Acoustic doppler velocimeter backscatter for suspended sediment measurements: Effects of sediment size and attenuation
Introduction
Quantification of the transport, deposition, and suspension of sediment in various water environments (i.e., rivers, lakes, estuaries, and bays) is of crucial importance for many aspects such as shoreline morphology, navigation, water quality, and fate of pollutants and bio-matter. Sediment kept in suspension by hydrodynamic processes accounts for the majority of the sediment transported past a location of interest [5], [37]. Both grains of sand and finer material may be transported in suspension, depending on the magnitude of the energy in the flow, among other factors. In many studies related to sediment transport, it is essential to use the best possible methods and equipment while measuring and recording the mass concentration of sediments in suspension due to the highly variable nature of suspended sediment. For example, in terms of environmental and ecosystem concern, sediments can be a source of nutrients and toxins that impact the health of organisms within the system. The high concentration of suspended materials can limit both light transmission and photosynthesis. From a navigational point of the view, the deposition of suspended sediments into shipping channels causes infill and may require occasional dredging to maintain a navigable waterway [14].
The quantification methods of suspended sediment concentration (SSC) can be classified into two main groups as direct and surrogate methods. Direct methods, which employ water sampling bottles or submersible pumps, are labor-intensive and might not be representative due to spatial and temporal variability of SSC in the water column. The main advantages of this method are its simplicity and providing information on sediment characteristics, such as shape, size, and mineralogy [3], [4], [13], [41]. The main shortcoming of the direct methods is the difficulty of taking adequate measurements, particularly when frequent sampling is required.
Surrogate methods, none of which involve the collection of water samples except for calibration of the devices, include acoustic and optical backscatter sensors, and laser diffraction methods. They provide high temporal resolution without distorting the flow, as the measurements are collected at distance. In some cases, the spatial variation in concentration may also be quantifiable. Methods employing acoustic signals tend to be less problematic logistically, as optical sensors are typically much more sensitive to biofouling in natural environments [8], [39]. Multi-frequency acoustic sensors also have the potential to provide information on the size distribution of the suspended sediment [8], [19], [21], [34], [40]. Laser diffraction instruments have been successfully used for several decades to measure volumetric particle concentration and particle size distribution, which are feasible over a limited range of sizes ranging from 2 to 500 microns [1]. However, measured light scattering from particles outside of these measurement size limits introduces errors, while particle shape and variability in sediment density influence the conversion from volumetric to mass concentration [2].
Acoustic backscatter from devices, which are originally designed to measure water velocities, have been applied successfully to various water environments over a few past decades to quantify SSC (e.g., Gartner [14], Sahin et al. [33], Sahin [34], Sahin et al. [35], Thorne et al. [39]). The basic principle for the measurement of SSC is that acoustic waves emitted by the device travels through a water-sediment mixture. While some of the acoustic waves are reflected back to the device, some of the waves will scatter and attenuate as a function of sediment, fluid, and instrument characteristics such as acoustic frequency, sediment concentration, and travel distance from the sound source. Each acoustic frequency has a minimum detectable particle diameter and a peak sensitivity for a certain particle (e.g., Thorne and Hanes [40]). Besides having successful applications of acoustics for estimation of SSC, it has also some limitations, and the factors such as variations in water density (salinity and temperature), sediment grain size and concentration, water depth (distance the signal travels from the transducers), water surface conditions may result in unreliable data.
When an acoustic instrument is calibrated, no additional sensor is needed to measure SSC. This approach then provides simultaneous measurements of velocity and concentration via one acoustic sensor that is typically much less susceptible to errors due to biofouling compared to optical sensors. However, the calibration can make the acoustic approach highly site-specific and in some cases strongly seasonally dependent. For example, the biological activity and flocculation can influence the acoustic response of the sensor [14], [17], [28], [32], [33], [34], [35].
The most commonly used acoustic devices are Acoustic Doppler current meters (including Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs), Acoustic Doppler Profilers (ADPs), and Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADVs)). Acoustic profiling instruments (i.e., ADCPs and ADPs) employ range-gating of the reflected sound signal to resolve the spatial variations in their along-beam velocities, which can then be converted to velocity profiles in a Cartesian coordinate system assuming the particles travel with the same current speed. Profiling instruments have a distinct advantage over most other surrogate technologies in that they can provide data indicative of conditions spanning a substantial section of a river cross-section or water column [19], [24], [25], [36], [40].
ADVs are single-point measurement devices and very useful for the studies in a laboratory environment since they enable taking measurements in limited spaces due to the sampling volume very close to the instrument. They are readily portable and yield velocity estimates for a small (O(0.1 cm3)) sampling volume, typically 5–10 cm away from the instrument (Fig. 1). Hosseini et al. [20] showed that an ADV could be suitable and useful for determining the flow structure in turbidity currents, based on a study on low-density turbidity currents in a laboratory flume using a 10-MHz ADV. Elci et al. [11] estimated SSC in rivers using backscatter from a handheld ADV in quasi-steady flow. MacDonald et al. [28] studied the effect of cohesive sediment flocculation on ADV backscatter and concluded that the presence of flocculation modifies the backscatter properties of a suspension of sediment particles, compared to a suspension of the same particles in an unflocculated state. Xavier et al. [47] carried out a set of laboratory experiments to examine the relationship between glass microspheres of various sizes and their acoustic signals recorded by a 6-MHz ADV. They concluded that acoustic return signal amplitudes can be used to estimate concentrations of SSC, if appropriate corrections are applied to the backscattered signals, particularly due to the attenuation mechanisms. Öztürk [31] studied the sensitivity of the acoustic estimates of suspended sediment concentration to sediment size and size distribution using original sediment mixture and with well-sorted fractions obtained by sieving the mixture. A-10 MHz ADV was used in a controlled laboratory environment so that the suspended sediment concentration was readily controlled and known. The study suggests that suspended sediment concentration should be predictable based on the knowledge of backscatter intensity, dimensionless grain size, and grain size distribution. Most of the previous studies investigated the response of the ADV signal in relatively dilute SSC conditions (up to 1 kgm) for which attenuation of the acoustic signal due to water and particles in suspension may be neglected. A few number studies (i.e., Ha et al. [17], Li et al. [26]) observed a decreasing backscatter intensity trend with increasing SSC at larger concentrations and attributed this behavior to intense sound absorption under high SSC conditions without quantifying this effect.
This study investigates the response of the acoustic backscatter signal of a 10-MHz ADV to suspended particles of different sizes. The main aspects that differ the present study from the previous ones (e.g., Ha et al. [17], Li et al. [26], Öztürk [31], Xavier et al. [47]) are: (i) investigation of the ADV signal response under high concentration conditions (up to SSC of 10 kgm) in a laboratory environment for suspended sediment measurements, and (ii) providing a quantitative analysis on the effect of sound attenuation at high concentrations in detail for the first time. The method used to convert the acoustic backscatter information to SSC estimates and the experimental system that allows for measurements under controlled suspended sediment conditions are presented in Section 2. The results related to the effects of different particle sizes and signal attenuation on the acoustic measurements are given in detail in Section 3. The results are discussed in Section 4, and the conclusions are summarized in Section 5.
Section snippets
Acoustic inversion
The backscatter information recorded by an ADV can be converted to the mass concentration of sediment in the water column, SSC, using the backscatter volume strength from a suspension of Rayleigh scatterers and the sonar equation as following (e.g., Öztürk [31], Rouhnia et al. [32], Salehi and Strom [36]):where B is the acoustic backscatter (dB), C′ and C″ are calibration coefficients that can be obtained by collecting ADV backscatter data over a range of known concentration
Effect of sediment size
The 2-min average of backscatter strength (B =RL) and SSC data from the experiments were used to determine the calibration coefficients, C′ and C″, in Eq. (1) for each sediment size fraction. For the experiments with 77 µm and 107 µm mean sediment sizes, backscatter strength increases with SSC and reaches a maximum strength when the SSC surpasses an upper limit and then decreases even though SSC still increases (Fig. 7a and b). The SSC values above which the backscatter strength shows a
Discussion
In agreement with the previous studies (e.g., Chmiel et al. [6], Decrop et al. [9], Ha et al. [17], Li et al. [26], Öztürk [31], Rouhnia et al. [32], Xavier et al. [47]), the results of the present study indicate a characteristic linear shape in semi-logarithmic scale between SSC and acoustic backscatter strength up to a certain concentration level. For higher concentrations, however, the amplitude signal saturates, and no linear dependency can be regarded. Acoustic waves passing through a
Conclusions
This study provides theoretical and experimental investigation on the effects of suspended sediment size and signal attenuation for suspended sediment concentration measurements by an ADV in a laboratory environment. For this purpose, a well-mixed solid polycarbonate circulation tank system was designed to maintain the intended suspended sediment conditions for the tests. A total of six quartz sand samples with mean diameters between 77 and 428 µm and SSC up to 10 kg m were investigated in
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Research Fund of the Yildiz Technical University. Project Number: 2016-05-01-GEP01. We thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments that improved the manuscript.
References (45)
- et al.
Laser diffraction particle sizing in STRESS
Cont. Shelf Res.
(1994) - et al.
Calibrating multi-frequency acoustic backscatter systems for studying near-bed suspended sediment transport processes
Cont. Shelf Res.
(2008) Estimating suspended solids concentrations from backscatter intensity measured by acoustic doppler current profiler in San Francisco Bay, California
Mar. Geol.
(2004)- et al.
An acoustic doppler velocimeter (ADV) for the characterisation of turbulence in concentrated fluid mud
Cont. Shelf Res.
(2000) On the possibility of single-frequency acoustic measurement of sand and clay concentrations in uniform suspensions
Cont. Shelf Res.
(2012)- et al.
Measurements of high concentration suspended sediments using the optical backscatterance sensor
Mar. Geol.
(1992) - et al.
Determining suspended sediment particle size information from acoustical and optical backscatter measurements
Cont. Shelf Res.
(1994) - et al.
Do changes in the size of mud flocs affect the acoustic backscatter values recorded by a vector ADV?
Cont. Shelf Res.
(2014) - et al.
Observations of suspended sediment stratification from acoustic backscatter in muddy environments
Mar. Geol.
(2013) Investigation of the variability of floc sizes on the louisiana shelf using acoustic estimates of cohesive sediment properties
Mar. Geol.
(2014)
Using velocimeter signal to noise ratio as a surrogate measure of suspended mud concentration
Cont. Shelf Res.
A sediment budget for the Southern reach in San Francisco Bay, CA: implications for habitat restoration
Mar. Geo.
Measuring suspended sediment concentrations using acoustic backscatter devices
Mar. Geol.
A review of acoustic measurement of small-scale sediment processes
Cont. Shelf Res.
Formulations for the scattering properties of suspended sandy sediments for use in the application of acoustics to sediment transport processes
Cont. Shelf Res.
Modelling acoustic scattering by suspended flocculating sediments
Cont. Shelf Res.
Developments in acoustics for studying wave-driven boundary layer flow and sediment dynamics over rippled sand-beds
Cont. Shelf Res.
Limitations of laser diffraction for measuring fine particles in oligotrophic systems: pitfalls and potential solutions
Water Resour. Res.
Field Measurement of Mixed Mrain Size Suspension in the Nearshore Under Waves
Summary of suspended-sediment concentration data, san francisco bay, california
Water Year 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series
Applicability of acoustic concentration measurements in suspensions of artificial and natural sediments using an acoustic doppler velocimeter
Acoustics
Use of digital holographic cameras to examine the measurement and understanding of sediment suspension in the nearshore
Coast. Eng. Proc.
Cited by (10)
Measurements of suspended ashes concentration in turbulent flow with acoustic doppler velocimeter
2022, Flow Measurement and InstrumentationTechnological advancement in measurements of suspended sediment and hydraulic turbine erosion
2022, Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement ConfederationEffect of particle size distribution on Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter backscatter for suspended sediment measurements
2021, Flow Measurement and InstrumentationCitation Excerpt :To overcome the difficulties of the traditional sampling and filtering method such as limited resolution, being labor-intensive and time-consuming, new devices with technological advances have been developed to estimate sediment concentration, especially in terms of using light and sound scattering or attenuation by particles in water. The validation of these new techniques has been tested in many laboratory and field studies by the sedimentological community ([1,3–11], and many others). The acoustic measurements of suspended sediment are based on sound waves spreading through the water column.
Suspended particulate matter in a submarine canyon (Whittard Canyon, Bay of Biscay, NE Atlantic Ocean): Assessment of commonly used instruments to record turbidity
2021, Marine GeologyCitation Excerpt :Quantification of turbidity data in terms of mass concentration of SPM so far remains complex (e.g. Guillén et al., 2000; Downing, 2006; Fettweis et al., 2019), as the detected signal is not only dependent on the concentration of particles, but also on particle size distribution and aggregation (Baker and Lavelle, 1984; Bunt et al., 1999; Hatcher et al., 2001; Gruber et al., 2016; Sahin et al., 2020), shape and surface roughness (Gibbs, 1978; Schaafsma and Hay, 1997), composition (Maa et al., 1992; Moate and Thorne, 2012; Ohnemus et al., 2018) and colour of the material (Hatcher et al., 2000). To date, mainly laboratory studies have been performed to examine the effects of the physical properties of particles on turbidity measurements (e.g. Baker and Lavelle, 1984; Downing and Beach, 1989; Gibbs and Wolanski, 1992; Hatcher et al., 2000; Sahin et al., 2020) and field studies which have directly addressed the merits and potential drawbacks of commonly used turbidity sensors often only considered one type of sensor (e.g. Bishop, 1986; Merckelbach and Ridderinkhof, 2005; Perkey et al., 2010; Guerrero et al., 2011; Boss et al., 2015; Santos et al., 2020). Inter-comparisons of sensors by e.g. Osborne et al. (1994), Hawley (2004), Lewis et al. (2007), Rymszewicz et al. (2017), Fettweis et al. (2019) and Lin et al. (2020) were performed in onshore (rivers and lakes) and near-shore settings, where very high particle loads, varying contribution of sand-sized particles and formation of aggregates proved challenging for quantification of SPM mass concentrations.