1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Model calculations of the underwater noise of breaking waves and comparison with experiment
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1121/1.3419774
/content/asa/journal/jasa/127/6/10.1121/1.3419774
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/127/6/10.1121/1.3419774

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Contour maps and histograms of the turbulent dissipation rate within the breaking wave crest at 4 successive intervals, determined from an analysis of shear stress-induced dinoflagellate bioluminescence. The exposure time for each image was 0.067 s. Only the four frames with the greatest dissipation are shown.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(A) Geometry for the reverberation calculations. A cross-section through the wave channel and the source image and ray propagation path for the generating sequence ‘SL’ is shown. (B) The phase of the water/glass/air reflection coefficient as a function of angle of incidence for frequencies 1 kHz, 10 kHz and 100 kHz. At low frequencies, the boundary behaves like a pressure-release surface. At high frequencies, the behavior of the boundary depends on the angle of incidence.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The free space and flume transmission response for the ITC 1007 source and ITC 6050C hydrophone over (A) a 25 kHz band and (B) a 100 kHz band. The black and gray solid lines respectively show the received hydrophone signal in the pool and the flume. The broad peak around 10 kHz is due to a resonance in the source and the smaller peak at 50 kHz (bottom plot) is due to a resonance in the hydrophone. The solid black and broken black lines in the bottom plot show the difference between reverberation from a stationary source versus a source gently moved from side to side across the channel. The black and gray dash-dot lines respectively show the noise floor in the pool and the flume.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(A) A comparison of the measured and calculated reverberation in the flume. The solid, gray line shows the calculated reverberation using the source image method. The solid black and broken black lines respectively show the high-frequency and low-frequency measurements of reverberation in the flume. (B) The power spectral density of wave noise from event V40 measured 25 cm below the breaking wave crest. The black dash-dot line shows the wave noise, compensated for the hydrophone response but uncompensated for reverberation. The solid black line shows the wave noise wave noise compensated for both hydrophone response and flume reverberation. The solid gray line shows the noise floor of the flume. (C) The power spectral density of breaking wave packets V68 (gray line) and V27 (black line) plotted as their difference from V40.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(A) Model calculations of bubble creation rates in event V40. The squares show the bubble size distribution measured at the end of active breaking. The black dash-dot line shows a model calculation of the bubble size distribution based on the fluid turbulent dissipation rates illustrated in Fig. 1 and the binary fragmentation model presented by Martínez-Bazán et al. (1999a, 1999b). The short black vertical line denotes the position of the Hinze scale determined from an analysis of the measured bubble size distribution. The solid black curve shows a calculation of the bubble creation rates using the fragmentation model. The solid gray curve shows a hybrid estimate of bubble creation rates based on the model calculations for bubbles larger than the Hinze scale and the observed bubble size distribution for bubbles smaller than the Hinze scale. The black squares show the bubble size distribution at the end of the acoustically active period estimated from the analysis of video images taken through the flume side wall. (B) The bubble size distribution used to calculate the e-folding length for the cylindrical plume of bubbles created by event V40. The black squares show the bubble size distribution at the end of the acoustically active period estimated from the analysis of video images taken through the flume side wall. The black lines show the fitted distribution, extrapolated to radius bubbles at the small end of the bubble spectrum and 10 mm bubbles at the large end of the spectrum.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

The measured (black line) and theoretical (gray line) power spectral density estimates of the sound radiated by a bubble fragmenting into two products.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

The calculated peak pressure of the pulse of sound radiated by a bubble forced into oscillation by a collapsing neck of air with a 177.6° angle, as a function of bubble radius. The solid line shows the results of an analysis of bubble forcing using 4th order, Runge-Kutta integration of the Rayleigh-Plesset equation for bubbles with radii from to 10 mm. The broken line shows the peak pressure extrapolated from to .

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

(A) The geometry of a rectangular prism used to illustrate the volume correction factor calculations. (B) The geometry for the cylindrical plume. (C) The geometry for the disk plume.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

(A) Calculations of the scaled volume correction factor for the cylindrical plume geometry. The variation of scaled volume correction factor is shown for various values of the scaled length parameters that define the geometry as a function of scaled distance from the plume center. The circle shows the scaled volume correction factor for the cylindrical plume created beneath the breaking wave packet V40. (B) Calculations of the scaled volume correction factor for the disk plume as a function of distance from the disk plume center.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Calculated absorption (A), phase velocity (B) and acoustical skin depth (C) of the bubble plume for event V40 based on the distribution in Fig. 5(B).

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Model calculations of the radiated wave noise for event V40. The solid black line shows the model results for the wave noise 25 cm below the breaking wave crest. The solid gray line shows the wave noise measured 25 cm below the wave crest and compensated for tank reverberation. The gray dash-dot line shows the noise floor in the flume. The gray dots show the power spectral density of an individual white cap measured in the Pacific ocean during a storm 160 km west of Point Conception in 2000. The level of this curve has been scaled to a distance of 25 cm below the white cap for comparison with the laboratory results.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

The bubble creation rates inferred from the wave noise measurements and compared with the modeled rates based on the bubble fragmentation model and the observed bubble size distribution. The solid black line shows the bubble creation rate calculated using the wave noise power spectral density and Eq. (36). The dash-dot line shows the bubble creation rate calculated from the measured bubble spectrum and the MBML fragmentation model. The gray line indicates a power law scaling of −3/2 for comparison.

Tables

Generic image for table
TABLE I.

Parameters for the glass wall reflection coefficient.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/asa/journal/jasa/127/6/10.1121/1.3419774
2010-06-09
2014-04-20
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Model calculations of the underwater noise of breaking waves and comparison with experiment
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/asa/journal/jasa/127/6/10.1121/1.3419774
10.1121/1.3419774
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM