Model-based sediment classification using single-beam echosounder signals.

Acoustic remote sensing techniques for mapping sediment properties are of interest due to their low costs and high coverage. Model-based approaches directly couple the acoustic signals to sediment properties. Despite the limited coverage of the single-beam echosounder (SBES), it is widely used. Having available model-based SBES classification tools, therefore, is important. Here, two model-based approaches of different complexity are compared to investigate their practical applicability. The first approach is based on matching the echo envelope. It maximally exploits the information available in the signal but requires complex modeling and optimization. To minimize computational costs, the efficient differential evolution method is used. The second approach reduces the information of the signal to energy only and directly relates this to the reflection coefficient to obtain quantitative information about the sediment parameters. The first approach provides information over a variety of sediment types. In addition to sediment mean grain size, it also provides estimates for the spectral strength and volume scattering parameter. The need to account for all three parameters is demonstrated, justifying computational expenses. In the second approach, the lack of information on these parameters and the limited SBES beamwidth are demonstrated to hamper the conversion of echo energy to reflection coefficient.

[1]  Christian de Moustier,et al.  Beyond bathymetry: Mapping acoustic backscattering from the deep seafloor with Sea Beam , 1986 .

[2]  A. Amiri-Simkooei,et al.  Riverbed sediment classification using multi-beam echo-sounder backscatter data. , 2009, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[3]  X. Lurton,et al.  Automated Sea-bed Classification System For Echo-Sounders , 1992, OCEANS 92 Proceedings@m_Mastering the Oceans Through Technology.

[4]  C. D. de Moustier,et al.  Remote sensing of sediment characteristics by optimized echo-envelope matching. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  L. Hamilton,et al.  Comparison of RoxAnn and QTC-View acoustic bottom classification system performance for the Cairns area, Great Barrier Reef, Australia , 1999 .

[6]  D. Simons,et al.  A comparison between modeled and measured high frequency bottom backscattering , 2008 .

[7]  C. D. de Moustier,et al.  Time-dependent seafloor acoustic backscatter (10-100 kHz). , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  Kerstin Siemes,et al.  The potential of inverting geo-technical and geo-acoustic sediment parameters from single-beam echo sounder returns , 2009 .

[9]  M. Ainslie,et al.  Mean grain size mapping with single-beam echo sounders , 2006 .

[10]  J. Boucher,et al.  Processing of high-frequency multibeam echo sounder data for seafloor characterization , 2003 .

[11]  M. Ainslie,et al.  A Multivariate Correlation Analysis of High- Frequency Bottom Backscattering Strength Measurements With Geotechnical Parameters , 2007, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering.

[12]  J. Hughes Clarke,et al.  Toward remote seafloor classification using the angular response of acoustic backscattering: a case study from multiple overlapping GLORIA data , 1994 .

[13]  Robert L. Folk,et al.  The Distinction between Grain Size and Mineral Composition in Sedimentary-Rock Nomenclature , 1954, The Journal of Geology.

[14]  Dick G. Simons,et al.  AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF GLOBAL OPTIMIZATION METHODS FOR GEO-ACOUSTIC INVERSION , 2008 .

[15]  D. Simons,et al.  A Bayesian approach to seafloor classification using multi-beam echo-sounder backscatter data , 2009 .

[16]  P. V. Walree,et al.  Acoustic seafloor discrimination with echo shape parameters: A comparison with the ground truth , 2005 .

[17]  A. Bartholomä,et al.  Acoustic seabed classification in a coastal environment (outer Weser Estuary, German Bight)—a new approach to monitor dredging and dredge spoil disposal , 2005 .