A comparison of four methods for bubble size and void fraction measurements

We compare the performance of four different bubble-sensing techniques in a range of environment from the surf zone to the open ocean: a remote sensing method using high-frequency backscatter, two in situ methods using an acoustical resonator and a pulse propagation sensor, and a bulk method using electrical conductivity. Comparisons between the techniques show general consistency within the appropriate operational bubble density ranges, although spatial variability in bubble clouds introduces substantial variance. Each technique has its strengths and limitations. Our acoustical resonator is suitable for bubble concentrations with air fractions greater than approximately 10 ^-9 and the pulse propagation sonar for air fractions from 10 ^-6; the upper limit for both is constrained by attenuation and the validity of the Foldy scattering approximation. Both sensors can be implemented to encompass a wide frequency range with high resolution, corresponding to resonant bubble radii of 10~1200 μm. For air fractions higher than ~5×10^-4, bulk measurement using electrical conductivity provides a measure of air fraction. Sufficient overlap in operational air-fraction range exists between in situ acoustical techniques and conductivity measurement to permit comparison and demonstrate consistency in the measurement. Single- and multi-frequency backscatter sonars may be used for low air fractions (<1×10^-5) and provide a continuous vertical profile from a deployment beneath the active surface zone, but are subject to masking by dense bubble clouds and are unable to resolve high air fractions close to the surface. This study suggests that the best approach is to use a combination of sensors to probe the bubble field