This paper presents an evaluation of the classical model for determining an ensemble of the broadband source spectra of the sound generated by individual ships and proposes an alternate model to overcome the deficiencies in the classical model. The classical model, proposed by Ross [Mechanics of Underwater Noise (Pergamon, New York, 1976)] postulates that the source spectrum for an individual ship is proportional to a baseline spectrum with the constant of proportionality determined by a power-law relationship on the ship speed and length. The model evaluation, conducted on an ensemble of 54 source spectra over a 30–1200-Hz to 1200-Hz frequency band, shows that this assumption yields large rms errors in the broadband source level for the individual ships and significantly overestimates the variability in the source level across the ensemble of source spectra. These deficiencies are a consequence of the negligible correlation between the source level and the ship speed and the source level and the ship length. The alternate model proposed here represents the individual ship spectra by a modified rational spectrum where the poles and zeros are restricted to the real axis and the exponents of the terms are not restricted to integer values. An evaluation of this model on the source spectra ensemble indicates that the rms errors are significantly less than those obtained with any model where the frequency dependence is represented by a single baseline spectrum. Furthermore, at high frequencies (400 to 1200 Hz), a single-term rational spectrum model is sufficient to describe the frequency dependence and, at the low frequencies (30 to 400 Hz), there is only a modest reduction in the rms error for a higher order model. Finally, a joint probability density on the two parameters of the single term model based on the measured histograms of these parameters is proposed. This probability density provides a mechanism for generating an ensemble of ship spectra.

Topics
Underwater acoustics, Water transportation, Probability theory
1.
R. J. Urick, Principles of Underwater Sound, 3rd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983), Chap. 7.
2.
I. A.
Aleksandrov
, “
Physical nature of the ‘rotation noise’ of ship propellers in the presence of cavitation
,”
Sov. Phys. Acoust.
8
(
1
),
23
–
28
(
1962
).
Google Scholar
 
3.
L. M.
Gray
and
D. S.
Greeley
, “
Source level model for propeller blade rate radiation for the world’s merchant fleet
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
67
,
516
–
522
(
1980
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
4.
D. Ross, Mechanics of Underwater Noise (Pergamon, New York, 1976).
5.
W. K. Blake, Aero-Hydroacoustics for Ships (David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, MD, DTNSRDC-84-7010, June, 1984), Vols. I and II.
6.
J. P. Breslin and P. Anderson, Hydrodynamics of Ship Propellers (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1994).
7.
J. P. Breslin and P. Anderson, Hydrodynamics of Ship Propellers (Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, 1994), Chaps. 20–22, and references therein.
8.
Y.-Z. Kehr, C.-Y. Hsin, and Y.-C. Sun, “Calculations of Pressure Fluctuations on the Ship Hull Induced by Intermittently Cavitating Propellers,” in Twenty-First Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics (National Academy, Washington, DC, 1997), pp. 882–897.
9.
A. A.
Pudovkin
, “
Noise emission by the cavitation zone of a marine propeller
,”
Sov. Phys. Acoust.
22
(
2
),
151
–
154
(
1976
).
Google Scholar
 
10.
Lloyd’s Registry of Shipping. Ship Particulars Database, Lloyd’s Maritime Information Services, Stamford, CT.
11.
H. W. Kutschale, “Rapid Computation by Wave Theory of Propagation Loss in the Arctic Ocean,” Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University, Technical Report No. 8, CU-8-73 (1973).
12.
F. R.
DiNapoli
and
R. L.
Deavenport
, “
Theoretical and numerical Green’s function solution in a plane multilayered medium
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
67
,
92
–
105
(
1980
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
13.
L. M.
Gray
and
D. S.
Greeley
, “
Source level model for propeller blade rate radiation for the world’s merchant fleet
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
67
,
516
–
522
(
1980
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
14.
Gray and Greeley’s formula has been modified to account for the fact that we have not assumed that the bottom of the propeller extends to the bottom of the ship. Thus, where they used, Draft—0.85 Diameter, we have used, 0.875 Draft—0.85 Diameter, further adjusted for the reported loading.
15.
Time in the spectrogram progresses from positive beam aspect angles to stern aspect angles. Figures 1234 span the angular interval 58° to −56° and are thus not expected to be effected by hull shielding (forward) or propagation wake absorption (stern).
16.
H. Takahashi and T. Ueda, “An experimental investigation into the effect of cavitation on fluctuating pressures around a marine propeller,” in Proceedings of the Twelfth International Towing Tank Conference (Consiglio Nazionale dele Ricerche, Rome, 1969), pp. 315–317.
17.
This distribution was cut off at the surface and the keel.
18.
P. T.
Arveson
and
D. J.
Vendittis
, “
Radiated noise characteristics of a modern cargo ship
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
107
,
118
–
129
(
2000
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed
 
19.
The maximum aspect angle for the 2-minute period used for each ship varied from 14° to 54° with the majority of ships less than 25°.
20.
Unless otherwise stated, all averages discussed in this paper are conducted on a decibel scale, rather than a power scale.
21.
J. J. Wolcin, “On the Statistical Properties of Noise Background Equalization Schemes,” NUSC Tech. Memo. No. 781159, Naval Underwater Systems Center, New London, CT (31 July 1978).
22.
W. A.
Struzinski
and
E. D.
Lowe
, “
A performance comparison of four background normalization schemes proposed for signal detection systems
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
76
,
1738
–
42
(
1984
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
23.
P.
Scrimger
and
R. M.
Heitmeyer
, “
Acoustic source-level measurements for a variety of merchant ships
,”
J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
89
,
691
–
699
(
1991
).
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
24.
D. Ross, in Ref. 4, Chap. 8.
25.
Ross, Donald, and F. F. Alvarez, unpublished work (1964).
26.
In the usual expression of this model, the factor of 10 is absorbed into the coefficients.
27.
R. M. Hamson and R. A. Wagstaff, “An Ambient-Noise Model That Includes Coherent Hydrophone Summation for Sonar System Performance in Shallow Water,” SACLANT ASW Research Centre Report, SR-70 (15 June 1983).
28.
J. E. Breeding, Jr., L. A. Pflug, M. Bradley, M. H. Walrod, and W. McBride, “Research Ambient Noise Directionality (RANDI) 3.1 Physics Description,” NRL Report, NRL/FR/7176-95-9628, Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, MS (August 1996).
29.
The difference between the two at 1200 Hz is only 0.2 dB from a common reference point at 400 Hz.
30.
E. B. Wright and J. Cybulski, “Low-Frequency Acoustic Source Levels of Large Merchant Ships,” NRL Report 8677, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC (14 March 1983).
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2002 Acoustical Society of America.
2002
Acoustical Society of America
You do not currently have access to this content.