The high-frequency backscattering angular response of gassy sediments: model/data comparison from the Eel River Margin, California.

A model for the high-frequency backscatter angular response of gassy sediments is proposed. For the interface backscatter contribution we adopted the model developed by Jackson et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 79, 1410-1422 (1986)], but added modifications to accommodate gas bubbles. The model parameters that are affected by gas content are the density ratio, the sound speed ratio, and the loss parameter. For the volume backscatter contribution we developed a model based on the presence and distribution of gas in the sediment. We treat the bubbles as individual discrete scatterers that sum to the total bubble contribution. This total bubble contribution is then added to the volume contribution of other scatters. The presence of gas affects both the interface and the volume contribution of the backscatter angular response in a complex way that is dependent on both grain size and water depth. The backscatter response of fine-grained gassy sediments is dominated by the volume contribution while that of coarser-grained gassy sediments is affected by both volume and interface contributions. In deep water the interface backscatter is only slightly affected by the presence of gas while the volume scattering is strongly affected. In shallow water the interface backscatter is severely reduced in the presence of gas while the volume backscatter is only slightly increased. Multibeam data acquired offshore northern California at 95 kHz provides raw measurements for the backscatter as a function of grazing angle. These raw backscatter measurements are then reduced to scattering strength for comparison with the results of the proposed model. The analysis of core samples at various locations provides local measurements of physical properties and gas content in the sediments that, when compared to the model, show general agreement.

[1]  A. Ishimaru,et al.  Application of the composite roughness model to high‐frequency bottom backscattering , 1986 .

[2]  J. Stockhausen Scattering from the Volume of an Inhomogeneous Half‐Space , 1963 .

[3]  M. Field,et al.  Subsurface gas offshore of northern California and its link to submarine geomorphology , 1999 .

[4]  D. Orange,et al.  Applications of multibeam mapping to exploration and production; detecting seeps, mapping geohazards, and managing data overload with GIS , 1999 .

[5]  Loyd D. Hampton,et al.  Acoustics of gas‐bearing sediments. II. Measurements and models , 1980 .

[6]  A. Anderson,et al.  Acoustics of Gas-Bearing Sediments. , 1974 .

[7]  Charles A. Nittrouer,et al.  STRATAFORM: overview of its design and synthesis of its results , 1999 .

[8]  D. Alexandrou,et al.  Angular dependence of 12‐kHz seafloor acoustic backscatter , 1991 .

[9]  J. Goff,et al.  Acoustic backscatter of the 1995 flood deposit on the Eel shelf , 1999 .

[10]  M. Field,et al.  Geology and geologic hazards of offshore Eel River basin, northern California continental margin , 1980 .

[11]  Anthony P. Lyons,et al.  Bubble populations and acoustic interaction with the gassy floor of Eckernförde Bay , 1998 .

[12]  N. Chotiros,et al.  A model for high‐frequency acoustic backscatter from gas bubbles in sandy sediments at shallow grazing angles , 1995 .

[13]  M. D. Richardson,et al.  Modeling methane-rich sediments of Eckernförde Bay , 1998 .

[14]  G. Redden,et al.  Hydrocarbon gas in sediment from the shelf, slope, and basin of the Bering Sea , 1980 .

[15]  D. Jackson,et al.  High‐frequency bottom backscattering: Roughness versus sediment volume scattering , 1992 .

[16]  D. Jackson,et al.  High Frequency Sonar Equation Models For Bottom Backscatter And Forward Loss , 1989, Proceedings OCEANS.

[17]  T. Pettigrew Design and Operation of a Wireline Presure Core Sampler (PCS) , 1992 .

[18]  Larry A. Mayer,et al.  Detailed investigation of continental shelf morphology using a high-resolution swath sonar survey: the Eel margin, northern California , 1999 .

[19]  D. Jackson,et al.  Scattering from elastic sea beds: first-order theory. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[20]  M. Field,et al.  Gas hydrates on the northern California continental margin , 1985 .

[21]  D. Orange Tectonics, sedimentation, and erosion in northern California: submarine geomorphology and sediment preservation potential as a result of three competing processes , 1999 .

[22]  J. Novarini,et al.  A simplified approach to backscattering from a rough seafloor with sediment inhomogeneities , 1998 .

[23]  E. Silberman Sound Velocity and Attenuation in Bubbly Mixtures Measured in Standing Wave Tubes , 1957 .

[24]  Anatoliy N. Ivakin,et al.  A unified approach to volume and roughness scattering , 1998 .

[25]  Alan Judd,et al.  Seabed pockmarks and seepages : impact on geology, biology and the marine environment , 1988 .

[26]  David M. Farmer,et al.  Waveguide propagation of ambient sound in the ocean-surface bubble layer , 1989 .

[27]  M. Field,et al.  Thermogenic hydrocarbons in unconsolidated sediment of Eel river basin, offshore northern California , 1981 .

[28]  Anthony P. Lyons,et al.  Predictions of the acoustic scattering response of free‐methane bubbles in muddy sediments , 1996 .

[29]  Loyd D. Hampton,et al.  Acoustics of gas‐bearing sediments I. Background , 1980 .

[30]  C. Nittrouer,et al.  Modern accumulation rates and a sediment budget for the Eel shelf: a flood-dominated depositional environment , 1999 .

[31]  R. Evans,et al.  The shallow porosity structure of the Eel shelf, northern California: results of a towed electromagnetic survey , 1999 .

[32]  M. D. Richardson,et al.  The influence of gas bubbles on sediment acoustic properties: in situ, laboratory, and theoretical results from Eckernförde Bay, Baltic sea , 1998 .

[33]  D. B. Prior,et al.  Humboldt Slide — a large shear-dominated retrogressive slope failure , 1999 .

[34]  L. Fonseca A model for backscattering angular response of gassy sediments: Applications to petroleum exploration and development programs , 2001 .