2012_Performance_Testing_Report_Draft_2013-03-15.pdf

ERDC/CERL LR-13-DRAFT 15 March 2013

2012 IN-WATER ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE TESTING OF THE AQUATIC

NUISANCE SPECIES DISPERSAL BARRIERS

Michael K. McInerney, Jonathan C. Trovillion, Carey L. Baxter, Ethan T. Trovillion, Vincent F. Hock, Jr., David M. Weir

US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

PO Box 9005 Champaign, IL 61826-9005

ERDC/CERL Letter Report LR-13-DRAFT March 2013

2/42

2012 IN-WATER ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE TESTING OF THE AQUATIC

NUISANCE SPECIES DISPERSAL BARRIERS

BACKGROUND

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Chicago District is safely operating an electric field-based aquatic nuisance species dispersal barrier project in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC), Romeoville, Illinois. The barriers were constructed by Smith-Root Inc, sole licensees of the U.S. patent (Smith 1988), to prevent the movement of invasive species, such as the Asian Carp (Rasmussen 2001), between the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. The barrier project consists of two distinct parts:

the Demonstration Barrier (Demo Barrier I) and Barrier II. Demo Barrier I, which consists of steel cables fastened to the bottom of the canal, sends a low-voltage, pulsing direct current (DC) through the water in order to repel invasive fish. Barrier II is also a pulsed DC barrier and is located 800 to 1,300 feet downstream of Demo Barrier I. Barrier II is able to generate a more powerful electric field over a larger area and consists of two sets of electrical arrays and control houses, known as Barriers IIA and IIB. Each set of electrodes (IIA and IIB) consist of both a lower voltage wide array and a higher voltage narrow array. Each control house and set of arrays can be operated independently. Figure 1 shows the relative locations of the barriers and significant features in the barrier area.

Demo Barrier I has been in continuous operation since 8 April 2002 with the exception of a few short periods where repairs and upgrades were installed, including the replacement of the electrodes in October 2008. The operational parameters have remained 1 Volt/inch, 5 pulses per second (Hz) and a pulse width of 4 milliseconds. While this facility has been exceptionally reliable, the design life has been exceeded and it is unable to generate the field strength desired to deter juvenile Asian Carp.

The first of two facilities for Dispersal Barrier II, Barrier IIA was initially operated for a period from September to October 2008 at 1 V/in, 5 Hz at 4 ms, while the electrodes in Demo Barrier I were replaced.

Once it was demonstrated that this facility could be safely operated at this location, Barrier IIA was brought into continuous operation on 21 April 2009 at 1 V/in, 5 Hz at 4 ms. Further safety testing conducted in 2009 and evidence of increase threat of Asian Carp migration led to a decision to increase the operating parameters of Barrier IIA to 2 V/in, 15 Hz at 6.5ms in August 2009. The second of the two Dispersal Barrier II facilities, IIB was completed and brought into operation in April 2011 at 2 V/in, 15 Hz at 6.5 ms. After further safety testing, bench studies of Asian Carp, and an interim efficacy study on the optimal operating parameters, the operating parameters for Barriers IIA and IIB were increased to 2.3 V/in, 30 Hz at 2.5 ms in October 2011. Currently either Barrier IIA or Barrier IIB is operated at any given time, with the other maintained in a standby mode when not in active service.

Plans are underway for a new barrier, referred to as Permanent Barrier I, and the location for the electrodes of this new barrier have been proposed. Electric field testing included in this report will investigate the field strength characteristics in the location of the Permanent Barrier I electrodes and throughout the restricted navigation area (RNA). New testing apparatus was developed to measure electric fields at greater depths and more precisely than previous tests. These measurements will help to determine the electric field strength characteristics along the bottom and sides of the canal.

3/42

OBJECTIVES

ERDC-CERL proposed to support the Chicago District by conducting electric field measurements to determine the magnitude of electrical potential within the barrier region. The objective of these tests was to determine:

What levels of voltage would be present in the water at the location of new Permanent Barrier I under various barrier operational scenarios.

If there are any changes in field strength in the wall crevices along the Regulated Navigation Area (RNA) between the Romeoville Bridge and the Pipeline Arch.

The cross-sectional characteristics of the electrical field within the waterway, to provide details of the field strength with depth and proximity to the canal walls.

APPROACH

In order to address these objectives, ERDC-CERL, in conjunction with representatives of the Chicago District, developed the following tasks.

1. Point measurements of the three-dimensional electric field were taken near the bottom and near the sides of the canal in the area where the new Permanent Barrier I electrodes will be located.

Continuous measurement of the three-dimensional electric field was taken along various canal transects at four depths within the Restricted Navigation Area (RNA). Due to the differing pulse frequencies of the barriers, the field strength of each barrier could be determined from the measured waveform. Therefore the Demo Barrier did not need to be turned off. The continuous measurements were used to determine the field strength characteristics throughout the RNA. Analysis of the field data determined if any parts of this area contain values above the safe thresholds established by the Navy Experimental Dive Unit (NEDU) for either ventricular fibrillation or involuntary muscle contraction (NEDU 2008).

2. A handheld electric field probe was used to measure fields in canal wall crevices. A portable oscilloscope was used to the measure the peak voltage.

3. The new testing apparatus allowed continuous electric field measurements to be taken at greater depths, nearer to the walls and at faster boat speeds. The new apparatus did not limit boat maneuverability as much as the previous apparatus. Measurements were taken at four locations across the canal instead of three and the edge ones were nearer to the walls.

The electric field point measurements were taken between 1 and 4 May 2012. The continuous measurements were taken between 5 and 6 June 2012. Environmental data are listed in Table 1 and nominal barrier pulser settings are listed in Table 2.

Task 1 – Deep Water Electric Field / Diver Safety

Experimental Approach

To facilitate the measurement of electric field strength in the canal, tri-axial probe arrays were fabricated by welding sets of four horizontal rods to six foot vertical rod sections. The horizontal steel rods each measured 12 ½ inches in length and ½ inch outer diameter. The vertical sections of steel rods each measured six foot in length and 1 inch outer diameter. Shop drawings of the arrays and bars are shown

4/42

Figure 2 and Figure 3. These drawings are for the assembly to measure fields at the 2’, 6’, 12’, and 16’ depths. Other measurement depths are possible by either changing the number of extension bars or by changing the locations that the probe arrays are welded to the bar. After fabrication, each bar was coated with coal tar epoxy to insulate from the electric field in the canal.

Each axis of the tri-axial probe array spanned about 26 inches. Brass screws were used as the electrodes.

Shielded single pair audio cable was used as the conductors. One cable pair was used for each axis (e.g., x-plus and x-minus). The wires were soldered to the brass screws and the joint sealed with heat shrink tubing. The electrodes (screws) and cables were secured to the rods using cable ties. Teflon spacers were used to space the electrodes from the rods and bars. This configuration can be seen in Figure 4. Also shown in Figure 4 is the stowage of the array assembly alongside the Whaler. This allowed the arrays to remain assembled during breaks in testing.

The assembly was extended down into the waterway from the side of the Chicago District 23-foot fiberglass hull Boston Whaler (see Figure 5). The probe and bar assembly is designed to prevent twisting so that the probe orientation remains parallel to the waterway. The assembly is held in place by an outrigger attached to the stern of the Whaler. A winch is used to assist in raising and lowering the assembly. The outrigger and winch are shown in Figure 6. To precisely locate each test point a GPS unit was utilized onboard the Whaler. The GPS antenna was mounted to the support frame directly above the tri-axial probe and bar assembly (see Figure 7). The depth of the probes was set during testing by varying the number of extension bars used (each one is six-feet long) and adjusting where the top bar is clamped in the outrigger relative to the water surface.

Measurements of electric field strength within the area of the proposed Permanent Barrier I electrodes were taken at discrete points. There were three grid sections, one 10 meters south of the southernmost proposed electrode location, one in the middle of the proposed electrode location and one 10 meters north of the northernmost proposed electrode location. Field strength at each reach section occurred at five locations across the width, one each along either canal wall, one each near either canal wall and one in the center of the canal. Three-dimensional measurements were taken at each of three depths at each location, on the bottom, in the middle, and near the surface of the water column. For these measurements a single probe bar was used; the probe bar with two probes. In Figure 3 it is labeled as having the 12ft and 16ft deep probes. Electric field data were taken at discrete locations using a handheld oscilloscope. The peak field strength (voltage) was read from the oscilloscope trace for each field component (x, y, and z) at each location. The measurements of field strength along with the location coordinates was noted in a field book onboard the Whaler.

The x and y directions were horizontal and the z axis was vertical. The x direction was designated as perpendicular to the canal and the y direction as parallel to the canal. This coordinate system is indicated in the Figure 1.

To minimize movement of the Whaler during field strength measurements MWRD minimized the flow of water. Anchor points along the shoreline were utilized to attach ropes which were secured to the Whaler at various locations.

Results

Electric field measurements were used to determine voltages a person would be subjected to while in the water in the barrier area. The Navy Experimental Diving Unit (NEDU) report, “Evaluation of Risk That Electric Fish Barriers Pose to Human Immersion in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal” was used as the basis for computing the range of harmful physiological effects. The NEDU based their threshold voltage levels for harmful effects on International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Publication 60479-1, 5/42

“Effects of Current on Human Beings and Livestock - Part 1: General Aspects.” The NEDU hazard analysis was done for Demo Barrier I, ERDC-CERL extended this analysis to Barrier II. Table 3 is reproduced from Appendix B of ERDC/CERL TR-11-23. The zones are differentiated by duration of current pulse and body current. The most harmful effects occur in Zone DC-4 and include cardiac arrest, breathing arrest, and burns or other cellular damage.

Because tri-axial probes were used, the magnitude of the electric field was used in the evaluation of the degree of hazard.

The vector magnitude of the 3-dimensional field is defined as zyx EEEE (1) where Ex, Ey, Ez are the three independent vector components of the field. The magnitude is always greater than or equal to the individual components and therefore represents the worst case field strength.

Note that the orientation (direction) of E is never in either of the x, y, or z directions unless two of the components are zero.

Electric field data were taken at discrete locations using an oscilloscope. The peak field strength (voltage) was read from the oscilloscope trace and recorded for each field component (x, y, and z) at each location. Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, and Figure 12 are screen captures from the oscilloscope of some of these waveforms. The data are listed in tabular form in Table 4 and Table 5 and graphically in Figure 13, Figure 14: , Figure 15: , and Figure 16: .

The screen captures will help illustrate the interpretation of the waveforms and the reading of the pulse amplitudes. Figure 8 illustrates the ability to separately read the amplitudes of the individual barrier pulses. The pulse width for Demo Barrier I is 4 ms and the pulse width for Barrier IIA is 2.5ms. The horizontal scale is 5 ms/div so the Demo Barrier I pulses are nearly one horizontal division in width, while the Barrier IIA pulses are one-half division in width. On this trace the Demo Barrier I pulse is seen clearly in the right third of the trace while the Barrier IIA pulse(s) is in the center third. The peak of the Demo Barrier I pulse is about 210 mV (2.1 div x 100 mV/div) and the peak of the Barrier IIA pulse (s) is about 240 mV (-2.4 div x 100 mV/div). Dividing these peak voltages by the electrode spacing of 26” gives the peak field strengths of 8 and 9 mV/in respectively. These are the values that are listed in Table 4.

In Figure 9 the Demo Barrier I pulse is visible in the left third of the trace, while the Barrier IIA pulse(s) are barely discernible in the right third. This trace also illustrates the impulse noise (center third) that occurs frequently. These impulses are large in amplitude (the one in this trace is greater than 80mV, full scale) and definitely not attributable to the barriers. Their pulse width is very short compared to barrier pulses.

In Figure 10 pulses from all three barriers can be seen. The Demo Barrier I pulse is in the left third of the trace (third horizontal division from the left), IIBs pulse(s) is in the center and IIAs pulse(s) is to the right of IIBs. The larger of the IIA or IIB pulses were recorded.

Figure 11 illustrates interference of the barrier electric fields. Because the barriers are running asynchronously, pulses can sometimes occur at the same time. A Barrier II pulse has occurred at the same time as a Demo Barrier I pulse, distorting the Demo Barrier I pulse, and making it difficult to determine its amplitude. This is visible in the right third of the trace.

6/42

Figure 12 shows that sometimes barrier pulses are indiscernible. The pulse from Demo Barrier I is not discernible in this trace. (It was probably covered up by the negative Barrier II pulse to the right of center on this trace.)

The electric field data from Table 4 is presented graphically in Figure 13 through Figure 16. In these figures the vector magnitude of the electric field is indicated on a map of the canal using three voltage levels; safe (green), involuntary muscle contraction (orange), and ventricular fibrillation (red). In Figure 13 and Figure 14 all barriers are operating. The vector magnitudes of the peak voltages from Barriers IIA and IIB are plotted in Figure 13 and the vector magnitudes of the peak voltages from Demo Barrier I are plotted in Figure 14. Note that the peak voltages from Demo Barrier I are in the involuntary muscle contraction range for a couple locations near the canal walls.

In Figure 15 and Figure 16 Barrier IIA and Demo Barrier I are operating. The vector magnitudes of the peak voltages from Barrier IIA are plotted in Figure 15 and the vector magnitudes of the peak voltages from Demo Barrier I are plotted in Figure 16. Again, note that the peak voltages from Demo Barrier I are in the involuntary muscle contraction range for a couple locations near the canal walls.

Task 2 – Electric Field in Crevices

Experimental Approach

A handheld single-axis electric field probe was used to collect field data in the crevices. The probe was constructed of a small printed circuit board with two copper strips spaced about an inch and a half apart.

The board was attached to the end of the long insulated (PVC) pole. A longer coaxial cable (center conductor connected to one copper strip, shield to the other copper strip) conducted the electrical signals to the measurement device. Measurements were taken using a handheld oscilloscope as described in Task 1.

The pictures in Figure 17 show the technique used to sample the electric field in the crevices. The Whaler was held against the canal wall using ropes and pikes and the probe was extended into the crevice. By rotating the probe, different axes could be sampled, though not all axes were attainable from each location and position.

Results

The locations of the crevices where electric field measurements were taken are shown in Figure 18.

There are seven locations at Barrier IIA, and three at Barrier IIB. Barriers I and IIA were operational when the data at Barrier IIA were collected and all Barriers were operational for the Barrier IIB data collection.

This is the first time that we attempted to measure the electric field strength in the crevices and we encountered many difficulties: it was difficult to hold the probe steady as the Whaler was moving; the distances are gross approximations because the probe was being held by hand; and for increasing distances, the x-direction field measurement included less x component and more z component due to probe rotation with extension.

Peak voltage data from crevices 1, 4, and 6 is presented in Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8, respectively.

Voltages were not converted to electric field strength. Since the probe was not necessarily held accurately in the x- or y-directions, the number to divide the peak voltage by to determine field strength was uncertain. However, we can still make inferences from this peak voltage data. It is not possible to make a quantitative conclusion from this data, but it is obvious that the crevices affect the field. The y-

7/42 directed electric field tends to decrease and x and z dominate. This makes sense as the electrical current is now flowing into the crevice.

Task 3 - Field Mapping

Experimental Approach

The experimental probe design described in Task 1 and shown in Figure 2 through Figure 4 was affixed to Chicago District’s Boston Whaler (Figure 5 through Figure 7) and was used to take continuous electric field strength measurements in the RNA between the Romeoville Bridge and the Pipeline Arch. Twelve (3 axes at 4 depths) channels of probe voltage data were continuously recorded using a Pacific Instrument 6000 Series Data Acquisition System with sampling rates of 8000 or 10000 points per second. Location was recorded using a Trimble GeoXH 2008 GPS data collection system that collected geospatial data at a sampling rate of 30 points per minute. The maximum GPS range of error was set at 20 cm throughout the data collection. The recording instrumentation is described in more detail in Appendix A of ERDC/CERL TR-11-23. In order to increase the fidelity of the cross-sectional electric field map of the canal, runs were made at five locations across the 160-foot wide canal; east wall, east mid-center, center, west mid center and west wall. The runs along the east and west walls were made with the probe arrays on the wall side of the Whaler and traveling as close to the wall as safely possible.

Results

Tracks logs for the thirteen electric field mapping runs with Barriers I and IIA operational are shown in Figure 19. Tracks logs for the six electric field mapping runs with all Barriers operational are shown in Figure 20. The data from run 7 was excluded from analysis due to the GPS data exceeding the maximum range of error.

The data was analyzed by applying a linear interpolation algorithm to the peak values of the vector magnitude at one second intervals. This processes resulted in a mathematical approximation of electric field values across the canal between the data collection tracks. The results of the electric field mapping at four depths are presented graphically in Figure 25 through Figure 24. The data are plotted with colors representing the values of the field. Vertical cross sections (Figure 29 and Figure 30) at select locations were generated using the same data and processes but utilizing vertical as opposed to horizontal slices.

Measurements with Barriers I and IIA operational are shown in Figure 21 through Figure 24 and with all Barriers operational are shown in Figure 25 through Figure 28. Each figure presents one of the four measurement depths, 2, 6, 12, or 16 feet below the water surface. Data presented are vector magnitudes (Equation 1) of the 3-axis measurements.

Several observations can be made:

a) Electric field strength is always greatest directly over a Barrier, regardless of depth. The maximum field strengths occur over the Barrier II narrow arrays.

b) Electric field at the surface (2-foot depth) over Barrier II narrow arrays was about 2.3 V/in, over Barrier II wide arrays was about 1.0 V/in, and over Demo Barrier I arrays was about 0.8 V/in.

c) Electric field strength increases with increasing depth over the Barrier II narrow arrays. At the 16-foot depth it was around 3.5 V/in.

8/42

d) There is a small area of low electric field strength (a safe zone) between Demo Barrier I and Barrier II. This is the area of the proposed Permanent Barrier I electrodes.

e) The influence of the parasitics1 is definitely visible. The field levels near the parasitics are elevated, even the most northern one when Barrier IIB is not operating.

CONCLUSIONS

Personnel from ERDC-CERL conducted a variety of measurements near and over the Barriers.

Task 1.

In the vicinity of the Permanent Barrier 1 construction zone, for canal environmental conditions similar to those during this testing the electric field strengths would be below the threshold for involuntary muscle contractions for a person in the water if both the Demonstration Barrier and Barrier IIB are not operating.

Task 2.

It was not possible to make a quantitative conclusion from the data collected, but it is obvious that the crevices affect the field. The y-directed electric field tends to decrease and x and z dominate. This makes sense as the current is now flowing into the crevice.

It is recommended that these tests be repeated using a more stable and accurately positioned probe assembly.

Task 3.

a) Electric field strength is always greatest directly over a Barrier, regardless of depth. The maximum field strengths occur over the Barrier II narrow arrays.

b) Electric field at the surface (2-foot depth) over Barrier II narrow arrays was about 2.3 V/in, over Barrier II wide arrays was about 1.0 V/in, and over Demo Barrier I arrays was about 0.8 V/in.

c) Electric field strength increases with increasing depth over the Barrier II narrow arrays. At the 16-foot depth it was around 3.5 V/in.

d) There is a small area of low electric field strength (a safe zone) between Demo Barrier I and Barrier II. This is the area of the proposed Permanent Barrier I electrodes.

e) The influence of the parasitics is definitely visible. The field levels near the parasitics are elevated, even the most northern one when Barrier IIB is not operating.

1 These structures are electrode arrays configured as steel grids and mounted to concrete curbs that rest on the bottom of the canal. These are located down-canal from Barrier IIA, up-canal from Barrier IIB, and between IIA and IIB. They collect the stray currents on one side of a barrier and, via an electrical bus on shore, provide a low-impedance path for those currents to return to other side of barrier. See reference ERDC/CERL TR-11-23 for more information on these structures.

9/42

REFERENCES

1. Rasmussen, J.L. 2001. The Cal-Sag and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal: A Perspective on the Spread and Control of Selected Aquatic Nuisance Fish Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4469 - 48th Avenue Court, Rock Island, IL 61201, 26 pp.

2. Smith; David V. 1988. Fish repelling apparatus using a plurality of series connected pulse generators to produce an optimized electric field, United States Patent 4,750,451 June 14, 1988.

3. Navy Experimental Diving Unit. 2008. Evaluation of Risk Posed by Electric Fish Barriers to Human Immersion in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. LT 07-05, NEDU TR 08-01. June 2008.

4. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). 2005. Effects of Current on Human Beings and Livestock - Part 1: General Aspects. Publication 60479-1, 4th ed. IEC: Geneva, Switzerland.

5. McInerney, Michael K., Brianna S. Aubin, Jonathan C. Trovillion, Carey L. Baxter, Ethan T.

Trovillion, Vincent F. Hock, Jr., and David M. Weir. 2011. 2011 In-Water Testing of Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barriers IIA And IIB with Increased Voltage and Frequency Operating Parameters. ERDC/CERL TR-11-23. August 2011.

10/42

TABLES

Table 1: Environmental conditions during field testing.

Date Mean Temperature

(°F) Maximum Temperature

(°F) Relative Humidity

Precipitation

(in) Wind Speed

(mph)

Water Conductivity (ppm TDS [µS/cm])

1 May 2012 57.3 62.2 67 0.32 2.3 633 (989)

2 May 2012 68.5 78.6 55 0.00 3.3 673 (1052)

3 May 2012 76.7 86.7 41 0.00 4.9 631 (986)

4 May 2012 66.4 77.7 57 0.60 3.2 654 (1022)

5 June 2012 63.9 73.5 28 0.00 2.6 650 (1020)

Table 2: Pulser settings and target in-water field strengths for each test configuration.

Pulser Configuration

Barrier 2A Narrow Barrier 2A Wide Barrier 2B Narrow Barrier 2B Wide Demo Barrier 1

V/in ms Hz V/in ms Hz V/in ms Hz V/in ms Hz V/in ms Hz

Alpha (A) 2.0 6.5 15 1.0 6.5 15 2.3 2.5 30 1.0 2.5 30 1.0 4.0 5

Bravo (B) 2.3 2.5 30 1.0 2.5 30 2.3 2.5 30 1.0 2.5 30 1.0 4.0 5

Charlie (C) 2.0 6.5 15 1.0 6.5 15 2.0 6.5 15 1.0 6.5 15 1.0 4.0 5

Delta (D) 2.3 2.5 30 1.0 2.5 30 OFF OFF 1.0 4.0 5

Echo (E) OFF OFF 2.3 2.5 30 1.0 2.5 30 1.0 4.0 5

Foxtrot (F) OFF OFF 2.0 6.5 15 1.0 6.5 15 1.0 4.0 5

11/42

Table 3: Physiological effects of single-pulse DC shock for hand-to-foot pathway.*

Zones Current

Boundaries

2.5 ms Pulse Width** 4.0 ms Pulse Width** 6.5 ms Pulse Width** Physiological Effects

Maximum

Body

Current

(mA)

Minimum

Electric

Field

Strength (V/in.)

Maximum

Body

Current

(mA)

Minimum

Electric

Field

Strength

(V/in.)

Maximum

Body

Current

(mA)

Minimum

Electric

Field

Strength

(V/in.)

DC-1

Up to 2.0 mA, Curve a

0.2 1.8E-4 0.2 1.8E-4 0.2 1.8E-4

Slight pricking sensation possible when making, breaking or rapidly altering current flow.

DC-2

2.0 mA up to

Curve b

Involuntary muscular contractions likely, especially when making, breaking or rapidly altering current flow but usually no harmful electrical physiological effects.

DC-3

Curve b & above

34 0.03 29 0.03 24 0.02

Strong involuntary muscular reactions and reversible disturbances of formation and conduction of impulses in the heart may occur, increasing with current magnitude and time. Usually no organic damage to be expected.

DC-4

Above Curve c1

50 0.05 50 0.05 50 0.05

Patho-physiological effects may occur such as cardiac arrest, breathing arrest, & burns or other cellular damage. Probability of ventricular fibrillation increasing with current magnitude and time.

Between Curves c1 & c2

DC-4.1: Probability of ventricular fibrillation increasing up to about 5%

Between Curves c2 & c3

100 0.09 100 0.09 100 0.09

DC-4.2: Probability of ventricular fibrillation increasing up to about 50%

Beyond Curve c3

138 0.12 138 0.12 138 0.12 DC-4.3: Probability of ventricular fibrillation above 50%

*Information in this table is reproduced from Table B3 of “2011 In-Water Testing of Aquatic Nuisance Species Dispersal Barriers IIA And IIB with Increased Voltage and Frequency Operating Parameters,” ERDC/CERL TR-11-23, August 2011.

12/42

Table 4: Electric field data collected in May 2012 at location of proposed electrode arrays for new permanent barrier I for pulser configuration Delta with all parasitics connected.

Date/ Time

Distance from wall in ft (wall)

Sensor distance from surface

(ft)

Distance from Demo Barrier in ft

(meters)

Barrier I Electric Fields Distance from

Barrier IIA Narrow

Array in ft (meters)

Barrier IIA Electric Fields

Notes X

(mV/in) Y

(mV/in) Z

(mV/in)

Vector Magnitude

(mV/in) X

(mV/in) Y

(mV/in) Z

(mV/in)

Vector Magnitude

(mV/in)

2 May PM N 1.5 (E) 25 194 (59.1) * -9 23 25 1056 (321.9) 4 < 1 2 4

Bow oriented down canal Barrier II pulses difficult to read

1 May AM N 9 (E) 27 209 (63.7) 9 20 < 1 23 1041 (317.3) < 1 3 3 4

1 May PM N 80 (E) 25 207 (63.2) 6 30 3 30 1043 (318.0) < 1 4 < 1 4

1 May PM N 9 (W) 26 202 (61.5) -15 -31 9 35 1045 (318.6) -1 4 < 1 4 Bow oriented down canal

3 May AM N 1.5 (W) 26 217 (66.1) 6 17 15 24 1030 (313.9) < 1 4 < 1 4

2 May PM C 1.5 (E) 26 313 (95.3) 2 -16 3 17 937 (285.7) < 1 5 1 4 Bow oriented down canal

1 May PM C 9 (E) 26 328 (100.1) 4 19 1 19 921 (280.9) 1 6 < 1 6

1 May PM C 80 (E) 26 319 (97.3) 2 14 < 1 14 918 (279.8) 1 6 < 1 6

1 May PM C 9 (W) 25 308 (94.0) -8 -19 < 1 20 938 (286.1) -1 -5 < 1 5 Bow oriented down canal

3 May AM C 1.5 (W) 25 330 (100.6) 5 12 3 13 916 (276.4) < 1 6 < 1 6

2 May PM S 1.5 (E) 22 454 (138.5) * -9 2 10 795 (242.3) < 1 9 2 9 Bow oriented down canal

1 May PM S 9 (E) 25 469 (143.0) 4 9 < 1 10 780 (237.9) < 1 11 < 1 11

1 May PM S 80 (E) 26 457 (139.4) 2 8 2 8 791 (241.2) < 1 3 < 1 3 Boat rotated during measurements

1 May PM S 9 (W) 26 450 (137.3) < 1 -10 < 1 10 796 (242.7) > -1 -8 < 1 8 Bow oriented down canal

2 May PM S 1.5 (W) 25 464 (141.5) 3 9 2 10 783 (238.6) 3 8 2 9

2 May PM N 1.5 (E) 21 194 (59.0) -4 -20 12 24 1056 (321.9) 1 3 1 3 Bow oriented down canal

1 May AM N 9 (E) 21 214 (65.2) 4 27 1 27 1045 (318.6) < 1 4 1 4

1 May PM N 80 (E) 21 206 (62.8) 4 29 3 29 1043 (318.0) < 1 9 < 1 9

1 May PM N 9 (W) 22 202 (61.5) -18 -27 8 33 1045 (318.6) > -1 -4 < 1 4 Bow oriented down canal

3 May AM N 1.5 (W) 22 217 (66.1) 10 23 11 28 1030 (313.9) < 1 4 < 1 4

2 May PM C 1.5 (E) 22 313 (95.3) -4 -20 2 21 937 (285.7) < 1 5 < 1 5 Bow oriented down canal

13/42

Date/ Time

Distance from wall in ft (wall)

Sensor distance from surface

(ft)

Distance from Demo Barrier in ft

(meters)

Barrier I Electric Fields Distance from

Barrier IIA Narrow

Array in ft (meters)

Barrier IIA Electric Fields

Notes X

(mV/in) Y

(mV/in) Z

(mV/in)

Vector Magnitude

(mV/in) X

(mV/in) Y

(mV/in) Z

(mV/in)

Vector Magnitude

(mV/in)

1 May PM C 9 (E) 21 328 (100) 4 15 2 15 921 (280.9) < 1 6 < 1 6

1 May PM C 80 (E) 22 315 (95.9) 5 17 2 17 930 (283.2) 2 6 < 1 6

1 May PM C 9 (W) 21 308 (94.0) -10 -13 2 16 938 (286.1) > -1 -6 < 1 6 Bow oriented down canal

3 May AM C 1.5 (W) 21 330 (100.6) 3 12 2 13 916 (279.4) < 1 6 < 1 6

2 May PM S 1.5 (E) 18 454 (138.5) -3 -11 1 11 795 (242.3) 2 7 < 1 8 Bow oriented down canal

1 May PM S 9 (E) 21 471 (143.6) < 1 9 1 9 779 (237.5) < 1 9 < 1 9

1 May PM S 80 (E) 22 457 (139.2) < 1 5 < 1 6 792 (241.6) 3 9 < 1 10 Boat rotated during measurements

1 May PM S 9 (W) 21 450 (137.3) > -1 -9 < 1 9 796 (242.7) > -1 -9 < 1 9 Bow oriented down canal

3 May PM S 1.5 (W) 21 465 (141.7) 2 8 2 9 782 (238.5) 2 9 < 1 9 Screen capture of y-axis in Figure 8

3 May AM N 1.5 (E) 6 186 (56.7) > -1 -31 > -1 31 1063 (324.2) < 1 5 < 1 5 Bow oriented down canal

2 May AM N 9 (E) 6 207 (63.0) 2 27 < 1 27 1043 (318.0) 2 5 < 1 5

2 May AM N 80 (E) 6 213 (64.9) 9 27 > -1 28 678 (206.3) 1 4 < 1 4

2 May AM N 9 (W) 6 204 (62.1) -11 -27 < 1 29 1043 (318.0) > -1 -4 < 1 4 Bow oriented down canal

3 May AM N 1.5 (W) 6 214 (65.3) 9 25 -2 27 1032 (314.7) < 1 4 < 1 4

3 May AM C 1.5 (E) 6 309 (94.3) -2 -19 > -1 19 940 (286.6) 1 5 < 1 6 Bow oriented down canal

2 May AM C 9 (E) 6 330 (100.6) 1 16 < 1 16 919 (280.3) 2 5 < 1 6

2 May AM C 80 (E) 6 330 (100.6) 5 14 < 1 15 934 (284.6) 2 6 < 1 6

2 May AM C 9 (W) 6 307 (93.6) -5 -13 < 1 14 1043 (318.0) > -1 -5 < 1 6 Bow oriented down canal

3 May AM C 1.5 (W) 6 322 (98.2) 4 12 -1 13 924 (281.7) < 1 5 < 1 6 Screen capture of Z-axis in Figure 9

3 May AM S 1.5 (E) 6 453 (138.1) > -1 -14 < 1 14 79 (242.8) 2 8 < 1 9 Bow oriented down canal

2 May AM S 9 (E) 6 468 (142.6) < 1 6 < 1 6 782 (238.5) 3 11 < 1 11

2 May AM S 80 (E) 6 463 (141.2) 1 9 < 1 9 785 (239.3) 3 9 < 1 10

2 May AM S 9 (W) 6 454 (138.4) -2 -9 < 1 9 793 (241.7) > -1 -8 < 1 9 Bow oriented down canal

3 May AM S 1.5 (W) 6 466 (142.2) < 1 9 < 1 9 780 (237.8) < 1 8 < 1 8

* Measurement is indiscernible

14/42

Table 5: Electric field data collected in May 2012 at location of proposed electrode arrays for new permanent barrier I for pulser configuration Bravo with all parasitics connected.

Date/ Time

Distance from wall in ft (wall)

Sensor distance from surface

(ft)

Distance from Demo

Barrier in ft

(meters)

Barrier I Electric Fields Distance from

Barrier IIB Narrow

Array in ft (meters)

Barrier IIB Electric Fields

Notes X

(mV/in) Y

(mV/in) Z

(mV/in)

Vector Magnitude

(mV/in) X

(mV/in) Y

(mV/in) Z

(mV/in)

Vector Magnitude

(mV/in)

4 May AM N 1.5 (E) 23 202 (61.7) 5 -25 * 26 689 (209.9) < 1 5 3 6 Bow oriented down canal

4 May AM N 9 (E) 24 221 (67.3) -2 35 -3 35 670 (204.4) 2 10 4 11

4 May AM N 80 (E) 24 205 (62.6) 6 21 -5 22 685 (208.7) < 1 4 3 5

4 May AM N 9 (W) 25 197 (60.1) -10 -31 18 37 690 (210.4) < 1 5 < 1 5 Bow oriented down canal

4 May AM N 1.5 (W) 25 215 (65.5) 13 22 5 26 672 (205.0) 2 6 4 8

3 May PM S 1.5 (E) 20 453 (138.1) > -1 -19 5 19 438 (133.6) 5 22 * 22 Bow oriented down canal Screen capture of x-axis in Figure

3 May PM S 9 (E) 24 468 (142.6) * 10 * 9 423 (129.1) 6 20 6 21 Indiscernible because of distortion on Barrier I pulse due to interference from IIB

3 May PM S 80 (E) 25 477 (145.3) * 10 * 9 413 (125.9) 2 22 3 22

3 May PM S 9 (W) 26 433 (132.0) -1 -5 3 6 454 (138.4) 3 21 < 1 20

Bow oriented down canal Can see distortion on Barrier I pulse, probably due to interference from IIB

3 May PM S 1.5 (W) 26 448 (136.4) 4 10 1 10 440 (134.2) 1 22 5 22

4 May AM N 1.5 (E) 17 202 (61.7) * -24 2 24 689 (209.9) 1 6 2 6 Bow oriented down canal

4 May AM N 9 (E) 20 221 (67.3) -2 31 * 31 670 (204.4) 1 8 2 9

4 May AM N 80 (E) 20 212 (64.7) 7 28 > -1 29 677 (206.3) 2 9 < 1 9

4 May AM N 9 (W) 21 197 (60.1) -9 -29 15 33 690 (210.4) < 1 8 < 1 8 Bow oriented down canal

4 May AM N 1.5 (W) 21 214 (65.3) 7 25 8 27 673 (205.3) < 1 9 2 9

3 May PM S 1.5 (E) 16 453 (138.1) -2 -9 2 10 438 (133.6) 8 20 < 1 22 Bow oriented down canal

3 May PM S 9 (E) 20 468 (142.6) -52 -9 * 9 423 (129.1) 2 16 4 16 Screen capture of y-axis in Figure

3 May PM S 80 (E) 22 470 (143.2) < 1 -9 < 1 9 434 (132.2) 3 27 2 27

3 May PM S 9 (W) 22 433 (132.0) -3 -9 2 10 454 (138.4) 2 20 < 1 20 Bow oriented down canal

3 May PM S 1.5 (W) 22 447 (136.4) 5 8 > -1 9 440 (134.2) 4 19 4 19

4 May AM N 1.5 (E) 6 195 (59.5) 2 -29 1 29 696 (212.1) < 1 9 < 1 8 Bow oriented down canal

4 May AM N 9 (E) 6 212 (64.5) 2 30 * 29 680 (207.2) 2 8 < 1 8

4 May AM N 80 (E) 6 199 (60.6) 5 30 > -1 30 690 (210.4) 2 8 < 1 8

4 May AM N 9 (W) 6 195 (59.5) -10 -29 2 31 692 (211.0) 2 10 < 1 9 Bow oriented down canal

15/42

Date/ Time

Distance from wall in ft (wall)

Sensor distance from surface

(ft)

Distance from Demo

Barrier in ft

(meters)

Barrier I Electric Fields Distance from

Barrier IIB Narrow

Array in ft (meters)

Barrier IIB Electric Fields

Notes X

(mV/in) Y

(mV/in) Z

(mV/in)

Vector Magnitude

(mV/in) X

(mV/in) Y

(mV/in) Z

(mV/in)

Vector Magnitude

(mV/in)

4 May AM N 1.5 (W) 6 214 (65.3) 11 24 -2 26 673 (205.3) 2 6 1 7

3 May PM S 1.5 (E) 6 453 (138.1) * -11 * 11 438 (133.6) 5 24 1 24 Bow oriented down canal

3 May PM S 9 (E) 6 471 (143.6) > -1 11 * 11 421 (128.2) 5 24 < 1 24

3 May PM S 80 (E) 6 479 (146.0) * 10 * 9 411 (125.2) 2 25 1 25 Screen capture of x-axis in Figure

3 May PM S 9 (W) 6 460 (140.2) > -1 -10 < 1 10 427 (130.3) < 1 21 < 1 21 Bow oriented down canal

3 May PM S 1.5 (W) 6 448 (136.5) 2 10 < 1 10 440 (134.1) 3 22 < 1 22

* Measurement is indiscernible

Table 6: Crevice location 1 (East wall, immediately north of south parasitic).

Distance into crevice (feet)

Measurement at Surface y-direction Peak Voltage

(mV) x-direction Peak Voltage

(mV)

0 370 180

1 315 ---

2 230 170

3 178 100*

* not true x-direction; due to angle of electrodes because having to reach farther out.

16/42

Table 7: Crevice location 4 (East wall, immediately north of Barrier IIA narrow array).

Distance into crevice (feet)

Measurement at Surface Measurement 2 feet below surface y-direction Peak Voltage

(mV) x-direction Peak Voltage

(mV) y-direction Peak Voltage

(mV) x-direction Peak Voltage

(mV)

0 600 500 680 600

2 450 600 200 800

3 100 300*

* not true x-direction; due to angle of electrodes because having to reach farther out.

Table 8: Crevice location 6 (West wall, between IIA wide and narrow arrays).

Distance into crevice (feet)

Measurement at Surface Measurement 2 feet below surface Measurement 2 feet below surface y-direction Peak Voltage

(mV) x-direction Peak Voltage

(mV) y-direction Peak Voltage

(mV) x-direction Peak Voltage

(mV) y-direction Peak Voltage

(mV) x-direction Peak Voltage

(mV)

0 650 400 600 300 540 400

1 500 390 400 280 230 180

2 300 350 230 180 200 250*

3 290 175* --- --- ---

4 24 --- --- --- ---

* not true x-direction; due to angle of electrodes because having to reach farther out.

17/42

FIGURES

Figure 1: Relative Locations of Barriers I, IIA, and IIB.

18/42

Figure 2: Fabricated array to measure electric field at 2ft, 6ft, 12ft, and 16ft depths.

19/42

Figure 3: Individual bars for the fabricated array.

20/42

Figure 4: Stowed measurement array assembly.

21/42

Figure 5: Tri-axial probes, rods, beam and mounting bracket on Whaler.

22/42

Figure 6: Winch and outrigger assembly.

23/42

Figure 7: Deployed array with GPS antenna.

24/42

Figure 8: Y-axis measurements at 21ft depth during Delta configuration, 100mV/div vertical scale.

Figure 9: Z-axis measurements at 6ft depth during Delta configuration, 20mV/div vertical scale.

Figure 10: X-axis measurements at 20ft depth during

Bravo configuration, 50mV/div vertical scale.

Figure 11: Y-axis measurements at 20ft depth during Bravo configuration, 200mV/div vertical scale.

Figure 12: X-axis measurements at 6ft depth during Bravo configuration, 20mV/div vertical scale.

25/42

Figure 13: Pulses generated by Barrier II at 1 and 5 feet above canal bottom with all Barriers operational.

26/42

Figure 14: Pulses generated by Demo Barrier I at 1 and 5 feet above canal bottom with all Barriers operational

27/42

Figure 15: Pulses generated by Barrier IIA at 1 and 5 feet above canal bottom with Barriers I and IIA operational.

28/42

Figure 16: Pulses generated by Demo Barrier I at 1 and 5 feet above canal bottom with Barriers I and IIA operational.

29/42

Figure 17: Measuring electric field in crevices.

30/42

Figure 18: Locations of canal wall crevices that were tested.

31/42

Figure 19: Tracks logs for the thirteen electric field mapping runs with Barriers I and IIA operational.

32/42

Figure 20: Tracks logs for the six electric field mapping runs with all Barriers operational.

33/42

Figure 21: Continuously collected electric field data at 2 feet below surface with Barriers I and IIA operational. No color indicates safe electrical zones.

34/42

Figure 22: Continuously collected electric field data at 6 feet below surface with Barriers I and IIA operational. No color

35/42

Figure 23: Continuously collected electric field data at 12 feet below surface with Barriers I and IIA operational. No color indicates safe electrical zones.

36/42

Figure 24: Continuously collected electric field data at 16 feet below surface with Barriers I and IIA operational. No color indicates safe electrical zones.

37/42

Figure 25: Continuously collected electric field data at 2 feet below surface with all Barriers operational. No color

38/42

Figure 26: Continuously collected electric field data at 6 feet below surface with all Barriers operational. No color

39/42

Figure 27: Continuously collected electric field data at 12 feet below surface with all Barriers operational. No color

40/42

Figure 28: Continuously collected electric field data at 16 feet below surface with all Barriers operational. No color

41/42

Figure 29: Continuously collected electric field data at select canal cross sections with all Barriers operational.

42/42

Figure 30: Continuously collected electric field data at select canal cross sections with Barriers I and IIA operational.