What Are We Inverting For?

  • David M. F. Chapman


The goal of geoacoustic inversion is to estimate environmental characteristics from measured acoustic field values, with the aid of a physically realistic computational acoustic model. As modeled fields can be insensitive to variations in some parameters (or coordinated variations in multiple parameters), precise and unique inversions can be difficult to achieve. However, if the results of the inversion are only required for sonar performance prediction (for one example), it is only the resulting acoustic field in the water that matters, often at long range and within a restricted range of frequency. In this context, perhaps a precise description of the seabed structure is not necessary, and it might be sufficient to imagine a simpler seabed model having the same acoustic effect on the underwater sound field within the range-frequency domain of interest. An “effective seabed” model could be built upon the observation that the near-grazing acoustic reflection at the seabed can be described by one complex-valued quantity: the surface impedance. Analytic expressions are derived for an ideal fluid/solid case showing exactly how the five geoacoustic properties reduce to two real parameters: the real part and the imaginary part of the surface impedance at grazing incidence, which are connected with the loss and phase shift of the reflected wave, respectively. It is also shown that several inversion algorithms applied to a typical benchmark problem show variation in the inverted geoacoustic parameters of the seabed model, while all agree on the imaginary part of the impedance (phase shift).


Sound Speed Acoustic Field Surface Impedance Reflection Loss Grazing Angle 
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.


  1. [A+95]
    K. Attenborough, S. Taherzadeh, H.E. Bass, X. Di, R. Raspet, G.R. Becker, A. Güdesen, A. Chrestman, G.A. Daigle, A. L’Espérance, Y. Gabillet, K.E. Gilbert, Y.L. Li, M.J. White, P. Naz, J.M. Noble, and H.A.J.M. van Hoof. Benchmark cases for outdoor sound propagation models. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 97:173–191, 1995.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [A+00]
    M.A. Ainslie, R.M. Hamson, G.D. Horsley, A.R. James, R.A. Laker, M.A. Lee, D.A. Miles, and S.D. Richards. Deductive multi-tone inversion of sea bed parameters. Accepted by J. Comput. Acoust. for inclusion in a special issue on Geoacoustic Inversion, 2000.Google Scholar
  3. [A92]
    M.A. Ainslie. The sound pressure field in the ocean due to bottom interacting paths. (Appendix 4) Thesis, University of Southampton, February, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [A94]
    M.A. Ainslie. Shallow water propagation for linear and bilinear sound speed profiles. In Undersea Defence Technology 94, pp. 489–493. Nexus, UK, 1994.Google Scholar
  5. [A95]
    M.A. Ainslie. Plane-wave reflection and transmission coefficients for a three-layered elastic medium. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 97:954–961, 1995.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [B60]
    L.M. Brekhovskikh. Waves in Layered Media, translated from the Russian by D. Lieberman. Academic Press, New York, 1960.Google Scholar
  7. [B80]
    L.M. Brekhovskikh. Waves in Layered Media, 2nd ed., translated from the Russian by R.T. Beyer. Academic Press, New York, 1980.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [C+89]
    D.M.F. Chapman, P.D. Ward, and D.D. Ellis. The effective depth of a Pekeris ocean waveguide, including shear wave effects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 85:648–653, 1989.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [CC93]
    N.R. Chapman and D.M.F. Chapman. A coherent ray model of plane-wave reflection from a thin sediment layer. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 94:2731–2738, 1993.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [DB70]
    M.E. Delaney and E.N. Bazley. Acoustical properties of fibrous absorbent materials. Appl. Acoust., 3:105–116, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [E+76]
    T.F.W. Embleton, J.E. Piercy, and N. Olson. Outdoor sound propagation over ground of finite impedance. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 59:267–277, 1976.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [E96]
    T.F.W. Embleton. Tutorial on sound propagation outdoors. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 100:31–49, 1996.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [EC85]
    D.D. Ellis and D.M.F. Chapman. A simple shallow water propagation model including shear wave effects. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 78:2087–2095, 1985.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [H+90]
    S.J. Hughes, D.D. Ellis, D.M.F. Chapman, and P.R. Staal. Low-frequency acoustic propagation in shallow water over hard-rock seabeds covered by a thin layer of elastic-solid sediment. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 88:283–297, 1990.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [H+91]
    S.J. Hughes, D.M.F. Chapman, and N.R. Chapman. The effect of shear wave attenuation on acoustic bottom loss resonance in marine sediments. In J.M. Hovem, M.D. Richardson, and R.D. Stoll (ed.), Shear Waves in Marine Sediments, pp. 439–446. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [H80]
    O.F. Hastrup. Some bottom-reflection anomalies near grazing and their effect on propagation in shallow water. In W. Kuperman and F.B. Jensen (ed.), Bottom-Interacting Ocean Acoustics, pp. 135–152. Plenum Press, New York, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [J+94]
    F.B. Jensen, W.A. Kuperman, M.B. Porter, and H. Schmidt. Computational Ocean Acoustics, American Institute of Physics, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. [J98]
    P. Joseph. Complex reflection phase gradient for the rapid characterization of shallow water sea bottoms. OCEANS’98 IEEE Conference Proceedings, pp. 375–379. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1998.Google Scholar
  19. [P+92]
    J.S. Papadakis, M.I. Taroudakis, P.J. Papadakis, and B. Mayfield. A new method for a realistic treatment of the sea bottom in the parabolic approximation. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 92:2030–2038, 1992.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [S87]
    H. Schmidt. SAFARI—Seismo-Acoustic Fast field Algorithm for Range-Independent environments—User’s Guide. SACLANTCEN Report SR-113, SACLANT Undersea Research Center, La Spezia, Italy, 15 May, 1987.Google Scholar
  21. [SJ85]
    H. Schmidt and F.B. Jensen. Efficient numerical solution technique for wave propagation in horizontally stratified environments. Comp. Math. Appl., 11:699–715, 1985.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [T+98]
    A. Tolstoy, N.R. Chapman, and G. Brooke. Workshop ′97: Benchmarking for geoacoustic inversion in shallow water. J. Comput. Acoust., 6:1–28, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [TM94]
    D.J. Thomson and M.E. Mayfield. An exact radiation condition for use with the a posteriori method. J. Comput. Acoust. 2:113–132, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [TZ92]
    C.T. Tindle and Z.Y. Zhang. An equivalent fluid approximation for a low shear speed ocean bottom. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 91:3248–3256, 1992.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [W71]
    D.E. Weston. Intensity-range relations in oceanographic acoustics. J. Sound Vibration, 18:271–287, 1971.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [W76]
    A.O. Williams. Hidden depths: Acceptable ignorance about ocean bottoms. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 59:1175–1179, 1976.ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [WE62]
    A.O. Williams, Jr., and R.K. Eby. Acoustic attenuation in a liquid layer over a “slow” viscoelastic solid. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 34:836–843, 1962.MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [YT99]
    D. Yevick and D.J. Thomson. Nonlocal boundary conditions for finite-difference parabolic equation solvers. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 106:143–150, 1999.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [ZT93]
    Z.Y. Zhang and C.T. Tindle. Complex effective depth of the ocean bottom. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 93:205–213, 1993.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. [ZT95]
    Z.Y. Zhang and C.T. Tindle. Improved equivalent fluid approximations for a low shear speed ocean bottom. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 98:3391–3396, 1995.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. F. Chapman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations