Performance of a new generation of acoustic current meters

Thumbnail Image
Hogg, Nelson G.
Frye, Daniel E.
Linked Authors
Alternative Title
Date Created
Related Materials
Replaced By
Acoustic measurements
In situ sensors
As part of a program aimed at developing a long-duration, subsurface mooring, known as Ultramoor, several modern acoustic current meters were tested. The instruments with which the authors have the most experience are the Aanderaa RCM11 and the Nortek Aquadopp, which measure currents using the Doppler shift of backscattered acoustic signals, and the Falmouth Scientific ACM, which measures changes in travel time of acoustic signals between pairs of transducers. Some results from the Doppler-based Sontek Argonaut and the travel-time-based Nobska MAVS are also reported. This paper concentrates on the fidelity of the speed measurement but also presents some results related to the accuracy of the direction measurement. Two procedures were used to compare the instruments. In one, different instruments were placed close to one another on three different deep-ocean moorings. These tests showed that the RCM11 measures consistently lower speeds than either a vector averaging current meter or a vector measuring current meter, both more traditional instruments with mechanical velocity sensors. The Aquadopp in use at the time, but since updated to address accuracy problems in low scattering environments, was biased high. A second means of testing involved comparing the appropriate velocity component of each instrument with the rate of change of pressure when they were lowered from a ship. Results from this procedure revealed no depth dependence or measurable bias in the RCM11 data, but did show biases in both the Aquadopp and Argonaut Doppler-based instruments that resulted from low signal-to-noise ratios in the clear, low scattering conditions beneath the thermocline. Improvements in the design of the latest Aquadopp have reduced this bias to a level that is not significant.
Author Posting. © American Meteorological Society, 2007. This article is posted here by permission of American Meteorological Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Physical Oceanography 37 (2007): 148–161, doi:10.1175/JPO3003.1.
Embargo Date
Journal of Physical Oceanography 37 (2007): 148-161
Cruise ID
Cruise DOI
Vessel Name