Advertisement

Mapping seabed sediments for Sharm Obhur using multibeam echosounder backscatter data

  • Mohammed El-DiastyEmail author
Original Article
  • 35 Downloads

Abstract

The observed hydrographic surveying data from multibeam echosounder system (MBES) contains sounding and backscatter intensity data that can be utilized in many coastal and marine applications such as marine geological and environmental investigations. In this paper, the seabed sediments mapping for Sharm Obhur (Obhur Creek) was derived using backscatter intensity data. The backscatter data were radiometrically and geometrically corrected to produce a seabed backscatter mosaic for Sharm Obhur study area. Then, the angular response analysis was implemented to derive the seabed sediment’s grain size, classification (gravel, sand and mud) and associated confidence level values that identify the quality of the classification method implemented in this paper. It was shown that the mouth in the south of the Sharm Obhur mainly contains sand sediments, however, the north side of the Sharm Obhur contains mud sediments and gravel sediments can be seen in very small areas. Moreover, it was found that the successful rate of classification is 90% based on the estimated confidence values. To validate the derived seabed sedimentation map, a comparison was made between the grab sampling results reported in the literature and the seabed sediments types derived in this paper. The comparison showed that the derived seabed sediments results using angular response model agree with the grab sampling results. The advantage of mapping the seabed sedimentation using multibeam backscatter data over the grab sampling method is that it can provide the seabed sediment mapping for the entire area using the MBES due to its 100% coverage of the seabed.

Keywords

MBES Sharm Obhur Backscatter mosaic Angular response Sedimentation GEOCODER 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research (DSR), King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The author, therefore, acknowledges with thanks DSR technical and financial support. In addition, many thanks to Abdullah Shaheen and Abdullah Alamoudy for their help in this manuscript.

References

  1. Amiri-Simkooei AR, Koop L, van der Reijden KJ, Snellen M, Simons DG (2019) Seafloor characterization using multibeam echosounder backscatter data: methodology and results in the North Sea. Geosciences 9:292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. APL (1994) High-frequency ocean environmental acoustic models handbook (APL-UW TR 9407). Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  3. APL (2000) High-frequency bistatic scattering model for elastic seafloors. Applied Physics Laboratory University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  4. Basaham AS, Rifaat AE, El Sayed MA, Rasul N (2006) Sharm Obhur: environmental consequences of 20 years of uncontrolled coastal urbanization. J King Abdulaziz Univ Marine Sci 17:129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CARIS (2017) Training manual: backscatter imagery data processing CARIS HIPS and SIPS professional 10.4. Teledyne CARIS, Inc., Fredericton, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. Che Hasan R, Ierodiaconou D, Laurenson L (2012) Combining angular response classification and backscatter imagery segmentation for benthic biological habitat mapping. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 97:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dufek T (2012) Backscatter analysis of multibeam sonar data in the area of the Valdivia Fracture Zone using GEOCODER in CARIS HIPS&SIPS and IVS3D Fledermaus. Master Thesis, Hafen City Universität HamburgGoogle Scholar
  8. Feldens P, Schulze I, Papenmeier S, Schönke M, Schneider von Deimling J (2018) Improved interpretation of marine sedimentary environments using multi-frequency multibeam backscatter data. Geosciences 2018(8):214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fonseca L, Mayer L (2007) Remote estimation of surficial seafloor properties through the application Angular Range Analysis to multibeam sonar data. Mar Geophys Res 28:119–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gheith A, Hariri M (2010) Assessment of marine ecosystem degradation based on studying the geological significances of bottom sediments in Sharm Obhur, North Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. JKAU: Mar Sci 21(2):89–108Google Scholar
  11. Hellequin L, Lunton X, Augustin JM (1997) Postprocessing and signal corrections for multibeam echosounder images. OCEANS’97 MTS/IEEE Conf Proc 21:23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huang Z, Siwabessy J, Nichol S, Anderson T, Brooke B (2013) Predictive mapping of seabed cover types using angular response curves of multibeam backscatter data: testing different feature analysis approaches. Cont Shelf Res 61–62:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hughes Clarke JE, Danforth BW, Valentine P (1997) Areal seabed classification using backscatter angular response at 95 kHz. In: NATO SACLANTCEN Conference Proceedings Series CP-45, high frequency acoustics in shallow water: pp 243–250Google Scholar
  14. Ierodiaconou D, Monk J, Rattray A, Laurenson L, Versace VL (2011) Comparison of automated classification techniques for predicting benthic biological communities using hydroacoustics and video observations. Continent Shelf Res 31:S28eS38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jackson DR, Briggs KB (1992) High-frequency bottom backscattering: roughness vs. sediment volume scattering. J Acoust Soc Am 92:962–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lamarche G, Lurton X (2018) Recommendations for improved and coherent acquisition and processing of backscatter data from seafloor-mapping sonars. Marine Geophys Res 39:5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11001-017-9315-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamarche G, Lurton X, Verdier A-L, Augustin J-M (2011) Quantitative characterization of seafloor substrate and bedforms using advanced processing of multibeam backscatter. Application to the Cook Strait, New Zealand. Cont Shelf Res 31(2 SUPPL):93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Le Bas TP, Huvenne VAI (2009) Acquisition and processing of backscatter data for habitat mapping—comparison of multibeam and sidescan systems. Appl Acoust 70:1248–1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lucieer V, Hill NA, Barrett NS, Nichol S (2013) Do marine substrates ‘look’ and ‘sound’ the same? Supervised classification of multibeam acoustic data using autonomous underwater vehicle images. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 117:94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lurton X (2010) An introduction to underwater acoustics—principles and application, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lurton X, Lamarche G (eds) (2015) Backscatter measurements by seafloor-mapping sonars. Guidelines and recommendations. vol Geohab Report. http://geohab.org/publications/. Accessed 30 Sep 2019
  22. Marsh I, Brown C (2009) Neural network classification of multibeam backscatter and bathymetry data from Stanton Bank (Area IV). Appl Acoust 70:1269–1276CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hydrographic Surveying Department, Faculty of Maritime StudiesKing Abdulaziz UniversityJeddahSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Engineering Department of Public Works, Faculty of EngineeringMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt

Personalised recommendations