2012
DOI: 10.1121/1.3672644
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On whether azimuthal isotropy and alongshelf translational invariance are present in low-frequency acoustic propagation along the New Jersey shelfbreak

Abstract: To understand the issues associated with the presence (or lack) of azimuthal isotropy and horizontal (along isobath) invariance of low-frequency (center frequencies of 600 Hz and 900 Hz) acoustic propagation in a shelfbreak environment, a series of experiments were conducted under the Autonomous Wide-Aperture Cluster for Surveillance component of the Shallow Water 2006 experiment. Transmission loss data reported here were from two mobile acoustic sources executing (nearly) circular tracks transmitting to sonob… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(23 reference statements)
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This follows up an earlier experimentally-based QPE paper on acoustic TL variability in a different canyon (Chiu et al, 2011). The second article (Emerson et al, 2013), shows that 800-1000 Hz acoustic signals traveling up to 10 km were measured to have short-term TL variability of 1.5 to 2 dB, which is perhaps a bit less than measured in SW06 (Lynch et al, 2012). Combined with noise variability in the area of up to 6 dB rms, the signal excess for underwater sound in the area is expected to have a greater than 6 dB rms variability.…”
Section: Shallow-water Effort Qpesupporting
confidence: 66%
“…This follows up an earlier experimentally-based QPE paper on acoustic TL variability in a different canyon (Chiu et al, 2011). The second article (Emerson et al, 2013), shows that 800-1000 Hz acoustic signals traveling up to 10 km were measured to have short-term TL variability of 1.5 to 2 dB, which is perhaps a bit less than measured in SW06 (Lynch et al, 2012). Combined with noise variability in the area of up to 6 dB rms, the signal excess for underwater sound in the area is expected to have a greater than 6 dB rms variability.…”
Section: Shallow-water Effort Qpesupporting
confidence: 66%
“…The directionality of the waves was also measured from satellite images of surface-roughness internalwave signatures [18]. The background environment through which the internal waves propagated featured the shelf/slope water front [19] which can heavily influence sound propagation by placing warm salty near the seabed, thereby refracting sound away from the seabed and causing soundchannel ducting.…”
Section: A Environmental Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%