Remote estimation of surficial seafloor properties through the application Angular Range Analysis to multibeam sonar data
- 960 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAngular Range Analysis Acoustic backscatter Multibeam sonar Remote sensing Model inversion
This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research under the GEOCLUTTER program.
- Castagna JP, Backus MM (eds) (1993) Offset-dependent reflectivity–theory and practice of AVO analysis. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, TulsaGoogle Scholar
- Fonseca L, Calder B (2005) Geocoder: an efficient backscatter map constructor. Proceedings of the U.S. Hydrographic Conference 2005, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Ishimaru A (1978) Wave propagation and scattering in random media. Multiple scattering, turbulence, rough surfaces and remote sensing, vol 2. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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