J. Ocean Eng. Technol. Search

CLOSE


J. Ocean Eng. Technol. > Volume 36(1); 2022 > Article
Cho, Choi, and Yun: Survey of Acoustic Frequency Use for Underwater Acoustic Cognitive Technology

Abstract

The available underwater acoustic spectrum is limited. Therefore, it is imperative to avoid frequency interference from overlapping frequencies of underwater acoustic equipment (UAE) for the co-existence of the UAE. Cognitive technology that senses idle spectrum and actively avoids frequency interference is an efficient method to facilitate the collision-free operation of multiple UAE with overlapping frequencies. Cognitive technology is adopted to identify the frequency usage of UAE to apply cognitive technology. To this end, we investigated two principle underwater acoustic sources: UAE and marine animals. The UAE is classified into five types: underwater acoustic modem, acoustic positioning system, multi-beam echo-sounder, side-scan sonar, and sub-bottom profiler. We analyzed the parameters of the frequency band, directivity, range, and depth, which play a critical role in the design of underwater acoustic cognitive technology. Moreover, the frequency band of several marine species was also examined. The mid-frequency band from 10 - 40 kHz was found to be the busiest. Lastly, this study provides useful insights into the design of underwater acoustic cognitive technologies, where it is essential to avoid interference among the UAE in this mid-frequency band.

1. Introduction

The growing interest in marine space has highlighted the significance of marine resource development, maritime exploration, and maritime defense. Consequently, underwater exploratory missions are becoming more complex and diverse. Accordingly, various mission-specific underwater acoustic equipment (UAE) has been developed, including underwater navigation, underwater mapping exploration, underwater image acquisition, marine physical quantity measurement, and data exchange. Depending on the operating characteristics and required functions, the frequency band used by such UAE vary. However, because there is no permit or restriction on frequency use in open frequency bands, such as those underwater, a variety of acoustic equipment is mixed, causing the issue of frequency overlaps between artificial interferences. Acoustic communication systems and acoustic positioning systems are integral acoustic equipment, particularly in systems equipped with sonar equipment for seabed mapping or image acquisition, such as unmanned surface vehicles (USVs), autonomous surface vehicles (ASVs), autonomous underwater vehicle (AUVs), and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs). When such acoustic equipment operates simultaneously, signal interferences occur between communication, navigation, and sonar devices. In addition to man-made acoustic interferences, underwater marine animals cause natural acoustic interferences. For example, some marine mammals use sound waves to communicate between themselves and analyze reflected sound waves to avoid obstacles and determine the proceeding direction (echolocation), and when these signals interfere with artificial signals, it can cause severe damage. There have been reports of cases where interferences between artificial signals produced from equipment and naturally occurring signals have led to dolphins colliding with ships and getting beached after losing their heading, leading to the destruction of marine life.
Numerous cases and studies are underway to solve the aforementioned problems caused by acoustic signal interferences. Kongsberg’s K-Sync equipment (Kongsberg, 2020) allows the user to set signal generating time, cycles, and intervals for each piece of equipment when operating different acoustic equipment. It prevents different pieces of equipment from generating signals simultaneously to avoid signal interferences. Studies have been conducted to investigate the frequency bands of marine mammals to avoid natural acoustic interferences (Ferguson and Cleary, 2001; Richardson et al., 2013) and predict the frequencies used by marine animals to prevent signal interference (Moore et al., 2012; Cheng 2017). The communication and network fields are leading the research on underwater signal interference avoidance techniques, and studies have been actively conducted to avoid interferences by applying multiple media access control methods and using orthogonal times, frequencies, codes, and phases between signals, or avoid signal interferences using a directional antenna-applied transceiving method and an idle listening method before transmission (Ali et al., 2020; Chitre et al., 2008; Goyal et al., 2019; Murad et al., 2015; Jiang 2008; Zolich et al., 2019).
As the use of UAE increases, their frequencies also increase, making underwater frequency bands increasingly chaotic. Therefore, network technology for frequency interference avoidance also becomes increasingly significant. Network technology is adopted to avoid signal interferences while using the limited underwater frequency bands more efficiently. The process of avoiding signal interferences requires the application of underwater cognitive acoustic network technology to actively avoid the occupied frequency bands by detecting idle underwater frequency bands and dynamically allocating frequency bands (Li et al., 2016; Luo et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2016a; Luo et al., 2016b; Cheng et al., 2017). To apply the cognitive network technology, The application of the cognitive network technology requires recognizing which underwater frequency bands are available temporally and spatially, which prerequisites the investigation of underwater acoustic frequency usage status.
In this study, we investigate and analyze UAE that uses sound waves and marine animals that communicate using sound waves. Moreover, we summarize and describe the main frequency bands used by marine animals and the frequency usages of commercial products for distinct UAE to use them as basic data for underwater wireless cognitive network technology. The investigated and analyzed acoustic equipment is classified according to the model of each manufacturer based on the purpose of use, and devices used primarily for marine exploration and investigation are chosen. The chosen equipment types include an underwater acoustic modem, acoustic positioning system, multi-beam echo-sounder (MBES), side-scan sonar (SSS), and sub-bottom profiler (SBP). We describe the equipment operating characteristics according to the equipment type to determine the temporal and spatial availability of frequency bands and introduce the required specifications based on the described equipment characteristics. In this study, the frequency bands of the marine equipment and marine animals are investigated and illustrated in graphs, and the major frequency bands of each piece of equipment and marine animals are combined and illustrated in graphs for comparison and analysis.
This study is organized as follows: In Section 2, status of underwater acoustic equipment frequencies is summarized and plotted. In Section 3, the frequencies used by marine animals are analyzed and summarized. Lastly, Section 4 provides the conclusion of this study.

2. Status of Underwater Acoustic Equipment Frequencies

2.1 Underwater Acoustic Modems

Table 1 lists the specifications of product models for each manufacturer of commercial underwater acoustic telemetry modems. The commercial underwater acoustic telemetry modems use a frequency band from 2.5–180 kHz; however, depending on the transmission distance, the frequency range varies. A frequency band of 20–180 kHz is used in a communication range of 1 km or less, 7.5–78 kHz in a communication range of 1–5 km, 7–31 kHz in a communication range of 5–10 km, and 2.5–31 kHz in a communication range of over 10 km. As shown in Fig. 1, the primary frequency bands of commercial acoustic telemetry modems are concentrated in the 10–30 kHz band because underwater acoustic signals propagate most smoothly in this band. As shown in Fig. 2, the communication range of the commercial acoustic telemetry modems is mostly around 5 km, and a small number of long-range acoustic telemetry models of 10 km or longer exists. Remarkably, Thales TUMM-6 has a communication range of 37 km. Fig. 3 illustrates a graph for the operating depths of the commercial underwater acoustic telemetry modems distributed randomly according to the product characteristics and purpose, and it can be seen that a maximum operating depth of 10 km is achievable.

2.2 Acoustic Positioning Systems

An acoustic positioning system tracks the relative position of a vehicle being tracked. Generally, an underwater acoustic sensor, which becomes a baseline, is installed on the ship or seabed, and after installing underwater acoustic sensors for response (transponders) on the tracking-target vehicle, the acoustic signals are transmitted and received between the underwater acoustic sensors at both ends. The system can be linked to a satellite navigation system to track the absolute position of an object.
Acoustic positioning systems are essential for tracking the position of underwater vehicles, such as underwater robots, and, based on the tracking method, acoustic positioning systems are classified as long baseline (LBL), short baseline (SBL), and ultrashort baseline (USBL). LBL refers to estimating the position by installing the baseline at a fixed position on the seabed and measuring the slant range from the widely spaced transponder. SBL refers to estimating the position by installing the baseline at a fixed position on the seabed and measuring the relative arrival time from three or more transponders installed on a ship (Vickery, 1998). USBL involves estimating the position by installing the baseline on a ship or an underwater vehicle that performs the role of the mother ship and measuring the relative phase of the acoustic signals received using the array sensors embedded in the single transponder (Soppet, 2011).
Table 2 lists the specifications of product models for different acoustic positioning system manufacturers. Numerous acoustic positioning system models use SSBL, USBL, and LBL simultaneously, and many models also use USBL and acoustic telemetry functions simultaneously. In Table 2, the field of view indicates the angle for the zone where the acoustic positioning system can operate. In an acoustic positioning system, multiple transducers are structured in an array, producing acoustic signals, and the combination of the beam pattern of each transducer signal determines the system’s operating range. The field of view valuethe beamwidth of the combined acoustic signalsis the half-power beamwidth of the acoustic signals in general and indicates the beamwidth from the maximum acoustic strength to an acoustic signal strength of −3 dB lower. Fig. 4 illustrates the frequency band distribution of the acoustic positioning systems, and similar to the underwater acoustic telemetry modems, the primary frequency bands are concentrated between 10–30 kHz. As depicted in Fig. 5, the acoustic systems have various operating ranges from 300–11000 m.

2.3 Multi Beam Echo-Sounders (MBES)

MBES is a system that emits hundreds of sound waves simultaneously and receives the reflected waves from the seabed to create an automated topographical map on a computer. It measures the distance of an obstacle at each angle. MBES is used in exploring seabed topography, searching for sunken ships, identifying submarine geological characteristics, installing and repairing submarine pipes and cables, securing views of underwater vehicles, and other underwater operations.
Table 3 lists the specifications of product models for each commercial MBES manufacturer. In the beamwidth of the sound wave generated by MBES, “x” indicates the horizontal x vertical beamwidth, which ranges from 0.5°–5°. In the beamwidth column in Table 3, the listed beamwidth values, such as 1°, 2°, and 3°, can be selectively used according to the resolution required in the corresponding frequency band, and, as the beamwidth becomes narrower, the resolution increases. However, the number of sound waves generated by the MBES also increases. Therefore, the beamwidth increases in the low-frequency band and decreases in the high-frequency band. As shown in Fig. 6, 10–1000 kHz is used as the frequency band of MBES, and the primary frequency bands used are between 200–500 kHz, which are high-frequency bands compared to those of the communication or navigation systems. Fig. 7 illustrates the operating depths of MBES, which are distributed variously from 100–11000 m.

2.4 Side-Scan Sonars (SSS)

SSS systems use a towing fish to generate sound waves in the left and right directions underwater and receive the reflected waves to create an automated topographic map on a computer. It measures the distance of an obstacle at each angle. Occasionally, SSS systems simultaneously perform the bathymetry function of measuring the underwater depth in the sea; examples include EdgeTech’s 6205 bath model and Sonardyne’s SOLSTICE model. Table 4 lists the specifications of product models for each SSS system manufacturer. SSS systems use dual or triple frequency bands simultaneously. In Table 4, “230/540 with 540 kHz Bath” shown for the 6205 bath model means that SSS and bathymetry functions are performed simultaneously by using dual-frequency bands of 230 and 540 kHz for SSS and a frequency band of 540 kHz for bathymetry. As illustrated in Fig. 8, the frequency bands of SSS are distributed between 75–1600 kHz, and the primary frequency bands are concentrated between 100–1000 kHz. The horizontal beamwidth of SSS is distributed between 0.26°–1.8°, and the vertical beamwidth is distributed between 30°–90°. Fig. 9 illustrates the operating ranges of SSS, and SSS systems operate in various ranges from 35–1250 m.

2.5 Sub-Bottom Profilers (SBP)

SBP systems generate low-frequency sound waves to a submerged-body underwater and receive the reflected waves from the seabed to create a topographic map and sub-bottom profiles on a computer. It is used to investigate submerged artifacts, explore buried naval mines, and investigate marine and inland water geology, the conditions of buried submarine pipelines and cables, and marine and inland water sub-bottom profiles.
Table 5 lists the specifications of product models for each SBP manufacturer. As shown in Fig. 10, SBP uses the primary frequency band (generally 90–110 kHz) and the secondary frequency band (30 kHz) simultaneously. The frequency bands are lower than 120 kHz, which is comparatively lower than those of MBES or SSS. Moreover, SBP produces the loudest noise among the acoustic equipment, which may interfere with other acoustic equipment. Fig. 11 illustrates the operating depths of SBP, which are distributed variously between 30–11000 m.

3. Frequencies Used by Marine Animals

The spatial characteristics of major habits or ecological characteristics of marine animals should be considered to determine whether the frequency bands of marine animals using sound waves are available spatiotemporally. However, it is skipped in this study because it is outside the research scope, and we will only deal with the status of the frequency bands used by marine animals. Table 6 summarizes the frequency ranges and the dominant frequency ranges used by marine animals that communicate using sound waves. As shown in Fig. 12, underwater marine animals generate frequencies in the 0.01–170 kHz band, and the dominant frequencies are below 20 kHz. These frequencies match the primary frequency bands generated by UAE, such as underwater acoustic modems and acoustic positioning systems, which may cause communication collisions between acoustic equipment and marine animals.

4. Conclusion

In this study, we investigated and analyzed the frequency bands used by commercial products for each manufacturer of UAE according to the purpose of use. Moreover, we also investigated the frequency bands used by marine animals that communicate using sound waves. Fig. 13 illustrates a graph that summarizes and illustrates the primary frequency bands used by each piece of equipment and the dominant frequency bands of marine animals. The frequency bands illustrated in Fig. 13 are the frequency bands of equipment and marine animals that are within 80% of the minimum and maximum frequency range for each marine animal and acoustic equipment type investigated. As shown in Fig. 13, the frequencies overlap most in the mid-frequency range (10–40 kHz) because both acoustic equipment and marine animals use these frequencies. In the case of acoustic telemetry modems and acoustic positioning systems, the primary frequency bands are almost identical and overlap in a range of 10–30 kHz, meaning that a collision avoidance method is required to prevent signal interference. The frequency band of MBES is a high-frequency band compared to that of the above equipment and is concentrated between 50–500 kHz. The frequency band of SSS is primarily distributed between 150–850 kHz, and the same model can use dual or triple frequency bands simultaneously. SBP uses the primary frequency band (60–110 kHz) and the secondary frequency band (45 kHz or lower) simultaneously and produces the largest noise among acoustic equipment, which increases the likelihood of causing interferences in other acoustic equipment. Meanwhile, marine animals primarily generate acoustic signals in the range of 0.1–20 kHz, and measures should be in place to avoid frequency overlaps with the secondary frequency bands of acoustic modems, acoustic positioning systems, and SBP. Moreover, the frequency bands of the analyzed acoustic equipment and marine animals can be used as reference data to avoid signal interferences when operating multiple pieces of UAE simultaneously. Finally, the frequency bands of UAE and marine animals can be used to develop technology for underwater spectral sensing, sharing, and frequency band determination in underwater acoustic cognitive technology, where it is crucial to avoid underwater signal interferences.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Endowment Project of “Development of core technology for cooperative navigation of multiple marine robots and underwater wireless cognitive network” funded by the Korea Research Institute of Ships and Ocean engineering (PES4370).

Fig. 1.
Acoustic telemetry modem frequency chart
ksoe-2021-073f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
Acoustic telemetry modem communication range
ksoe-2021-073f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Acoustic telemetry modem operating depth
ksoe-2021-073f3.jpg
Fig. 4.
Acoustic positioning system frequency chart
ksoe-2021-073f4.jpg
Fig. 5.
Acoustic positioning system operating depth
ksoe-2021-073f5.jpg
Fig. 6.
MBES frequency chart
ksoe-2021-073f6.jpg
Fig. 7.
MBES immersion depth
ksoe-2021-073f7.jpg
Fig. 8.
SSS frequency chart
ksoe-2021-073f8.jpg
Fig. 9.
SSS operating range
ksoe-2021-073f9.jpg
Fig. 10.
SBP frequency chart
ksoe-2021-073f10.jpg
Fig. 11.
SBP operating depth
ksoe-2021-073f11.jpg
Fig. 12.
Marine animal sound frequency chart
ksoe-2021-073f12.jpg
Fig. 13.
The frequency bands for the acoustic equipment and marineanimals
ksoe-2021-073f13.jpg
Table 1.
Specifications of underwater acoustic telemetry modems (Zia et al., 2021)
Manufacturer Model Freq. band (kHz) Comm. range (m) Operating depth (m) Baud rate (bps)
AquaSeNT. (AquaSeNT, 2020) AM-OFDM-13A 21–27 5000 200 1500, 3000, 4500, 6000, 9000
AM-D2000 9–15 5000 2000 375–1500
AM-AUV 21–27 5000 - 375, 750, 1,500

Aquatec (Aquatec, 2020) AQUAmodem 500 27–31 250 200 25–100
AQUAmodem 1000 7.5–12 5000 1000 300–2000

Blueprint Subsea (Blueprint Subsea, 2020) Sea Trac X150 24–32 1000 100–2000 100
Sea Trac X110 24–32 1000 100–2000 100
Sea Trac X110 24–32 1000 300 100

Desert Star Systems (Desert Star Systems, 2020). SAM-1 33.8–42, 65–75 1000 300 5–150

DiveNET (DiveNET, 2020) Microlink 10–30 1000 300 78
Sealink C 0–20 8000 300–400 88
Sealink R 10–45 2500 300 560, 1200
Sealink S 0–20 8000 300–400 80

DSPComm (DSPComm, 2020) AquaComm 16–30 3000–5000 - 100, 240, 480
AquaComm Gen2 16–30 8000 - 100–1000
AquaNetwork 16–30 3000 - 100, 480

EvoLogics (Evologics, 2020) S2CR 48/78 48–78 1000 200–2000 31200
S2CR 42/65 42–65 1000 200–2000 31200
S2CR 18/34 18–34 3500 200–2000 / 6000 13900
S2CR 15/27 15–27 6000 200–6000 9.2
S2CR 12/24 13–24 6000 200–6000 9.2
S2CR 7/17 7–17 6000 / 10000 200–6000 / 10000 6900
S2CM 48/78 48–78 1000 200, 2000 31200
S2CM 42/65 42–65 1000 200–2000 3,200
S2CM 18/34 18–34 3500 200, 2000 13900
S2CM 15/27 15–27 6000 200, 2000 9.2
S2CM HS 120–180 300 200, 2000 62500
S2CT 42/65 42–65 100 200 31200
S2CT 18/34 18–34 3500 200 13900

Kongsberg (Kongsberg, 2020) cNODE Modem MiniS 34-180 21–31 1000 4000 6000
cNODE Modem MiniS 34-40V 21–31 4000 4000 6000

Linkquest (LinkQuest, 2020) UWM1000 26.77–44.62 350 200 17800
UWM2000 26.77–44.62 1200 / 1500 2000 / 4000 17800
UWM2000H 26.77–44.62 1200 / 1500 2000 17800
UWM2200 53.55–89.25 1000 1000 / 2000 35700
UWM3000 7.5–12.5 3000 / 5000 7000 5000
UWM3000H 7.5–12.5 3000 / 6000 2000 / 4000 / 7000 5000
UWM4000 12.75–21.25 4000 3000 / 7000 8500
UWM10000 7.5–12.5 7000 / 10000 2000 / 4000 / 7000 5000

Sercel (Sercel, 2020) MATS 3G 12kHz 10–15 15000 6000 850 / 2100 / 3600 / 5500 / 7400
MATS 3G 34kHz 30–39 15000 6000 1000 / 3000 / 6400 / 9200 / 13000/ 16500 / 24600

Sonardyne (Sonardyne, 2020) MODEM6 Transceiver (Surface) 21–32.5 7000 - 200–9000
MODEM6 Transceiver (Surface)_1 14–19 12000 - 200–9000
MODEM6 Standard 21–32.5 5000 3000 / 5000 200–9000

Teledyne Marine (Teledyne Marine, 2020) ATM-903(OEM) 9–14 2000–6000 500 / 2000 / 6000 80 for frequency hopped
16–21 140–2400 for MFSK
22–27 2560–15360 for PSK
ATM-915/916 9–14 2000–6000 500 140–15360
16–21
22–27
ATM-925/926 9–14 2000–6000 2000 140–15360
16–21
22–27
ATM-965/966 9–14 2000–6000 6000 140–15360
16–21
22–27

TriTech (Tritech, 2020) Micron Modem 20–28 500 150 40

Subnero Pte Ltd (Subnero Pte Ltd, 2020) M25M 20–32 3000–5000 - 15000

Thales (Thales, 2020) TUUM-5 8–11 15000
25–40 15000
TUUM-6 1–60 37000 200

Wärtsilä ELAC Nautik (Wärtsilä) UT2200 8.087–42 - - -
(Wartsila, 2020) UT3000 1–60 - - -
Table 2.
Specifications of acoustic positioning systems
Manufacturer Model Freq. band (kHz) Field of view (degree) Operating range (m)
Evologics (Evologics, 2020) S2C R 7/17W 7–17 hemispherical 8000
S2C R 7/17D 7–17 80 10000
S2C R 7/17 7–17 hemispherical 8000
S2C R 12/24 13–24 70 6000
S2C R 15/27 15–27 120 6000
S2C R 18/34H 18–34 hemispherical 3000
S2C R 18/34 18–34 Horizontally Omni 3500
S2C R 42/65 42–65 100 1000
S2C R 48/78 48–78 Horizontally Omni 1000
S2C M HS 12–180 Omni 300

Kongsberg (Kongsberg, 2020) HiPAP 502 21–31 200 5000
HiPAP 452 21–31 120 5000
HiPAP 352 21–31 120 5000
HiPAP 352P 21–31 120 4000
HiPAP 102 10–15 120 10000
MicroPAP 200 0.005–0.1 160 4000
MicroPAP 200-NEL 21–31 160 995
MicroPAP 201-2 21–31 160 4000
MicroPAP 201-3 21–31 160 4000
MicroPAP 201-3-NEL 21–31 160 995
MicroPAP 201-H 21–31 160 4000

Sonardyne (Sonardyne, 2020) AVTRAK 6 19–34 Omni 3000
Type8220-3111
AVTRAK 6 19–34 Directional 7000
Type8220-7212
Dunker 6 21–32.5 Omni 1000
Type8309.1351
Dunker 6 21–32.5 Directional 1000
Type8309.1353
Dunker 6 14–19 Omni 1000
Type8309.1355
Dunker 6 14–19 Directional 1000
Type8309.1356
HPT 5000/7000 19–34 180 7000
Type8142-001
HPT 5000/7000 19–34 180 7000
Type8142-002
GYRO IUSBL 19–34 180 7000
Marker 6 19–34 Omni, 260 4000

iXBlue (iXBlue, 2020). Posidonia 8–18 70, 100 10000
Posidonia2 8–14 70, 100 10000
Gaps M5 20–30 200 995
Gaps M7 20–30 200 4000
Ramses 18–36 Omni 4000

Applied Acoustic Engineering (Applied Acoustic Engineering, 2020). Easytrak 18–32 180 995
Nexus2
EZT-2886-N
Easytrak 18–32 180 2000
Nexus2
EZT-2886-C
Easytrak 18–32 150 995
Nexus2
EZT-2780-N
Easytrak 18–32 150 3000
Nexus2
EZT-2780-C

LinkQuest (LinkQuest, 2020) TrackLink 1500 31–43.2 120–150 1000
TrackLink 5000 14.2–19.8 120 5000
TrackLink 1000 7.5–12.5 90–120 11000

Teledyne Marine (Teledyne Marine, 2020) USBL DAT 9–14 Omni (toroidal) 6000
USBL DAT 16–21 Omni (toroidal) 4000
USBL DAT 22–27 Omni (toroidal) 2000
LBL SM-975 9–14 hemispherical 10000
LBL SM-975 16–21 hemispherical 10000
LBL SM-975 22–27 hemispherical

Advanced Navigation (Advanced Navigation, 2020) Subsonus 30 300 (hemispherical) 1000

Blueprint Subsea (Blueprint Subsea, 2020) SeaTrac X150 24–32 - 1000
Table 3.
Specifications of MBESs
Manufacturer Model Freq. band (kHz) Beam width (degree) Immersion depth (m)
R2onic (R2onic, 2020) Sonic 2020 700 2°x 2° at 450 kHz 100 / 4000 (Opt.)
200–450 4°x4°at 20 0kHz,
Sonic 2022 700 0.9°x 0.9° at 450 kHz 100 / 4000 & 6000 (Opt.)
170–450 2°x2°at 200 kHz,
Sonic 2024 700 0.45°x 0.9° at 450 kHz -
170–450 1°x2°at 200 kHz,
Sonic 2026 100 - -
90
Sonic 2026 170–450 0.45°x 0.9° at 450 kHz 100 / 4000 (Opt.)
1°x1°at 200 kHz,
2°x2°a t90 kHz,

Kongsberg (Kongsberg, 2020) EM 2040 single RX 200–400 0.4°, 0.7° 600
EM 2040 dual RX 200–400 0.4°, 0.7° 600
EM 2040c single head 200–400 490
EM 2040C dual head 200–400 490
EM 2040P 200–400 510
EM 712 40–100 0.25°, 0.5°,1°, 2° 3600
EM 302 30 0.5°,1°, 2°, 4° 7000
EM 122 12 0.5°, 1°, 2° 11000
M3 500 50

Wärtsilä ELAC Nautik (Wärtsilä) (Wartsila, 2020) Seabeam 3050 50 1°, 1.5°, 3° 3500
Seabeam 3030 26 1°, 1.5°, 3° 7500
Seabeam 3012 12 1°, 2° 11000
Seabeam 3020 20 1°, 2° 9000

Imagenex (Imagenex, 2020) 837BXi Delta T1000 260 3°, 1.5°, 0.75° 1000
837BXi Delta T300 260 3°, 1.5°, 0.75° 300
837AXi 165 3°, 1.5°, 0.75° 6000
DT102Xi 675 3°, 1.5°, 0.75° 300
DT101Xi 240 3°, 1.5°, 0.75° 300
DT360 675 3°, 1.5°, 0.75° 1000
965A 1100 1100 1.5° 2000
965A 675 1.5° 2000
965 260 1.5° 300
965 675 1.5° 300

Teledyne Marine (Teledyne Marine, 2020) MB1 170–220 4°x 3° 240
MB2 200–460 1.8°x 1.8° 240
SeaBat T20-P 200–400 1°, 2° 575
SeaBat T20-R 200–400 1°, 2° 575
SeaBat T20-R IDH 200–400 1°, 2° 575
SeaBat T50-P 200–400 0.5°, 1° 575
SeaBat T50-R 200–400 0.5°, 1° 575
SeaBat T50-R IDH 200–400 0.5°, 1° 575
SeaBat T50 Extended Range 150/200/400 0.5°, 1°, 1.5° 900
SeaBat 7111 100 1.9°x 1.5° 1000
SeaBat 7160 44 2.0°x 1.5° 3000
HydroSweep MD50 52–62 0.5°, 0.75°, 1°, 1.5° 2500
HydroSweep MD30 24–30 1°, 1.5°, 3° 7000
HydroSweep DS 14–16 0.5°, 1°, 2° 11000
Parasound M D, P35, P70 18–24 4.5°x 5.0° 11000
Table 4.
Specifications of SSSs
Manufacturer Model Freq. band (kHz) Depth rating (m) Operating range (m) Beam width (horizontal) degree Beam width (vertical) degree dual/tri simultaneous Freq.(kHz)
EdgeTech (EdgeTech, 2020) 2000 series 100 300, 2000, 3000 depending on tow fish 500 1.08 - 100 / 400
2001 series 300 - 230 0.6 - 300 / 600
2002 series 400 - 150 0.56 - 100 / 400
2003 series 600 - 120 0.26 - 300 / 600
2205 sonars 75 - - - 75 / 120
75 / 410
100 options to 6000 m - - - 100 / 400
120 500 - - 75 / 120
300 300 - - 300 / 600
400 - - - 100 / 400
410 200 - - 75 / 410
230 - - - 230 / 850
540 150 - - 230 / 540 / 1600
600 - - - 300 / 600
600 / 1600
2300 combined 850 75 - - 230 / 850
1600 35 - - 600 / 1600
120 2000 (3000 m optional) 500 0.68 50 120 / 410 / 850
230 300 0.5 50 230 / 540 / 850
410 200 0.3 50 120 / 410 / 850
540 150 0.26 50 230 / 540 / 850
2400 specials 850 75 0.2 50 120 / 410 / 850
230 / 540 / 850
75 options to 6000 m 1250 1.3 75 75 / 410
120 500 1.1 75 120 / 410
75 / 410
410 150 0.75 75 120 / 410
4125 High Res. 400 200 150 0.46 50 400 / 900
600 - 120 0.33 50 600 / 1600
900 - 75 0.28 50 400 / 900
1600 - 35 0.2 50 600 / 1600
4205 multi 120 2000 600 0.7 50 120 / 410 / 850 120 / 410
230 2000 350 0.44 50 230 / 540 / 850 230 / 850
410 2000 200 0.28 50 120 / 410 / 850 120 / 410
540 2000 150 0.26 50 230 / 540 / 850 230 / 540
850 2000 90 0.23 50 230 / 540 / 850 230 / 850
6205 bath 230 100 250 0.54 - 230/540 with 540kHz Bath
230/540 with 230kHzBath
550 100 150 0.36 - 540/1600 with 540kHz Bath
540/850 with 540 kHz Bath
850 100 75 0.29 - 540/850 with 540kHz Bath
1600 100 35 0.2 - 540/1600 with 540kHz Bath

Imagenex (Imagenex, 2020) BlackFin 1100 1100 1000 - 0.25 60 -
120 1000 500 1 60 120/260/540 Tri. Freq. simultaneous
878 RGB 260 1000 300 1 60
540 1000 120 1 60
878 260 1000 300 1 60 260/540 dual or single
540 1000 120 0.5 60
SportScan 330 30 120 1.8 60 single 330/800 dual
800 30 0.7 30
YellowFin 260 300 200 2.2 75 260/330/800 Tri. Freq.
330 300 200 1.8 60
800 300 200 0.7 30

Kongsberg (Kongsberg, 2020) PulSAR 550–1000 100 100 @550 kHz 0.5 50 -

Sonardyne (Sonardyne, 2020) SOLSTICE 725–775 300 200 0.15 with bathymetry

C-MAX (C-MAX, 2020) CM2 100 2000 500 1 90 100/325 dual
325 2000 150 0.3 90 325/780 dual
100/325 dual
780 2000 50 0.2 90 325/780 dual

Tritech (Tritech, 2020) SeaKing 325 4000 200 1 30 -
AUV/ROV 675 4000 100 0.5 30 -
SeaKing Towfish 325 40 200 1.7 30 -
675 40 100 1 30 -
SeaKing Towfish SK150 150 120 350 1.4 60 -
StarFish 450F 450 50 100 1.7 60 -
StarFish 450H 450 50 100 1.7 60 -
StarFish 452F 450 50 100 0.8 60 -
StarFish AUV 450 300 100 0.5 60 -
StarFish 990F 1000 50 35 0.3 60 -

Innomar (Innomar, 2020) SES-2000 sss 100 50 0.9 35 -
Table 5.
Specifications of SBPs
Manufacturer Model Freq. band (kHz) Operating depth (m)
EdgeTech (EdgeTech, 2020) 2000-ccs 0.5–12 3000
2000-dss 2–16 3000
2000-tvd 1–10 3000
2205 DW-424 4–24 6000
2205 DW-216 2–16 6000
2205 DW-106 1–10 6000
2300 4xDW-106 1–10 6000
2400 DW-106 1–10 6000
2400 DW-216 2–16 6000
2400 DW-424 4–24 6000
3300 (2x2 array) 2–16 300
3300 (3x3 array) 2–16 1500
330 0(4x4 array) 2–16 3000
3300 (5x5 array) 2–16 5000
3300 (triangle) 1–10 1500
3300 (“dice 5”) 1–10 3000
3300 (hexagonal) 1–10 5000

Innomar (Innomar, 2020) SES-2000 smart 90–110 100
5–15
SES-2000 compact 85–115 400
2–22
SES-2000 light 85–115 400
2–22
SES-2000 standard 85–115 500
2–22
SES-2000 quattro (4array) 85–115 30
2–22
SES-2000 quattro (single) 85–115 500
2–22
SES-2000 sixpack (6array) 85–115 30
2–22
SES-2000 sixpack (single) 85–115 1000
2–22
SES-2000 medium-100 85–115 2000
2–22
SES-2000 medium-70 60–80 2500
0.5–15
SES-2000 deep-36 30–42 6000
1–10
SES-2000 deep-15 10–20 11000
0.5–5.5
SES-2000 ROV 85–115 1000/2000
4–22
SES-2000 AUV 85–115 2000
4–18

iXBlue (iXBlue, 2020) Echoes 1500 0.5–2.5 400
Echoes 3500 T1 1.7–5.5 shallow
Echoes 3500 T3 1.7–5.5 Continental
Echoes 3500 T7 1.7–5.5 deep
Echoes 5000 2–6 6000
Echoes 10000 5–15 shallow

Kongsberg (Kongsberg, 2020) TOPAS PS 18 15–21 11000
0.5–6
TOPAS PS 40 35–45 2000
1–10
TOPAS PS 120 70–100 2–500
2–30 400
SBP 27 2–9 11000
SBP120 2.5–6.5 11000
SBP300 2.5–6.5 11000
GeoPulse 2–12 3000
GeoPulse Plus 1.5–18 2000–4000
Table 6.
Frequencies used by marine animals (National Research Council, 2000)
Species Frequency range (kHz) Dominant frequencies (kHz)
Gray Whale (adults) 0.02–2 0.02–1.2
Gray Whale (calf clicks) 0.1–20 3.4–4
Humpback Whale 0.03–8 0.12–4
Finback Whale 0.014–0.75 0.02–0.04
Mink Whale 0.04–2 0.06–0.14
Southern Right Whale 0.03–2.2 0.05–0.5
Bowhead Whale 0.02–3.5 0.1–0.4
Blue Whale Pacific 0.01–0.39 0.016–0.024
Blue Whale Atlantic - 0.01–0.02
Sperm Whale (clicks) 0.1–30 2–16
White Whale (whistles) 0.26–20 2–5.9
White Whale (clicks) 40–120
Killer Whale (whistles) 1.5–18 6–12
Killer Whale (clicks) 1.2–25 -
Long-finned pilot whale (whistle) 1–8 -
Bottlenose dolphin (whistles) 0.8–24 3.5–14.5
Bottlenose dolphin (clicks) 1–150 30–130
Atlantic white-sided dolphin (whistle) 3–20 -
Common dolphin (whistle) 3–20 -
Harbor porpoise (clicks) 110–170 -
Gray seal 0.1–40 0.1–10
Cusk eel (chatter) 1.098–1.886 -
Cusk eel (drumming) 0.1–0.5 -
Cusk eel (knocks, clicks) 0.038–5 -

References

Advanced Navigation. (2020). Acoustic Positioning System. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.advancednavigation.com/acoustic-navigation/

Ali, MF., Jayakody, DNK., Chursin, YA., Affes, S., & Dmitry, S. (2020). Recent Advances and Future Directions on Underwater Wireless Communications. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, 27(5), 1379-1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11831-019-09354-8
crossref
Applied Acoustic Engineering. (2020). Acoustic Positioning Systems. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.aaetechnologiesgroup.com/applied-acoustics/products/easytrak-usbl-systems

AquaSeNT. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems. Retrieved December 2020 from http://www.aquasent.com/acoustic-modems

Aquatec. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems. Retrieved December 2020 from http://www.aquatecgroup.com/19-solutions/109-solutions-home

Blueprint Subsea. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems and Acoustic Positioning Systems. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.blueprintsubsea.com/seatrac/

Cheng, W., Luo, Y., Peng, Z., & Cui, JH. (2017) November. ECO-Friendly Underwater Acoustic Communications: Channel Availability Prediction for Avoiding Interfering Marine Mammals. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Underwater Networks & Systems, 1-6.

Chitre, M., Shahabudeen, S., & Stojanovic, M. (2008). Underwater Acoustic Communications and Networking: Recent Advances and Future Challenges. Marine Technology Society Journal, 42(1), 103-116. https://doi.org/10.4031/002533208786861263
crossref
C-MAX. (2020). Side Scan Sonars. Retrieved December 2020 from http://www.cmaxsonar.com/Brochure2019.pdf

Desert Star Systems. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.desertstar.com/page/sam-1

DiveNET. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.divenetgps.com/sealink

DSPComm. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.dspcommgen2.com/aquacomm-underwater-wireless-modem/

EdgeTech. (2020). Multi Beam Echo-sounders, Side Scan Sonars, Sub-bottom Profilers. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.edgetech.com

Evologics. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems and Acoustic Positioning Systems. Retrieved December 2020 from https://evologics.de

Ferguson, BG., & Cleary, JL. (2001). In Situ Source Level and Source Position Estimates of Biological Transient Signals Produced by Snapping Shrimp in an Underwater Environment. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109(6), 3031-3037. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1339823
crossref pmid
Goyal, N., Dave, M., & Verma, AK. (2019). Protocol Stack of Underwater Wireless Sensor Network: Classical Approaches and New Trends. Wireless Personal Communications, 104(3), 995-1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-018-6064-z
crossref
Imagenex. (2020). Multi Beam Echo-sounders and Side Scan Sonars. Retrieved December 2020 from https://imagenex.com/

Innomar. (2020). Side Scan Sonars and Sub-bottom Profilers. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.innomar.com/index.php

iXBlue. (2020). Acoustic Positioning Systems and Sub-bottom Profilers. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.ixblue.com/

Jiang, Z. (2008). Underwater Acoustic Networks–Issues and Solutions. International Journal of Intelligent Control and Systems, 13(3), 152-161.

Kongsberg. (2020). K-sync, Underwater Acoustic Modems, Acoustic Positioning Systems, Multi Beam Echo-Sounders, Side Scan Sonars, and Sub-Bottom Profilers. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.kongsberg.com/maritime/

LinkQuest. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems and Acoustic Positioning Systems. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.link-quest.com/

Li, X., Sun, Y., Guo, Y., Fu, X., & Pan, M. (2016). Dolphins First: Dolphin-Aware Communications in Multi-hop Underwater Cognitive Acoustic Networks. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 16(4), 2043-2056. https://doi.org/10.1109/TWC.2016.2623604
crossref
Luo, Y., Pu, L., Zuba, M., Peng, Z., & Cui, JH. (2014). Challenges and Opportunities of Underwater Cognitive Acoustic Networks. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 2(2), 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2014.2310457
crossref
Luo, Y., Pu, L., Mo, H., Zhu, Y., Peng, Z., & Cui, JH. (2016a). Receiver-Initiated Spectrum Management for Underwater Cognitive Acoustic Network. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 16(1), 198-212. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMC.2016.2544757
crossref
Luo, Y., Pu, L., Peng, Z., & Cui, JH. (2016b) April. Dynamic Control Channel MAC for Underwater Cognitive Acoustic Networks. In IEEE INFOCOM 2016-The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2016.7524554
crossref
Moore, SE., Reeves, RR., Southall, BL., Ragen, TJ., Suydam, RS., & Clark, CW. (2012). A New Framework for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammals in a Rapidly Changing Arctic. BioScience, 62(3), 289-295. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.3.10
crossref
Murad, M., Sheikh, AA., Manzoor, MA., Felemban, E., & Qaisar, S. (2015). A Survey on Current Underwater Acoustic Sensor Network Applications. International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 7(1), 51.
crossref
National Research Council. (2000). Marine Mammals and Low-Frequency Sound: Progress since 1994.

Richardson, WJ., Greene, CR Jr., Malme, CI., & Thomson, DH. (2013). Marine Mammals and Noise . Academic Press.

R2onic. (2020). Multi Beam Echo-Sounders. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.r2sonic.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/MBES-Spec-US-032020pdf/

Sercel. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems. Retrieved December 2020 from http://www.sercel.com/products/Lists/ProductSpecification/Mats3G_specifications_Sercel_EN.pdf

Sonardyne. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems, Acoustic Positioning Systems, and Side Scan Sonars. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.sonardyne.com/

Soppet, TJ. (2011). Ultra-Short Baseline Acoustic Positioning System.

Subnero Pte Ltd. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems. Retrieved December 2020 from https://subnero.com/products/modem.html

Teledyne Marine. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems, Acoustic Positioning Systems, and Multi Beam Echo-Sounders. Retrieved December 2020 from http://www.teledynemarine.com/

Thales. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.thalesgroup.com/en

Tritech. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems and Side Scan sonars. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.tritech.co.uk/

Vickery, K. (1998) August. Acoustic Positioning Systems. A Practical Overview of Urrent Systems. In Proceedings of the 1998 Workshop on Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (Cat. No. 98CH36290), 5-17.

Wartsila. (2020). Underwater Acoustic Modems and Multi Beam Echo-Sounders. Retrieved December 2020 from https://www.wartsila.com/

Zia, MYI., Poncela, J., & Otero, P. (2021). State-of-the-Art Underwater Acoustic Communication Modems: Classifications, Analyses and Design Challenges. Wireless Personal Communications, 116(2), 1325-1360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-020-07431-x
crossref
Zolich, A., Palma, D., Kansanen, K., Fjørtoft, K., Sousa, J., Johansson, KH., & Johansen, TA. (2019). Survey on Communication and Networks for Autonomous Marine Systems. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 95(3), 789-813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10846-018-0833-5
crossref
TOOLS
Share :
Facebook Twitter Linked In Google+ Line it
METRICS Graph View
  • 0 Crossref
  •   Scopus
  • 3,591 View
  • 90 Download


ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
ARTICLE CATEGORY

Browse all articles >

PUBLICATION ETHICS
FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Editorial Office
President Office BD Rm. 1302, 13 Jungang-daero 180beon-gil, Dong-gu, Busan 48821, Republic of Korea
Tel: +82-51-759-0656    Fax: +82-51-759-0656    E-mail: ksoehj@ksoe.or.kr                

Copyright © 2024 by The Korean Society of Ocean Engineers.

Developed in M2PI

Close layer
prev next