
straight, on
andthe
smaller where
linearity or
sinuosity of the main river channel being larger in areas where the river track is straight, and smaller
the river is meandered. Since the water discharge rate is high in the case of River Siret
sinuosity of the main river channel being larger in areas where the river track is straight, and smaller (about
where the river is meandered. Since the water discharge rate is high in the case of River Siret (about
1000 m3 /s for a 4 m water level) [25], it was almost impossible to maintain equal distances between the
where the river is meandered. Since the water discharge rate is high in the case of River Siret (about
1000 m33/s for a 4 m water level) [25], it was almost impossible to maintain equal distances between
cross-sections measured.
1000 m /s for a 4 m water level) [25], it was almost impossible to maintain equal distances between
the cross‐sections measured.
An ortopthomap × 0.5 m planimetric resolution, produced in 2016, was used in order to
with a 0.5
the cross‐sections measured.
represent the data in terms of geospatial location. This map was provided by the National Agency

An ortopthomap with a 0.5 × 0.5 m planimetric resolution, produced in 2016, was used in order
to represent the data in terms of geospatial location. This map was provided by the National Agency
for Cadastre and Land Registration of Romania (ANCPI). The bathymetric measurements and data
for Cadastre and Land Registration of Romania (ANCPI). The bathymetric measurements and data
processing observed
processing observed thethe International
International Hydrographic
Hydrographic Organization
Organization (IHO)
(IHO) S-44 S‐44 regulation
regulation since
since Romania
Romania does not have a clearly defined national regulation for river bathymetric measurements.
does not have a clearly defined national regulation for river bathymetric measurements. According to
According
this to the
regulation, this accuracy
regulation, the accuracy
of bathymetric depthof bathymetric
needs to complydepth needs
with the to comply
requirements with
of the the
Special
requirements of the Special Order [26] which is used only for those areas where under‐keel clearance
Order [26] which is used only for those areas where under-keel clearance is critical. The accuracy of
is critical. The accuracy of depth data by IHO‐S44 [26] regulation for this type of area is ±0.25 m, by
depth data by IHO-S44 [26] regulation for this type of area is ±0.25 m, by applying the maximum
applying the
allowable totalmaximum allowable total
vertical uncertainty (TVU),vertical
thus theuncertainty (TVU),
results given thus
by the the results
SBES used forgiven by the
the present
SBES used for the present research article complies with the IHO S‐44 regulations.
research article complies with the IHO S-44 regulations.

Figure
Figure 5. The same
5. The same as
as in
in Figure
Figure 4,
4, but
but for
for the
the last
last five
five sections
sections of
of the
the bathymetric
bathymetric surveying:
surveying: S5
S5
(downstream)–S9 (upstream).
(downstream)–S9 (upstream).
The Lat-Long coordinates and elevation (Z) of each point were measured with an RTK GPS –
The Lat‐Long coordinates and elevation (Z) of each point were measured with an RTK GPS –
South
South S82‐V equipment.
S82-V equipment. The South
The S82-V
South is an is
S82‐V RTK an GNSS
RTK receiver, designed designed
GNSS receiver, for precision
for acquisition
precision
data. This surveying instrument can receive GPS and satellite signals from GLONASS
acquisition data. This surveying instrument can receive GPS and satellite signals from GLONASS and GALILEO.
The
and planimetric
GALILEO. points were measured
The planimetric in were
points the WGS84 coordinate
measured in the system
WGS84 and the altimetric
coordinate point
system in the
and the
Black Sea 1975 Constanta height Datum. By additionally using the RTK method the accuracy
altimetric point in the Black Sea 1975 Constanta height Datum. By additionally using the RTK increases
up to ±8 mm + 1 ppm RMS (Root Mean Square) for horizontal data surveying, and up to ±15 mm +
method the accuracy increases up to ±8 mm + 1 ppm RMS (Root Mean Square) for horizontal data
1surveying, and up to ±15 mm + 1 ppm RMS for vertical data surveying [27].
ppm RMS for vertical data surveying [27].
The bank points were measured by using a Trimble M5 surveying total
The bank points were measured by using a Trimble M5 surveying total station. The maximum station. The maximum
distance between the points which mark the left and right river banks was 30
distance between the points which mark the left and right river banks was 30 m. A combination of m. A combination of
bathymetric and topographic measurements was used in order to achieve higher
bathymetric and topographic measurements was used in order to achieve higher accuracy when the accuracy when the
four interpolation methods were applied. The accuracy of the DEM depends directly on the number of
four interpolation methods were applied. The accuracy of the DEM depends directly on the number
measured points and it is crucial for flood mapping and hydraulic modeling.
of measured points and it is crucial for flood mapping and hydraulic modeling.
To
To perform various
perform functions,
various such
functions, as automated
such mapping
as automated functions,
mapping data management
functions, or spatial
data management or
analysis function,function,
spatial analysis the ArcGIS
the version
ArcGIS 10.2.,
version provided by ESRI (Environmental
10.2., provided Systems Research
by ESRI (Environmental Systems
Institute), was used. was
Research Institute), A GIS software
used. A GIS populated
software with the correct
populated with data can help
the correct in the
data can organization,
help in the
interpretation, and communication of environmental data. For example, this particular
organization, interpretation, and communication of environmental data. For example, this particular GIS software
has been used to create digital soil mapping, generated by kriging interpolation, in different
GIS software has been used to create digital soil mapping, generated by kriging interpolation, urbanin
areas [28]. Also, the GIS software was used [29] for comparing spatial interpolation
different urban areas [28]. Also, the GIS software was used [29] for comparing spatial interpolation methods in order
to estimate the precipitation distribution. In our study, the GIS software was used for spatial data
methods in order to estimate the precipitation distribution. In our study, the GIS software was used
exploration and surface generation, selecting different interpolation methods and statistical analyses
which allow developing a DEM for riverbed channel from various data measured at discrete points.
2.2. Methods
The digital elevation model (DEM) is a widely used product and provides a three-dimensional
representation (X, Y, Z) of the studied areas. According to Burrough [30], the term DEM can be defined
as “a regular matrix representation of continuous variations of space relief units”. This section describes
the four different methods which are commonly used for interpolating scattered point data in order to
obtain an accurate DEM for this section of River Siret. Calculations were performed by using the z
values resulting from the bathymetric field measurements.
2.2.1. Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW)

IDW represents a deterministic spatial interpolation model, based on an assumption that the
value at an unsampled point can be approximated by a weighted average of observed values within a
circular search neighborhood [31]. The radius of the search circle is defined by the range of a fixed
number of closest points. In most cases, the weights used for averaging the data value are a decreasing
function of the distance between the sampled and unsampled points [32–34]. The general equation
used by IDW in order to estimate a value at an unsampled point is given by:
N
X
z∗ = λi Zi . (2)
i=1
where Zi (i = 1, 2, . . . , N) are measured values at N points, and the λi is given by:
N
1 X 1
λi = ( p )/( p) (3)
di i=1 di
where di is the distance between ith sampled point (zi ) and the unsampled point (z* ), and p is the
exponent variable. A higher power exponent results in less influence from distant points, and vice
versa. The standard power value is two.
2.2.2. Simple Kriging (KRG)

Kriging (KRG) is a method developed in the 1960s by the French mathematician Matheron [35]
and exemplified in detail by Coburn [36]. This is a geostatistical method of interpolation which is
very useful in different fields. Maps generated by this method have a very well-structured visual
appearance, all based on irregular spatial data [35]. The general model of this method is based on a
constant µ(s) for the data set and random errors ε(s) which have spatial dependence [37–40]:
Z(s) = µ(s) + ε(s). (4)
The prediction of value in a new cell position is done by summing the values of the weight of the
multiplied points with the Z value of the data used in the interpolation [41]:
N
X N
X
Ẑ(s0 ) = λi Z ( s i ) , λi = 1 (5)
i=1 i=1
Being a very flexible method, it can be used by default or customized to match the data by
specifying the nearest semi-variogram model. The semi-variogram consists of two components:
The experimental semi-variogram (empirical) and the theoretical model of the semi-variogram [42].
The experimental semi-variogram results from the calculation of the variance of each measured point
versus the other points used in spatialization [43]:
Nj
1 X
[Z(si ) − Z(si + h)]2

λ̂ h j = (6)
2N j
i=1
where: Nj is a set of pairs of locations separated by the distance h; h—represents the average of the
distances between distinct pairs Nj .
Data analysis for KRG interpolation was performed using two particular cases of this method,
namely: Simple kriging (SKRG) and universal kriging (UKRG).
The SKRG method involves determining the unknown value by estimating the weighted average
values of the neighboring points [44]:
N
X
Z(s0 ) = λi Z(si ) ± ε. (7)
i=1
where Z(s0 ) represents the estimated value, Z(si ) is the value of the neighboring points, λi is the
coefficients of weight, which satisfy the condition N i=1 λi = 1, and ε is the default estimation error.
P
The UKRG method uses the assumption that the spatial variation of z is dependent on three
components: a data set structure, a correlated random component, and a residual error. This is a
hybrid method, where the spatial trend is measured by polynomial surfaces of different orders, derived
globally or locally [45]:
XN
λi f k ( s i ) = f k ( s 0 ) . (8)
i=1
where Z(s0 ) represents the estimated value of the unknown variability, µ(s0 ) is the deterministic
function, and ε(s0 ) is random variation.
2.2.3. Radial Basis Function (RBF)

The radial basis function (RBF) is a interpolation method similar to the kriging family, but it does
not benefit from the contribution of space spatial data analysis through the variogram [46]:
N
X
Ẑ(s0 ) = ωi ϕ(k si − s0 k) + ωn+1 . (9)
i=1
where ϕ(r) is the radial base function, r =k si − s0 k is the radial distance between the point for which a
new s0 value is calculated and the points with measured values si , and ω symbolizes the weights to
be estimated.
Basic radial functions are often used to create neural networks. This method is used to calculate
surfaces composed of a very large number of points [47]. According to Dumitrescu [48], the most
applied RBF functions are:
1. Multiquadric function (MQ):

1/2
ϕ(r) = r2 + σ2 . (10)
2. Thin-plate spline (TPS):

ϕ(r) = (σ + r)2 ln(σ + r). (11)
3. Spline with tension (ST):

r
ϕ(r) = ln σ ∗ + K0 σ ∗ r + Ce (12)
2
where K0 (x) is the modified Bessel function.

4. Completely regularized spline (CRS):
∞
X (−1)n (σ ∗ r)2n
r 2

r 2

θ(r) = − = ln σ ∗ + E1 σ ∗ + Ce . (13)
n!n 2 2
n=1
where E1 (x) is the exponential integration function, and Ce is the Euler constant.
2.2.4. Topo to Raster Interpolation (TopoR)

The Topo to Raster interpolation method (TopoR) is specifically designed for creating hydrologically
correct digital elevation models (DEMs) [49]. It is based on the ANUDEM program developed by
Michael Hutchinson [50–53]. This method was designed to take advantage of all types of possible input
data which typically characterize the landforms (elevation points, contour lines, stream centerline,
sink, boundary, lake, cliff, coast) [54].
The Topo to Raster interpolation was developed by the ANU (Australian National University),
but this method is often used in many countries and research papers [55,56]. It uses a finite differential
interpolation technique and it is optimized to streamline the local interpolation computational method
such as IDW interpolation, without losing the continuity of surfaces obtained by the kriging or RBF
Spline interpolation methods. The difference is defined as the first and second degree of partial
derivation f of the interpolation method described by the following Equations [56]:
Z
J1 ( f ) = fx2 + f y2 dxdy. (14)
Z
2 2 2
J2 ( f ) = fxx + fxy + f yy dxdy. (15)
J1 and J2 must be minimized in order to eliminate the maximum and minimum peak effect
(excessively smooth or peaked surface) and to obtain a realistic surface terrain. If only J2 is minimized,
a very smooth surface is obtained, and vice versa, if only J1 is minimized, maximum and minimum
peaks occur [57]. Hutchinson [50] suggests applying a roughness penalty by taking into account the
cell resolution so as to reduce this effect:
J ( f ) = 0.5h−2 J1 ( f ) + J2 ( f ). (16)
Essentially, TopoR is a combined interpolation method which uses a discrete technique based on
spline polynomial functions of degree m and smoothness k, where the roughness can be modified to
allow the generation of DEM with steep changes in the field, such as areas influenced by depths of
currents, ridges or cliffs. These landforms are also called local maximums or local minimums. In the
present research, point elevation features were used.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Block Data Performance Analysis

After collecting and validating topo-bathymetric data, digital models were generated (Figure 6),
by using the four interpolation methods described in the previous section.
Figure 6a–d presents the four digital elevation models: (a) inverse distance weighting (IDW)
interpolation; (b) kriging (KRG) interpolation; (c) radial basis function (RBF) interpolation with
completely regularized spline (CRS) method; (d) Topo to Raster interpolation method, for a selected
river section of 1500 m. The spatial resolution of 5 × 5 m was used for all DEMs.
Legend
Elevation [m]
6
Legend
5
Elevation [m]
46
35
24
13
02
(a) (b) -11
-20
(a) (b) -3-1
-4-2
-5-3
-6-4
-7-5
-8-6
-9-7
(c) (d) -8
-9
(c) (d)
Figure 6. Digital elevation model (DEM) of a 1500 m river section of the main channel obtained by
using the 4 interpolation methods: (a) inverse distance weighting (IDW); (b) kriging (KRG); (c) radial
basis function with completely regularized spline (RBF); (d) Topo to Raster.
All interpolation methods were run by using Spatial Analyst Tools from ArcGIS 10.2. For the
simple kriging method, a single spherical variogram model was fitted to the sample variogram of all
data by varying different nugget, sill, and range to fit the variogram model. Special attention was
paid
data to varying
by matching the slope
different nugget, for
sill,the
andfirst
rangeseveral reliable
to fit the lags. model.
variogram Due to this attention
Special fact a spherical
was paid
data by varying different nugget, sill, and range to fit the variogram model. Special attention was
semivariogram, with Nugget = 0.012, Sill = 1.15, Range = 106.44, and Lag Size = 13.30 was adopted.
to matching the slopethe for the firstfor
several
paid to matching slope the reliable lags. Due
first several to thislags.
reliable fact aDue
spherical semivariogram,
to this with
fact a spherical
Nugget =
In the case of
0.012, Sill =
the TopoR
1.15, Range =
interpolation method,
106.44, and Lag the =
Size differences
13.30 was in elevation ranges were least
adopted.
semivariogram, with Nugget = 0.012, Sill = 1.15, Range = 106.44, and Lag Size = 13.30 was adopted.
obvious than those resulting from the IDW and RBF interpolation methods. The TopoR DEM has a
In
In the
the case
case ofof the
the TopoR
TopoR interpolation method, the
interpolation method, the differences
differences in in elevation ranges were
elevation ranges least
were least
much smoother and flatter graphic representation, with lower sinuosity elements.
much The basic statistical
smoother and flattervalue
graphicwhich defines the
representation, dispersion
with lower of the elements.
sinuosity frequency distribution of
much smoother and flatter graphic representation, with lower sinuosity elements.
deviations
The between the value measured and unmeasured interpolated values distribution
is the mean‐standard
The basic
basic statistical which
statistical value which defines the dispersion
defines of the frequency
the dispersion of the frequency of deviations
distribution of
deviation (mean SD). Figure 7 shows the Gauss curve representation (a) and boxplot chart (b) for
between the measured and unmeasured interpolated values is the mean-standard deviation (mean
deviations between the measured and unmeasured interpolated values is the mean‐standard
each model, which illustrate how closely the created model predicts the measured values. The Gauss
SD). Figure 7 shows the Gauss curve representation (a) and boxplot chart (b) for each model, which
deviation (mean SD). Figure 7 shows the Gauss curve representation (a) and boxplot chart (b) for
distribution shown in Figure 7a proves that the narrowest line is associated to the TopoR method. A
illustrate how closely the created model predicts the measured values. The Gauss distribution shown
each model, which illustrate how closely the created model predicts the measured values. The Gauss
good
in model
Figure 7a will be described
proves by a narrow
that the narrowest error
line is distribution
associated to theand a small,
TopoR method.close Ato zero,
good SD. Both
model will
distribution shown in Figure 7a proves that the narrowest line is associated to the TopoR method. A
plots in Figure 7a,b suggest that TopoR is the best model, since the associated error histogram is the
be described by a be
narrow error by
distribution
good model will described a narrow and a small,
error close to
distribution zero,
and SD. Both
a small, plots
close in Figure
to zero, 7a,b
SD. Both
narrowest and the mean SD is the smallest.
suggest that TopoR is the best model, since the associated error histogram is the narrowest and the
plots in Figure 7a,b suggest that TopoR is the best model, since the associated error histogram is the
mean SD is the smallest.
narrowest and the mean SD is the smallest.
Histogram of error distribution Boxplot Graph
7000 0.7
IDW 0.38
0.6 0.33
6000 KRG Histogram of error distribution Boxplot Graph
0.27
7000 RBF 0.5
0.7
TopoR 0.38 0.21
5000 IDW 0.33
0.4
0.6
6000 KRG
0.27
RBF 0.3
0.5
Frequency
4000 0.21
TopoR
5000 0.2
0.4
3000
0.1
0.3
Frequency
4000
2000 0.0
0.2
3000
-0.1
0.1 Mean
1000 Mean±SE
2000 -0.2
0.0
Mean±SD
0 -0.3
-0.1 Mean
1000-1.69 -1.13 -0.58 -0.03 0.53 1.08 1.63 IDW KRG RBF TopoR
-0.2 Mean±SE
Mean±SD

0
-1.69 -1.13 -0.58 -0.03
(a) 0.53 1.08 1.63
-0.3
IDW KRG
(b) RBF TopoR

Figure 7. Statistical results of model(a) fit: (a) The frequency of error distribution
(b) for each of the four

models: IDW (blue), KRG (red), RBF (green), TopoR (magenta); (b) Mean standard deviation between
measured and interpolated z-values for each of the four models. IDW, inverse distance weighting;
Figure 7. Statistical results of model fit: (a) The frequency of error distribution for each of the four
KRG, simple
models: IDW kriging;
(blue), RBF,
KRG radial
(red), basis
RBF function.
(green), TopoR (magenta); (b) Mean standard deviation
Figure 7. Statistical results of model fit: (a) The frequency of error distribution for each of the four
between measured and interpolated z‐values for each of the four models. IDW, inverse distance
models:
For a fairIDW (blue), KRG
comparison of the(red), RBF (green),
interpolated pointsTopoR
on the(magenta); (b) Mean
chosen section, standard
the same deviation
number of points
weighting; KRG, simple kriging; RBF, radial basis function.
between
and the 5 m ×measured
5 m spatialand resolution
interpolated of z‐values for
the raster each used.
were of the In
four models.
order IDW, the
to assess inverse distance
accuracy of each
weighting; KRG, simple kriging; RBF, radial basis function.
interpolation methods with the SBES measurements, some statistical tests whose results are shown in
points and the 5 m × 5 m spatial resolution of the raster were used. In order to assess the accuracy of
each interpolation methods with the SBES measurements, some statistical tests whose results are
shown in Tables 1 and 2, were performed. Table 1 describes the results of obtained mean elevation
and variance for all points along the 1500 m river section, and the differences between the depth
measurements (SBES) with the four interpolators by using a two‐tailed t‐test. Values of correlation
coefficients and results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 2.
Tables 1 andTable 1. Report on the results from T‐test to test the significance of the compared method.
2, were performed. Table 1 describes the results of obtained mean elevation and variance
for all points along the 1500 m river section, and the differences between the depth measurements
Results T‐test
(SBES) with the four interpolators by using a two-tailed t-test. Values of correlation coefficients and
Method Mean Variance Count T‐stat P(T < = t) Two‐Tail
results of the regression analysis are shown in Table 2.
SBES −1.060 4.170 8709 ‐ ‐
IDW −1.087 3.724 8709 0.917 0.358
Table 1. Report on the results from T-test to test the significance of the compared method.
KRG −1.065 3.963 8709 0.174 0.861
RBF
Results −1.091 3.708 8709 1.062
T-Test 0.288
TopoR −0.983
Mean 4.119 Variance 8709 Count−2.271
T-stat P(T 0.023
< = t) Two-Tail
Method
SBES −1.060 4.170 8709 - -
Table 2. Results of correlation between SBES and the DEMs obtained by using interpolation methods
IDW −1.087 3.724 8709 0.917 0.358
for the 1500m river section (left column) and regression (right column) for each of the four DEMs.
KRG −1.065 3.963 8709 0.174 0.861
RBF −1.091 3.708 8709 1.062 0.288
Correlation Test Regression Analysis
Method −0.983
TopoR 4.119 8709 −2.271 0.023
Pearson Coefficient R2 SD P‐Value
IDW 0.979 0.959 0.414 1.53x10‐38
Table 2. Results of correlation between SBES and the DEMs obtained by using interpolation methods
KRG 0.984 0.969 0.356
for the 1500m river section (left column) and regression (right column) for each of the four DEMs.
4.15x10‐4
RBF 0.973 0.947 0.468 1.54x10‐30
TopoR Correlation Test
0.988 Regression
0.973 Analysis
0.306 6.54x10‐109
Method
Pearson Coefficient R2 SD P-Value
Scatterplots of interpolated (Vi) and measured values (Vm) can be seen in Figure 8a–d, together
with the corresponding
IDW correlation
0.979 coefficient. The 0.959four methods
0.414give reliable
1.53 ×results
10−38 for most
0.984 0.969 0.356 4.15 × 10−4
elevation values, except for the interval 4–6 m. Correlation coefficients are close to 1 for all methods
KRG
RBF 0.973 0.947 0.468 1.54 × 10−30
(see Table 2); however, not all methods give similar results. Table 2 shows that the RBF method has
TopoR 0.988 0.973 0.306 2 6.54 × 10−109
the lowest performance, with the smallest regression coefficient, R = 0.947, and a correlation
coefficient of 0.973. This is in line with Arseni [18] and Rosu [58], who found a similar result. The
Scatterplots of interpolated (Vi) and measured values (Vm) can be seen in Figure 8a–d, together10
Page:
with the corresponding correlation coefficient. The four methods give reliable results for most elevation
Figure should be aligned center with no first line indent. The current indent is—5.95
values,The
except for the
TopoR interval 4–6 m.
interpolation Correlation
method gives coefficients are close
the best results, to 1 the
with for all methods
highest (see Table
values 2);
for both
however, not all methods give similar results.
regression and correlation coefficients (R Table 2 shows that the RBF method has the lowest
2 = 0.973 and 0.988). Also, the DEM produced with TopoR
performance, with the smallest regression coefficient, R2 = 0.947, and a correlation coefficient of 0.973.
has the lowest number of points within the problematic sector of 4–6 m. This is in line with Arseni
This is in line with Arseni [18] and Rosu [58], who found a similar result.
[22], who found a similar result.
Scatterplot Vi / Vm Scatterplot Vi / Vm Scatterplot Vi / Vm Scatterplot Vi / Vm
6 6 6 6
4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
SBES
SBES
SBES
SBES
-2 -2 -2 -2
-4 -4 -4 -4
-6 -6 -6 -6
-8 -8 -8 -8
-10 -10 -10 -10

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
IDW KRG RBF TopoR
Vi:Vm: r2 = 0.9589 Vi:Vm: r2 = 0.9694 Vi:Vm: r2 = 0.9469 Vi:Vm: r2 = 0.9728

(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure The
8. 8.
Figure linear
The regression
linear for the
regression for four
the interpolation methods:
four interpolation (a) IDW;
methods: (a) (b) KRG;
IDW; (c)KRG;
(b) RBF; (d)
(c) TopoR.
RBF; (d)
TopoR.
The TopoR interpolation method gives the best results, with the highest values for both regression
and correlation coefficients (R2 = 0.973 and 0.988). Also, the DEM produced with TopoR has the lowest
3.2. Local Cross‐Section Performance Analysis
number of points within the problematic sector of 4–6 m. This is in line with Arseni [22], who found a
similar result.
3.2. Local Cross-Section Performance Analysis

In order understand better the qualities of each of the four interpolation methods, the individual
behaviour of the models for five cross-sections chosen for validation was also analyzed. Thus, five
Thus, five random cross‐sections were chosen for repeated surveying and data validation from the
1500 m studied area (Figure 9).
In order understand better the qualities of each of the four interpolation methods, the
individual behaviour of the models for five cross‐sections chosen for validation was also analyzed.
random cross-sections were chosen for repeated surveying and data validation from the 1500 m studied
Thus, five random cross‐sections were chosen for repeated surveying and data validation from the
area (Figure 9).
1500 m studied area (Figure 9).

Figure 9. Locations of the five‐cross‐section measured with SBES technique.
The SBES profile was obtained from measurements by using the linear method (cross‐sectional
survey). The four modeled profiles were obtained by extracting each point value from the generated
DEMs. Each cross‐section surveyed by SBES bathymetric measurements was compared with the
values extracted from each DEM characteristic of each interpolation method. The differences
Figure 9. Locations of the five-cross-section measured with SBES technique.
Figure 9. Locations of the five‐cross‐section measured with SBES technique.
between each model and measurements for each cross‐section is shown in Figure 10. Detailed
information
The SBESabout the
profile five
was statistical
obtained fromparameters
measurements (variables) for the
by using models
linear and
method
The SBES profile was obtained from measurements by using the linear method (cross‐sectional measurements are
(cross-sectional
presented in Table A1 (Appendix B): minimum value (MIN), maximum value (MAX), mean value
(MEAN),
DEMs.
DEMs. Each median
Each (MEDIAN),
cross-section
cross‐section and standard
surveyed
surveyed SBESdeviation
by SBES
by bathymetric(SD),
bathymetric calculated by was
measurements
measurements using
was the ArcGIS
compared
compared with10.4
with the
the
software. These parameters were used to assess the success of the data analysis.
values extracted from each DEM characteristic of each interpolation method. The
differences
values extracted from each DEM characteristic of each interpolation method. The differences between
each The differences between SBES measurements and interpolated elevation value, for each of the
model
between and
each measurements
model for each cross-section
and measurements is shown inis
for each cross‐section Figure
shown 10.in Detailed information
Figure 10. Detailed
five section, are shown in Figure 10 in order to assess, in a direct manner, the performance of each
about the five statistical parameters (variables) for models and measurements are presented
information about the five statistical parameters (variables) for models and measurements are in
model. Figure 10 shows that all models reproduce very well the river bed except for two regions of
Table A1 (Appendix B): minimum value (MIN), maximum value (MAX),
presented in Table A1 (Appendix B): minimum value (MIN), maximum value (MAX), mean value mean value (MEAN),
about 20–30 m from the river banks, which are basically regions of small depths or positive elevation
median
(MEAN), (MEDIAN), and standard
median (MEDIAN), and deviation (SD), calculated
standard deviation by using by
(SD), calculated the using
ArcGIS 10.4
the software.
ArcGIS 10.4
(as seen in Figure A1/Appendix A).
These parameters were used to assess the success of the data analysis.
software. These parameters were used to assess the success of the data analysis.
The differences between SBES measurements and interpolated elevation value, for each of the
Cross-section 1
5
IDW KRG RBF TopoR
4
3
Error [m]
2
1
0
-1 Cross-section 1
5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
4 IDW KRG RBF TopoR
Distance [m]
3
Error [m]
2
Cross-section 2
51
40 IDW KRG RBF TopoR
-1
3
Error [m]
2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
1 Distance [m]
0

-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Distance [m]

Figure 10. Cont.
Cross-section 3
5
4 IDW KRG RBF TopoR
3
Error [m]
2
1
0
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Distance [m]

Cross-section 4
5
4 IDW KRG RBF TopoR
3
Error [m]
2
1
0
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Distance [m]

Cross-section 5
5
4 IDW KRG RBF TopoR
3
Error [m]
2
1
0
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Distance [m]

Figure 10. Difference between measurements (by SBES) and interpolated elevation values from each
Figure 10. Difference between measurements (by SBES) and interpolated elevation values from each
DEM model (SBES–DEM): IDW—red line, KRG—green line, RBF—magenta line, TopoR—black line;
DEM model (SBES–DEM): IDW—red line, KRG—green line, RBF—magenta line, TopoR—black line;
negative values correspond to overestimating the elevation.
negative values correspond to overestimating the elevation.
The differences between SBES measurements and interpolated elevation value, for each of the
The deviation increases when approaching both banks for all models. TopoR slightly
overestimates the elevation for all sections, while IDW and RBF underestimate the elevation at the
shores. The KRG model has an irregular behavior, with values which are either larger or smaller
than measurements. Obviously the TopoR model is the best, since the deviations from
measurements are the smallest (1 m). On the other hand, IDW has the worst performance, with
The deviation increases when approaching both banks for all models. TopoR slightly overestimates
differences between the model and the field measurements of more than 5 m (5.35 m for
the elevation for all sections, while IDW and RBF underestimate the elevation at the shores. The KRG
cross‐Section 4, close to right bank of the river flow). It seems that the IDW, KRG and RBF methods
model has an irregular behavior, with values which are either larger or smaller than measurements.
are not reliable as long as the river banks have steep slopes.
Obviously the TopoR model is the best, since the deviations from measurements are the smallest
Further, all data have been normalized by the value of the elevation (Z), which represents the
(1 m). On the other hand, IDW has the worst performance, with differences between the model and
elevation of the river bed channel. Normalization was performed by recalculating the Z values
the field measurements of more than 5 m (5.35 m for cross-Section 4, close to right bank of the river
between 0 and 1, using the following formula:
flow). It seems that the IDW, KRG and RBF methods are not reliable as long as the river banks have
steep slopes. 𝑋 min 𝑋
𝑍 (17)
Further, all data have been normalized by max the𝑋 value
minof𝑋the elevation (Z), which represents the
elevation of the
where X = (X river
1, X bedn) and Z
2, …, X channel. Normalization was performed by recalculating the Z values between
i represent the ith normalized data.
0 andThis
1, using the following formula:
type of normalization is also called “feature scaling”, or “unity‐based normalization”.
Another type of normalization (like normalization by dividing to maximum value) cannot provide
Xi − min(X)
scaled data between 0 and 1, considering the negative elevation values.
Zi = (17)
max(X) − min(X)
The normalized profiles obtained from SBES measurements and the four interpolation methods
for each cross‐section are shown in Figure 11.
where X = (X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn ) and Zi represent the ith normalized data.
This
This type
type of
of normalization
normalization is
is also
also called
called “feature
“feature scaling”,
scaling”, or
or “unity-based
“unity‐based normalization”.
normalization”.
for each cross-section are shown in Figure 11.
for each cross‐section are shown in Figure 11.
1.1 SBES IDW 1.1 SBES IDW

1 KRG RBF 1 KRG RBF
0.9 TopoR 0.9 TopoR
Normalized Z value
Normalized Z value
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Distance (m) Distance (m)

(a) (b)
1.1 SBES IDW 1.1 SBES IDW
1 KRG RBF 1 KRG RBF
0.9 TopoR 0.9 TopoR
Normalized Z value
Normalized Z value
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Distance (m) Distance (m)

(c) (d)
1.1 SBES IDW
1 KRG RBF
0.9 TopoR
Normalized Z value
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Distance (m)

(e)

Figure 11. Comparison between the SBES normalized profile (red) and normalized profiles extracted
from DEM (orange: KRG, black: TopoR, green: IDW and blue: RBF), for five cross-sections for River
Figure 11. Comparison between the SBES normalized profile (red) and normalized profiles extracted
Siret: (a) Cross-Section 1; (b) Cross-Section 2; (c) Cross-Section 3; (d) Cross-Section 4; (e) Cross-Section 5.
from DEM (orange: KRG, black: TopoR, green: IDW and blue: RBF), for five cross‐sections for River
Siret: (a) Cross‐Section 1; (b) Cross‐Section 2; (c) Cross‐Section 3; (d) Cross‐Section 4; (e)
Figure 11 shows that each transversal profile obtained by interpolation methods reasonably
Cross‐Section 5.
describes the measured profile of the selected cross-sections of the river bed channel. The good
performance of the
Figure 11 TopoR
shows DEM
that each (black line) is profile
transversal illustrated in Figure
obtained by 11, since the corresponding
interpolation profile
methods reasonably
isdescribes
very close (sometimes even superimposed) to the profile given by SBES bathymetric measurements
the measured profile of the selected cross‐sections of the river bed channel. The good
(red line). The of
performance other
the three
TopoR models
DEM give sometimes
(black line) is erroneous
illustrated results, especially
in Figure in the
11, since area
the close to the
corresponding
right and left banks, as shown in Figure 10. This can be also seen in Appendix A, Figure
profile is very close (sometimes even superimposed) to the profile given by SBES bathymetric A1, where
plots of normalized profiles are compared to real profiles. This is in accordance with the observed
measurements (red line). The other three models give sometimes erroneous results, especially in the
higher dispersion seen for low depths (0–5 m) in Figure 8.
area close to the right and left banks, as shown in Figure 10. This can be also seen in Appendix A,
Figure 12 shows results of the regression analysis for each of the four methods on SBES
Figure A1, where plots of normalized profiles are compared to real profiles. This is in accordance
measurements (normalized values).
with the observed higher dispersion seen for low depths (0–5 m) in Figure 8.
Figure 12 shows results of the regression analysis for each of the four methods on SBES
measurements (normalized values).
SBES vs IDW SBES vs KRG SBES vs RBF SBES vs TopoR

SBES SBES SBES SBES
Cross‐section 1
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
TopoR
KRG
RBF
IDW
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Cross‐section 2
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
TopoR
KRG
RBF
IDW
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Cross‐section 3
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
TopoR
KRG
RBF
IDW
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Cross‐section 4
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
TopoR
KRG
IDW
RBF
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

Cross‐section 5
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
TopoR
KRG
IDW
RBF
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Figure 12. Simple
Figure 12. linear
Simple regression
linear of the
regression fourfour
of the DEM-based normalized
DEM‐based profile
normalized on theon
profile normalized SBES
the normalized
profile (left to right: IDW, KRG, RBF, TopoR) for each selected cross-section.
SBES profile (left to right: IDW, KRG, RBF, TopoR) for each selected cross‐section.
The regression analysis shows that the IDW method has a diffuse data dispersion in all 5
The regression analysis shows that the IDW method has a diffuse data dispersion in all 5
cross-sections. Thus, this is the most inaccurate method. The other two methods, i.e., KRG and RBF,
cross‐sections. Thus, this is the most inaccurate method. The other two methods, i.e., KRG and RBF,
have less regular behavior, with a higher data dispersion for some sections. Again, TopoR is the
have less regular behavior, with a higher data dispersion for some sections. Again, TopoR is the least
least dispersive method, whose results are almost perfectly linearly dependent on measurements for
dispersive method, whose results are almost perfectly linearly dependent on measurements for all
all cross-sections.
cross‐sections.
The statistical analysis was performed by using the Pearson correlation factor (R) and root mean
The statistical analysis was performed by using the Pearson correlation factor (R) and root mean
square
square error (RMSE).
error (RMSE). The results
The obtained
results are shown
obtained in Figure
are shown 13. The13.
in Figure rootThe mean
root square
mean error
square (RMSE)
error
or so-called root mean square deviation (RMSD) measures the deviation of output data from the initial
(RMSE) or so‐called root mean square deviation (RMSD) measures the deviation of output data from
input data [59,60]. A small RMSE together with a high R indicate a good fit of the model. Obviously,
the initial input data [59,60]. A small RMSE together with a high R indicate a good fit of the model.
TopoR has the best performance, closely followed by the KRG method, while IDW is the poorest
Obviously, TopoR has the best performance, closely followed by the KRG method, while IDW is the
interpolation method in all cases.
poorest interpolation method in all cases.
Our results are in line with Curebal’s [61] conclusions for the Keçidere basin, or for models of
Our results are in line with Curebal’s [61] conclusions for the Keçidere basin, or for models of
the
the Aswan
Aswan high dam
high reservoir
dam storage
reservoir capacity
storage and and
capacity morphology development
morphology development [62], which both show
[62], which both
that TopoR is the most accurate method for obtaining hydrologically correct
show that TopoR is the most accurate method for obtaining hydrologically correct DEM. The IDW DEM. The IDW and KRG
methods are reported as being inaccurate when analyzing river bed topography by Goff [63] and
and KRG methods are reported as being inaccurate when analyzing river bed topography by Goff
Merwade
[63] and [13]. However,
Merwade [13]. sometimes the krigingthe
However, sometimes (KRG) method
kriging estimates
(KRG) method the elevationthe
estimates better than
elevation
IDW [64]. Also, Šiljeg [57] shows that that the results based on TopoR has no significant
better than IDW [64]. Also, Šiljeg [57] shows that that the results based on TopoR has no significant differences
(small errors)(small
differences in comparison with
errors) in the aero-photogrammetric
comparison measurements (which
with the aero‐photogrammetric made up his
measurements base
(which
model).
made up However,
his base Šiljeg [57] However,
model). reports thatŠiljeg
TopoR is not
[57] recommended
reports that TopoR for is the
not micro-level
recommended analysis
for of,
the
e.g., rocks or specific micro-landforms. A complex analysis of many interpolation methods
micro‐level analysis of, e.g., rocks or specific micro‐landforms. A complex analysis of many for creating
DEMs in the Belgorod
interpolation methods region of Podsadneea
for creating DEMs in [65], shows that
the Belgorod TopoR
region of isPodsadneea
the most accurate method.
[65], shows that
TopoR is the most accurate method. However, despite the accuracy of interpolation techniques for
However, despite the accuracy of interpolation techniques for generating accurate DEM assessed by
several studies, there are still no consistent findings about the performances of the spatial interpolators
generating accurate DEM assessed by several studies, there are still no consistent findings about the
for river bathymetry [66].
performances of the spatial interpolators for river bathymetry [66]
RMSE_IDW RMSE_KRG RMSE_RBF RMSE_TopoR

R_IDW R_KRG R_RBF R_TopoR
Root mean square error (RMSE)
2 1
0.98
Pearson coefficient (R)
0.96
1.5
0.94
0.92
1 0.9
0.88
0.86
0.5
0.84
0.82
0 0.8
1 2 3 4 5
Cross‐section

Figure 13. Root mean square error (RMSE) bar, left axis, and the Pearson correlation coefficient (R)
Figure 13. Root mean square error (RMSE) bar, left axis, and the Pearson correlation coefficient (R)
diamonds,
diamonds, right
right axis,
axis, for modeled
for values
modeled forfor
values thethe
selected cross-sections:
selected blue:blue:
cross‐sections: IDW,IDW,
orange: KRG,KRG,
orange: grey:
RPF, yellow: TopoR. Please note that the best fit is given by high R and small RMSE.
grey: RPF, yellow: TopoR. Please note that the best fit is given by high R and small RMSE.
4. Conclusions

The creation of the digital elevation model of an area depends on the interpolation method.
A good DEM helps calculating the plan and volumetric areas of the river more precisely; thus, DEM
can be very useful for evaluating any morphometric changes. This study aimed at identifying the best
interpolation method which can give the most accurate representation of a river bed from single-beam
river bathymetry measurements.
The bathymetric survey was carried out the on section of River Siret and was based on single-
beam echosounder combined with an RTK GPS system. The digital elevation bathymetric models
created by single-beam measurement technique depend on the interpolation methods used. In order
to assess the accuracy of the interpolated surface, commonly available interpolation methods such as
IDW, KRG, RBF and TopoR [61] were used. The Mean SD was one of the statistical indicators which
was used to assess the interpolation accuracy. There were no differences between the measured and
unmeasured interpolated values in the case of accurate interpolation (e.g., IDW). One can only guess
that these differences were determined by cross-validation. The cross-validation of block data showed
that the TopoR interpolation has the smallest standard deviation (0.306 m). The coefficients of the
determination R2 between the predicted and the measured values were RIDW 2 = 0.959, RRBF 2 = 0.947,
RKRG 2 = 0.969 and RTopoR 2 = 0.973, confirming that TopoR is the most accurate method. Differences
were also observed in the case of the digital elevation model representation. The TopoR interpolation
method described an attenuated and smoothed DEM (Appendix A, Figures A2–A5).
The DEM obtained by using the four interpolation methods were compared with the SBES
measurements for the five cross-sections of the river in order to check the accuracy of each method.
The TopoR interpolation profile is almost similar to the SBES measurements profile. The profiles
obtained by using the IDW, KRG, and RBF methods had sizeable differences as compared to the
measured profile, especially in the areas close to the river banks.
The statistical results show that all DEMs are statistically significant, regardless of the method;
however, the TopoR interpolation method is the best, with the smallest RMSE and the highest Pearson
correlation coefficient, when comparing the modeled and measured depth data. The statistical
parameters are: RMSETopoR = 0.276 m and RTopoR = 0.997 m, against the IDW method, which has a
mean RMSEIDW = 1.532 m and RIDW = 0.897 m.
Thus, all results show that the TopoR method is the most accurate interpolation method to be
used when creating a DEM, for a given number of points and grid.
Ideas of a future study have emerged from the analysis of these tests, and one refers to adding
bathymetric longitudinal measurements (along the river channel or perpendicular to cross-sections),
thus creating a more regular measurement grid. This may improve the analysis of interpolation
methods and will also lead to a higher accuracy. The number of points and pixel size (spatial resolution)
is another important parameter worth taking into account. The investigation of the effect of these on
digital elevation models is presently on the way.
Author Contributions: Maxim Arseni and Adrian Rosu performed the measurements, establish the methodology,
validated the data and analyzed the data; Adrian Rosu designed the figures; Lucian Puiu Georgescu and Catalina
Iticescu supervised the progress of teamwork; Maxim Arseni did the statistical analysis and, together with Mirela
Voiculescu, prepared the manuscript. All authors commented on the original manuscript.
Funding: This work was partially co-financed by the European Social Fund, through The Human Capital
Operational Programme 2014–2020 (POCU), Romania, POCU/380/6/13.
Acknowledgments: Arseni Maxim’s and Rosu Adrian’s research work was supported by the project
“ANTREPRENORDOC”, Contract no. 36355/23.05.2019, financed by The Human Capital Operational Programme
2014–2020 (POCU), Romania, and the work of Voiculescu Mirela, Iticescu Catalina and Georgescu Puiu Lucian
was supported by the project “EXPERT”, financed by the Romanian Ministry of Research and Innovation, Contract
no. 14PFE/17.10.2018.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A
5 SBES IDW 5 SBES IDW

4 KRG RBF 4 KRG RBF
3 3
Elevation Z [m]
Elevation Z [m]
2 2
1 1
0
‐1 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 ‐1
‐2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110120130
‐3 ‐2
‐4 ‐3
‐5 Distance [m] ‐4 Distance [m]

(a) (b)
5 SBES IDW 5 SBES IDW
3 KRG RBF 4 KRG RBF
3
Elevation Z [m]
Elevation Z [m]
1 2
‐1 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0
‐3 ‐1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
‐5 ‐2
‐3
‐7 ‐4
‐9 Distance [m] ‐5 Distance [m]

(c) (d)
5 SBES IDW
4 KRG RBF
Elevation Z [m]
3
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
‐1
‐2
‐3 Distance [m]
(e)

Figure A1. Profile shape from right to left bank of SBES and extracted from DEM profiles for the Siret
River: (a) Cross-Section 1; (b) Cross-Section 2; (c) Cross-Section 3; (d) Cross-Section 4; (e) Cross-Section 5.
River: (a) Cross‐Section 1; (b) Cross‐Section 2; (c) Cross‐Section 3; (d) Cross‐Section 4; (e)
Cross‐Section 5.
(e)
(e)

River: (a) Cross‐Section 1; (b) Cross‐Section 2; (c) Cross‐Section 3; (d) Cross‐Section 4; (e)
ISPRSRiver: (a) Cross‐Section
Cross‐Section 5.
Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 507 1; (b) Cross‐Section 2; (c) Cross‐Section 3; (d) Cross‐Section 4; (e)
17 of 21
Cross‐Section 5.

Figure A2. River Siret depth map obtained by using the IDW interpolation method.
Figure A3. River Siret depth map obtained by using the KRG interpolation method.

Figure A4. River Siret depth map obtained by using the RBF interpolation method.

Figure A5. River Siret depth map obtained by using the TopoR interpolation method.
Appendix B
Appendix B
Table A1. Statistics of model fits as given by the ArcGIS report.
Results Number of Measured Width
MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN SD
Method
Results Points
Number of Measured [m]
Width
MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN SD
Method SBES −4.636 4.272 −0.420 −0.396 2.629 Points [m]
IDW
SBES −4.546
−4.636 1.512
4.272 −1.128
−0.420 −1.129
−0.396 1.858
2.629
Cross‐Section 1 KRG
IDW −4.653
−4.546 3.583
1.512 −0.573
−1.128 −0.562
−1.129 2.445
1.858 237 109
Cross‐Section 1 RBF
KRG −4.668
−4.653 2.052
3.583 −0.880
−0.573 −0.758
−0.562 2.063
2.445 237 109
TopoR
RBF −4.530
−4.668 4.528
2.052 −0.330
−0.880 −0.287
−0.758 2.702
2.063
Appendix B
Results Number of
MIN MAX MEAN MEDIAN SD Width [m]
Method Measured Points
SBES −4.636 4.272 −0.420 −0.396 2.629
IDW −4.546 1.512 −1.128 −1.129 1.858
Cross-Section 1 KRG −4.653 3.583 −0.573 −0.562 2.445 237 109
RBF −4.668 2.052 −0.880 −0.758 2.063
TopoR −4.530 4.528 −0.330 −0.287 2.702
SBES −3.661 5.567 0.156 −0.778 2.928
IDW −3.605 2.163 −0.824 −0.706 1.745
RBF −3.649 2.996 −0.611 −0.845 2.056
TopoR −3.655 5.525 0.111 −0.844 2.861
SBES −7.973 4.569 −1.700 −1.989 4.172
IDW −7.927 2.304 −2.568 −2.366 3.277
RBF −8.000 3.070 −2.347 −2.364 3.513
TopoR −7.806 4.868 −1.545 −2.085 4.267
SBES −4.748 4.713 −0.624 −0.879 2.755
IDW −4.526 2.040 −1.423 −1.524 1.894
RBF −4.719 2.901 −1.118 −1.252 2.184
TopoR −4.688 5.223 −0.481 −0.982 2.922
SBES −2.394 4.224 −0.326 −0.599 1.756
IDW −2.294 2.379 −0.890 −0.901 1.202
RBF −2.328 2.260 −0.816 −0.769 1.209
TopoR −2.238 4.962 −0.195 −0.713 1.993
References
1. Quadros, N.D. Technology in Focus: Bathymetric Lidar. GIM Int. Worldw. Mag. Geomat. 2016, 30, 46–47.
2. Quadros, N.; Collier, P. Integration of bathymetric and topographic LiDAR: A preliminary investigation.
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2008, 36, 1299–1304.
3. Kinzel, P.J.; Legleiter, C.J.; Nelson, J.M. Mapping River Bathymetry With a Small Footprint Green LiDAR:
Applications and Challenges. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2013, 49, 183–204. [CrossRef]
4. Saylam, K.; Hupp, J.R.; Averett, A.R.; Gutelius, W.F.; Gelhar, B.W. Airborne lidar bathymetry: Assessing
quality assurance and quality control methods with Leica Chiroptera examples. Int. J. Remote Sens. 2018, 39,
2518–2542. [CrossRef]
5. Falkowski, T.; Ostrowski, P.; Siwicki, P.B.M. Channel morphology changes and their relationship to valley
bottom geology and human interventions; a case study from the Vistula Valley in Warsaw. Geomorphology
2017, 297, 100–111. [CrossRef]
6. Chénier, R.; Faucher, M.A.; Ahola, R.; Shelat, Y.; Sagram, M. Bathymetric photogrammetry to update CHS
charts: Comparing conventional 3D manual and automatic approaches. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 395.
[CrossRef]
7. Chaplot, V.; Darboux, F.; Bourennane, H.; Leguédois, S. Accuracy of interpolation techniques for the
derivation of digital elevation models in relation to landform types and data density. Geomorphology 2006, 77,
126–141. [CrossRef]
8. Benjankar, R.; Tonina, D.; Mckean, J. One-dimensional and two-dimensional hydrodynamic modeling
derived flow properties: Impacts on aquatic habitat quality predictions. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2015, 40,
340–356. [CrossRef]
9. Kinsman, N. Single-Beam Bathymetry Data Collected in Shallow-Water Areas near Gambell, Golovin, Hooper Bay,
Savoonga, Shishmaref, and Wales, Alaska 2012–2013; Department of Natural Resources. Division of Geological
& Geophysical Surveys: Fairbanks, AK, USA, 2015.
10. Li, J.; Heap, A.D. A review of comparative studies of spatial interpolation methods in environmental sciences:
Performance and impact factors. Ecol. Inform. 2011, 6, 228–241. [CrossRef]
11. Liffner, J.; Hewa, G.; Peel, M. The sensitivity of catchment hypsometry and hypsometric properties to DEM
resolution and polynomial order. Geomorphology 2018, 309, 112–120. [CrossRef]
12. Merwade, V.; Maidment, D.; Goff, J. Anisotropic considerations while interpolating river channel bathymetry.
J. Hydrol. 2006, 331, 731–741. [CrossRef]
13. Merwade, V. Effect of spatial trends on interpolation of river bathymetry. J. Hydrol. 2009, 371, 169–181.
[CrossRef]
14. Patel, A.; Katiyar, S.K.; Prasad, V. Performances evaluation of different open source DEM using Differential
Global Positioning System (DGPS). Egypt. J. Remote Sens. Space Sci. 2016, 19, 7–16. [CrossRef]
15. Groeneveld, R.A.; Meeden, G. Measuring Skewness and Kurtosis. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. D 1984, 33, 391. [CrossRef]
16. Bhunia, G.S.; Shit, P.K.; Maiti, R. Comparison of GIS-based interpolation methods for spatial distribution of
soil organic carbon (SOC). J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2018, 17, 114–126. [CrossRef]
17. Avila, R.; Horn, B.; Moriarty, E.; Hodson, R.; Moltchanova, E. Evaluating statistical model performance in
water quality prediction. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 206, 910–919. [CrossRef]
18. Arseni, M.; Rosu, A.; Nicolae, A.-F.; Georgescu, P.L.; Constantin, D.E. Comparison of models and volumetric
determination for catusa lake, Galati. Tehnomus J. New Technol. Prod. Mach. Manuf. Technol. 2007, 24, 67–71.
19. Romanescu, G.; Stoleriu, C. Causes and effects of the catastrophic flooding on the Siret River (Romania) in
July–August 2008. Nat. Hazards 2013, 69, 1351–1367. [CrossRef]
20. Dăscăliţa, D.; Daniela, P.; Olariu, P. Aspects regarding some hydroclimatic phenomena with risk character
from Siret hydrographic area. Structural and nonstructural measures of prevention and emergency. Present
Environ. Sustain. Dev. 2008, 1, 318–332.
21. Grecu, F.; Zaharia, L.; Ioana-Toroimac, G.; Armas, , I. Floods and Flash-Floods Related to River Channel
Dynamics. In Landform Dynamics and Evolution in Romania; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 821–844.
[CrossRef]
22. Arseni, M. Modern GIS Techniques for Determination of the Territorial Risks Modern GIS techniques for
determination of the territorial risks. Ph.D. Thesis, University “Dunarea de Jos” of Galati, Galati, Romania,
2018.
23. US Army Corps of Engineers. Hydrographic Surveying. vol. 5.; Department of the Army: Washington, DC,
USA, 2013.
24. Arseni, M.; Ros, u, A.; Georgescu, L.P.; Murariu, G. Single beam acoustic depth measurement techniques and
bathymetric mapping for Catusa Lake, Galati. Ann. Univ. Dunarea Jos Galati Fascicle II Math. Phys. Theor.
Mech. 2016, 39, 281–287.
25. Murariu, G.; Puscasu, G.; Gogoncea, V.; Angelopoulos, A.; Fildisis, T. Non—Linear Flood Assessment with
Neural Network. AIP Conf. Proc. 2010, 1203, 812–819. [CrossRef]
26. International Hydrographyc Organisation (IHO). Standards for Hydrographic Surveys, 5th ed.; Spec. Publ. No.
44; International Hydrographic Bureau: Monaco, 2008.
27. SOUTH S82V Technical Specifications. Available online: https://geo-matching.com/gnss-receivers/s82v
(accessed on 19 July 2019).
28. Panday, D.; Maharjan, B.; Chalise, D.; Shrestha, R.K.; Twanabasu, B. Digital soil mapping in the Bara district
of Nepal using kriging tool in ArcGIS. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206350. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. De Borges, P.A.; Franke, J.; da Anunciação, Y.M.T.; Weiss, H.; Bernhofer, C. Comparison of spatial interpolation
methods for the estimation of precipitation distribution in Distrito Federal, Brazil. Theor. Appl. Climatol.
2016, 123, 335–348. [CrossRef]
30. Burrough, P.A.; MCDonnell, R.A.; Lloyd, C.D. Principles of Geographical Information Systems, 3rd ed.; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015.
31. Harman, B.I.; Koseoglu, H.; Yigit, C.O. Performance evaluation of IDW, Kriging and multiquadric
interpolation methods in producing noise mapping: A case study at the city of Isparta, Turkey. Appl.
Acoust. 2016, 112, 147–157. [CrossRef]
32. He, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Yi, C. 3D fluorescence spectral data interpolation by using IDW. Spectrochim. Acta Part A
Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2008, 71, 743–745. [CrossRef]
33. Li, M.; Yuan, Y.; Wang, N.; Li, Z.; Liu, X.; Zhang, X. Statistical comparison of various interpolation algorithms
for reconstructing regional grid ionospheric maps over China. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. 2018, 172, 129–137.
[CrossRef]
34. Zhang, H.; Lu, L.; Liu, Y.; Liu, W. Spatial sampling strategies for the effect of interpolation accuracy. ISPRS
Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2015, 4, 2742–2768. [CrossRef]
35. Matheron, G. Principles of geostatistics. Econ. Geol. 1963, 58, 1246–1266. [CrossRef]
36. Coburn, T.C.; Yarus, J.M.; Chambers, R.L. Stochastic Modeling and Geostatistics: Principles, Methods, and Case
Studies; The American Association of Petrolium Geologists: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2006; Volume 2.
37. Liu, W.; Zhang, H.R.; Yan, D.P.; Wang, S.L. Adaptive surface modeling of soil properties in complex landforms.
ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2017, 6, 178. [CrossRef]
38. Cressie, N. The origins of kriging. Math. Geol. 1990, 22, 239–252. [CrossRef]
39. Erdogan, S. A comparision of interpolation methods for producing digital elevation models at the field scale.
Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2009, 34, 366–376. [CrossRef]
40. Cheng, M.; Wang, Y.; Engel, B.; Zhang, W.; Peng, H.; Chen, X.; Xia, H. Performance Assessment of Spatial
Interpolation of Precipitation for Hydrological Process Simulation in the Three Gorges Basin. Water 2017, 9,
838. [CrossRef]
41. VerH oef, J.M.; Krivoruchko, K. Using ArcGIS Geostatistical Analyst; Esri: Redlands, Australia, 2001.
42. Gundogdu, K.S.; Guney, I. Spatial analyses of groundwater levels using universal kriging. J. Earth Syst. Sci.
2007, 116, 49–55. [CrossRef]
43. Pebesma, E.J. Multivariable geostatistics in S: The gstat package. Comput. Geosci. 2004, 30, 683–691. [CrossRef]
44. Patriche, C.V. Statistic Methods Apllied in Climatology. Terra Nostra: Iasi, Romania, 2009.
45. Tziachris, P.; Metaxa, E.; Papadopoulos, F.; Papadopoulou, M. Spatial Modelling and Prediction Assessment
of Soil Iron Using Kriging Interpolation with pH as Auxiliary Information. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2017, 6, 283.
[CrossRef]
46. Smith, M.J.; Goodchild, M.F.; Longley, P.A. Geospatial Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide to Principles, Techniques
and Software Tools; Troubador Publishing LTD: Leicester, UK, 2007.
47. Buhman, M.D. Radial Basis Functions: Theory and Implementations; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2003.
48. Dumitrescu, A. Spatialisation of Meteorological and Climatic Parameters by SIG Techniques. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania, 2012.
49. Childs, C. Interpolating surfaces in ArcGIS spatial analyst. ArcUser July-Sept. 2004, 3235, 569.
50. Hutchinson, M.F. A new procedure for gridding elevation and stream line data with automatic removal of
spurious pits. J. Hydrol. 1989, 106, 211–232. [CrossRef]
51. Hutchinson, M.F. A locally adaptive approach to the interpolation of digital elevation models. In Proceedings
of the Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating (GIS) and Environmental Modeling; National Center
for Geographic Information and Analysis: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 1996; pp. 21–26.
52. Hutchinson, M.F. Optimising the degree of data smoothing for locally adaptive finite element bivariate
smoothing splines. ANZIAM J. 2000, 42, 774. [CrossRef]
53. Hutchinson, M.F.; Xu, T.; Stein, J.A. Recent Progress in the ANUDEM Elevation Gridding Procedure.
Geomorphometry 2011, 19–22.
54. Chen, C.; Li, Y.; Yan, C.; Dai, H.; Liu, G. A Robust Algorithm of Multiquadric Method Based on an Improved
Huber Loss Function for Interpolating Remote-Sensing-Derived Elevation Data Sets. Remote Sens. 2015, 7,
3347–3371. [CrossRef]
55. Wang, C.; Yang, Q.; Jupp, D.; Pang, G. Modeling Change of Topographic Spatial Structures with DEM
Resolution Using Semi-Variogram Analysis and Filter Bank. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2016, 5, 107. [CrossRef]
56. Salekin, S.; Burgess, J.; Morgenroth, J.; Mason, E.; Meason, D. A Comparative Study of Three Non-Geostatistical
Methods for Optimising Digital Elevation Model Interpolation. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2018, 7, 300. [CrossRef]
57. Šiljeg, A.; Lozić, S.; Radoš, D. The effect of interpolation methods on the quality of a digital terrain model for
geomorphometric analyses. Teh. Vjesn. Gaz. 2015, 22, 1149–1156.
58. Rosu, A.; Rosu, B.; Constantin, D.E.; Voiculescu, M.; Arseni, M.; Murariu, G.; Georgescu, L.P. Correlations
between NO2 distribution maps using GIS and Mobile DOAS measurements in Galati city. Ann. Univ.
Dunarea Jos Galati 2018, 41, 23–31.
59. Moharana, S.; Khatua, K.K. Prediction of roughness coefficient of a meandering open channel flow using
Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System. Measurement 2014, 51, 112–123. [CrossRef]
60. Xu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Long, Z.; Tang, H.; Zhang, X. Hourly Urban Water Demand Forecasting Using the
Continuous Deep Belief Echo State Network. Water 2019, 11, 351. [CrossRef]
61. Curebal, I.; Efe, R.; Ozdemir, H.; Soykan, A.; Sönmez, S. GIS-based approach for flood analysis: Case study
of Keçidere flash flood event (Turkey). Geocarto Int. 2016, 31, 355–366. [CrossRef]
62. El-Shazli, A.; Hoermann, G. Development of storage capacity and morphology of the Aswan High Dam
Reservoir. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2016, 61, 2639–2648. [CrossRef]
63. Goff, J.A.; Nordfjord, S. Interpolation of Fluvial Morphology Using Channel-Oriented Coordinate
Transformation: A Case Study from the New Jersey Shelf. Math. Geol. 2004, 36, 643–658. [CrossRef]
64. Zimmerman, D.; Pavlik, C.; Ruggles, A.; Armstrong, M.P. An Experimental Comparison of Ordinary and
Universal Kriging and Inverse Distance Weighting. Math. Geol. 1999, 31, 375–390. [CrossRef]
65. Podsadneaea, E.A.; Pavliuc, B. The interpolation methods for elevation data. City Manag. Theory Pract. 2017,
3, 52–60.
66. Pankalakr, S.S.; Jarag, A.P. Assessment of spatial interpolation techniques for river bathymetry generation of
Panchganga River basin using geoinformatic techniques. Asian J. Geoinform. 2016, 15, 9–15.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Testing Di Single Beam Echosounder River Surveying. Case Study: Siret River

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Testing Di Single Beam Echosounder River Surveying. Case Study: Siret River

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Testing Di Single Beam Echosounder River Surveying. Case Study: Siret River

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 507; doi:10.3390/ijgi8110507 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijgi

ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2019, 8, 507 5 of 21

2.2.1. Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW)

where Zi (i = 1, 2, . . . , N) are measured values at N points, and the λi is given by:

2.2.2. Simple Kriging (KRG)

Z(s) = µ(s) + ε(s). (4)

2.2.3. Radial Basis Function (RBF)

1. Multiquadric function (MQ):

2. Thin-plate spline (TPS):

3. Spline with tension (ST):

where K0 (x) is the modified Bessel function.

2.2.4. Topo to Raster Interpolation (TopoR)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Block Data Performance Analysis

Scatterplot Vi / Vm Scatterplot Vi / Vm Scatterplot Vi / Vm Scatterplot Vi / Vm

-10 -10 -10 -10

3.2. Local Cross-Section Performance Analysis

1.1 SBES IDW 1.1 SBES IDW

SBES vs IDW SBES vs KRG SBES vs RBF SBES vs TopoR

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

RMSE_IDW RMSE_KRG RMSE_RBF RMSE_TopoR

5 SBES IDW 5 SBES IDW

Table A1. Statistics of model fits as given by the ArcGIS report.

You might also like