Advertisement

Energy Detection in the Ocean Acoustic Environment

  • Fredrick W. Machell
  • Clark S. Penrod

Abstract

The performance of the energy detector is evaluated using ambient noise data from several ocean acoustic environments. Estimates of the false alarm probability are presented as a function of the detection threshold for each environment. Estimated values for the corresponding minimum detectable signal-to-noise ratio (MDS) are also given for an artifically generated white Gaussian signal. The results presented here indicate that non-Gaussian noise statistics can have a significant impact on the relationship between the false alarm probability and the detection threshold. This threshold adjustment results in a serious degradation of energy detector performance in terms of the MDS for some non-Gaussian noise environments.

Keywords

False Alarm Ambient Noise Energy Detector False Alarm Probability Noise Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C.W. Horton, Sr., Signal Processing of Underwater Acoustic Waves, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, (1969).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.J. Urick, Principles of Underwater Sound, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, (1967)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A.R. Milne, J.H. Ganton, “Ambient Noise Under Arctic-Sea Ice,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am, Vol. 36, p. 855–863, (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Dwyer, “FRAM II Single Channel Ambient Noise Statistics,” NUSC Technical Document 6588, (1981).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    F.W. Machell, C.S. Penrod, “Probability Density Functions of Ocean Acoustic Noise Processes,” in Statistical Signal Processing, edited by E.J. Wegman, J.G. Smith, Marcel Dekker, New York (1984).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.G. Veitch, A.R. Wilks, “A Characterization of Arctic Undersea Noise,” Dept. of Statistics Technical Report, No. 12, Princeton Univ., (1983).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.M. Hammersley, D.C. Handscomb, Monte Carlo Methods, Metheun, London (1964).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G.W. Lank, “Theoretical Aspects of Importance Sampling Applied to False Alarms,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory, Vol. IT–29, 73–82, (1983).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F.W. Machell, C.S. Penrod, G.E. Ellis, “Statistical Characteristics of Ocean Acoustic Noise Processes,” to appear in ONR publication on Non–Gaussian Signal Processing.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A.C. Kibblewhite, D.A. Jones, “Ambient Noise Under Antarctic Sea Ice,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am, Vol. 59, p. 790–798, (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.V. Bradley, Distribution–free Statistical Tests, Prentice, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1968).MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G.R. Wilson, “A Statistical Analysis of Surface Reverberation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am, Vol. 74, p. 249–255, (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrick W. Machell
    • 1
  • Clark S. Penrod
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Research LaboratoriesThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations