MENU
  • Scitation Home
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE

Thank you

For your interest in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Check for updates on crossmark
Prev Next
No Access Submitted: 02 October 2007 Accepted: 15 April 2008 Published Online: 15 July 2008

  • Modeling broadband ocean acoustic transmissions with time-varying sea surfaces

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 124, 137 (2008); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2920959
Martin Siderius and Michael B. Porter
more...View Affiliations
View Contributors
  • Martin Siderius
  • Michael B. Porter
ABSTRACT
Solutions to ocean acoustic scattering problems are often formulated in the frequency domain, which implies that the surface is “frozen” in time. This may be reasonable for short duration signals but breaks down if the surface changes appreciably over the transmission time. Frequency domain solutions are also impractical for source-receiver ranges and frequency bands typical for applications such as acoustic communications (e.g. hundreds to thousands of meters, 1–50kHz band). In addition, a driving factor in the performance of certain acoustic systems is the Doppler spread, which is often introduced from sea-surface movement. The time-varying nature of the sea surface adds complexity and often leads to a statistical description for the variations in received signals. A purely statistical description likely limits the insight that modeling generally provides. In this paper, time-domain modeling approaches to the sea-surface scattering problem are described. As a benchmark for comparison, the Helmholtz integral equation is used for solutions to static, time-harmonic rough surface problems. The integral equation approach is not practical for time-evolving rough surfaces and two alternatives are formulated. The first approach is relatively simple using ray theory. This is followed with a ray-based formulation of the Helmholtz integral equation with a time-domain Kirchhoff approximation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful for the support provided for this work by the Office of Naval Research. The authors would like to thank Keyko McDonald (SPAWAR) for the development and deployment of the Telesonar Testbeds used for the experimental data. The authors would also like to thank Sergio Jesus, Antonio da Silva, and Friedrich Zabel at the Signal Processing Laboratory at the University of Algarve, Portugal for their support and cooperation with the received AOB data used for this analysis. The authors would also like to acknowledge their colleagues: Katherine Kim for her help during the Makai experiment, Paul Hursky for his advice on communication topics and his assistance during the Makai experiment, and Ahmad Abawi for many valuable discussions.

REFERENCES
Section:
Previous sectionNext section

  1. 1. M. Siderius and M. B. Porter, “Modeling techniques for marine mammal risk assessment,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1109/JOE.2006.872211 31, 49–60 (2006). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
  2. 2. M. B. Porter, “The Makai experiment: High-frequency acoustics,” in Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Underwater Acoustics (Tipografia Uniao, Algarve, Portugal, 2006), pp. 9–18. Google Scholar
  3. 3. V. K. McDonald, P. Hursky, and the KauaiEx Group, “Telesonar testbed instrument provides a flexible platform for acoustic propagation and communication research in the 8–50kHz band,” in Proceedings of the High-Frequency Ocean Acoustics Conference (AIP, Melville, NY, 2004), pp. 336–349. Google ScholarCrossref
  4. 4. A. Silva, F. Zabel, and C. Martins, “The acoustic oceanographic buoy telemetry system—A modular equipment that meets acoustic rapid environmental assessment requirements,” Sea Technol. 47(9), pp. 15–20 (2006). Google Scholar
  5. 5. J. G. Proakis, Digital Communications, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1995). Google Scholar
  6. 6. W. S. Burdic, Underwater Acoustic System Analysis (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991). Google Scholar
  7. 7. R. S. Keiffer, J. C. Novarini, and R. W. Scharstein, “A time-varient impulse response method for acoustic scattering from moving two-dimensional surfaces,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1992687 118, 1283–1299 (2005). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  8. 8. P. C. Etter, Underwater Acoustic Modeling, 2nd ed. (EFN Spon, London, UK, 1996). Google Scholar
  9. 9. F. B. Jensen, W. A. Kuperman, M. B. Porter, and H. Schmidt, Computational Ocean Acoustics (AIP, New York, 1994). Google Scholar
  10. 10. M. B. Porter, Ocean Acoustics Library, Bellhop (http://oalib.hlsresearch.com/, viewed April 10, 2008). Google Scholar
  11. 11. M. B. Porter and H. P. Bucker, “Gaussian beam tracing for computing ocean acoustic fields,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.395269 82, 1349–1359 (1987). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  12. 12. J. A. Ogilvy, Theory of Wave Scattering from Random Rough Surfaces (IOP, London, UK, 1991). Google ScholarScitation
  13. 13. E. I. Thorsos, “The validity of the Kirchhoff approximation for rough surface scattering using a Gaussian roughness spectrum,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.396188 83, 78–92 (1988). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  14. 14. E. Hecht and A. Zajac, Optics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1979). Google Scholar
  1. © 2008 Acoustical Society of America.

Article Metrics

Views
672
Citations
Crossref 82
Web of Science
ISI 81

Altmetric

Please Note: The number of views represents the full text views from December 2016 to date. Article views prior to December 2016 are not included.