IMPACTS OF FLOW VARIABILITY ON FIXED SIDE-LOOKING
100 KHZ SONAR PERFORMANCE IN A SHALLOW CHANNEL
M. TREVORROW
Defence Research & Development Canada – Atlantic
PO Box 1012, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
A 100 kHz side-looking sonar was operated nearly continuously from September 1996
to the end of May 1997 in Drogden Channel, near Copenhagen, Denmark. This busy
shipping channel, 1-km-wide by 12-m-deep, connects the Baltic Sea with the North Sea
through the Kattegat. The purpose of this operation was to maintain surveillance for
migratory herring during the construction of a bridge and tunnel, however a variety of
shipping traffic was also observed. Water temperature, salinity, and current profiles
along with surface meteorology were simultaneously monitored at this site. Under
normal, weakly stratified flow conditions, ships and fish schools were observed up to
400 m range, detectable against a background of low-grazing-angle seabed backscatter.
Occasional saline intrusions were observed to create strong upward-refracting
conditions that significantly restricted the available range for target detection. Example
echograms and reverberation results from normal and upward-refracting conditions are
shown. Ray-tracing analysis is used to account for the observed backscattered
reverberation.
1
Introduction
Side-looking, high-frequency sonars offer a promising approach for continuous
monitoring of strategic waterways at ranges of 100’s to 1000’s of meters. The purpose of
such monitoring might be to quantify migration by fish or marine mammals, or in a
defense scenario for the detection of autonomous underwater vehicles, torpedoes, or
SCUBA divers. Side-looking sonar installations potentially offer continuous, full-waterdepth surveillance, detecting targets by their motion relative to the nominally timeinvariant boundary reverberation. However, probing close to the boundaries in stratified,
shallow-water environments necessarily incurs reverberative interference and acoustic
propagation effects. The purpose of this present work is to examine the reverberation
levels observed during a typical side-looking sonar deployment, and to show that rapid
changes in water properties can drastically alter the reverberation background. An earlier
paper (Pedersen & Trevorrow 1999) discussed monitoring and detectability issues
specific to fish schools.
These sonar installations were deployed and operated during 1996–97 in Drogden
Channel as part of an environmental monitoring program during the construction of a
bridge and tunnel connecting Copenhagen, Denmark and Malmö, Sweden. This shallow
channel (<14 m deep) is a busy shipping lane connecting the Baltic Sea with the Øresund
and Kattegat. A key feature of this project was the continuous monitoring of water
temperature, salinity, and current profiles alongside the sonar installation. This allows a
311
N.G. Pace and F.B. Jensen (eds.), Impact of Littoral Environmental Variability on Acoustic Predictions and
Sonar Performance, 311-318.
© 2002 All Rights Reserved. Printed in the Netherlands.
312
M. TREVORROW
more complete investigation of the environmental influences on acoustic propagation and
reverberation.
56.1
DENMARK
56.0
SWEDEN
es
Ør
55.8
Amager
Saltholm
nel
han
55.6
Fli
nte
Ch
an
ne
l
Cop
enh
age
n
nC
gde
Dro
55.7
d
un
North Latitude
55.9
Malmö
55.5
Sonar Installations
Baltic Sea
55.4
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.9
13.0
13.1
East Longitude
Figure 1. Map of the Øresund showing the location of the sonar deployment in Drogden Channel.
2
Description of site and instrumentation
The sonar monitoring program was conducted across the Drogden navigation channel
between the islands of Amager and Saltholm (see Fig. 1) near Copenhagen, DK. The
sonar was installed in September 1996 on the western edge of Drogden channel,
approximately 150 m East of the Nordre-Røse lighthouse. This location was near the
narrowest part of the main channel, which was approximately 1 km wide by 11 to 14 m
deep. Two 100 kHz sidescan transducers (separate transmit and receive) were mounted
on a tripod 1.2 m above the seabed in total water depth of 10.2 m. Tidal height variations
in this area are negligible. The sidescan transducers had fan-shaped beams 3° by 60º
(total angle to -3 dB). These sonars were mounted with their wide beam axes horizontal
and oriented eastward, i.e. perpendicular to the navigation channel. This allowed a wide
surveillance area nominally confined to a region within 2 to 5 m above the seabed, with
small (<4°) seabed grazing angles. An underwater cable connected the sonars to the data
acquisition system inside the lighthouse. The lighthouse station consisted of a BioSonics
model 101 sonar transceiver, two networked personal computers (PC’s), and a radiomodem for telemetering data back to the onshore base station. The sonar receiver
provided a 20log[r] time-variable gain compensation followed by mix-down to an 8 kHz
carrier and amplitude detection. The amplitude-detected signal was then sampled at 1000
samples per second (0.74 m spatial sampling resolution) using a PC-based analog to
digital converter with 16-bit resolution. A pulse length of 2 ms was used, yielding an
acoustic resolution of 1.45 m, transmitted once every 2 s. The data acquisition PC
processed the digital data in real time, generating images of backscattered intensity versus
range and time, which were then radio-telemetered to shore and printed. The raw data
were normally purged a few hours after processing, however during March and April of
1997 most of the raw digital data was stored to enable later analysis.
IMPACTS OF FLOW VARIABILITY ON 100 KHZ SONAR PERFORMANCE
313
Prior to deployment, the complete sidescan system was calibrated utilizing the backscatter from Tungsten-Carbide target spheres as reference (following Vagle et al. 1996).
Including the calibration results, a scattering level Equivalent to Target Strength (ETS, in
dB re 1m2) within 0.74 m range cells centered at range, r, can be given by the sonar
equation (e.g. Medwin & Clay, 1998)
(1)
ETS = K + 20 ⋅ log 10 [ A( r )] − TVG ( r ) + 40 ⋅ log10 [ r ] + 2 ⋅ α ⋅ r ,
where K is the calibration coefficient (which includes transmit power, transducer
sensitivity, waveform detection, and A/D conversion factors), A(r) is the echo amplitude
in digital counts, TVG(r) is the receiver time-varying gain in dB, and α is the acoustic
absorption in seawater (0.015 dB⋅m-1 at 100 kHz under these water conditions). This
equation would yield the true backscatter target strength if correction could be made for
the beam deviation loss, i.e. if the target location with respect to the sonar beam was
known. Another important characteristic is the limitations imposed by systemic noise.
There are two types of noise voltages: i) transducer, pre-amplifier and cable noise (i.e.
pre-TVG) with amplitude V0, and ii) pre-digitization noise with amplitude V1. An overall
noise threshold can then be taken as the incoherent sum of the time-averaged noise rootmean-square voltages, i.e.
(2)
V N2 (r ) =< V02 > ⋅10 [TVG ( r ) / 10 ] + < V12 > ,
where <> denotes time-averaging. This can be converted to digital counts, A(r), and
substituted back into Eq.(1) to calculate a noise threshold. Measured values of
and
< V02 >
< V12 > were 0.85 and 10 mV, respectively.
For environmental monitoring purposes a number of thermistor and conductivity
(TC) sensors and an acoustic Doppler current profiler (ADCP) were operated in the
channel. One of the TC moorings was located approximately 25 m to the east of the
sonar, and is visible as a discrete target in all sonar records. This TC mooring had
sensors at 5 depths: 2.9, 4.4, 5.6, 7.4, and 9.0 m. The ADCP was bottom mounted at a
distance of 130 m from the sonar, and had a similar TC sensor (nominally 10.6 m deep).
All sensors were sampled at 30 minute intervals. In general the Drogden channel waters
were characterized by either a northward flow of relatively fresh Baltic Sea water or a
southward flow of more saline water from the northern Øresund and the Kattegat. These
flow regimes were not dominantly tidal, but driven by wind forcing and seasonal
fluctuations. Figure 2 presents surface and bottom temperature, salinity, and alongchannel (north-south) current data for March, 1997. Although the temperature of both
water types was similar (between 2.5°C and 4.5°C during March), the typical salinity of
the Kattegat water was 25 psu as compared to the out-flowing Baltic Sea water near 10
psu. Under normal flow conditions the waters were relatively homogeneous in both
temperature and salinity. However, during transition periods between the flow regimes or
during very weak Baltic outflows, a stratified flow regime sometimes occurred. These
events are clearly evident in Fig. 2 as large differences between surface and bottom
salinity, for example on March 1st, 6th, 8th, 11th, and 15th. During March 1997 this
stratified flow regime occurred 26% of the time. The acoustic implications of these
changes in flow will be discussed in the next two sections.
314
North Current (cm/s)
Salinity (psu)
Temperature (°C)
M. TREVORROW
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
25
2.9 m depth
9.0 m depth
20
15
10
5
150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Date (March 1997)
Figure 2. Comparison of near-surface (2.9 m depth) and near-bottom (9 m depth) temperature,
salinity, and along-channel (North) current in Drogden Channel during March 1997.
3
Reverberation measurements and propagation modeling
The dominant reverberation source for this bottom-mounted sonar was low-grazing-angle
seabed backscatter, which provides a background against which targets must be detected.
However, occasional changes in water stratification drastically altered this situation.
Figure 3 shows a 100 kHz sonar echogram from a period when the reverberation made a
transition from seabed to surface scattering regimes. This transition occurred quite
rapidly near 0300UT March 15th, simultaneous with a higher salinity near-bottom
intrusion shown in Fig. 2. This salinity stratification created an upward-refracting sound
speed gradient of up to 1.8 s-1. Prior to the transition, relatively strong seabed backscatter
was seen in the range interval 50 to 225 m and beyond 330 m. The nominally timeinvariant seabed reverberation exhibited distinct lines due to echoes from discrete seabed
targets (presumably boulders). The rapid drop in seabed reverberation near 225 m
marked the edge of a roughly 100-m-wide by 3-m-deep gully in the channel bottom. At
the beginning of the transition, the seabed reverberation at ranges >330 m disappeared
first. After the transition, the reverberation switched from the seabed regime towards a
more homogeneous surface scattering regime. This surface reverberation had a broad
peak roughly 100 m wide which began at longer range and then moved inwards to 150 m
range as the upward-refracting stratification intensified. The most likely source for this
near-surface backscatter was air bubbles injected by white-capping processes. Also
identifiable in Fig. 3 are the signatures of several ships. These ship signatures exhibited
three general characteristics: i) a direct echo from the hull which followed a hyperbolic
trajectory in range vs. time as the ship traversed the horizontally wide beam (highly
compressed in time in Fig. 3), ii) an intense noise event assumed to be caused by
IMPACTS OF FLOW VARIABILITY ON 100 KHZ SONAR PERFORMANCE
315
propeller cavitation, and iii) a strong backscatter region up to 40 m wide following the
ship due to the injection of air bubbles within the wake. These wakes dissipated over a
period of 6 to 10 minutes as the bubbles rose to the surface and/or dissolved (see
Trevorrow et al. 1994). The typical ETS of these hull echoes, taken at the point of closest
approach, was +12 to +15 dB (re 1 m2). The bubbly wakes had a typical ETS near +6 to
+15 dB. At closer ranges schools of herring were observed with ETS near –15 dB
(Pedersen & Trevorrow 1999). Such ETS values made ship targets visible under most
reverberation conditions.
Figure 3. Cross-channel range vs. time echogram starting 0106UT March 15th, 1997. Regions of
seabed and surface reverberation are indicated, with labels S indicating ships, TC the echo from
temperature-conductivity sensor mooring, and ADCP the echo from a surface float at that
location.
Figure 4 compares the seabed and surface reverberation regimes before and after the
saline intrusion event shown in Fig. 3. Normally, the flow regime was characterized by
weakly downward-refracting conditions, so that the sonar (1.2 m above the bottom)
insonified the seabed from 20 to 225 m range (the edge of a central gully) and again
beyond 330 m range. In the first 225 m the backscatter levels increased rapidly up to
approximately 0 dB (re 1 m2) due to the relatively large area of seabed sampled by the
wide horizontal beam. On the far side of the gully the reverberation level reached
roughly +10 dB, again a result of the 60° horizontal sonar aperture. The central gully
region (225–330 m range) lay in an acoustic shadow so that the reverberation level
approached the systemic noise. In contrast, the upward-refracting case exhibited a
reduced reverberation level at closer range (up to 120 m) due to a minimal interaction
with either the surface or seabed. Between 120 and 240 m range the upward-refracting
reverberation level increased strongly to a level near 0 dB, similar to the seabed
316
M. TREVORROW
reverberation, and then fell away beyond 250 m range. In both cases the reverberation
curves show a strong peak at 30 m range due to the T/C mooring. Finally, note a distinct
contrast in texture between the two curves, with the seabed reverberation seemingly
composed of discrete lines while the surface reverberation was relatively homogenous.
2
Equivalent TS (dB re 1 m )
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
Drogden Channel
background reverberation March 15
0113UT normal
0452UT upward refracting
noise level
-50
-60
-70
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Range (m)
Figure 4. Comparison of seabed and surface dominated reverberation levels vs. range, averaged
over 10-minute intervals before and after the transition event at 0300UT March 15th.
For 100 kHz sonars it is appropriate to model acoustic propagation using ray-tracing.
This propagation analysis allows determination of the effective insonified volume, the
transmission losses to a given region, and the grazing angles at the surface and seabed. A
ray-tracing code due to Bowlin et al. (1992) was used to calculate sound pressure level as
a function of range and depth for a sonar geometry, bathymetry, sound speed profile, and
seabed reflection loss. Figure 5 shows a comparison of the propagation results between
the normal and saline intrusion regimes. In this analysis, eigenrays connecting the source
and a range-depth matrix (10 m range by 0.25 m depth) were calculated, with the
intensity from multi-paths (if present) summed incoherently. Eigenrays were calculated
within a launch angle interval ±3.5° from horizontal, corresponding to the –20 dB point
of the transducer beam pattern. The sound speed profiles for the normal and saline
intrusion cases were derived from the moored T/C data, assuming no range-dependence
in water properties. Corrections were made for the transducer beam-pattern, seawater
absorption loss, a surface reflection loss of 1 dB per bounce, and a seabed forward
reflection loss vs. grazing angle calculated using classical two-layer interfacial theory
(e.g. Medwin and Clay, 1998), with a 2 dB loss at grazing angles below critical. The
sediments in Drogden Channel were comprised of coarse, gravelly sands with assumed
density and sound speed of 1900 kg⋅m-3 and 1800 m⋅s-1. This yields a reflection critical
angle of 37° and normal-incidence reflection loss of 8.4 dB. Given the near-horizontal
sonar geometry, all seabed reflections were sub-critical.
Figure 5a shows the ray-tracing calculation for the normal, homogenous flow regime.
In this case the vertically-narrow beam is largely confined near the seabed, with a
monotonically decreasing sound pressure level with range due to acoustic absorption.
This analysis confirms the existence of low-grazing-angle (<3.5°) backscatter from the
317
IMPACTS OF FLOW VARIABILITY ON 100 KHZ SONAR PERFORMANCE
Depth (m)
seabed from roughly 20 to 225 m and again after 330 m on the far side of the central
gully. These ranges of seabed interaction agree with the measured reverberation vs.
range curve shown in Fig. 4. Additionally, the ray-tracing analysis provides insight on
the multi-path structure, for example beyond 50 m range the direct path is supplemented
by a low-grazing-angle bottom-reflected path. Surface-reflected paths exist beyond 180
m range, and are responsible for insonification of the far slope of the central gully near
320 m range.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
TL + 20log[r]
(a)
-20.0
-18.0
-16.0
-14.0
-12.0
-10.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
(b)
-8.0
-6.0
-4.0
-2.0
0
2.0
4.0
5.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Horizontal Range (m)
Figure 5. Ray-tracing predictions of normalized sound pressure level (one-way transmission loss +
20log[r] with 0 dB source level) vs. range and depth in Drogden Channel. Rays launched ±3.5°
from horizontal. (a) normal flow regime. (b) saline intrusion event.
In contrast, the ray-tracing result for the upward-refracting conditions (Fig. 5b) shows a
strong surface reflection and scattering region between 120 m and 280 m, with very little
seabed interaction. Overall, there are significant shadow zones where targets would be
undetectable, particularly near the seabed, making these propagation conditions less
suitable for acoustic surveillance. Within this near-surface reflection/scattering region the
grazing angle is 4° to 5° and there is a modest acoustic convergence (normalized SPL >
0) near 200 m range. Additionally, near 9 m depth and 350–480 m range there is a very
strong (normalized SPL > 10 dB) acoustic convergence region. However this
convergence region has only a minimal seabed intersection so that only a low
reverberation level is created. Similar to the normal flow case, the propagation analysis is
in accordance with the measured upward-refracting reverberation vs. range curve shown
in Fig. 4.
318
4
M. TREVORROW
Discussion
This project demonstrated the feasibility of continuous surveillance of a strategic channel
using a fixed sonar installation. This rudimentary system was successful in detection of
ships, yachts, and fish schools, suggesting the utility of such a system for surveillance
against AUVs, torpedoes, and divers. However, it was found that target detectability was
strongly limited by boundary reverberation, particularly from the seabed. This implies
that the location for any future sonar installations should consider seabed sediment type,
favoring muddy, silty, and fine sandy seabeds which have weaker backscatter properties.
The relatively wide horizontal aperture (60°) of these sidescan transducers made them
particularly susceptible to boundary reverberation, however this is also something that
could be readily improved in future sonar installations.
Under normal flow conditions targets such as ships and fish schools were detectable
at ranges up to 400 m using their motion relative to the nominally time-invariant seabed
reverberation. This occurred even at relatively low signal-to-reverberation ratios (<10
dB). However, saline intrusion events occurring approximately 26% of the time
drastically changed the reverberation conditions, creating shadow zones and making
target detection using background referencing more difficult. Clearly, the importance of
boundary reverberation and the drastic impact of changing water stratification
necessitates the measurement of water properties alongside the sonar installation.
Moreover, these measurements should be coupled with acoustic propagation analyses in
order to understand and predict the impact on sonar performance, specifically to predict
the sonar insonified volume, the existence of shadow zones, and expected reverberation
levels.
Acknowledgements
The Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Kontroll- och Styrgruppen för
Öresundsforbindelsen (KSÖ Sweden) and Øresundskonsortiet A/S are acknowledged for
their support of the field program throughout 1995-98. The author is indebted to Dr.
Bjarke Pedersen of LICEngineering A/S for his efforts in installing and maintaining the
sonar system during the field trials.
References
1. Bowlin, J., Spiesberger, J., Duda, T. and Freitag, L., Ocean acoustical ray-tracing software
RAY. Tech. Rep. WHOI-93-10, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole
(1992) 49 pp.
2. Medwin, H. and Clay, C., Fundamentals of Acoustical Oceanography (Academic Press, San
Diego, 1998).
3. Pedersen, B. and Trevorrow, M., Continuous monitoring of fish in a shallow channel using a
fixed horizontal sonar, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 105, 3126–3135 (1999).
4. Trevorrow, M., Vagle, S. and Farmer, D., Acoustic measurements of microbubbles within
ship wakes, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 1922–1930 (1994).
5. Vagle, S., Foote, K., Trevorrow, M. and Farmer, D., Absolute calibrations of monostatic
echosounder systems for bubble counting, IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 21, 298–305 (1996).