Many geoacoustic models have been developed to study sandy sediments. In this work, Bayesian inference techniques are used to compare three such models: the VGS(λ) model, the most recent of Buckingham's viscous grain-shearing models, the Biot-Stoll poroelastic model, and an extension to the Biot-Stoll model proposed by Chotiros called the corrected and reparametrized extended Biot (CREB) model. First, Bayesian inversion is applied to wave speed and attenuation measurements previously made in the laboratory to determine the degree to which each of the model input parameters can be resolved by wave speed and attenuation data. Then, Bayesian model selection techniques are utilized to assess the degree to which the predictions of these models match the measured data and to ascertain the Bayesian evidence in favor of each. Through these studies it is determined that the VGS(λ) and CREB models outperform the Biot-Stoll model, both in terms of parameter resolution and in their ability to produce predictions in agreement with measurements. The VGS(λ) model is seen to have the highest degree of Bayesian evidence in its favor.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
April 2018
April 27 2018
A comparison of three geoacoustic models using Bayesian inversion and selection techniques applied to wave speed and attenuation measurements
Anthony L. Bonomo;
Anthony L. Bonomo
a)
Applied Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin
, Austin, Texas 78713-8029, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
Marcia J. Isakson
Marcia J. Isakson
Applied Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin
, Austin, Texas 78713-8029, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
a)
Electronic mail: [email protected]
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 143, 2501–2513 (2018)
Article history
Received:
August 09 2017
Accepted:
March 31 2018
Citation
Anthony L. Bonomo, Marcia J. Isakson; A comparison of three geoacoustic models using Bayesian inversion and selection techniques applied to wave speed and attenuation measurements. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1 April 2018; 143 (4): 2501–2513. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5032205
Download citation file:
Pay-Per-View Access
$40.00
Sign In
You could not be signed in. Please check your credentials and make sure you have an active account and try again.
Citing articles via
All we know about anechoic chambers
Michael Vorländer
Day-to-day loudness assessments of indoor soundscapes: Exploring the impact of loudness indicators, person, and situation
Siegbert Versümer, Jochen Steffens, et al.
A survey of sound source localization with deep learning methods
Pierre-Amaury Grumiaux, Srđan Kitić, et al.
Related Content
A porous medium model for mud
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (January 2021)
Analysis of shear-wave attenuation in unconsolidated sands and glass beads
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (November 2014)
From geology to geoacoustics—Evaluation of Biot–Stoll sound speed and attenuation for shallow water acoustics
J Acoust Soc Am (January 1998)
Inversion of sediment parameters in the Biot parameter space
Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. (April 2015)
Physics-based characterization of soft marine sediments using vector sensors
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. (January 2021)