THERMODYNAMICS

AND
HEAT TRANSFER
(ES 214A)

COMPILATION OF
REVIEW JOURNALS AND ARTICLES

JUAN DELA CRUZ

2 BSABE

SUMMER S.Y. 2022-2023

 REVISED DEPTH OF THE CHALLENGER DEEP FROM SUBMERSIBLE

TRANSECTS; INCLUDING A GENERAL METHOD FOR PRECISE,

PRESSURE-DERIVED DEPTHS IN THE OCEAN

AUTHOR: Samuel F. Greenaway, Kathryn D. Sullivan, S. Harper Umfress,

Alice B. Beittel,

Karl D. Wagner

REVIEWED BY: JUAN DELA CRUZ

SUMMARY:

I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Hydrostatic pressure, the force exerted by air pressure on our bodies,

increases as we dive deeper into the ocean. This pressure rises by one

atmosphere for every 10.06 meters (33 ft) that we descend. In June 2020, a

set of submersible dives were conducted, giving a new estimate of the

Challenger Deep's maximum depth, which is considered the deepest region of

the world's oceans. The depth estimations were obtained using acoustic

altimeter profiles, which compensate for air pressure, gravity and gravitational

gradient anomalies, and water level effects. The Challenger Deep's lowest

observed ocean depth was 10,935 meters, 6 meters under average sea level.
 Submerged pressure sensors are used in the mapping and charting

community to monitor water levels. The Challenger Deep, located about 200

nautical miles southwest of Guam, is the deepest spot in the world's seas.

The maximum depth predictions addressed in this report can be found in and

around each of the three depressions or waters along the path of the trench,

known as the eastern, central, and western basins. However, there is little

agreement as to which basin is the deepest overall depth.

II. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The Challenger Deep, a world-circling mission from 1873-1886, has

been the subject of extensive research and analysis. Techniques like taut-wire

sounding, hand-thrown explosives, and aurally identified returns have been

overshadowed by current techniques in terms of accuracy, coverage, and

resolution. The Five Deeps Expedition, which aimed to identify and map the

deepest spots in each of the world's seas, provided additional support for

Challenger Deep. The Challenger Deep consists of an extended portion with

various subbasins or pools filled with silt, with three depressions or basins

along the trench's axis in the east, center, and west. There is minimal

consensus on the deepest basin or total depth.

Numerous expeditions have been launched since the use of

contemporary multibeam echo sounders to survey the Marianas Trench near

the Challenger Deep. Several missions do not agree on the locations or

figures for the greatest depths, and the maximum depth estimations found in
this article differ more than their reported levels of uncertainty. Additionally,

there are significant differences in the claimed deepest places across studies.

Only two crewed submersibles, three uncrewed vehicles, and a few

free-fall landers have survived the Limiting Factor. The Japanese Agency for

Marine-Earth Science Technology (JAMSTEC) and other expeditions have

visited the Challenger Deep, with remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) such as

the Kaiko, ABISMO, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Deepsea

Challenger, and the underwater vehicle Nereus.

III. MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

The assistance ship Pressure Drop's EM124 multi-beam was used to

scan the area around the trench before undertaking submersible dives. The

submersible dives were planned using a map, consisting of three equipped

free-fall landers and a submersible itself. The landers' RBR pressure gauges

are twice as precise as those in the CTD (conductivity, temperature, and

depth) sensors, allowing for better predictions of instrument drifts and

confirming proper water level adjustments. The submersible-based altimeter

was used to hook into the seabed datum, and the onboard CTD pressure

sensor controlled the submersible altimeter vertically. The thermodynamic

equation of the state of seawater 2010 and the Gibbs Seawater (GSW)

toolbox were used to compute the water column's density and come up with a

preliminary depth estimate.

 Data processing and analysis were performed using open-source

Python programs NumPy and SciPy, figure plotting using Matplotlib, and

geographic figures using GeoMapApp. The submersible dives were designed

to provide a stable datum at the seabed with mean sea level (MSL) to

determine seafloor depth.

IV. METHODOLOGY

a. Take the time series of atmospheric pressure out of the pressure

recordings.

b. Reduce to zero in-situ atmospheric pressure of any pre-deployment

surface pressures that are present in the record.

c. Making use of the conductivity, which varied in-situ temperature,

and pressure records using the CTD profile, determine the Absolute

Salinity (SA) and the conserved utilizing the GSW toolbox's

(gsw.SA_from_SP and gsw.CT_from_t) temperature (CT) functions.

d. Calculate the dynamical height anomaly as a function of pressure

using the SA and CT profile (gsw.geo_strf_dyn_height).

e. Dynamic height anomaly to pressure at the measured pressure

through interpolation.

f. Utilizing the GSW toolbox's (gsw.z_from_p) interpolated dynamic

height anomaly, determine the height of the water column, or depth.

g. Be accurate for both surface gravity anomalies and surface

gravitational gradient anomalies.22222l

 h. Reduce an observation to MSL datum by using water-level

correctors.

i. Apply the lander pressure sensor's vertical offsets to the ocean

floor.

j. De-trend estimated averages and depths for landers to establish

seabed datum

k. To determine uncorrected bottom depths, add altimeter heights to

the submersible pressure coming from the CTDs deployed on the

submersible.

l. Tie the seabed detected by the altimeter to the datum established

by the lander at the meeting spots.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The expedition involved 18 lander deployments from June 6 to June

26, 2020, with six of those days involving the submersible. Six CTD profiles

with implausible absolute salinity values above 40 were disregarded from the

lander deployments. The depths were determined using each of these

observed profiles and an initial pressure of 11,260 bar, equivalent to a depth

of around 10,930 m. The standard deviation of the computed depths was 17

cm, which was not noticeable by bigger than the 11 cm measurement

uncertainty. As a result, all dives were processed using one profile from June

26.
 The dives were organized as transects over each basin's deepest

regions, determined through surface mapping. The submersible approached

the lander by 150 meters during the dive on June 12 but did not combine with

it. The eastern basin's southernmost region contains the deepest seabed

depths. Both dives on June 7 or June 12 traveled through the deepest region

identified by surface data from Bongiovanni et al. (2021), exhibiting a

maximum depth of 10,932 m. The eastern basin's deepest region, as

determined by surface mapping, was indeed traversed by the dives on June

14 and June 26. The highest depth of the dive on June 26 was 10,934 meters.

Van Haren (2017) hypothesized that variations in the speed of sound

profiles were to blame for the disparities between their findings and those of

other acoustic measures. Taira et al. (2005) used their measured CTD profile

instead of the original sound speed adjustment to reduce the stated 1957

depth from the Vityaz from 11,035 m to 10,983 m. The mismatch between

acoustic mapping missions might be caused by erroneous deep ocean sound

speed in all models, although this would not account for it. Additionally, it is

conceivable that the density inferred from the TEOS-10 model employed here

(and the UNESCO equation that came before it) is off in the deep ocean,

which would distort any results from pressure-derived calculations. The values

near 10,980 are more likely due to noise, unidentified instrument setup

problems, or other causes.

VI. CONCLUSION

As stated above, there are a bunch of expeditions were conducted on

the Challenger Deep which gave the researchers so many changes on how to

deal with the pressure due to the depth of the ocean. It mentioned that as we

go deeper into the water, it exerts so much pressure that many machines

can’t handle it. Previous experiments done by scientists on the Challenger

Deep help the current researcher to study what to adjust as they go

underwater. As we go to the other part of the said place, it exerts different

pressure since some parts here have different depths. Pressure underwater

varies on how deep it was. The researchers tend to express that every 33

feet, as we go deeper, the pressure increases up to one atmospheric

pressure (101.325 kPa). As the time goes by, our technology improves. So

instead of sending someone on the seafloor which is the deepest part of the

ocean using some submersible, we can create a robotic type machine with

HD cameras to study what we found underwater. In that case, no one is in

danger since it is remotely controlled. Overall, this article satisfies its goal and

well informed with so much evidence that supports the problem.

VII. REFERENCES

Greenaway, S. F., Sullivan, K. M., Umfress, S. H., Beittel, A. B., & Wagner,

K. (2021).

Revised depth of the Challenger Deep from submersible transects; including a

general method for precise, pressure-derived depths in the ocean.

Deep-sea Research Part I-oceanographic Research Papers, 178, 103644.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2021.103644