A Three-Dimensional, Longitudinally-Invariant Finite Element Model For Acoustic Propagation in Shallow Water Waveguides

Isakson et al.
: JASA Express Letters
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4890195]
Published Online 5 August 2014
A three-dimensional, longitudinally-invariant finite

element model for acoustic propagation in shallow
water waveguides
Marcia J. Isakson, Benjamin Goldsberry, and Nicholas P. Chotiros
Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin,
Texas 78713-8029
misakson@arlut.utexas.edu, goldsbe@arlut.utexas.edu, chotiros@arlut.utexas.edu
Abstract: A three-dimensional, longitudinally-invariant finite element

(FE) model for shallow water acoustic propagation is constructed
through a cosine transform of a series of two-dimensional FE models at
different values of the out-of-plane wavenumber. An innovative wavenumber sampling method is developed that efficiently captures the
essential components of the integral as the out-of-plane wave number
approaches the water wavenumber. The method is validated by comparison with benchmark solutions of two shallow water waveguide environments: a flat range independent case and a benchmark wedge.
C 2014 Acoustical Society of America
V
PACS numbers: 43.30.Dr [AL]

Date Received: December 20, 2013
Date Accepted: June 24, 2014
1. Introduction
High fidelity models of acoustic propagation in shallow water waveguides are necessary for
sonar performance predictions and acoustic communication. However, the waveguides are
often very complex including interface roughness, sediment patchiness, sound speed profiles, and complex bathymetry. The finite element method (FEM) provides an excellent
tool to model these environments because it is fully customizable and provides a full wave
solution. One drawback of the method is its intense computational load. There are currently no fully three-dimensional finite element shallow water waveguide acoustic propagation models although two-dimensional models do exist.1 Because two-dimensional models
cannot be compared with experimental data, a longitudinally-invariant three-dimensional
model is proposed to bridge the gap. In this scheme, a cosine transform is performed on
the three-dimensional Helmholtz equation, producing a sum of two-dimensional components that can be solved using current methods. Although this produces a fully threedimensional model, one constraint is that the geometry must be invariant in one direction.
Many environments including continental slopes, ridges, and canyons can be approximated as longitudinally invariant. Within this constraint, the method can still include range
dependent effects such as sediment and sound speed variation.
2. The longitudinally-invariant finite element model
In this FEM, the variational form of the Helmholtz equation is solved over small subdomains or elements using polynomial basis sets. The solution is obtained by considering the boundary conditions between the elements that lead to a linear system of equations. The collection of interconnected elements, know as a mesh, represents the total
field. A rigorous mathematical description of the finite element method is given in
Ref. 2, while a description of its application to underwater acoustics is given in Ref. 3.
The FEM makes no approximations to the Helmholtz equation, and the system geometry can be expressed accurately to the size of the element. This makes the model
extremely versatile. For the calculations in this paper, a commercially available finite
element program, COMSOL, is used for meshing and solving.4
Full three-dimensional FEMs for ocean waveguides are still beyond the computation capabilities available. However, the physics of three-dimensional propagation
EL206 J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136 (3), September 2014
C 2014 Acoustical Society of America

V
Redistribution subject to ASA license or copyright; see http://acousticalsociety.org/content/terms. Download to IP: 103.23.224.131 On: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 03:04:54
Isakson et al.: JASA Express Letters
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4890195]
can be captured if the geometry modeled is invariant in one direction. In this scheme,
a cosine transform is performed on the three-dimensional Helmholtz equations along
one spatial axis. The resulting two-dimensional pressure components can be calculated
using two-dimensional FEM.
Following Ref. 5, the derivation begins with the three-dimensional Helmholtz
equation, appropriate for a time harmonic acoustic propagation problem,
k2 P
sxdx xo dy yo dz zo :
r2 P
(1)

Here P is the pressure field, k is the acoustic wavenumber, k x/c(x, y, z) where x is
the radial acoustic frequency and c is the sound speed that can vary with position. The
source frequency spectrum is s(x). In this study, only single frequencies are considered.
Last, (xo, yo, zo) is the point source location.
If the sound speed and other environmental factors are only functions of
range, x, and depth, z, the three-dimensional Helmholtz equation can be reduced to

k2 k2 P
1 sxdx xo dz zo ;
r22D P
(2)
y
2
where
1

Px;
x; ky ; z cos ky ydky :
(3)
Px;
x; y; z
0
The integral can be written discretely as

Px;
x; y; z
kX
ymax

Px;
x; ky ; z cos ky ydky :
(4)
ky 0

x; ky ; z is the transformed
Here ky is the out-of-plane wavenumber and Px;
field. Using Eq. (2), the two-dimensional (2D) pressure fields are computed for a series
of out-of-plane wavenumbers using 2D FE and summed to determine the 3D field.
Two parameters in this derivation must be addressed: The limits of the sum in
Eq. (4) and the discretization of the sum. To determine these parameters, it is helpful to
consider the canonical problem of a point source in an unbounded medium at 500 Hz.
Shown in Fig. 1(a) is the integrand of Eq. (3) as a function of the normalized out-of-plane
wavenumber and range from the source. Note that the value of the integrand goes to
zero smoothly past ky k where the effective wavenumber in Eq. (2) is complex. This
evanescent part of the integral describes the curving wavefronts near the source and is
only significant at short ranges. Also, note that the integrand is smooth as ky ! 0. This
suggests that the integrand should be sampled more finely near ky k. Two different
sampling schemes are shown in Fig. 1(b). The straight line has constant discretization in
ky. The curved line uses a slightly offset gamma cumulative distribution function (CDF)
coupled with a linear function just after ky k. This results in a much finer sampling near
ky k for the same number of samples. For ky > k the samples are discretized much more
coarsely because the integrand is smooth. The sampling scheme is shown for the integral
at range 10 m from the source in Fig. 1(c). Note how the variable discretization samples
the integrand more finely near ky k where the function is more variable. Both the variable and the constant discretization schemes used 300 points.
The effect of the different discretization schemes is shown in Fig. 1(d) where
the results of the two schemes are compared with the analytic solution. The constant
scheme did not resolve the integrand near ky k and results in an unstable solution.
The variable discretization scheme, on the other hand, results in a near perfect solution
that deviates less than the width of the analytic solution line. This example illustrates
how a variable sampling scheme can provide a stable solution with fewer samples.
The structure of the integrand for an ocean waveguide is much more complex.
However, it retains many of the same qualities as the free space solution. It approaches
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 136 (3), September 2014
Isakson et al.: Finite element propagation model EL207
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4890195]
Fig. 1. (Color online) (a) The integrand for the cosine transform of a point source in free space. (b) Two different methods of sampling the out-of-plane wavenumber. (c) An example of how the integral is sampled for a
range of 10 m. (d) A comparison of the two different sampling methods and the analytic solution.
zero smoothly for values of ky > k and only has significant values for the evanescent
wavenumbers at short ranges. It is much more complex near ky k and becomes
smooth as ky ! 0. Therefore a similar scheme in which the discretization is determined
by the gamma CDF can be used. For propagation in a range dependent waveguide
described in the following text, the variable discretization method resulted in a 30-fold
decrease in the number of evaluations of the 2D model relative to the equivalent constant method. To put this in perspective, running the fully parallelized model on the
Texas Advanced Computing Center LoneStar Cluster took 3 days with the variable
discretization method compared with a projected 90 days using the constant method.6
At first glance, it may seem that the integral could be evaluated with quadrature schemes. However, the integrand suffers from many of the same problems discussed by Jensen, Kuperman, Porter, and Schmidt in Ref. 7, Sec. 4.5.2, with respect to
the evaluation of the inverse Hankel transform for axially symmetric problems. In particular, the oscillatory nature of the integral is highly dependent on range and environment requiring different quadrature points for each instance. The authors of Ref. 7
rejected quadrature scheme in favor of the simple equidistant discretization. However,
as discussed previously, this is impractical for this problem. Through trial and error,
the discretization based on the cumulative CDF has been found to be the most robust
and efficient for this problem.
Isakson et al.: Finite element propagation model
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4890195]
Table 1. Waveguide parameters for validation.
Waveguide depth (m)

Source depth (m)
Frequency (Hz)
Receiver depth (m)
Water sound speed (m/s)
Water density (kg/m3)
Water attenuation (dB/k)
Sediment sound speed (m/s)
Sediment density (kg/m3)
Sediment attenuation (dB/k)
Wedge angle ( )
Range independent
Range dependent
200
150
100
150
1500
1024
0
1700
1500
0.5
200-0
100
25
100
1500
1000
0
1700
1500
0.5
2.86
Fig. 2. (Color online) A comparison of the finite element approach and the wavenumber integration approach
for transmission loss in a range independent shallow water waveguide.
Fig. 3. (Color online) Transmission loss calculated using finite elements for a wedge environment. The black
line is the ocean bottom. The gray line denotes the cut shown in Fig. 4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4890195]
Fig. 4. (Color online) The out-of-plane transmission loss for the wedge environment along the cut shown in
Fig. 3.
3. Validation
To validate the model, range independent and dependent test cases were selected to
compare with existing models. The model parameters are given in Table I. The range
independent case consisted of a 200 m deep waveguide with a sandy bottom. This
problem required 2500 evaluations of the 2D field components. The solution was compared with a wavenumber integration solution provided by OASES (Ocean Acoustic and
Seismic Exploration Synthesis).8 Results are shown in Fig. 2. The models agree with
excellent precision.
The range dependent case is the ASA benchmark wedge, case III, with a lossy
penetrable bottom.9 This case required 6100 evaluations of the 2D field components.
The pressure field along the source axis up the wedge is shown in Fig. 3. This can be
directly compared with Fig. 8 in Ref. 9. It should be noted that unlike the calculations
provided by Jensen and Ferla in Ref. 9, the FE model includes all orders of coupling
and scattering making it an excellent benchmark solution. To display the out-of-plane
features of the model, a cut was taken along the gray line in Fig. 3 and shown in
Fig. 4. Note the modal cut-offs as the field approaches the wedge apex. This can be
compared qualitatively with Fig. 7 of Ref. 10 although in Ref. 10, the source was considerably closer to the wedge apex. Many of the same physical features such as shadow
zones and mode cut-offs are evident.
4. Conclusion
A 2D finite element propagation model has been extended to three dimensions through
a cosine transform that is appropriate for scenarios in which the geometry along one
spatial coordinate is invariant. The model requires that a 2D field be calculated for
each out-of-plane wavenumber. An inverse cosine transform yields the final solution. It
was determined that a constant sampling interval scheme to compute the transform
was computationally prohibitive. A non-uniform spacing based on an offset gamma
cumulative distribution function was found to be robust and efficient.
The model was validated by comparison with range independent and range dependent benchmark problems. The range independent case was a shallow water waveguide of water over sand, appropriate for a continental shelf environment. The range
dependent case was a wedge environment appropriate for propagation near shore. In
both instances, the finite element model agreed well with available solutions.
Because the FEM solves the Helmholtz equation exactly to the degree of the
discretization and is fully customizable, it can be applied to complex range dependent
Isakson et al.: Finite element propagation model
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.4890195]
environments such as continental shelf regions where interface roughness, range dependent sediment parameters, and water column sound speed profiles are important.
Unlike many other models, it provides the entire pressure field, both forward and
backward propagation. Therefore it can be used for both propagation and reverberation modeling.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by ONR, Ocean Acoustics under the direction of Robert
Headrick.
References and links
1
M. J. Isakson and N. P. Chotiros, Finite element modeling of reverberation and transmission loss in
shallow water waveguides with rough boundaries, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 129(3), 12731279 (2011).
2
J. N. Reddy, An Introduction to the Finite Element Model (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006).
3
F. B. Jensen, W. A. Kuperman, M. B. Porter, and H. Schmidt, Computational Ocean Acoustics, 2nd ed.
(Springer, New York, 2011), Chap. 7.
4
Information available on Comsol Multi-Physics at http://www.comsol.com/ (Last viewed June 4, 2012).
5
B. Zhou and S. A. Greenhalgh, Composite boundary-valued solution of the 2.5-d greens function for
arbitrary acoustic media, Geophysics 63(5), 18131823 (1998).
6
Information on Texas Advanced Computing Center Lonestar Cluster available at https://
www.tacc.utexas.edu (Last viewed December 17, 2013).
7
F. B. Jensen, W. A. Kuperman, M. B. Porter, and H. Schmidt, Computational Ocean Acoustics, 2nd ed.
(Springer, New York, 2011), Chap. 4.
8
H. Schmidt, OASES Version 2.1 User Guide and Reference Manual (Department of Ocean Engineering,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1997).
9
F. B. Jensen and C. M. Ferla, Numerical solutions of range-dependent benchmark problems in ocean
acoustics, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 87(4), 14991510 (1990).
10
G. B. Deane and M. J. Buckingham, An analysis of the three-dimensional sound field in a penetrable
wedge with a stratified fluid or elastic basement, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 93(3), 13191328 (1993).

A Three-Dimensional, Longitudinally-Invariant Finite Element Model For Acoustic Propagation in Shallow Water Waveguides

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Three-Dimensional, Longitudinally-Invariant Finite Element Model For Acoustic Propagation in Shallow Water Waveguides

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Isakson et al.

: JASA Express Letters

Published Online 5 August 2014