Marine Geophysical Researches

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 119–126 | Cite as

Remote estimation of surficial seafloor properties through the application Angular Range Analysis to multibeam sonar data

  • Luciano FonsecaEmail author
  • Larry Mayer
Original Research Paper


The variation of the backscatter strength with the angle of incidence is an intrinsic property of the seafloor, which can be used in methods for acoustic seafloor characterization. Although multibeam sonars acquire backscatter over a wide range of incidence angles, the angular information is normally neglected during standard backscatter processing and mosaicking. An approach called Angular Range Analysis has been developed to preserve the backscatter angular information, and use it for remote estimation of seafloor properties. Angular Range Analysis starts with the beam-by-beam time-series of acoustic backscatter provided by the multibeam sonar and then corrects the backscatter for seafloor slope, beam pattern, time varying and angle varying gains, and area of insonification. Subsequently a series of parameters are calculated from the stacking of consecutive time series over a spatial scale that approximates half of the swath width. Based on these calculated parameters and the inversion of an acoustic backscatter model, we estimate the acoustic impedance and the roughness of the insonified area on the seafloor. In the process of this inversion, the behavior of the model parameters is constrained by established inter-property relationships. The approach has been tested using a 300 kHz Simrad EM3000 multibeam sonar in Little Bay, NH. Impedance estimates are compared to in situ measurements of sound speed. The comparison shows a very good correlation, indicating the potential of this approach for robust seafloor characterization.


Angular Range Analysis Acoustic backscatter Multibeam sonar Remote sensing Model inversion 



This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research under the GEOCLUTTER program.


  1. Castagna JP, Backus MM (eds) (1993) Offset-dependent reflectivity–theory and practice of AVO analysis. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, TulsaGoogle Scholar
  2. Cutter RG Jr, Rzhanov Y, Mayer LA (2003) Automated segmentation of seafloor bathymetry from multibeam echosounder data using local Fourier histogram texture features. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 285/286:355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Moustier C, Matsumoto H (1993) Seafloor acoustic remote sensing with multibeam echo-sounders and bathymetric sidescan sonar systems. Mar Geophys Res 15:27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fonseca L, Calder B (2005) Geocoder: an efficient backscatter map constructor. Proceedings of the U.S. Hydrographic Conference 2005, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  5. Fonseca L, Mayer L, Orange D, Driscoll N (2002) The high-frequency backscattering angular response of gassy sediments: model/data comparison from the Eel River margin, California. J Acoust Soc Am 111(6):2621–2631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fonseca L, Mayer L, Kraft B, Richter B, Brandsdottir B (2004) AVO analysis of multibeam backscatter, an example from Little bay, NH and Skjalfandi bay, Iceland. Proceedings of AGU fall meeting 2004, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamilton E (1974) Prediction of deep-sea sediment properties: state-of-the-art. In: Inderbitzen AL (ed) Deep-sea sediments, physical and mechanical properties, Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–43Google Scholar
  8. Hammerstad E, Pohner F, Parthoit F, Bennet J (1991) Field testing of a new deep water multibeam echo sounder. Proc IEEE Oceans 2:743–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hare R, Godin A, Mayer L (1995) Accuracy estimation of Canadian swath (multibeam) and sweep (multi-transducer) sounding systems. Canadian Hydrographic Service and University of New Brunswick Publication, FrederictonGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes-Clark J, Mayer L, Wells D (1996) Shallow-water imaging multibeam sonars: a new tool for investigating seafloor processes in the coastal zone and on the continental shelf. Mar Geophys Res 18:607–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes-Clarke J, Danforth BW, Valentine P (1997) Areal seabed classification using backscatter angular response at 95kHz. In: Pace NG, Pouliquen E, Bergen O, Lyons AP (eds) SACLANTCEN conference proceeding CP-45, Lerici, pp 243–250Google Scholar
  12. Ishimaru A (1978) Wave propagation and scattering in random media. Multiple scattering, turbulence, rough surfaces and remote sensing, vol 2. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  13. Ivakin AN (1998) A unified approach to volume and roughness scattering. J Acoust Soc Am 103(2):827–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson DR, Briggs KB (1992) High-frequency bottom backscattering: roughness versus sediment volume scattering. J Acoust Soc Am 92(2):962–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jackson DR, Ivakin AN (1998) Scattering from elastic sea beads: first-order theory. J Acoust Soc Am 103(1):336–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kraft BJ, Fonseca L, Mayer L, McGillicuddy G, Ressler J, Henderson J, Simpkin PG (2004) In situ measurement of sediment acoustic properties and relationship to multibeam backscatter. J Acoust Soc Am 115 (5):2401Google Scholar
  17. Mayer L, Kraft B, Simpkin P, Jabs E, Lynskey E (2002) In situ determination of the variability of seafloor acoustic properties: an example from the ONR GEOCLUTTER area. In: Pace N, Jensen F (eds) Impact of littoral environmental variability on acoustic prediction and sonar performance. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp 115–122Google Scholar
  18. Novarini JC, Caruthers JW (1998) A simplified approach to backscattering from a rough seafloor with sediment inhomogeneities. J Oceanic Eng 23(3):157–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pouliquen E, Lyons AP (2002) Backscattering from bioturbated sediments at very high frequency. IEEE J Oceanic Eng 27(3):388–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Richardson MD, Briggs KB (2004) Empirical predictions of seafloor properties based on remotely measured sediment impedance. In: Porter MB, Siderius M (eds) High frequency Ocean acoustic conference, AIP press, Melville, pp 12–21Google Scholar
  21. Williams KL (2001) An effective density fluid model for acoustic propagation in sediments derived from Biot theory. J Acoust Soc Am 110(5):2276–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Williams KL, Jackson DR (1998) Bistatic bottom scattering: model, experiments, and model/data comparison. J Acoust Soc Am 103(1):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yoklavich MM, Greene HG, Cailliet GM, Sullivan DE, Lea RN, Love MS (1998) Habitat associations of deep-water rockfishes in the submarine canyon: and example of a natural refuge. Fish Bull 98:625–641Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Coastal and Ocean MappingUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations