Underwater Sensing Technologies and Applications: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 3 by Yvaine Wei and Version 2 by Yvaine Wei.

Currently, a variety of sensing methods based on optics, acoustics, and electromagnetics are widely applied for ocean observation and exploration. Acoustic sensing contains various sonar devices for seafloor mapping, submersible navigation, and underwater object. Optical sensing technologies applied to ocean exploration include underwater imaging for objects inspection, spectrophotometry, and fluorophotometry for environmental parameters monitoring. Technologies of electromagnetics are used for underwater metal detection such as mines and mineral resources, and for underwater inspections of cables and pipelines.

  • submersible
  • sensors

1. Geological Survey

Although ocean observation has been made for hundreds of years, only a limited percentage of the entire seabed has been measured for depth [1]. The lack of seafloor maps has significantly limited the progress of human investigation and understanding of the oceans. With the advancement of sensing technologies and the increase in human activities in the oceans, low-cost and high-resolution ocean observation devices have been developed and equipped on various platforms, such as single-beam sonar, multibeam sonar, sub-bottom profiler, and side-scan sonar. The Nippon Foundation and the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO) plan to cooperate globally to map the whole seafloor topography by the end of 2030 [1]. The detailed charted topography of the whole ocean will have a great help on understanding of marine geology, utilizing the marine mineral and renewable energy resources, monitoring the marine geohazards and providing route surveys for underwater cables and pipelines [2][3]. Because of the efficiency and convenience, remote sensing devices have also become a popular research topic in recent years, such as satellite altimetry, bathymetric LiDAR, and satellite-derived bathymetry (SDB) [3]. However, their resolution and accuracy are still far from measurement at close range [4].

2. Navigation and Communication

Underwater navigation and communication are the key technologies to locate and control submersibles. Due to the high attenuation in seawater, the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) cannot be used underwater [5]. For long-term tasks, submersibles must be equipped with high-precision navigation systems. Inertial/dead reckoning (DR), acoustic and geophysical navigation are introduced for underwater navigation. In addition, different technologies are developed for underwater communications. However, there is still no high bandwidth, long-distance, and low power consumption communication solution until now.

2.1. Location and Navigation

Due to the cable links and professional pilots, ROVs are not as flexible as AUVs. It is also because of this, that AUVs are more dependent on navigation and positioning. Compared to ROVs, AUVs are more flexible and with low cost of use. In addition to the battery life, navigation ranges will also limit the underwater activities of AUVs [6][7]. The inertial/dead reckoning(DR), acoustic navigation, and geophysical navigation technologies are introduced in the following sections and summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Three main categories of underwater navigations [8].
Classifications Principles Methods Characteristics
Inertial/dead reckoning uses accelerometers and gyroscopes to estimate the current state Magnetic compass, barometer or pressure sensor, DVL, INS Increasing and unbounded position error
Acoustic Navigation measuring the time of flight (TOF) of signals from acoustic beacons to perform navigate LBL, UBL, USBL Depending on beacons
Geophysical Navigation use external environmental information as references for navigation Magnetic field maps, visual-based seabed images, identify feature acoustically Depending on sensors to identify environmental features

2.2. Underwater Communication

Due to the strong conductivity of seawater, radio frequency (RF) communications are severely attenuated in the ocean. So, it cannot be used for underwater communication. Communication systems are composed of a transmitter, a communication channel, and a receiver. The transmitter can transmit information by modulating the information signal on the carrier signal. Combined with the characteristics of the ocean, the widely used communication methods include fiber-optic communication, underwater acoustic communication, RF communication, and optical visible light communication. Moreover, some other communication methods, such as quantum communication, are also being under research.

3. Essential Ocean Variables

Human activities in coastal areas are increasing because the exploration and exploitation of the ocean are becoming more and more intensive. Most of the pollution in the ocean comes from human activities, including oil spills, garbage dumping, and domestic and industrial wastewater discharge [9][10]. The ocean has a vast area, so the source of pollution can be anywhere in any country, which makes it challenging to prevent. In addition, once the ocean is polluted, it will spread globally through ocean currents. Ocean has a considerable influence on the global climate and ecosystem. Although the ocean has a robust self-healing ecosystem, it takes a long time to recover. Therefore, it is vital to have overwhelming monitoring of the ocean environmental conditions, significantly how human activities impact the marine ecosystem. The Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) has listed many ocean research and assessment variables, called essential ocean variables (EOVs) [11]. They are divided into four classes, physics, biochemistry, biology, and ecosystems, and cross-disciplinary. Most commercially used sensors can cover EOVs in physics and biochemistry.

3.1. CTD—Conductivity, Temperature and Depth

CTD is an instrument applied to measure conductivity, temperature, and depth in the ocean, playing an essential role in submersible navigation and environmental monitoring. Among them, the measurement of salinity, namely conductivity, is the most complex. As early as 1901, Knudsen discovered that seawater salinity could be calculated using electrical conductivity, but it was not until the 1950s that people began to put this method into practice [12]. The first multifunctional salinity sensing instrument, salinity-temperature-depth (STD), was developed [13]. Three years later, to fix the fouling problem when used in seawater, an inductive cell was added to STD [14]. In the following decades, digitalization and microprocessor were added into the development of sensing instruments gradually, which solved salinity ’spiking’ issues caused by a mismatch of sensor response time between temperature and conductivity [15]. After that, the practical salinity scale was proposed, which leads to the generalization and standardization of the measurement [16][17]. In the following 30 years, the practical salinity scale of 1978 (PSS-78) [18] has made significant contributions to the research of the oceans. The most classic CTD of Seabird should be the SBE-41 series CTDs, which is designed for the Argo program to profiling 2000 m underwater. Over 15,000 SBE-41 CTDs have been equipped on Argo floats, which validated the stability of these products. In 2010, TEOS-10 was introduced and gradually replaced the practical salinity scale (EOS-80), which has also been accepted by various organizations worldwide [19]. This new standard calculates the properties of seawater by constructing a Gibbs function for seawater [20]. It considers the composition of seawater, its spatial distribution, and the influence of the central material on the density of seawater, which will significantly advance the development of marine science and related interdisciplinary disciplines. The temperature sensor used in CTD is usually a platinum thermistor because of its high accuracy and broader range. The depth measurement is still obtained by converting the pressure measurement. Their advantages and disadvantages of pressure sensors based on piezoresistive, capacitive, and resonant technologies are compared in Table 2.
Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of pressure sensors used for CTDs.
Pressure Sensors Advantages Disadvantages
Piezoresistive simple structure, small size, high precision low robustness
Capacitive simple structure, high precision, high robustness large non-linear error
Resonant stable construction, high precision, high stability complex manufacturing and high cost

3.2. Turbidity

Turbidity refers to the resistance to the passing light in solution, which includes scattering light by suspended matter and the absorption of light by solute molecules. The turbidity of water is related to the content of suspended substances in water and their size, shape, and refraction coefficient. Currently, turbidity measurement is based on transmission and scattering methods. The transmission method measures the transmitted light through solutions, but it does not apply to low turbidity measurement. Because in low-turbidity solution, it has little resistance to light, leading to measurement difficulties. The scattering method is better for the measurement of low turbidity solutions because, in a high turbidity solution, multiple scattering occurs, and accurate results cannot be obtained. The ISO-7027 standard specifies that for drinking water, the nephelometry method is used [21]. A turbidimetry can be used for the measurement of seawater turbidity.

3.3. Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen (DO) refers to the molecular state of oxygen dissolved in water [22]. It can get continuous replenishment mainly by the dissolution of oxygen from the air and the photosynthesis of plants in the water. If seawater is polluted by organic matter, oxygen in the water will be seriously consumed. Moreover, when dissolved oxygen is not timely replenished, anaerobic bacteria in the water will get rapid reproduction, which leads to the corruption of organic matter and makes the water body more polluted and smelly. Therefore, the amount of dissolved oxygen in water is an indicator of the self-purification ability of the water. The commonly used methods for measuring DO include the Winkler method, electrochemical method, and optical method [23][24]. Winkler’s method uses chemical reaction for measurement, which is highly accurate but cumbersome and cannot be measured in-situ. The electrochemical method is based on the current generated by the redox reaction at the electrode to determine the measurement, the measurement efficiency is high, but the reaction electrode is accessible to age, which needs regular maintenance and replacement [24]. The optical method overcomes these disadvantages and is more durable but also more expensive.

4. Underwater Inspections

Throughout the thousands of years in human history, many cultural heritages and a significant number of wrecks, including planes and ships, have been submerged underwater. It is not easy to search and investigate in such a vast and complex ocean. During the wreck search of flight MH370, although many ships, satellites, and AUVs equipped with advanced sensors were put into action, it has not been found since 2014 [25]. In addition to wrecks and cultural heritages, cables, pipelines, and other equipment are constructed underwater, which must be tracked and inspected regularly. Surveys in shallow waters can be carried out by diver observation and video records. However, diver’s observations are time-consuming and high-risk. The inspections in marine areas are conducted by ROVs, which are equipped with 3D sonar, and LiDAR [26]. As humans increasingly explore the oceans, more targets need to be searched, detected, and maintained. Due to the successful development of computer vision and algorithms is applied in underwater and sonar images to detect objects. Moreover, in maritime security, underwater object detection technology is also used to identify intruders and ocean mines.

4.1. Underwater Detection

Usually, cultural heritages and wrecks are well preserved in low oxygen conditions underwater. However, human activities, including fishing nets, marine geohazards, and seabed geological change, can lead to damages to these monuments [27][28]. In order to help archaeologists better investigate and protect historical sites, it is necessary to do the surveys more efficiently. Currently, commonly used underwater archaeological surveys include visual methods and sonar images, which are used for object detection. In addition, in maritime security, underwater object detection technology is also used to identify moving intruders and ocean mines. Due to the absorptive and scattering characteristic of seawater, there are many challenges for underwater imaging [29]. In addition, light can further attenuate due to the suspended particulate matter, and substances in water [30]. For the vision system, light needs to travel in three different media (water, viewports, air) as shown in Figure 31. Transparent viewport housing is often made from transparent glass or acrylic, made in a domed shape. As Figure 31 shows, the refraction provokes a pin-cushion distortion, which makes that the most significant reconstruction errors appear at the edges of the target [31]133][32]. Domed shape viewport housing is designed to eliminate the problem, as Figure 31 shows. Furthermore, an image processing algorithm is another way to calibrate the system.
Sensors 21 07849 g013 550
Figure 31. (a). Imaging distortion effect of non-domed shape viewport. (b). Domed shape viewport will release the imaging distortion effect [3233].

4.2. Track and Inspect

By now, more than 8000 km of power cables, 1.3 million km of submarine telecommunication cables, and 3 million km of active pipelines have been laid under the oceans [3334][3435]. Figure 42a,b shows the deployed submarine communication cables which connect around the world. The percentages of causing cable damage are classified as a percentage in Figure 42c. Anchoring, fishing, and other human activities mainly lead to cable faults, which could have significant disturbances worldwide [3536]. It is necessary to inspect cables regularly.
Sensors 21 07849 g017 550
Figure 42. (a) Submarine cables around the world [3637]. (b) Cross section of submarine communication cable [3738]. (c) Causes of faults for cables [3435].

References

  1. Mayer, L.; Jakobsson, M.; Allen, G.; Dorschel, B.; Falconer, R.; Ferrini, V.; Lamarche, G.; Snaith, H.; Weatherall, P. The nippon foundation—GEBCO seabed 2030 project: The quest to see the world’s oceans completely mapped by 2030. Geosciences 2018, 8, 63.
  2. Menandro, P.S.; Bastos, A.C. Seabed mapping: A brief history from meaningful words. Geosciences 2020, 10, 273.
  3. Wölfl, A.-C.; Snaith, H.; Amirebrahimi, S.; Devey, C.W.; Dorschel, B.; Ferrini, V.; Huvenne, V.A.I.; Jakobsson, M.; Jencks, J.; Johnston, G.; et al. Seafloor mapping—The challenge of a truly global ocean bathymetry. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 283.
  4. Sandwell, D.T.; Harper, H.; Tozer, B.; Smith, W.H.F. Gravity field recovery from geodetic altimeter missions. Adv. Space Res. 2019, 68, 1059–1072.
  5. Jalal, F.; Nasir, F. Underwater navigation, localization and path planning for autonomous vehicles: A review. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technologies (IBCAST), Islamabad, Pakistan, 12–16 January 2021; pp. 817–828.
  6. Lin, M.; Yang, C. Auv docking method in a confined reservoir with good visibility. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2020, 100, 349–361.
  7. Hwang, J.; Bose, N.; Fan, S. Auv adaptive sampling methods: A review. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3145.
  8. Thomson, D. Acoustic positioning systems. In Proceedings of the OCEANS ’02 MTS/IEEE, Biloxi, MI, USA; Volume 3, pp. 1312–1318.
  9. Elliott, J.E.; Elliott, K.H. Tracking marine pollution. Science 2013, 340, 556–558.
  10. Willis, K.A.; Serra-Gonçalves, C.; Richardson, K.; Schuyler, Q.A.; Pedersen, H.; Anderson, K.; Stark, J.S.; Vince, J.; Hardesty, B.D.; Wilcox, C.; et al. Cleaner seas: Reducing marine pollution. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2021, 1–16.
  11. Essential Ocean Variables. Available online: https://www.goosocean.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=283:essential-ocean-variables&catid=9&Itemid=441 (accessed on 27 October 2021).
  12. McDougall, T.J.; Jackett, D.R.; Millero, F.J. An algorithm for estimating absolute salinity in the global ocean. Ocean. Sci. Discuss. 2009, 6, 215.
  13. Hamon, B.V. A temperature-salinity-depth recorder. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 1955, 21, 72–73.
  14. Hamon, B.V.; Brown, N.L. A temperature-chlorinity-depth recorder for use at sea. J. Sci. Instruments 1958, 35, 452.
  15. Woody, C.; Shih, E.; Miller, J.; Royer, T.; Atkinson, L.P.; Moody, R.S. Measurements of salinity in the coastal ocean: A review of requirements and technologies. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2000, 34, 26–33.
  16. Perkin, R.; Lewis, E. The practical salinity scale 1978: Fitting the data. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 1980, 5, 9–16.
  17. Lewis, E.L.; Perkin, R.G. The practical salinity scale 1978: Conversion of existing data. Deep. Sea Res. Part A Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 1981, 28, 307–328.
  18. Unesco. Algorithms for Computation of Fundamental Properties of Seawater; Unesco: Paris, France, 1983.
  19. Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater—2010 (TEOS-10). Available online: http://teos-10.org/ (accessed on 26 October 2021).
  20. Pawlowicz, R. What Every Oceanographer Needs to Know about Teos-10 (the Teos-10 Primer). 2010. Unpublished Manuscript. Available online: www.TEOS-10.org (accessed on 17 November 2021).
  21. ISO 7027-1:2016 Water Quality—Determination of Turbidity—Part 1: Quantitative Methods. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/62801.html (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  22. Hasumoto, H.; Imazu, T.; Miura, T.; Kogure, K. Use of an optical oxygen sensor to measure dissolved oxygen in seawater. J. Oceanogr. 2006, 62, 99–103.
  23. McDonagh, C.; Kolle, C.; McEvoy, A.K.; Dowling, D.L.; Cafolla, A.A.; Cullen, S.J.; MacCraith, B.D. Phase fluorometric dissolved oxygen sensor. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 2001, 74, 124–130.
  24. Sosna, M.; Denuault, G.; Pascal, R.W.; Prien, R.D.; Mowlem, M. Development of a reliable microelectrode dissolved oxygen sensor. Sens. Actuators B Chem. 2007, 123, 344–351.
  25. McNutt, M. The hunt for MH370. Science 2014, 344, 947.
  26. Mcleod, D.; Jacobson, J. Advances in autonomous deepwater inspection. Presented at the OTC Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 29–31 October 2013.
  27. Drap, P.; Seinturier, J.; Scaradozzi, D.; Gambogi, P.; Long, L.; Gauch, F. Photogrammetry for virtual exploration of underwater archeological sites. In Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium, CIPA, Athens, Greece, 1–6 October 2007.
  28. Stieglitz, T.C.; Waterson, P. Impact of cyclone yasi on the wreck of the ss yongala documented by comparative multibeam bathymetry analysis. Qld. Archaeol. Res. 2013, 16, 33–43.
  29. Castillón, M.; Palomer, A.; Forest, J.; Ridao, P. State of the art of underwater active optical 3d scanners. Sensors 2019, 19, 5161.
  30. Kocak, D.M.; Dalgleish, F.R.; Caimi, F.M.; Schechner, Y.Y. A focus on recent developments and trends in underwater imaging. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2008, 42, 52–67.
  31. Kwon, Y.-H. Object plane deformation due to refraction in two-dimensional underwater motion analysis. J. Appl. Biomech. 1999, 15, 396–403.
  32. Sedlazeck, A.; Koch, R. Perspective and non-perspective camera models in underwater imaging—Overview and error analysis. In Outdoor and Large-Scale Real-World Scene Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 212–242. Explorer Pro Bowtech. Available online: http://www.teledynemarine.com/explorer-pro?ProductLineID=121/ (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  33. Mai, C.; Pedersen, S.; Hansen, L.; Jepsen, K.L.; Yang, Z. Subsea infrastructure inspection: A review study. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Underwater System Technology: Theory and Applications (USYS), Penang, Malaysia, 13–14 December 2016; pp. 71–76. Sedlazeck, A.; Koch, R. Perspective and non-perspective camera models in underwater imaging—Overview and error analysis. In Outdoor and Large-Scale Real-World Scene Analysis; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 212–242.
  34. Submarine Cable Frequently Asked Questions. Available online: https://www2.telegeography.com/submarine-cable-faqs-frequently-asked-questions (accessed on 5 September 2021).Mai, C.; Pedersen, S.; Hansen, L.; Jepsen, K.L.; Yang, Z. Subsea infrastructure inspection: A review study. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Underwater System Technology: Theory and Applications (USYS), Penang, Malaysia, 13–14 December 2016; pp. 71–76.
  35. Reda, A.; Thiedeman, J.; Elgazzar, M.A.; Shahin, M.A.; Sultan, I.A.; McKee, K.K. Design of subsea cables/umbilicals for in-service abrasion-part 1: Case studies. Ocean. Eng. 2021, 2021, 108895. Submarine Cable Frequently Asked Questions. Available online: https://www2.telegeography.com/submarine-cable-faqs-frequently-asked-questions (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  36. Submarine Cables, the True Communication Highway. Available online: https://www.mapfreglobalrisks.com/gerencia-riesgos-seguros/article/submarine-cables-the-true-communication-highway/?lang=en (accessed on 5 September 2021).Reda, A.; Thiedeman, J.; Elgazzar, M.A.; Shahin, M.A.; Sultan, I.A.; McKee, K.K. Design of subsea cables/umbilicals for in-service abrasion-part 1: Case studies. Ocean. Eng. 2021, 2021, 108895.
  37. Jackson, L.A. Submarine Communication Cable Including Optical Fibres within an Electrically Conductive Tube, England. U.S. Patent US 4,278,835, 14 July 1981. Submarine Cables, the True Communication Highway. Available online: https://www.mapfreglobalrisks.com/gerencia-riesgos-seguros/article/submarine-cables-the-true-communication-highway/?lang=en (accessed on 5 September 2021).
  38. Jackson, L.A. Submarine Communication Cable Including Optical Fibres within an Electrically Conductive Tube, England. U.S. Patent US 4,278,835, 14 July 1981.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback