Meeting challenges on the calibration of the global hydrological model WGHM with GRACE data input
ADDED VALUE OF COMBINING MULTIPLE OPTICAL AND ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS WHEN CHARACTERIZING FINE-GRAINED...
1
ADDED VALUE OF COMBINING MULTIPLE OPTICAL AND ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS WHEN CHARACTERIZING FINE-GRAINED ESTUARINE SUSPENSIONS Grace M. Cartwright 1 , Carl T. Friedrichs 1 , Lawrence P. Sanford 2 and S. Jarrell Smith 3 ABSTRACT Various optical and acoustic instruments have specific advantages and limitations for characterizing suspensions, and when used together more information can be obtained than with one instrument alone. The LISST 100X, for example, is a powerful tool for estimating particle size distribution, but because of the inversion method used to determine the size distribution, it is difficult to distinguish two dominate populations that peak close to one another, especially among larger grain sizes. In the York River estuary, VA, additional information obtained through the deployment of a RIPScam camera system and an ADV along with the LISST 100X allowed differentiation between populations of resilient pellets and flocs in suspension close to the bed and how the populations varied over a tidal cycle. A second example of instrument pairing providing additional information was the use of a PICS video imaging system in the York River to verify the conditions under which use of the ADV Reynolds flux method was valid for estimating settling velocity of suspended particle populations. Background photo provided by Kelsey A. Fall. Particles collected on a 63 micron sieve from sediment trap deployed on Clay Bank tripod Aug-Nov 2013. Total sediment captured in trap was composed of 98.4% mud (68.7% clay, 29.7% silt) with 7.8 % of this mud fraction packaged as resilient pellets . 1 Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, 2 University of Maryland, 3 Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S.A.C.E. Email: [email protected] , [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Download via publications link at: www.vims.edu/chsd US Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Research and Development Center Waterways Experiment Station Vicksburg, MS Verification Clarification Funding NSF grants OCE-0536572 and OCE-1061781 Reynolds Flux method Upwards turbulent sediment flux = Downwards gravitatio nal Settling Remove background concentration, C background (lowest concentration measured during study period-at slack - Thread Number: 3533 (82); d= 200 μm; X=9.2mm; W s mean = 0.57 mm/s (Smith , 2010; Cartwright et al, 2013; Smith and Friedrichs, 2012 ) INSTRUMENTS to measure Settling Velocity (Ws) Verified using: Particle Imaging Camera System (PICS) As measured by: Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV) (Fugate and Friedrichs, 2002; Cartwright et al, 2013 ) • Reduction of sediment concentration (Figure 3B) by 50% resulted in less than 1% change in ADV-based estimates of Ws (Using modified Reynolds flux equation). • Modified Reynolds flux method (ADV) for estimating mean Ws was noisier than PICS settling column observations (Figure 3C). • PICS observed mean settling velocities (0.45±0.02 mm/sec) were consistent with ADV-based effective estimates for cases with U>20cm/sec (0.48±0.04 mm/sec) • PICS observed mean settling velocities were not consistent with ADV-based effective estimates for cases with U<20cm/sec • For U> 20 cm/sec |∂C/∂t| ≤ |ws ∂C/∂z| provides appropriate sediment flux balance for ADV Ws calculation (Figure 3D) < C > (mg/L) 15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 18 21 0 1 2 3 Date (July28, 2009(17:00EST) - July29, 2009 (18:00 EST) ) Fall Velocity(mm/sec) ratio calcmethod slopecalcmethod B 15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 18 0 20 40 60 Date (July28, 2009 (17:00EST) - July29, 2009(18:00 EST) ) VolumeConc(ul/L) 87.9µm 280 µm C Example Distributions Low Stress Period (Figures 6 A-B) • LISST peak and D84 agrees with RIPScam D16 suggest dominant floc size of ~315 μm • LISST D50 influenced by a range of smaller flocs still in suspension • RIPScam D50 skewed by a single large particle (whose size is better described by RIPScam peak = 1243 μm) Increasing stress period (Figures 6 C- D) • Broader LISST distribution suggests multiple particle types in suspension • LISST D50 and peak and RIPScam D16 suggest dominant particle size in suspension is ~102 μm (resilient pellets) • LISST D84, RIPScam D50 and peak suggest a second particle size of ~205 μm ( floc size reduced by turbulence) ADV Settling Velocity and LISST Volume Concentrations PELLETS (~102 μm) • Increased stress • Increased ADV effective Ws • Increased LISST volume concentration of comparable ‘pellet’ size class LARGEST Dominant Floc size (~315 μm) • Decrease stress • Decrease ADV effective Ws • Increased LISST volume concentration of comparable ‘floc’ size class 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 LISST D16= 23 µm LISST D50= 171µm LISST D84= 315µm LISST Peak= 331 µm RIPScam D16= 300µm RIPScam D50= 758µm RIPScam Peak= 1243µm LISST time= 29-Jul-200911:02:24EST Cam eratim e = 1600 GMT (Log10) ParticleSize (µm) VolumeConcentration (µl/L) LISST 100X RIPSCAM./10 Slack after Ebb 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 LISST D16 = 21 µm LISST D50 = 85 µm LISST D84 = 218µm LISST Peak = 104µm RIPScam D16= 117 µm RIPScam D50= 197 µm RIPScam Peak = 201 µm LISST time = 28-Jul-2009 19:55:12 EST Cam era tim e = 100GM T (Log10) ParticleSize (µm) VolumeConcentration (µl/L) LISST 100X RIPSCAM ./10 Increasing stress toward Ebb EXAMPLE DISTRIBUTIONS Dominant Floc size ~315 µm (Cartwright et al., 2011) Dominant Pellet size ~102 µm Reduced Floc size ~205 µm INSTRUMENTS to measure Particle Size Distribution As measured by: Laser In Situ Scattering Transmissometer (LISST 100X) As measured by: Remote Imaging Camera System (RIPScam) STUDY SITE RESULTS RESULTS CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES Anderson T.J. , 2001. The role of fecal pellets in sediment settling at an intertidal mudflat, the Danish Wadden Sea. In: W.H. McAnally & A. J. Mehta (eds.), Coastal and Estuarine Fine Sediment Processes, Elsevier, p. 387-401. Cartwright, G.M., Friedrichs, C.T., Sanford, L.P., 2011. In situ characterization of estuarine suspended sediment in the presence of muddy flocs and pellets. In: Wang, P., Rosati, J.D., & Roberts, T. M. (eds.), Coastal Sediments 2011, World Scientific, ISBN 978-981-4355-52-0, p. 642- 655. Cartwright, G.M., Friedrichs, C.T. and Smith, S.J., 2013. A test of the ADV-based Reynolds flux method for in situ estimation of sediment settling velocity in a muddy estuary. Geo-Mar Lett 33:477-484 DOI 10.10007/s00367- 013-0340-4. Fugate, D.C. and Friedrichs, C.T., 2002. Determining concentration and fall velocity of estuarine particle populations using ADV, OBS and LISST. Cont Shelf Res 22(11):1867-1886 Sanford L.P., Dickhudt, P.J., Rubiano-Gomez, L., Yates, S.E., Friedrichs, C.T., Fugate, D.C., and Romine, H., 2005. Variability of suspended particle concentrations, sizes and settling velocities in the Chesapeake Bay turbidity maximum. In: I.G. Droppo et al. (eds.), Flocculation in Natural and Engineered Environmental Systems. CRC Press, p. 211-236 Smith, S.J. , 2010. Fine sediment dynamics in dredge plumes. PhD Thesis School of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA Smith, S.J. and Friedrichs, C.T., 2011, Size and settling velocities of cohesice flocs and suspended sediment aggregates in a trailing suction hopper dredge plume. Cont Shelf Res 31(10):S50-S63. Taghon, G.L., Nowell, A.R.M., Jumars, P.A., 1984. Transport and breakdown of fecal pellets, biological and sedimentological consequences. Limnology and Oceanography, 29:64-72. Wheatcroft, R.A., Wiberg, P.L., Alexander, C.R., Bentley, S.J., Drake, D.E., Harris, C.K., Ogston, A.S., 2007. Post-depositional alteration and preservation of sedimentary strata. In: C.A. Nittrouer et al. (eds.), Continental-Margin Sedimentation: From Sediment Transport to Sequence Stratigraphy , Blackwell, p. 101-155. RESILENT PELLET 100μm Clay Bank • Clay Bank area on York River Estuary • A micro tidal ( 0.7 to 1 meter) tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, VA • In secondary channel at ~5 meter depth (Site of long term, 2007-present, Observing System) Advantages: • Non-intrusive single point velocity measurement • Less susceptible to bio-fouling and can be used in higher concentration ranges than optical instruments • Burst data used to estimate effective settling velocity (Ws), as well as flux, turbulence, stress, and concentration when calibrated • Simple deployment and data processing. Disadvantages: • Can not track individual or groups of particles – only valid for effective (bulk) Ws. • Profiler must be stationary- profiler motion interferes with velocity calculations. < > represents burst averaged data C’ is fluctuations in conc about burst mean w’ is fluctuations in mean velocity in z direction Advantages: • Individual measured particle size and settling velocity allows estimation of particle density • PTV/PIV removes fluid velocity allowing for Ws estimates in situ (stationary profiler not necessary) • 30 sec of video allows averaging for better estimate of size and Ws • Can capture large particles Disadvantages: • Pixel size limits resolution of small particles • Data processing time intensive • Can not be used in high concentration regimes • Currently not set up for autonomous deployment PIV (≤30 μm) PTV (>30 μm) Advantages: • Can be deployed autonomously • Can capture large particles Disadvantages: • Highly susceptible to bio-fouling when deployed autonomou • Pixel size limits resolution of small particles • Limited memory • Data processing time intensive • Can not be used in high concentration regimes Advantages: • Good resolution of smaller particle sizes (21 of 32 logarith spaced size classes <=100 μm) • Simple deployment and data processing • Can be deployed autonomously Disadvantages: • Highly susceptible to bio-fouling when deployed autonomously • Can not be used in high concentration regimes • Poor resolution of large particles and limited range Suspended LISST Painted ADV Figure 1. Profiler with LISST and PICS Figure 2. A-C) PICS setup and operation. D) Example PICS data tracking a particle through 82 frames and removing fluid velocity for average size and settling velocity (and post processed density). MOTIVATION METHOD--STUDY 1 METHOD--STUDY 2 Figure 3. A) ADV current speed, B) ADV suspended concentration C) ADV and PIC settling velocity D) Continuity term Figure 4. A) Benthic tripod with ADV and LISST showing bio-fouling after >3 months. B) Sequoia LISST 100X. Figure 5. A) RIPScam mounted on benthic lander B) RIPScam schematic. Figure 6. A)Example LISST and RIPScam distributions during a low stress period B) Image from RIPScam during low stress periodC)Example distributions during increasing Stress period D)RIPScam image from increasing stress period. Figure 7. A) Stresses calculated from ADV bursts B)Settling velocities calculated From ADV bursts. Slope calc method is running average of previous 5 bursts. C) Blue line is volume concentration of LISST bin closest to pellet size determined in Figure 6 for increasing stress period. Red line is bin size closest to the dominant floc size determined low stress period. Mud Flocculants Resilient Pellets Sand D~ 5 – 10 µm W s < to <<0.1 mm/sec D ~ O(λ) Microflocs < 160 µm Macroflocs >160 µm D~ 10s – 100s µm W s W s ~0.1–10 mm/s D= 63 – 500 µm W s = 2.3–60 mm/s W s α D Anderson, 2001; Sanford et al, 2005; Taghon et al , 1984; Wheatcroft et al , 2005 Fugate and Friedrichs, 2003 λ Turbulence W s % Organic λ the contribution of multiple particle types to the suspended distribution nd thus to the effective settling velocity (W s as measured by the ADV) λ Settling Velocity(W s ) 25 Hour Study Period ( July 28-29, 2009) Mounted on bottom landers (Figures 4 and 5) LISST100X - 15 min burst interval, 100 records@ 1 Hz (10 samples/record) ADV- 15 min burst interval, 2 min @ 10 Hz RIPScam - 1hr burst interval, 5 flash exposures @ 1 min intervals (focal depth ~1mm) 15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 18 0 Date (July28, 2009 (17:00EST) - July29, 2009(18:00EST) ) 6 Hour Study Period bracket Flood (Oct 6, 2012) Mounted on profiler resting on seafloor (Figures 1 and 2) LISST100X - ~ 4 bursts/hr, 2 min@ 1 Hz (10 samples/record) ADV- ~4 burst/hr, 2 min @ 10 Hz PICS - 30 video corresponding to each ADV/LISST burst. 8 frames/sec A A B D C A B C D D A A B B Settling Velocity (mm/s) Stress (Pascals) Volume Conc (μl/L) • Using multiple instruments with various capabilities provides a more complete picture of the particle size distribution and their associated settling velocities. • Both PICS and ADV in study 1 do a reasonable job of describing the mean/effective Ws when U>20 cm/s. At slower velocities suspended sediment suspension is insufficient to provide valid ADV estimated Ws via the modified Reynolds flux method. • ADVs, however, provide long term continuous estimates of Ws when it is impossible to deploy other instruments (For example during episodic events) • PICS overestimates the mean or effective Ws because it is limited by pixel resolution. ADVs are likely biased towards particles which are larger and denser and thus produce stronger acoustic backscatter. • Combination of the LISST, which is better at resolving smaller particles, and the RIPScam, which is better at resolving larger particles, does a reasonable job in describing the "total" distribution. However neither of these instruments are capable of direct measurement of Ws. • Addition of LISST-ST to PICS can help resolve contribution of the smaller particles particularly in the low stress periods. Important in modeling water clarity response to sea level rise and it's effect on ecosystems Measurement range: >30 μm to ~ 3mm Measurement Range: 2.5 to 500 μm Measurement range: >30 μm to ~ 3mm Modified Reynolds Flux method ( Cartwright et al, 2013 ) (Cartwright et al., 2011)
-
Upload
jeffry-boyd -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of ADDED VALUE OF COMBINING MULTIPLE OPTICAL AND ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS WHEN CHARACTERIZING FINE-GRAINED...
ADDED VALUE OF COMBINING MULTIPLE OPTICAL AND ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS WHEN CHARACTERIZING FINE-GRAINED ESTUARINE SUSPENSIONS Grace M. Cartwright1, Carl T. Friedrichs1, Lawrence P. Sanford2 and S. Jarrell Smith3
ABSTRACTVarious optical and acoustic instruments have specific advantages and limitations for characterizing suspensions, and when used together more information can be obtained than with one instrument alone. The LISST 100X, for example, is a powerful tool for estimating particle size distribution, but because of the inversion method used to determine the size distribution, it is difficult to distinguish two dominate populations that peak close to one another, especially among larger grain sizes. In the York River estuary, VA, additional information obtained through the deployment of a RIPScam camera system and an ADV along with the LISST 100X allowed differentiation between populations of resilient pellets and flocs in suspension close to the bed and how the populations varied over a tidal cycle. A second example of instrument pairing providing additional information was the use of a PICS video imaging system in the York River to verify the conditions under which use of the ADV Reynolds flux method was valid for estimating settling velocity of suspended particle populations.
Background photo provided by Kelsey A. Fall. Particles collected on a 63 micron sieve from sediment trap deployed on Clay Bank tripod Aug-Nov 2013. Total sediment captured in trap was composed of 98.4% mud (68.7% clay, 29.7%
silt) with 7.8 % of this mud fraction packaged as resilient pellets.
1Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, 2University of Maryland, 3Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S.A.C.E. Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Download via publications link at: www.vims.edu/chsd US Army Corps of EngineersEngineer Research and Development Center
Waterways Experiment StationVicksburg, MS
Verification Clarification
Funding NSF grants OCE-0536572 and OCE-1061781
Reynolds Flux method
Upwards turbulent
sediment flux =
Downwards gravitational
Settling
Remove background concentration, Cbackground
(lowest concentration measured during study period-at slack-
Thread Number: 3533 (82); d= 200 μm; X=9.2mm; Ws mean = 0.57 mm/s
(Smith , 2010; Cartwright et al, 2013; Smith and Friedrichs, 2012 )
INSTRUMENTS to measure Settling Velocity (Ws)
Verified using:Particle Imaging Camera System (PICS)
As measured by:Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter (ADV)
(Fugate and Friedrichs, 2002; Cartwright et al, 2013 )
• Reduction of sediment concentration (Figure 3B) by 50% resulted in less than 1% change in ADV-based estimates of Ws (Using modified Reynolds flux equation).
• Modified Reynolds flux method (ADV) for estimating mean Ws was noisier than PICS settling column observations (Figure 3C).
• PICS observed mean settling velocities (0.45±0.02
mm/sec) were consistent with ADV-based effective estimates for cases with U>20cm/sec (0.48±0.04 mm/sec)
• PICS observed mean settling velocities were not
consistent with ADV-based effective estimates for cases with U<20cm/sec
• For U> 20 cm/sec |∂C/∂t| ≤ |ws ∂C/∂z| provides
appropriate sediment flux balance for ADV Ws calculation (Figure 3D)
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
0
5
10
15
< C > (mg/L)
< C'
w' >
(m
g/L)
(cm
/sec
)
y = 0.0924*x - 3.41
15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 18 210
1
2
3
Date (July 28, 2009 (17:00 EST) - July 29, 2009 (18:00 EST) )
Fall
Velo
city
(mm
/sec
)
ratio calc methodslope calc method
A
B15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Date (July 28, 2009 (17:00 EST) - July 29, 2009 (18:00 EST) )
Vol
ume
Con
c (u
l/L)
87.9 µm280 µm
15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 180
20
40
60
Date (July 28, 2009 (17:00 EST) - July 29, 2009 (18:00 EST) )
Volu
me
Conc
(ul/L
)
87.9 µm280 µm
C
Example Distributions
Low Stress Period (Figures 6 A-B)• LISST peak and D84 agrees with RIPScam D16
suggest dominant floc size of ~315 μm• LISST D50 influenced by a range of smaller flocs still
in suspension• RIPScam D50 skewed by a single large particle
(whose size is better described by RIPScam peak = 1243 μm)
Increasing stress period (Figures 6 C-D)• Broader LISST distribution suggests multiple particle
types in suspension• LISST D50 and peak and RIPScam D16 suggest
dominant particle size in suspension is ~102 μm (resilient pellets)
• LISST D84, RIPScam D50 and peak suggest a second particle size of ~205 μm ( floc size reduced by turbulence)
ADV Settling Velocity and LISST Volume Concentrations
PELLETS (~102 μm)• Increased stress • Increased ADV effective Ws • Increased LISST volume concentration of comparable
‘pellet’ size classLARGEST Dominant Floc size (~315 μm)• Decrease stress• Decrease ADV effective Ws• Increased LISST volume concentration of comparable ‘floc’ size class
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50
20
40
60
80
100LISST D16 = 23 µmLISST D50 = 171 µmLISST D84 = 315 µmLISST Peak = 331 µm RIPScam D16 = 300 µmRIPScam D50 = 758 µmRIPScam Peak = 1243 µm
LISST time = 29-Jul-2009 11:02:24 EST Camera time = 1600 GMT
(Log10) Particle Size (µm)
Volu
me
Conc
entra
tion
(µl/L
)
LISST 100XRIPSCAM./10
Slack after Ebb
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50
20
40
60
80
100LISST D16 = 21 µmLISST D50 = 85 µmLISST D84 = 218 µmLISST Peak = 104 µm RIPScam D16 = 117 µmRIPScam D50 = 197 µmRIPScam Peak = 201 µm
LISST time = 28-Jul-2009 19:55:12 EST Camera time = 100 GMT
(Log10) Particle Size (µm)
Volu
me
Con
cent
ratio
n (µ
l/L)
LISST 100XRIPSCAM./10
Increasing stress toward EbbEXAMPLE DISTRIBUTIONS
Dominant Floc size ~315 µm
(Cartwright et al., 2011)
Dominant Pellet size~102 µmReduced Floc size~205 µm
INSTRUMENTS to measure Particle Size DistributionAs measured by:
Laser In Situ Scattering Transmissometer (LISST 100X)
As measured by:Remote Imaging Camera System
(RIPScam)
STUDY SITE
RESULTSRESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCESAnderson T.J. , 2001. The role of fecal pellets in sediment settling at an intertidal mudflat, the Danish Wadden Sea. In: W.H. McAnally & A. J. Mehta (eds.), Coastal and Estuarine Fine Sediment Processes, Elsevier, p. 387-401. Cartwright, G.M., Friedrichs, C.T., Sanford, L.P., 2011. In situ characterization of estuarine suspended sediment in the presence of muddy flocs and pellets. In: Wang, P., Rosati, J.D., & Roberts, T. M. (eds.), Coastal Sediments 2011, World Scientific, ISBN 978-981-4355-52-0, p. 642-655. Cartwright, G.M., Friedrichs, C.T. and Smith, S.J., 2013. A test of the ADV-based Reynolds flux method for in situ estimation of sediment settling velocity in a muddy estuary. Geo-Mar Lett 33:477-484 DOI 10.10007/s00367-013-0340-4. Fugate, D.C. and Friedrichs, C.T., 2002. Determining concentration and fall velocity of estuarine particle populations using ADV, OBS and LISST. Cont Shelf Res 22(11):1867-1886 Sanford L.P., Dickhudt, P.J., Rubiano-Gomez, L., Yates, S.E., Friedrichs, C.T., Fugate, D.C., and Romine, H., 2005. Variability of suspended particle concentrations, sizes and settling velocities in the Chesapeake Bay turbidity maximum. In: I.G. Droppo et al. (eds.), Flocculation in Natural and Engineered Environmental Systems. CRC Press, p. 211-236 Smith, S.J. , 2010. Fine sediment dynamics in dredge plumes. PhD Thesis School of Marine Science, College of William & Mary, Gloucester Point, VA Smith, S.J. and Friedrichs, C.T., 2011, Size and settling velocities of cohesice flocs and suspended sediment aggregates in a trailing suction hopper dredge plume. Cont Shelf Res 31(10):S50-S63. Taghon, G.L., Nowell, A.R.M., Jumars, P.A., 1984. Transport and breakdown of fecal pellets, biological and sedimentological consequences. Limnology and Oceanography, 29:64-72. Wheatcroft, R.A., Wiberg, P.L., Alexander, C.R., Bentley, S.J., Drake, D.E., Harris, C.K., Ogston, A.S., 2007. Post-depositional alteration and preservation of sedimentary strata. In: C.A. Nittrouer et al. (eds.), Continental-Margin Sedimentation: From Sediment Transport to Sequence Stratigraphy, Blackwell, p. 101-155.
RESILENT PELLET100μm
Clay Bank
• Clay Bank area on York River Estuary• A micro tidal ( 0.7 to 1 meter) tributary of the Chesapeake Bay, VA• In secondary channel at ~5 meter depth
(Site of long term, 2007-present, Observing System)
Advantages:• Non-intrusive single point velocity measurement • Less susceptible to bio-fouling and can be used in higher
concentration ranges than optical instruments• Burst data used to estimate effective settling velocity (Ws), as
well as flux, turbulence, stress, and concentration when calibrated
• Simple deployment and data processing.Disadvantages:• Can not track individual or groups of particles – only valid for
effective (bulk) Ws.• Profiler must be stationary- profiler motion interferes with
velocity calculations.
< > represents burst averaged dataC’ is fluctuations in conc about burst mean
w’ is fluctuations in mean velocity in z direction
Advantages:• Individual measured particle size and settling velocity allows
estimation of particle density • PTV/PIV removes fluid velocity allowing for Ws estimates in
situ (stationary profiler not necessary)• 30 sec of video allows averaging for better estimate of size
and Ws• Can capture large particlesDisadvantages:• Pixel size limits resolution of small particles• Data processing time intensive• Can not be used in high concentration regimes• Currently not set up for autonomous deployment
PIV (≤30 μm)
PTV (>30 μm)
Advantages: • Can be deployed autonomously• Can capture large particlesDisadvantages:• Highly susceptible to bio-fouling when deployed autonomously• Pixel size limits resolution of small particles• Limited memory• Data processing time intensive• Can not be used in high concentration regimes
Advantages: • Good resolution of smaller particle sizes (21 of 32 logarithmically spaced size classes <=100 μm)• Simple deployment and data processing• Can be deployed autonomously
Disadvantages:• Highly susceptible to bio-fouling when deployed autonomously• Can not be used in high concentration regimes• Poor resolution of large particles and limited range
SuspendedLISST
PaintedADV
Figure 1. Profiler with LISST and PICS
Figure 2. A-C) PICS setup and operation. D) Example PICS data tracking a particle through 82 frames and removing fluid velocity for average size and settling velocity (and post processed density).
MOTIVATION
METHOD--STUDY 1 METHOD--STUDY 2
Figure 3. A) ADV current speed, B) ADV suspended concentrationC) ADV and PIC settling velocity D) Continuity term
Figure 4. A) Benthic tripod with ADV and LISST showing bio-fouling after >3months. B) Sequoia LISST 100X.
Figure 5. A) RIPScam mounted on benthic lander B) RIPScam schematic.
Figure 6. A)Example LISST and RIPScam distributions during a low stress period B)Image from RIPScam during low stress periodC)Example distributions during increasing Stress period D)RIPScam image from increasing stress period.
Figure 7. A) Stresses calculated from ADV bursts B)Settling velocities calculatedFrom ADV bursts. Slope calc method is running average of previous 5 bursts. C)Blue line is volume concentration of LISST bin closest to pellet size determinedin Figure 6 for increasing stress period. Red line is bin size closest to the dominant floc size determined low stress period.
Mud Flocculants Resilient Pellets Sand
D~ 5 – 10 µmWs< to <<0.1 mm/sec
D ~ O(λ)Microflocs < 160 µmMacroflocs >160 µm
D~ 10s – 100s µm Ws
Ws ~0.1–10 mm/s
D= 63 – 500 µmWs = 2.3–60 mm/s
Ws α D
Anderson, 2001; Sanford et al, 2005; Taghon et al , 1984; Wheatcroft et al , 2005
Fugate and Friedrichs, 2003
λ Turbulence
Ws % Organicλ
Identify the contribution of multiple particle types to the suspended distribution and thus to the effective settling velocity (Ws as measured by the ADV)
λ
Settling Velocity(Ws)
25 Hour Study Period ( July 28-29, 2009)
Mounted on bottom landers (Figures 4 and 5) LISST100X - 15 min burst interval, 100 records@ 1 Hz (10 samples/record) ADV- 15 min burst interval, 2 min @ 10 Hz RIPScam - 1hr burst interval, 5 flash exposures @ 1 min intervals (focal depth ~1mm)
15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 180
10
20
30
40
50
60
Date (July 28, 2009 (17:00 EST) - July 29, 2009 (18:00 EST) )
Vol
ume
Con
c (u
l/L)
87.9 µm280 µm
15 18 21 00 03 06 09 12 15 180
20
40
60
Date (July 28, 2009 (17:00 EST) - July 29, 2009 (18:00 EST) )
Volu
me
Conc
(ul/L
)
87.9 µm280 µm
C
6 Hour Study Period bracket Flood (Oct 6, 2012)
Mounted on profiler resting on seafloor (Figures 1 and 2) LISST100X - ~ 4 bursts/hr, 2 min@ 1 Hz (10 samples/record) ADV- ~4 burst/hr, 2 min @ 10 Hz PICS - 30 video corresponding to each ADV/LISST burst. 8 frames/sec
A
A
B
D
C
A
B
C
D
D
A
A
B
B
Sett
ling
Velo
city
(mm
/s)
Stre
ss (P
asca
ls)
Volu
me
Conc
(μl/
L)
• Using multiple instruments with various capabilities provides a more complete picture of the particle size distribution and their associated settling velocities.
• Both PICS and ADV in study 1 do a reasonable job of describing the mean/effective Ws when U>20 cm/s. At slower velocities suspended sediment suspension is insufficient to provide valid ADV estimated Ws via the modified Reynolds flux method.
• ADVs, however, provide long term continuous estimates of Ws when it is impossible to deploy other instruments (For example during episodic events)
• PICS overestimates the mean or effective Ws because it is limited by pixel resolution. ADVs are likely biased towards particles which are larger and denser and thus produce stronger acoustic backscatter.
• Combination of the LISST, which is better at resolving smaller particles, and the RIPScam, which is better at resolving larger particles, does a reasonable job in describing the "total" distribution. However neither of these instruments are capable of direct measurement of Ws.
• Addition of LISST-ST to PICS can help resolve contribution of the smaller particles particularly in the low stress periods.
Important in modeling water clarity response to sea level rise and it's effect on ecosystems
Measurement range: >30 μm to ~ 3mm
Measurement Range: 2.5 to 500 μm
Measurement range: >30 μm to ~ 3mm
Modified Reynolds Flux method
( Cartwright et al, 2013 )
(Cartwright et al., 2011)
![Α Semantic Mixed Reality Framework for Shared Cultural ......(PoIs) or coarse-grained routes [7–9]. The impact of these challenges is more pronounced in augmented, virtual, and](https://static.fdocument.org/doc/165x107/603d4f584becab0c385ae96e/-semantic-mixed-reality-framework-for-shared-cultural-pois-or-coarse-grained.jpg)
