No Access Submitted: 11 September 2009 Accepted: 20 May 2010 Published Online: 09 August 2010
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 128, 611 (2010); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3455813
more...View Affiliations
  • Department of Electrical Engineering, Northwest Electromagnetics and Acoustics Research Laboratory, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon 97201-0751
  • a)Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Electronic mail:

View Contributors
  • Jorge E. Quijano
  • Richard L. Campbell Jr.
  • Tobias G. Oesterlein
  • Lisa M. Zurk
The waveguide invariant in shallow water environments has been widely studied in the context of passive sonar. The invariant provides a relationship between the frequency content of a moving broadband source and the distance to the receiver, and this relationship is not strongly affected by small perturbations in environment parameters such as sound speed or bottom features. Recent experiments in shallow water suggest that a similar range-frequency structure manifested as striations in the spectrogram exists for active sonar, and this property has the potential to enhance the performance of target tracking algorithms. Nevertheless, field experiments with active sonar have not been conclusive on how the invariant is affected by the scattering kernel of the target and the sonar configuration (monostatic vs bistatic). The experimental work presented in this paper addresses those issues by showing the active invariance for known scatterers under controlled conditions of bathymetry, sound speed profile and high SNR. Quantification of the results is achieved by introducing an automatic image processing approach inspired on the Hough transform for extraction of the invariant from spectrograms. Normal mode simulations are shown to be in agreement with the experimental results.
This project has been sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), Grant No. N000140510886. The authors also wish to thank Dr. Dajun Tang (APL/UW) for providing expertise and for facilitating some of the experimental equipment (200–300 kHz source and receiver BK8103.)
  1. 1. S. D. Chuprov, “Interference structure of a sound field in a layered ocean,” in Ocean Acoustics. Current State, edited by L. M. Brekhovskikh and I. B. Andreeva (Nauka, Moscow, 1982), pp. 71–91. Google Scholar
  2. 2. L. M. Brekhovskikh and Y. P. Lysanov, Fundamentals of Ocean Acoustics, 3rd ed. (Springer, New York, 2002), Chap. 6, pp. 118–143. Google Scholar
  3. 3. D. Rouseff and R. C. Spindel, “Modeling the waveguide invariant as a distribution,” in Ocean Acoustic Interference Phenomena and Signal Processing, edited by W. A. Kuperman and G. L. D’Spain (AIP, New York, 2002), Chap. 5, pp. 137–148. Google ScholarCrossref
  4. 4. D. Rouseff and C. V. Leigh, “Using the waveguide invariant to analyze lofargrams,” in Proceedings of the Oceans ‘02, Biloxi, MS (2002), pp. IV–2239IV–2243. Google ScholarCrossref
  5. 5. G. L. D’Spain and W. A. Kuperman, “Application of waveguide invariants to analysis of spectrograms from shallow water environments that vary in range and azimuth,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 106, 2454–2468 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428124, Google ScholarScitation
  6. 6. T. C. Yang, “Beam intensity striations and applications,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113, 1342–1352 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1534604, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  7. 7. A. Thode, “Source ranging with minimal environmental information using a virtual receiver and waveguide invariant theory,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 108, 1582–1594 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1289409, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  8. 8. L. M. Zurk and B. H. Tracey, “Depth-shifting of shallow water waveguide source observations,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118, 2224–2233 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2010309, Google ScholarScitation
  9. 9. J. E. Quijano, L. M. Zurk, and D. Rouseff, “Demonstration of the invariance principle for active sonar,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 123, 1329–1337 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2836763, Google ScholarScitation, ISI
  10. 10. J. Turgut and R. Gauss, “Investigation of bistatic invariance principles for active sonars,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 125, 2704–2704 (2009). Google ScholarScitation
  11. 11. C. He, J. E. Quijano, and L. M. Zurk, “Enhanced Kalman filter algorithm using the invariance principle,” IEEE J. Ocean. Eng.34, 575–585 (2009). Google ScholarCrossref
  12. 12. R. Goldhahn, G. Hickman, and J. L. Krolik, “Waveguide invariant reverberation mitigation for active sonar,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Honolulu, HI (2007), pp. II–941II–944. Google ScholarCrossref
  13. 13. L. M. Zurk, D. Rouseff, J. E. Quijano, and G. Greenwood, “Bistatic invariance principle for active sonar geometries,” in Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Underwater Acoustics ‘06, Carvoeiro, Portugal (2006), pp. 787–791. Google Scholar
  14. 14. J. S. Rogers and J. L. Krolik, “A study of active sonar reverberation using ultrasonic experiments in a shallow-water tank,” in Proceedings of the Oceans ‘07, Scotland, UK (2007), pp. 1–5. Google ScholarCrossref
  15. 15. K. D. LePage, P. Neumann and C. W. Holland, “Broad-band time domain modeling of sonar clutter in range dependent waveguides,” in Proceedings of the Oceans ‘06, Boston, MA (2006), pp. 1–5. Google ScholarCrossref
  16. 16. T. Oesterlein, C. He, J. E. Quijano, R. Campbell, Jr., L. M. Zurk, and M. Siderius, “Extraction of time-frequency target features,” in Conference Record of the 39th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers ‘09, Pacific Grove, CA (2009). Google Scholar
  17. 17. F. B. Jensen, W. A. Kuperman, M. B. Porter, and H. Schmidt, Computational Ocean Acoustics, 1st ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000), Chap. 5, pp. 257–281. Google Scholar
  1. © 2010 Acoustical Society of America.