Upload
cameron-bennett
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Inter-Laboratory Comparison of Calibration Procedures for Acoustic
Doppler Velocity Meters
Kirk Thibodeaux (Retired)
USGS - HIF
Background
• In March 2013 an Acoustic Workshop was held at the U.S. Geological Survey's Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility to discuss and exchange information on the testing, evaluation, and calibration of acoustic Doppler velocity meters (ADVM) in laboratory settings.
Background (continued)
• Groups representing Laboratory operators that had conducted testing, or expressed a desire to conduct testing, on acoustic instrumentation, manufacturers, and large end users were invited to attend.
• Representatives from 10 Laboratory towing facilities, manufactures, and end users were represented.
Background (continued)
• Representatives from;– Australia (Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines).– Canada (Environment Canada).– Japan (International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management).– New Zealand (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research,
NIWA).– Switzerland (Federal Institute of Metrology, METAS).– The Netherlands (DELTARES).– The United States (USGS).– Ott Hydromet (Germany and US).– Teledyne RDI (US).– Hydro Systems Development, Inc (Japan).
Purpose of Workshop
• Share information on why and how each facility tests/calibrates acoustic instrumentation.– Each participant was required to give a
presentation on what testing they were conducting and/or what testing they planned to conduct in the near future.
Purpose of Workshop
• Why do we need to test Acoustic velocity meters in a Laboratory setting?– We need to verify that the equipment is
working as it should when purchased.– We need to verify that the equipment is
working as it should after being deployed.– We need to track the performance of the
equipment over time.– And we need to catch..
7/28
/200
1
12/2
5/20
01
5/24
/200
2
10/2
1/20
02
3/20
/200
3
8/17
/200
3
1/14
/200
4
6/12
/200
4
11/9
/200
4
4/8/
2005
9/5/
2005
2/2/
2006
7/2/
2006
11/2
9/20
06
4/28
/200
7
9/25
/200
7
2/22
/200
8
7/21
/200
8
12/1
8/20
08
5/17
/200
9
10/1
4/20
09
3/13
/201
0
8/10
/201
0
1/7/
2011
6/6/
2011
11/3
/201
1
4/1/
2012
8/29
/201
2
1/26
/201
3
6/25
/201
3
11/2
2/20
13
4/21
/201
4
9/18
/201
4
-4.00%
-3.00%
-2.00%
-1.00%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
Percent Error at 1 Second Data(18 cm/s)
18 cps Manufacturer's Cal Limits Accuracy Statement
Matrix Date
% E
rro
r
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
Depth Reading Deviation
Depth (ft)
Dev
iati
on
fro
m C
orr
ect
Dep
th (
ft)
1 2 3 4-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
Distance Made Good - Each Transect(2012-04-12) [Large Acoustic Tank]
OSW Limits Equip DMG Limits Beams 1 and 2 Beams 1/3 and 2/4
Beams 4 and 3 Beams 2/3 and 1/4 Mean - All Runs
Run Number
Per
cen
t E
rro
r
Outcome of Workshop
• Proposal to organise a worldwide inter-laboratory comparison which should verify and assess calibration procedures for acoustic Doppler velocity meters (ADVM) in the velocity range from 0.05 m/s to 1.50 m/s.– SonTek FlowTracker (S/N P1515)– Ott ADC (S/N 231360)
Outcome of Workshop
• Laboratories from 8 countries agreed to take part in the comparison.– Australia (NRM),– Austria (BAW),– Canada (CCIW),– Germany (OTT),– New Zealand (NIWA),– Switzerland (METAS),– The Netherlands (DELTARES), and– The United States (USGS)
Comparison Test Procedure
• Developed by Switzerland.– Each participating Laboratory to use standard
(group) protocol and their normal testing procedures, if they had any.
– Group testing data to be compared.
Comparison Test Procedure
• Group Testing.– Mounting –
• FlowTracker
Attached to a mockup of a USGS standard top setting wading rod with a “J” bracket (supplied by the USGS).
Comparison Test Procedure
• Group Testing.– Mounting –
• FlowTracker
Attached to a mockup of a USGS standard top setting wading rod with a “J” bracket (supplied by the USGS).
Comparison Test Procedure
• Group Testing.– Mounting –
• FlowTracker
Attached to a mockup of a USGS standard top setting wading rod with a “J” bracket (supplied by the USGS).
• ADC
Attached to a 20 mm cylindrical rod (supplied by the testing Laboratory).
Comparison Test Procedure
• Towing speeds; 0.05 m/s 0.18 m/s 0.385 m/s 0.50 m/s 1.0 m/s 1.5 m/s
Status of Testing
• Shipping problems, or laboratory problems, prevented all Laboratories from conducting the group testing by the scheduled completion date.
• Six of the 8 participating Laboratories have conducted the tests.
• Five have collected a full set of data.• Four have forwarded their collected data
for analysis.
Preliminary Test Results
• Data presented anonymously.• Towing tanks ranged from;
– 1.2 m wide by 1 m deep by 24.4 m long to– 4 m wide by 2.4 m deep to 140 m long.
• Seeding materials;– Glass spheres– Polyamide spheres– Ytong (Cellular concrete)– Bentonite clay
Preliminary Test Results
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-10.0%
-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
SonTek FlowTracker (S/N P1515)
Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3
Tank 4 FlowTracker Limits
Tow Speed (m/s)
Met
er R
ead
ing
Err
or
(%)
Preliminary Test Results
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6-8.0%
-6.0%
-4.0%
-2.0%
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
Ott ADC (S/N 231360)
Tank 1 Tank 2 Tank 3 Tank 4 ADC Limits
Tow Speed (m/s)
Met
er R
ead
ing
Err
or
(%)
Future Testing
• Continue testing at the Laboratories that have not conducted the testing.
• Retest at the Laboratory that had problems during it’s first round of testing.
• Compile and analyze the collected data from all participating Laboratories and publish the results.
Acknowledgements
• Dr. Marc de Huu and Beat Wüthrich, Switzerland.• Chris Appleby and Andrew Willman, New Zealand• Elizabeth Jamieson and Paul Campbell, Canada• Marinus Schroevers, The Netherlands• Raymond Alford, Australia• Silke Kainz, Austria• Atsuhiro Yorozuya and Tadashi Kitsuta, Japan• Fabian Kratz - OTT Hydromet, Germany• Christel Valentine - HACH Hydromet, US• Ian Cassimatis - Teledyne RDI, US
Questions?