Seabed Classification at Ocean Margins

  • Ph. Blondel


Ocean margins have become the focus of numerous geophysical and environmental surveys, because of their economic, scientific and oceanographic significance. These surveys deliver increasingly larger volumes of data, acquired by many types of techniques and sensors. Despite their importance, most of these data are still interpreted visually and qualitatively by skilled interpreters. Human interpretation is time-consuming and difficult to standardise; and, in certain conditions, it can be error-prone. Current research in data processing is shifting toward computerbased interpretation techniques, and in particular seafloor classification. After a brief review of the main characteristics of ocean margins, the different notions of classification will be presented, along with the desired aims. These will be followed by a review of non-acoustic and acoustic (mainly sonar) classification techniques, supplemented with actual examples when applicable. Seabed classification, in general and at ocean margins, is fast becoming a major tool in seafloor surveying and monitoring. The last section will assess the latest tendencies and the technical developments that can be expected in the near future.


Continental Shelf Continental Margin Classification Technique Shelf Edge Abyssal Plain 
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. Balsam WL, Deaton BC, Damuth JE (1999) Evaluating optical lightness as a proxy for carbonate content in marine sediment cores. Mar Geol 161:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbagelata A, Richardson MD, Miaschi B, Muzi E, Guerrini P, Troiano L, Akal T (1991) ISSAMS: An in situ sediment geoacoustic measurement system. In: Hovem JM, Richardson MD, Stoll RD (eds) Shear Waves in Marine Sediments. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blondel Ph (1996) Segmentation of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge south of the Azores, based on acoustic classification of TOBI data. In MacLeod CJ, Tyler P, Walker CL (eds) Tectonic, Magmatic and Biological Segmentation of Mid-Ocean Ridges. Geol Soc Spec Publ 118:17–28Google Scholar
  4. Blondel Ph (1999) Textural analysis of sidescan sonar imagery and generic seafloor characterisation. J Acoust Soc Amer 105:1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blondel Ph, Murton BJ (1997) Handbook of Seafloor Sonar Imagery. PRAXIS, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. Coles BW, Radzelovage W, Laurant JP, Reihani K(1998) Processing techniques for multi-spectral laser line scan images. Proc IEEE/MTS Oceans’98Google Scholar
  7. Durham LS (1999) 3-D models are making cents. AAPG ExplorerGoogle Scholar
  8. Dyer CM (2000) Studies of an acoustic sediment discrimination system. MPhil thesis, University of BathGoogle Scholar
  9. Harsdorf S, Janssen M, Reuter R, Wachowicz B, Willkomm B (1998) Lidar as part of an ROV-based sensor network for the detection of chemical pollutants on the seafloor. Proceedings IEEE/MTS Oceans’98Google Scholar
  10. Heald GJ, Pace NG (1996) An analysis of 1 st and 2nd backscatter for seabed classification. ECUA-1996 Proceedings, Crete 649–654 pGoogle Scholar
  11. Hebbeln D (2002) State of the art and future prospect of scientific coring and drilling of marine sediments. In:Wefer et al. (eds) Ocean Margin Systems. Springer, Berlin pp 57–66Google Scholar
  12. Irish JL, Lillycrop WJ (1999) Scanning laser mapping of the coastal zone: The SHOALS system. ISPRS J Photogram Rem Sens 54:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Juteau T, Maury R (1999) The oceanic crust, from accretion to mantle recycling. PRAXIS, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  14. Kidd GD (1999) Fundamentals of 3-D seismic visualization. Sea Techn 40:19–23Google Scholar
  15. Lebart K, Trucco E, Lane DM (2000) Real-time automatic sea-floor change detection from video. Proceedings IEEE/MTS Oceans’2000 337–343Google Scholar
  16. LeBlanc LR, Mayer L, Rufino M, Schock SG, King J (1992) Marine sediment classification using the chirp sonar. J Acoust Soc Amer 91:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu HH, Fu KS (1982) A syntactic pattern recognition approach to seismic discrimination. Geoexplor 20:183–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Meijer RJ, Venema LB, Limburg J (2000) Synoptical mapping of seafloor sediment. Sea Techn 41:21–24Google Scholar
  19. Mitchell NC, Hughes-Clarke JE (1994) Classification of seafloor geology using multibeam sonar data from the Scotian Shelf. Mar Geol 121:143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Noakes JE, Noakes SE, Dvoracek DK, Bush PB (1999) Survey and mapping system for surficial marine sediments. Sea Techn 40:49–54Google Scholar
  21. Pace NG, Pouliquen E, Bergem O, Lyons AP (eds) (1997) High-Frequency Acoustics in Shallow Water. Saclantcen Pub, Lerici, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  22. Pouliquen E, Lurton X (1992) Identification of the na- ture of the seabed using echo sounders. J Phys 42(C 1):941–944Google Scholar
  23. Rosenberger A, Weidelt P, Spindeldreher C, Heesemann B, Villinger H (1999) Design and application of a new free fall in situ resistivity probe for marine deep water sediments. Mar Geol 160:327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Simaan MA (1998) Texture-based techniques for interpretation of seismic images. Proceedings Oceans’98 MTS/IEEEGoogle Scholar
  25. Stoker MS, Evans D, Cramp A (eds) (1998) Geological Processes on Continental Margins: Sedimentation, Mass-Wasting and Stability. Geol Soc Spec Publ 129Google Scholar
  26. Stoll RD, T Akal (1999) XBP — Tool for rapid assessment of seabed sediment properties. Sea Techn 40:47–51Google Scholar
  27. Tegowski J, Lubniewski Z (2000) The use of fractal prop- erties of echo signals for acoustical classification of bottom sediments. Acta Acustica 86:276–282Google Scholar
  28. Telford WM, Geldart LP, Sheriff RE (1990) Applied Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turgut A, Wolf SN (1998) Inversion of sediment properties from chirp sonar data using an extended Biot— Stoll—Gassmann model. J Acoust Soc Amer 104:1788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Werby MF, Tango GJ, Ioup GE (1986) Remote seismoacoustic characterization of shallow ocean bottoms using spatial signal-processing of towed array measurements. Geophys 51:1517Google Scholar
  31. Zakharia M, Chevret P, Dubail P (eds) (2000) Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Underwater Acoustics ECUA-2000. Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ph. Blondel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of BathBathUK

Personalised recommendations