the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Improving prediction of particle size with a novel acoustic bedload monitoring system consisting of phased microphone arrays and accelerometer
Abstract. Accurate measurement of bedload transport flux in rivers remains an important issue in hydraulic engineering. Acoustic-based devices provide a promising way to measure the transport rate with established calibration relationships between the signal and bedload particles. We develop a novel acoustic bedload monitoring system with phased microphone arrays (PMA) and accelerometer to localize the particle impact location and to better determine the particle size. Impact experiments with quartz spheres in a flume setting were performed to investigate the dynamic signal response of the PMA monitoring system for varying particle size and impact location. For a similar virtual set-up, the conventional beamforming method was used to determine the source characteristics of the acoustic wave on the scanning plane of the PMA structure. The model provides a calculation of the cross-power matrix of the recorded pressures generated by bedload which localizes the particle impacts on the plate. The results give correlation relationships between the number of signal impulses per particle mass, the amplitude, and the centroid frequency and the bedload grain size. The findings of this study contribute to the measurement of the bedload transport with the PMA system, which helps to localize the bedload impact positions and improves the predictions of particle size.
- Preprint
(7908 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2525', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Nov 2024
reply
comment number line number comment -- -- I want to congratulate the authors on a novel experiment using a microphone array to improve impact-based bedload surrogate systems. Their work represents an incremental, but crucial, step towards an effective instream surrogate system. However, I believe that the manuscript, as written, requires some moderate changes before it is ready for publication. I have detailed those changes below with relevant line numbers. general comment 1 -- The paper has a number of grammatical errors that should be corrected. I note some of them below in my line-specific comments but also wanted to add a general comment here. This is not at all a criticism of the lead author. Rather, I believe that the coauthors that are responsible for review and supervision should take a more careful review before resubmission of the manuscript. This is particularly noticeable in the introduction and methods sections of the manuscript. general comment 2 -- Many of the figures in the results section appear before they are referenced in the manuscript. It appears intentional, but it's not typically how papers are structured in my experience. I defer to the preference of the editorial staff, but would like to see the figures referenced in-text before the associated figure is shown. general comment 3 -- I think the discussion may benefit from some reorganization. My preference would be sections reorganized as follows: 4.4, 4.1, 4.3, 4.2. This would approximately match how the results are organized (number of microphones, microphone location, centroid frequency, grain size). general comment 4 -- In additional to general comment #3, I would appreciate some discussion of how this new system may perform under field conditions. How would the PMA system work with more than two impacts at once? In principal, the system should be able to better resolve these impacts based on your laboratory results, but I think a discussion of this is warranted. This technology is intended for deployment in the field to improve our understanding of actual bedload flux. A new subsection should recognize this, discuss the similarities and differences between systems already in place, and how this system may fair. specific comment 1 1-3 I think the title is a bit misleading. By my understanding, the improved particle size is just one of the improvements described in the manuscript. I would highlight the novelty of PMA system as a whole in the title. specific comment 2 18-19 This sentence structure is a little confusing - is it a single regression or different regressions between impulses and the rest of the variables? specific comment 3 15-16 What is the 'conventional beamforming method'? - you describe it below so I think just referencing the section below is sufficient here. specific comment 4 50 other studies have investigated the effect of grain size when using impact sensors, such as Halfi et al., 2021 or Stark et al., 2024 specific comment 5 89-91 I don't think that specifying the manufacturer is necessary. Keeping it in would be fine though specific comment 6 100-102  are these calibration coefficients universal across all systems, or is this established for every system prior to use? specific comment 7 113 The use of eccentric seems unusual here, but is technically correct. I think something like center and off-center may be more intuitive to the reader, rather than centric and eccentric, but accept that there is nothing wrong with the word choice. Still, I would appreciate you explicitly state what a centric and eccentric impact entails here, in the methods, rather than waiting to the results to define it. specific comment 8 113-114 You note that you conducted the experiments in both air and water, but it isn't clear in my reading of the results which you report. Is it both? specific comment 9 125-126 Each section (such as this one) often begins with a statement of what the section is intended to accomplish. I don't think this is strictly necessary, and could be removed for brevity but if the authors feel strongly or prefer this, then I think it is fine to keep them! specific comment 10 216 Are these all the relevant parameters or just some of them? It appears to be all, and if it is not, then the table should be expanded to include the parameter set used in the numerical simulations. specific comment 11 257 Are centric and centroid frequencies the same thing? I don't think so, based on my understanding of the paper. Please ensure it is centroid frequency and centric impacts specific comment 12 290-292 I think it would help the reader to include the microphone locations in Figure 6. Perhaps an inset or an overlay somehow? If not, you should reference the Appendix Figure showing the different arrangements here. specific comment 13 296 Section 3.1.3 -- You only reference the multipole results a single time in your discussion. I do not think this is necessary to be included in this manuscript. To be clear - I think that multiple sources is critical for using this surrogate technology (detailed in another comment), but not necessary for this manuscript. specific comment 14 298 fig 7 - Several grammatical errors in the figure caption specific comment 15 328 fig 8 - This caption contains discussion/results content and is unnecessarily long. I would revise it specific comment 16 338-344 Much of this could be introduced in the methods section, rather than in the results in my opinion. specific comment 17 408 I believe that figure 11 could be recreated to be more effective. I suggest plotting (a) and (b) by themselves in a vertical orientation, with (c) - (f) in a square orientation separated by a vertical line. specific comment 18 471 Section 4.1.2 -- The discussion of k_IMP is extremely short, given that this is one of two primary functions of this technology. I think this is a critical part of the manuscript that is generally overlooked throughout. This could also be a section where you discuss how this new system might perform under field conditions.    technical comment 1 211-212 Awkward working of this first sentence. technical comment 2 212 'firstly' is incorrect technical comment 3 252 extra parentheses in see eq. 14 technical comment 4 278 Mon. is already introduced as an abbreviation of monopole technical comment 5 305 Mul. is already introduced as an abbreviation of multipole Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2525-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
133 | 30 | 13 | 176 | 3 | 4 |
- HTML: 133
- PDF: 30
- XML: 13
- Total: 176
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1