Premium
Measuring water velocity in highly turbulent flows: field tests of an electromagnetic current meter (ECM) and an acoustic Doppler velocimeter (ADV)
Author(s) -
MacVicar B. J.,
Beaulieu E.,
Champagne V.,
Roy A. G.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
earth surface processes and landforms
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.294
H-Index - 127
eISSN - 1096-9837
pISSN - 0197-9337
DOI - 10.1002/esp.1497
Subject(s) - turbulence , acoustic doppler velocimetry , turbulence kinetic energy , reynolds stress , physics , doppler effect , current meter , mechanics , acoustics , reynolds number , flow (mathematics) , laser doppler velocimetry , medicine , blood flow , astronomy , thermodynamics
Two field tests were completed to compare the performance of an electromagnetic current meter (ECM) with that of an acoustic Doppler velocimeter (ADV) in gravel‐bed rivers. Research was particularly motivated by the need to measure flow properties in highly energetic turbulent flows. Measurements were made at two field sites, one at moderate velocities (up to 70 cm/s) and with moderate turbulence intensities (10–20% of mean flow), and the other in an area of non‐uniform flow that included locations with fast mean velocities (up to 1.75 m/s) and high turbulent intensities (up to 50% of mean flow). Comparison of means, standard deviations, turbulent kinetic energy and Reynolds shear stress confirm the general agreement between the ECMs and ADVs. The general agreement is subject to limitations associated with the sample volume and frequency response of the instruments, and only applies within restricted velocity (up to ≈1.25 m/s) and turbulence intensity ranges (up to ≈0·125 m/s). At higher turbulence intensities, spectral analysis showed anomalous behavior of the ADV signal, especially in the vertical velocity component. Quadrant analysis of the Reynolds stress suggests that these problems occur predominantly in quadrants 1 and 3. Errors in ADV measurements were estimated using four different methods: one that utilized the characteristic noise floor in spectral plots, one based on internal ADV measurements of signal correlation and two techniques that aggregate errors related to various sub‐factors. Estimates were divergent at high flows. Techniques that rely on sub‐factors appeared to underestimate the impact of high turbulence on signal quality. The key conclusion for future field applications is that the older ECM technology provides the more reliable estimates of flow parameters in high turbulence. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.