Nonlinear Optimization Techniques for Geoacoustic Tomography

  • Gopu R. Potty
  • James H. Miller


Global optimization schemes such as Simulated Annealing (SA) and Genetic Algorithms (GA), which rely on exhaustive searches, have been used increasingly in recent times for the inversion of underwater acoustic signals for bottom properties. Local optimization schemes such as the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (LM) and Gauss-Newton methods which rely on gradients, can compliment the global techniques near the global minimum. We use hybrid schemes which combine the GA with LM and Differential Evolution (DE) to invert for the geoacoustic properties of the bottom. The experimental data used for the inversions are SUS charge explosions acquired on a vertical hydrophone array during the Shelf Break Primer Experiment conducted south of New England in the Middle Atlantic Bight in August 1996. These signals were analyzed for their time-frequency behavior using wavelets. The group speed dispersion curves were obtained from the wavelet scalogram of the signals. Hybrid methods mentioned earlier are used for the inversion of compressional wave speeds in the sediment layers. An adiabatic normal mode routine was used to construct the replica fields corresponding to the parameters. Comparison of group speeds for modes 1 to 9 and for a range of frequencies 10 to 200 Hz was used to arrive at the best parameter fit. Error estimates based on the Hessian matrices and a posteriori mean and covariance are also computed. Resolution lengths were also calculated using the covariance matrix. The inverted sediment compressional speed profile compares well with in situ measurements.


Differential Evolution Hybrid Scheme Compressional Speed Group Speed Genetic Algorithm Generation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [CK]
    M.D. Collins and W.A. Kuperman. Focalization: Environmental focusing and source localization. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 90(3): 1410–1422, 1991.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [GE]
    P. Gerstoft. Inversion of acoustic data using a combination of genetic algorithms and the Gauss-Newton approach. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 97(4):2181–2190, 1995.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [GO]
    D.E. Goldberg. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA, 1989.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [HG]
    J.P. Hermand and P. Gerstoft. Inversion of broadband multitone acoustic data from the YELLOW SHARK summer experiments. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng., 21(4):324–346, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [KW]
    K. Koper and M. Wysession. Modelling the Earth’s Core and Lowermost Mantle with a Genetic Algorithm., 1996.Google Scholar
  6. [LGC]
    J. Lynch, G. Gawarkiewicz, C. Chiu, R. Pickart, J. Miller, K. Smith, A. Robinson, K. Brink, R. Beardsley, B. Sperry, and G. Potty. Shelfbreak PRIMER—An integrated acoustic and oceanographic field study in the Middle Atlantic Bight. R. Zhang and J. Zhou, (eds.), Shallow Water Acoust., pp. 205–212. China Ocean Press, Beijing, 1997.Google Scholar
  7. [LRF]
    J.F. Lynch, S.D. Rajan and G.V. Frisk. A comparison of broad band and narrow band modal inversions for bottom geoacoustic properties at a site near Corpus Christi, Texas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89(2):648–665, 1991.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [P]
    H. Pohlheim. Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithm for use with MATLAB—Version 1.83., 1996.Google Scholar
  9. [PM]
    G.R. Potty and J.H. Miller. Geoacoustic tomography: Range dependent inversions on a single slice. J. Comput. Acoust., in press.Google Scholar
  10. [PML]
    G.R. Potty, J.H. Miller, and J.F. Lynch. Inversion of sediment geoacoustic properties at the New England Bight. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., in preperation.Google Scholar
  11. [PMLS]
    G.R. Potty, J.H. Miller, J.F. Lynch, and K.B. Smith. Tomographic mapping of sediments in shallow water. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 108(3):973–986, 2000.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [PR]
    M.B. Porter and E.L. Reiss. A numerical method for ocean acoustic normal modes. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 76(1):244–252, 1984.ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [RGGY]
    P. Ratilal, P. Gerstoft, J.T. Goh, and K.P. Yeo. Inversion of pressure data on a vertical array for seafloor geoacoustics properties. J. Comput. Acoust., 6(122):269–289, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [RNY]
    B. Rapids, T. Nye, and T. Yamamoto. Pilot experiment for the acquisition of marine sediment properties via small scale tomography systems. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 103(1):212–224, 1998.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [S]
    M. Sambridge. Geophysical inversion with a neighbourhood algorithm-II. Appraising the ensemble. Geophysics. J. Int., 138:727–746, 1999.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [SP]
    R. Storn and A. Price. Differential Evolution—A simple and efficient adaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces. International Computer Science Institute, Technical Report, TR-95–012, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. [SRMP]
    K.B. Smith, J.G. Rojas, J.H. Miller, and G. Potty. Geoacoustic inversions in shallow water using direct methods and genetic algorithm techniques. J. Adv. Mar. Sci. Tech. Soc., 4(2):205–216, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. [T]
    A. Tarantola. Inverse Problem Theory—Methods for Data Fitting and Model Parameter Estimation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1987.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. [TM]
    M.I. Taroudakis and M.G. Markaki. On the use of matched-field processing and hybrid algorithms for vertical slice tomography. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 102(2):885–895, 1997.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [TDF]
    A. Tolstoy, O. Diachok, and L.N. Frazer. Acoustic tomography via matched field processing. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89(3): 1119–1127, 1991.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gopu R. Potty
  • James H. Miller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations