2018
DOI: 10.1121/1.5026023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Airy phase of explosive sounds in shallow water

Abstract: The Airy phase is identified in the received signals from explosive charges deployed in a shallow water acoustic experiment conducted in the New England Mudpatch region during the spring of 2017. Measured and modeled time-frequency dispersion curves are compared and a geoacoustic sensitivity study utilizing marginal probability distributions for the sound speed in five sediment layers is performed. The analysis suggests that inclusion of the Airy phase frequency and arrival time in a geoacoustic-inversion meth… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Group speed estimates based on the pressure channel [see Fig. 9(a)] suggest a frequency of the Airy phase for mode 2 at 28 Hz, which is in agreement with that recently reported by Wan et al [4]; additionally, we report an Airy phase group speed for mode 2 equal to 1328 m/s (median), with a 25th-75th percentile range of 1326-1333 m/s. However, signal-to-noise limitations prevented estimates of the Airy phase for modes 3 and 4.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Group speed estimates based on the pressure channel [see Fig. 9(a)] suggest a frequency of the Airy phase for mode 2 at 28 Hz, which is in agreement with that recently reported by Wan et al [4]; additionally, we report an Airy phase group speed for mode 2 equal to 1328 m/s (median), with a 25th-75th percentile range of 1326-1333 m/s. However, signal-to-noise limitations prevented estimates of the Airy phase for modes 3 and 4.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…We emphasize that the notional geoacoustic model is not a result of an inversion per se but instead meant as a nominally consistent representation of available ground truth data in terms of water depth measured at IVAR (mean depth, 74.4 m), measured water sound speed c w , and approximate mud-layer thickness at the IVAR site based high-resolution chirp acoustic reflection data [1]. Some experimentation with forward modeling is required to establish parameters for the mud layer, a key component of the notional geoacoustic model, and we use values consistent with those emerging from recently published studies [2], [4], such as mud-layer thickness and linear sound-speed gradient equal to 10 s −1 . We first undertake a brief analysis of sediment attenuation to confirm that the attenuation parameters (see Table I) are at least nominally consistent with the data.…”
Section: E Comparison Of Model Results Based On Two Geoacoustic Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Hence, a definitive conclusion on the authenticity of the low velocity/density layer is not possible without deep coring. However, it would be interesting to compare this result with inversions that take into account the mode Airy phase of low order modes (e.g., [19]). Indeed, both Airy phase and the high order modes that are used here are sensitive to features deep below the seabed.…”
Section: B Inversion Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Modal travel times have been used recently for geoacoustic inversion in the SBCEX context by Wan et al [19] and Bonnel et al [20]. The first study [19] considered a (relatively) long range (r ∼ 15 km), so that the low-frequency components (f < 80 Hz) of the first 4 modes were resolved on conventional TF representations. The second study [20] was performed at shorter range (r ∼ 5 km), and warping was used to resolve up to mode number 18 over the frequency band 20-440 Hz.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%