Sonar’s signal processing


This article based on echo sounder ‘s signal processing. Sonar ( originally an acronym for sound pilotage and runing ) is a technique that uses sound extension ( normally underwater ) to voyage, pass on with or observe other vass. There are two sorts of echo sounder: active and inactive. Sonar may be used as a agency of acoustic location and of measuring of the echo features of “ marks ” in the H2O. Acoustic location in air was used before the debut of radio detection and ranging. Sonar may besides be used in air for automaton pilotage, and SODAR upward looking in-air echo sounder is used for atmospheric probes. The term echo sounder is besides used for the equipment used to bring forth and have the sound. The frequences used in sonar systems vary from really low ( infrasonic ) to highly high ( supersonic ) . The survey of submerged sound is known as submerged acoustics or sometimes hydro acoustics.

History of echo sounder

Sonar is a system that uses transmitted and reflected submerged sound moving ridges to observe and turn up submersed objects or step the distances underwater. It has been used for pigboat and mine sensing, depth sensing, commercial fishing, plunging safety and communicating at sea. The Sonar device will direct out a subsurface sound moving ridge and so listens for returning reverberations, the sound informations is relayed to the human operators by a speaker unit or by being displayed on a proctor.

Equally early as 1822, Daniel Colloden used an underwater bell to cipher the velocity of sound underwater in Lake Geneva, Switzerland. This early research led to the innovation of dedicated echo sounder devices by other discoverers.

Lewis Nixon

Lewis Nixon invented the really first Sonar type listening device pigboats. in 1906, as a manner of observing icebergs. Interest in Sonar was increased during World War I when there was a demand to be able to observe

In the nineteenth century an underwater bell was used as an accessory to beacons to supply warning of jeopardies.

The usage of sound to ‘echo locate ‘ underwater in the same manner as chiropterans use sound for aerial pilotage seems to hold been prompted by the Titanic catastrophe of 1912. The universe ‘s first patent for an submerged reverberation runing device was filed at the British Patent Office by English meteorologist Lewis Richardson a month after the sinking of the Titanic, and a German physicist Alexander Behm obtained a patent for an echo sounder in 1913. Canadian Reginald Fessenden, while working for the Submarine Signal Company in Boston, built an experimental system get downing in 1912, a system subsequently tested in Boston Harbor, and eventually in 1914 from the U.S. Revenue ( now Coast Guard ) Cutter Miami on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland Canada. In that trial, Fessenden demonstrated deepness sounding, submerged communications ( Morse Code ) and echo ranging ( observing an iceberg at two stat mis ( 3 kilometer ) scope ) . [ 1 ] The alleged Fessenden oscillator, at ca. 500 Hz frequence, was unable to find the bearing of the berg due to the 3 metre wavelength and the little dimension of the transducer ‘s radiating face ( less than 1 metre in diameter ) . The 10 Montreal-built British H category pigboats launched in 1915 were equipped with a Fessenden oscillator.

Paul Lang & A ; eacute ; vin

In 1915, Paul Lang & A ; eacute ; vin invented the first echo sounder type device for observing pigboats called an “ echo location to observe pigboats ” utilizing the piezoelectric belongingss of the vitreous silica. He was excessively late to assist really much with the war attempt ; nevertheless, Lang & A ; eacute ; vin ‘s work to a great extent influenced hereafter echo sounder designs.

The first Sonar devices were inactive hearing devices – no signals were sent out. By 1918, both Britain and the U.S had built active systems, in active Sonar signals are both sent out and so received back. Acoustic communicating systems are Sonar devices where there is both a sound moving ridge projector and receiving system on both sides of the signal way. The innovation of the acoustic transducer and efficient acoustic projectors made more advanced signifiers of Sonar

During World War I the demand to observe pigboats prompted more research into the usage of sound. The British made early usage of submerged hydrophones, while the Gallic physicist Paul Langevin, working with a Russian immigrant electrical applied scientist, Constantine Chilowski, worked on the development of active sound devices for observing pigboats in 1915 utilizing vitreous silica. Although piezoelectric and magnetostrictive transducers subsequently superseded the electrostatic transducers they used, this work influenced future designs. Lightweight sound-sensitive plastic movie and fibre optics have been used for hydrophones ( acoustic-electric transducers for in-water usage ) , while Terfenol-D and PMN ( lead Mg niobate ) have been developed for projectors.


In 1916, under the British Board of Invention and Research, Canadian physicist Robert William Boyle took on the active sound sensing undertaking with A B Wood, bring forthing a paradigm for proving in mid 1917. This work, for the Anti-Submarine Division, was undertaken in extreme secretiveness, and used vitreous silicas piezoelectric crystals to bring forth the universe ‘s first practical underwater active sound sensing setup. To keep secrecy no reference of sound experimentation or vitreous silica was made – the word used to depict the early work ( ‘supersonics ‘ ) was changed to ‘ASD’ics, and the quartz stuff to ‘ASD’ivite: hence the British acronym ASDIC. In 1939, in response to a inquiry from the Oxford English Dictionary, the Admiralty made up the narrative that it stood for ‘Allied Submarine Detection Investigation Committee ‘ , and this is still widely believed, though no commission bearing this name has been found in the Admiralty archives.

By 1918, both the US and Britain had built active systems, though the British were good in progress of the US. They tested their Sonar on HMS Antrim in 1920, and started production in 1922. The 6th Destroyer Flotilla had ASDIC-equipped vass in 1923. An anti-submarine school, HMS Osprey, and a preparation flotilla of four vass were established on Portland in 1924. The US Sonar QB set arrived in 1931.

By the eruption of World War II, the Royal Navy had five sets for different surface ship categories, and others for pigboats, incorporated into a complete anti-submarine onslaught system. The effectivity of early ASDIC was hamstrung by the usage of the depth charge as an anti-submarine arm. This required an assaultive vas to go through over a submerged contact before dropping charges over the austere, ensuing in a loss of ASDIC contact in the minutes taking up to assail. The huntsman was efficaciously firing blind, during which clip a pigboat commanding officer could take evasive action. This state of affairs was remedied by utilizing several ships collaborating and by the acceptance of “ in front throwing arms ” , such as Hedgehog and subsequently Squid, which projected payloads at a mark in front of the aggressor and therefore still in ASDIC contact. Developments during the war resulted in British ASDIC sets which used several different forms of beam, continuously covering unsighted musca volitanss. Subsequently, acoustic gunmans were used.

At the start of World War II, British ASDIC engineering was transferred for free to the United States. Research on ASDIC and submerged sound was expanded in the UK and in the US. Many new types of military sound sensing were developed. These included sonobuoys, foremost developed by the British in 1944, dipping/dunking echo sounder and mine sensing echo sounder. This work formed the footing for station war developments related to countering the atomic pigboat. Work on echo sounder had besides been carried out in the Axis states, notably in Germany, which included countermeasures. At the terminal of World War II this German work was assimilated by Britain and the US. Sonars have continued to be developed by many states, including Russia, for both military and civil utilizations. In recent old ages the major military development has been the increasing involvement in low frequence active systems.

Sonar – Sound, NAvigation and Ranging

The word Sonar is an American term foremost used in World War II, it is an acronym for SOund, NAvigation and Ranging. The British besides call Sonar, ASDICS, which stands for Anti-Submarine Detection Investigation Committee. Later developments of Sonar included the reverberation sounder, or deepness sensor, rapid-scanning Sonar, side-scan Sonar, and WPESS ( within-pulseectronic-sector-scanning ) Sonar.

Sound extension

Sonar operation is affected by fluctuations in sound velocity, peculiarly in the perpendicular plane. Sound travels more easy in fresh H2O than in sea H2O, though the difference is little. The velocity is determined by the H2O ‘s majority modulus and mass denseness. The majority modulus is affected by temperature, dissolved drosss ( normally salt ) , and force per unit area. The denseness consequence is little. The velocity of sound ( in pess per second ) is about:

4388 + ( 11.25 – temperature ( in & A ; deg ; F ) ) + ( 0.0182 – deepness ( in pess ) ) + salt ( in parts-per-thousand ) .

This through empirical observation derived estimate equation is moderately accurate for normal temperatures, concentrations of salt and the scope of most ocean deepnesss. Ocean temperature varies with deepness, but at between 30 and 100 metres there is frequently a pronounced alteration, called the thermocline, spliting the heater surface H2O from the cold, still waters that do up the remainder of the ocean. This can thwart echo sounder, because a sound arising on one side of the thermocline tends to be dead set, or refracted, through the thermocline. The thermocline may be present in shallower coastal Waterss. However, wave action will frequently blend the H2O column and extinguish the thermocline. Water force per unit area besides affects sound extension: higher force per unit area increases the sound velocity, which causes the sound waves to refract off from the country of higher sound velocity. The mathematical theoretical account of refraction is called Snell ‘s jurisprudence.

If the sound beginning is deep and the conditions are right, extension may happen in the ‘deep sound channel ‘ . This provides highly low extension loss to a receiving system in the channel. This is because of sound caparison in the channel with no losingss at the boundaries. Similar extension can happen in the ‘surface canal ‘ under suited conditions. However in this instance there are contemplation losingss at the surface.

In shallow H2O extension is by and large by repeated contemplation at the surface and underside, where considerable losingss can happen.

Sound extension is besides affected by soaking up in the H2O itself every bit good as at the surface and underside. This soaking up is frequency dependant, with several different mechanisms in sea H2O. Thus echo sounders required to run over long scopes tend to use low frequences to minimise soaking up effects.

The sea contains many beginnings of noise that interfere with the coveted mark reverberation or signature. The chief noise beginnings are moving ridges and transportation. The gesture of the receiving system through the H2O can besides do low frequence noise, which is speed dependant.

There are two major sorts of echo sounder, active and inactive.

Active echo sounder creates a pulsation of sound, frequently called a “ Ping ” , and so listens for contemplations of the pulsation. The pulsation may be at changeless frequence or a chirp of altering frequence. If a chirp, the receiving system correlates the frequence of the contemplations to the known chirp. The end point processing addition allows the receiving system to deduce the same information as if a much shorter pulsation of the same entire power were emitted. In general, long-distance active echo sounders use lower frequences. The lowest have a bass “ BAH-WONG ” sound. To mensurate the distance to an object, one measures the clip from emanation of a pulsation to response.

Passive echo sounders listen without conveying. They are normally military ( although a few are scientific ) . Passive sonar systems normally have big sonic databases. A computing machine system often uses these databases to place categories of ships, actions ( i.e. the velocity of a ship, or the type of arm released ) , and even peculiar ships.

How Sonar Often Leads Radar Signal Processing

  • Because of the lower information rates and computational throughput required, sonar signal processing development has frequently lead radio detection and ranging development. Examples: adaptative beamforming, and signal processing utilizing computational theoretical accounts.
  • One illustration is matched-field processing ( MFP ) which was originally developed for echo sounder but has later been transitioned to radar applications.

The frigates will be equipped with both hull mounted echo sounder, towed array echo sounder and chopper operated dunking echo sounder. These transmit powerful sound pulsations in the 1-8 kilohertz frequence scope, which may be potentially harmful to angle, seals and giants

Sonar Processing

Sonar processing has been a major undertaking of APL ‘s Strategic Systems Department ( SSD ) for the past 27 old ages. Most of this work has been performed within the Trident Sonar Evaluation Program ( TSEP ) sponsored by the Director, Strategic Systems Programs. Interdepartmental concerted attempts with APL ‘s Submarine Technology Department have led to the development of show systems for the Program Manager for Mobile Surveillance Systems of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. SSD staff members, along with our subcontractors, have made important parts to the development of entering and treating systems for sonar signals. For illustration, several of our shows are now normally used in Navy echo sounder ‘s. This article focuses on the development of echo sounder processing engineerings in SSD, with accent on the hardware and package, shows, sonar simulators, and entering systems. Sonar is any system that uses acoustic agencies to observe, place, path, or sort objects. The leading function of echo sounder is the sensing and trailing of pigboats and, to a lesser extent, surface ships runing in the universe ‘s oceans. Submarines are extremely capable arms platforms that are hard to observe when submerged. Because sound propagates comparatively good in the ocean, the Navy has relied to a great extent on the usage of acoustic sensing systems for happening pigboats. Passive echo sounder systems1,2 detect sound radiated by a mark of involvement. Active systems launch pulsations of acoustic energy and detect reverberations from marks. By their nature, active systems signal that they are in operation, whereas inactive systems can run covertly. SSD works with both active and inactive echo sounder, . In add-on, a general echo sounder system consists of both a detector array and a processor, but merely our work on sonar processors will be discussed


Basically, a echo sounder processor accepts acoustic signals ( sound moving ridges ) detected by a detector array in the ocean, extracts the features of those signals, and presents the features on a ocular show. Typical, sensor arrays processed in SSD are from 10 to 1000 foot in length and contain 50 to 1000 detectors or hydrophones. The signals received on such arrays must be characterized both by way of reaching, called spacial processing or beamforming, and by clip development, called spectral processing. By and large, the spacial and spectral processing can be performed individually with no loss in the detestability of the signals. From this description, one can see a inactive echo sounder processor as a combination of a beamformer, a spectrum analyser, and a show. As Fig. 1 indicates, detectors are sometimes recorded on magnetic or other media instead than being processed straight. Most of the processors developed by SSD have been designed as shore-based systems for detector informations recorded on magnetic media during operational pigboat missions. The end product of the spectrum analyser is stored on magnetic disc prior to expose and analysis. Use of such intermediate storage allows the analysis of the informations to continue on a different agenda from the processing. This attack is characteristic of most of our inactive echo sounder processor designs.

In add-on to submarine detector informations, the inactive echo sounder processor can accept input from a device called a front-end stimulator ( FES ) . The FES, which will be described later, can bring forth controlled, simulated signals to back up processor trial and standardization. The generic system shown in Fig. 1 could hold many different executions in hardware and package.

A general attack to constructing a echo sounder processor is suggested by the nature of the inactive echo sounder job. Spatial and spectral processing can be separated. In add-on, processing for single detectors and signal reaching waies can be separated. This separability suggests a distributed architecture: single processors linked by a high-velocity coach with some overall synchronism strategy. In such architecture, the demand to accomplish real-time or faster than real-time processing rates can be met by utilizing multiple processors working on different informations sections or different jobs.

Since the assorted sonar processors may put to death at different rates, the single processors must besides hold entree to memory buffers to smooth the flow of consequences among units. A distributed architecture of course provides modularity, which eases system integrating and allows new processors to be added as needed. Finally, any architecture must back up the programmability of algorithms and algorithm parametric quantities.

The first major SSD echo sounder processor, the Sonar Evaluation Program Analyzer ( SPAN-A ) , became operational in 19791 and was followed in 1983 by a processor called SPAN-I, which employed similar technology.2 SSD used SPAN-I until 1994.

By current criterions, the commercial computing machines and signal processing hardware available in the early 1980s were slow. The fastest minicomputers so available, for example, the System 32 by Systems Engineering Laboratories, ran at an internal clock rate of 1.67 MHz, approximately 1/125th of the velocity of a personal computing machine today. Similarly, a typical high-velocity floating-point processor of the clip, the Floating Point Systems AP-120B, contained 8 circuit cards and could put to death 12-million floating-point operations per second ( Mflops ) , whereas a individual Intel i860 bit today is about 7 times faster.

The deficiency of genuinely high-velocity commercial signal processing hardware forced the developers of SPAN-A and SPAN-I to construct the systems, both treating units and complecting coach, mostly utilizing usage hardware specifically designed for sonar signal processing. For illustration, SPAN-I contained 36 different board types, which were either wire-wrapped or dual sided printed circuit cards utilizing standard transistor logic constituents. The usage of usage fixed point hardware made SPAN-I economical to construct but significantly limited the types of algorithms it could run.

Both SPAN-A and SPAN-I were successful designs, but neither system could treat the complete inactive echo sounder suite developed for the new SSBN-726 ( Ohio ) category Trident pigboat, which joined the Fleet in the late eightiess. Analysis of Trident pigboat inactive echo sounder informations required a system that could treat sonar arrays incorporating up to 1000 elements with input informations rates to 30 MB/s, which was 6 times the maximal input rate of SPAN-I. The steady progresss in micro chip engineering and the increasing velocity of computing machines made it possible to implement SPAN-I maps in 32-bit floating-point arithmetic and still keep the needed processing throughput. In add-on, the new processor, called the Trident Sonar Processor Analyzer ( TSPAN ) ,2 was able to utilize much more commercial off the- shelf ( COTS ) hardware than SPAN-I. TSPAN became operational in 1991 and is still in usage today.

From the beginning, the Navy had a preplanned merchandise betterment program for TSPAN to suit the steady development in Navy echo sounders and to capitalise on sweetenings in commercial processing engineering.

In 1995, a squad from SSD was formed to plan a new system, provisionally called TSPANU ( for ascent ) , and development began in 1996. The overall design of TSPANU is given in Fig. 2.

The calculating power of TSPANU is contained in two human body. Each human body contains 10 commercial array processing boards manufactured by Sky Computers ; and each board contains 16 Pentium i860 processors supplying 80 Mflops per processor. Therefore, the peak computational rate of TSPANU is 12.8-billion floating- point operations per second, approximately 3 times the rate of the original TSPAN without utilizing any custom floating- point hardware. The demand for custom-designed floating-point hardware limited the flexibleness of TSPAN and made package development more hard. Progresss in commercial processing engineering have removed those restrictions on TSPANU. TSPANU contains two usage designed boards alternatively of the eight found in TSPAN. One of the boards, developed by APL ‘s Technical Services Department, performs a specialised beam organizing map called digital multibeam steering,3 which allows really efficient beam forming of hydrophone informations sampled at 1 spot. The other board, developed by SSD, buffers incoming informations from the tape participant and performs bit-level deformatting. Both boards are located inside processor human body 1 ( Fig. 2 ) .

The principal informations coach of TSPANU is a commercial merchandise called Sky Channel, besides a merchandise of Sky Computers. Sky Channel was selected because of its high bandwidth ( 320 MB/s ) and its ability to complect multiple human body, supplying for future enlargement. In this interim TSPANU design, two other commercial coachs support lower-speed informations transportations: FDDI ( fiber digital informations interchange ) and ATM ( asynchronous transportation manner ) . The FDDI coach in peculiar allows much of the TSPAN package to be reused temporarily.

Table 1 compares several of the SSD-designed echo sounder processors. By capitalising on steady progresss in treating engineering, TSPANU has over 9 times the processing capableness of the early SPAN-I, provides much more flexibleness, and costs about the same. TSPANU will hold the capableness to execute virtually any current sonar signal processing or show map. Figure 3 gives a typical processing flow planned for the ascent. Owing to its high throughput, TSPANU will be able to treat two echo sounders at the same time utilizing the latest adaptative beamforming and show techniques.

For each of the four signal processing systems ( SPAN-A, SPAN-I, TSPAN, and TSPANU ) , two factors affected the range and complexness of the several package development attempts. First, inclusion of COTS hardware was a major end get downing with the TSPAN system. We used COTS hardware when practical to cut down initial costs, facilitate integrating, and cut down the disbursal of long-run care and fix of the system. This attack has been carried frontward to the TSPANU system.

The 2nd factor resulted from increased outlooks and aspirations sing the easiness with which each developed system should be reconfigurable. Even with the earliest system, SPAN-A, SSD staff realized that the development of a stiff processing system- 1 that could treat merely the echo sounder feeling systems deployed during the early 1980s-would be unacceptable. As a consequence, SPAN-A was built to be “ programmable ” to let it to be reconfigured to treat future detectors. But although the system was reconfigurable by the criterions of the epoch, it was however hard to alter as a practical affair. Get downing with the TSPAN system, and advanced further for TSPANU, reconfigurability became a officially specified design demand.

These two factors did impact the complexness of the package development attempts, but non wholly as 1 might anticipate. At first glimpse, it would look that incorporation of COTS hardware would do the development undertaking easier, whereas incorporation of progressively “ smart ” package would do the development undertaking harder. The latter proved to be true, but the former did non, because inclusion of COTS hardware in the TSPAN system held a surprise.

In the late eightiess, when hardware committednesss had to be made for the TSPAN system, COTS picks were well fewer than we enjoy today. This deficit applied to raw floating-point processors every bit good as high-velocity informations transmittal coach picks. ( Today we have available standardized hardware such as ATM and FDDI, and can besides take from package transportation protocols. Besides, there are vendor-specific high-velocity informations transportation solutions, typically using backplane-mounted crossbar switches. )

Since the TSPAN interior decorators had fewer picks, they selected an input/output transportation computing machine merchandise built by Aptec Computer Systems. The Aptec merchandise allowed for the usage of different hardware interface ports, which were chosen on the footing of the informations transportation rate needed for a specific connexion to a compute processor. Each port had its ain unique scheduling demands. Connected to these ports were different types of COTS processors, once more chosen for specific belongingss such as throughput, size, and cost. The ensuing system, although possibly accurately described as being composed of COTS equipment, was a mixture of input/output processors, interface hardware, and dissimilar floating-point processors.

The package development attempt was out of the blue complex, as it was necessary to plan each type of processor unambiguously and to individually plan each type of hardware interface. The ensuing package was composed of processor firmware, assembly, FORTRAN, and C codification. The complexness of the system made it hard to keep.

The SPAN-I and TSPAN systems were clearly distinguishable. SPAN-I, with its usage hardware, required a individual type of interface to copulate virtually any processor to the made-to-order ring coach. The associated system package development attempt was correspondingly The SPAN-I and TSPAN systems were clearly distinguishable. SPAN-I, with its usage hardware, required a individual type of interface to copulate virtually any processor to the made-to-order ring coach. The associated system package development attempt was correspondingly little. TSPAN, on the other manus, minimized usage hardware development, but as a effect, the package development attempt was comparatively big. One should non reason, nevertheless, that the usage of COTS hardware will increase current package development costs today. Alternatively, the lesson is that COTS inclusion at that alone period of clip, although executable, was non needfully advantageous.

The TSPANU system will necessitate development of merely two usage hardware constituents, as antecedently mentioned. All other constituents, including additive beam formers, filtrating units, and fast Fourier transform ( FFT ) processors, are implemented in COTS hardware built by Sky Computers. All hardware constituents are interfaced with the high-bandwidth Sky Channel coach, including the two made-to-order boards. This coach defines an turn toing infinite that supports TSPANU scalability demands. The ensuing homogenous hardware allows the package development squad to plan and construct common constituents and methods for informations transportation, memory direction, file direction, and mistake handling that apply throughout the system.

Still left for treatment is the 2nd factor described antecedently: future signal processing systems must be extremely configurable. An informative manner to clear up this construct of a reconfigurable signal processing system is to depict its antonym, a stiffly constructed system. Early echo sounder treating systems had predefined capablenesss.

For illustration, a system might be able to treat element informations from merely one or two detection arrays, might ever execute hold and sum beam forming, and so ever follow a preset processing way. If analysis demands called for divergence, so a coder would be required to laboriously deviate informations from the “ usual ” class, directing the information watercourse to freshly implemented algorithms. In pattern, the scope of allowed divergences has been restricted because of package and hardware architectural restrictions. A usefully reconfigurable echo sounder system allows

  • Easy redirection of the informations watercourse
  • Adjustment of new input detector informations
  • Capture of surrogate end product consequences
  • Incorporation of alternate algorithms
  • Simple re-allocation of computing machine resources to extinguish detected constrictions
  • Hardware enlargement ( or ascent ) without package alterations

These qualities are so clearly good that they were required in some signifier in every processing system developed for our aims.

As a consequence, all three of our echo sounder systems ( SPAN-A, SPAN-I, and TSPAN ) were designed to be and were described by their developers as “ programmable ” or “ reconfigurable. ” Both descriptions had a footing in truth, but the ends sing flexibleness were met with merely limited success in early systems. The fact is that programmability is a affair of grade, and the more flexible a system is to be, the greater will be its up-front package development costs.

The flexibleness of a sonar signal processing system will be the result of measured determinations and trade-offs, and will necessitate careful design to be accomplishable to a degree both utile and low-cost. The challenge during the on-going development of the TSPANU echo sounder system is to do flexibleness a world by planing a package architecture that supports those ends. The followers is a subset of the package design rules being implemented in TSPANU.

  • A peculiar processing undertaking will be easy scalable, without package alterations, to utilize more or fewer single processors as throughput demands dictate. All informations watercourse direction and routing maps will be performed automatically by package.
  • The construct of hardware scalability will widen beyond the human body. Extra card-cages populated by extra array processors will be added to the system without package alteration.
  • A text tabular array that is generated by a user will specify the allotment of processors and the information interconnectednesss between those processors. The parametric quantities of all procedures and interconnectednesss will be defined symbolically in that tabular array, forestalling duplicate definitions of indistinguishable measures.
  • The system will be data-driven at velocities transcending existent clip. When the informations flow Michigans, the system will tick over while waiting for more informations.
  • The receiver of all echo sounder end products generated by the system will be a individual console workstation. The interface to the workstation will let ascent or entire replacing of the console without impacting the signal processing system.

The TSPANU system is designed to suit

  1. hardware enlargement or ascent with few or no package alterations,
  2. future sweetening of its algorithms without major package alteration, and
  3. Processing of echo sounder detector systems that do non presently exist. To accomplish these ends, the package architecture supports specific generalised constructs that are designed from the beginning. The usage of a individual COTS processor for about all computationally intensive undertakings, every bit good as an incorporate high-bandwidth coach, is cardinal to run intoing the package design ends.


The current SSD echo sounder processors employ a show and analysis subsystem separate from the signal processing subsystem. Our echo sounder processors have produced many different echo sounder shows such as LOFAR ( low-frequency analysis and recording ) , a show of the energy at a given bearing and frequence scope over clip, and BTR ( bearing clip entering ) , a show of the broadband energy covering 360 & A ; deg ; over clip ( Fig. 4 ) . Before 1985, the echo sounder images

Produced by the signal processors were printed to thermal hard-copy paper and so analyzed. Each information tape generated about 1,000 sheets of hard-copy paper, or more than 100,000 sheets for a individual SSBN pigboat mission. Each image was printed on dry Ag paper, which was rather expensive in the measures required. There- Figure 4. Sample ( a ) LOFAR and ( B ) BTR echo sounder show images. bow, the ends of the first show and analysis system for the TSEP, known as DIANA, were to take down costs by cut downing the demand for hard-copy end product and to supply on-line analysis capablenesss. The ensuing system could recover, unpack, format, and expose a 500-

KB 4-h full-screen LOFAR image in approximately 5 s and a 15-h BTR image in approximately 7 s.

Analysis utilizing the DIANA attack demonstrated the power of show systems for forming informations and gave the users a broad scope of optional tools for informations choice and analysis. For illustration, DIANA was the first system in the echo sounder community to back up linked LOFAR capableness from a BTR show. Time slices from a set of LOFARs were abutted, organizing a linked LOFAR image, which could be used to track an energy beginning traveling through bearing infinite. On the first coevals DIANA, the user had to manually come in linked LOFAR definitions. Subsequent upgrades improved the manual capableness and provided extra methods for specifying and analysing linked LOFARs. The consequence was that the increased analysis capableness

Provided by the DIANA system was more valuable to the TSEP than the decrease of hard-copy paper costs.

As SSD signal processing systems were enhanced with the development of TSPAN, the bing DIANA system besides needed betterments. In 1987, DIANA2 was initiated to hive away, recover, format, and expose the big volume of informations produced by the TSPAN processor ; cut down the clip to expose a full screen image ; and better the analysis merchandise by supplying more powerful tools and capablenesss.

The new system was designed to suit informations from seven TSPAN processing tallies, each incorporating 6 H of processed image informations from two echo sounder arrays. The DIANA2 system provided new predefined shows, such as polar secret plans and histograms of the signal-to noise ratio found in frequency/time subsets. It besides allowed the user to specify customized shows by choosing and forming the information types to be shown. Datas from other beginnings could be overlaid every bit good ; for illustration, onboard logged contact information could be overlaid on BTRs. The DIANA2 system is still the primary show system for the TSEP.

GAPS contain an extensile set of treating elements that are combined to execute complex maps. For illustration, power spectral estimations for a frequence scope can be generated from clip series informations by a processing way consisting the complex sociable, low base on balls filter, decimator, FFT, square jurisprudence sensor, amount and shit elements, logarithmic maps, and scale elements. Each component is so governed by a set of options. For illustration, FFT options include FFT size, overlap per centum, and window type. Another characteristic of GAPS is an extensile set of analysis maps, all selectable from a bill of fare, including real-time sound and ocular playback of clip series informations and tools for analysing sonar array wellness such as wave figure and hydrophone versus frequence secret plans GAPS is implemented on single-monitor COTS UNIX-based workstations utilizing X Windows and XView. For rapid prototyping, treating elements and analysis maps use the MATLAB or PVWAVE toolkits. The system emphasizes flexibleness and easiness of extension over treating velocity. The GAPS ascent ( GAPSU ) is presently under development to back up new informations types and formats, combine the DIANA2 maps with the special-purpose processing system, and add analysis maps and better bing 1s. The earlier decrease analysis systems, DIANA and DIANA2, were written for specific SPAN-A, SPAN-I, and TSPAN end product informations formats. GAPSU will accept these formats and will be extendable so that new formats can be added. This ability will let informations from beginnings other than TSPAN to be analyzed utilizing tools developed for production analysis, and will let analysis of the new information merchandises expected from TSPANU and other possible beginnings

Sonar and Radar Signal Processing Challenges


  • Reducing the SNR required for mark sensing and path induction.
  • Operation in high traffic, non-stationary intervention environments.
  • Reducing the lower limit noticeable speed ( MDV ) .
  • Bettering mark localisation, tracking, and categorization.


  • Target sensing is chiefly noise and intervention limited in inactive echo sounder versus largely clutter and echo limited in radar/active echo sounder.
  • Large sensor-to-snapshot ratio and inability to insulate signal from the “ noise preparation informations ” frequently consequences in more complicated adaptative sensing jobs in sonar versus radio detection and ranging where true CFAR sensors are well-known.
  • MDV in inactive echo sounder defines lowest noticeable beginning degree. MDV in radio detection and ranging defines how near the mark can be to the jumble.
  • Sonar challenge is frequently detecting really weak marks versus radio detection and ranging challenge frequently know aparting a target-of-interest ( TOI ) from many uninteresting paths.


  1. W.S. Burdic. Underwater Acoustic System Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1991
  2. F. Ehlers and D. Tielburger. Verfahren zum Bestimmen von Zieldaten Massachusetts Institute of Technology einer Aktivsonaranlage, Patent DE 103 32 886, 2003 ; Method for Determining Target Data utilizing an Active Sonar, European Patent 1 500 953, 2006.
  3. Object Management Group. hypertext transfer protocol: //
  4. H. H?ostermann and H. Schmidt-Schierhorn. The design of the ACTAS twin-array. In Proc. Underwater Defense Technology, 1999.
  5. B. Maranda. Efficient digital beamforming in the frequence sphere. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. , 86 ( 5 ) :1813-1819, 1989.
  6. NATO Undersea Research Centre ( NURC ) .http: //
  7. Concurrent Technologies Plc. hypertext transfer protocol: //
  8. Inc. SBS Technologies. hypertext transfer protocol: //
  9. H. Schmidt-Schierhorn and T.Warhonowicz. Towed duplicate line array: Design and consequences of sea tests. In Proc.Underwater Defense Technology Pacific, 1998.
  10. South, H. M. , “ Digital Recording and Signal Processing Systems for Hydrophone Arrays, ” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 4 ( 3 ) , 212-218 ( 1983 ) .
  11. South, H. M. , “ High-speed Processors for Sonar, ” Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig. 11 ( 1-2 ) , 105-113 ( 1990 ) .
  12. Anderson, V. C. , “ Digital Array Phasing, ” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 32, 867 ( 1960 ) .
  13. South, H. M. , “ High Data Rate Recording and Processing Systems for Hydrophone Arrays, ” in Oceans ’80: An International Forum on Ocean Engineering in the ’80 ‘s, IEEE 80CH15727, Piscataway, NJ, pp. 263-266 ( 1980 ) .