DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Design and Performance Characteristics of a Broadband Underwater Speaker System

광대역 수중 스피커 시스템의 설계 및 성능 특성

  • Lee, Dae-Jae (Division of Marine Production System Management, Pukyong National University)
  • 이대재 (부경대학교 해양생산시스템관리학부)
  • Received : 2011.06.05
  • Accepted : 2011.10.05
  • Published : 2011.10.31

Abstract

An underwater speaker was developed for use as an acoustic deterrent device that transmits acoustic energy through the water omnidirectionally over a broadband frequency range to eliminate marine mammal attacks and to prevent physical damage to the inshore and coastal fishing grounds of Korea. The underwater speaker was constructed of two vibration caps machined from 6061-T6 aluminum alloy and a stack of PZ 26 piezoelectric ceramic rings (Ferroperm Piezoceramics A/S) connected mechanically in series and electrically in parallel. The performance characteristics of the underwater speaker were measured and analyzed in an experimental water tank of $5\;m{\times}5\;m{\times}6\;m$. The peak transmitting voltage response (TVR) was measured at 11.16 kHz with 163.45 dB re $1\;{\mu}Pa$/V at 1m. The underwater speaker showed a near omnidirectional beam pattern at the peak TVR resonance frequency. The usable frequency range was 4-25 kHz with a lower TVR limit of approximately 140 dB. We conclude that this underwater speaker could be satisfactorily used as an acoustic deterrent device against marine mammals, particularly the bottlenose dolphin, to protect catches and fishing grounds as well as the mammals themselves, for example, by keeping them away from fishing gear and/or vessels.

Keywords

References

  1. Barlow J and Cameron GA. 2003. Field experiments show that acoustic pingers reduce marine mammal bycatch in the California drift gillnet fishery. Marine Mammal Science 19, 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2003.tb01108.x
  2. Gearin PJ, Gosho ME, Laake JL, Cooke L, DeLong RL and Hughes KM. 2000. Experimental testing of acoustic alarms (pingers) to reduce by-catch of harbour porpoise, Phocoena phocoena in the state of Washington. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2, 1-10.
  3. Gordon J and Northridge S. 2002. Potential impacts of acoustic deterrent devices on Scottish marine wildlife. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F01AA404, 1-63.
  4. Hughes, WJ. 1998. Transducer, underwater acoustic. Encyclopedia of applied physics 22, 67-84.
  5. Lee, YW, Shin HI, Kim SJ, Seo DO, Lee DJ, Kim ZG and Hwang DJ. 2005. Trial manufacture of dual frequency acoustic finger to minimize cetacean bycatch. J Kor Soc Fish Tech 41, 207-212. https://doi.org/10.3796/KSFT.2005.41.3.207
  6. Richard F. 2005. Effectiveness of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers). Centrum voor Milieuwetenschappen Leiden (CML) report, 1-33.
  7. Svilainis L and Dumbrava V. 2007. Evaluation of the ultrasonic transducer electrical matching performance. Ultragarsas 62, 16-21.
  8. Svilainis L and Dumbrava V. 2006. The RF transformer for ultrasound ecitation : the initial study. Ultragarsas Journal 58, 25-29.
  9. Whitlock B. 2006. Audio transformers. Jensen Transformers Inc, California, U.S.A., 3-14.
  10. Wilson, OB, 1991. Introduction to Theory and Design of Sonar Transducers. Peninsula Publishing, California, U.S.A., 11-108.