2016
DOI: 10.1515/aon-2016-0012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimation of Effective Swath Width for Dual-Head Multibeam Echosounder

Abstract: Many surveying companies and maritime institutions are now using multibeam systems for their operations, either offshore or in coastal and inland waters. Since the time the first multibeam echosounder appeared (late 1970s) the technology has advanced enormously. Modern systems now boast far greater angular coverage (typically 120º-150º) and form hundreds of beams. Dual-head multibeam systems can potentially cover the entire sector (180º) underneath the ship. However surveyors must be aware that the outer beams… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Of all the measurement methods other than hydroacoustic, Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) [4] deserves a special mention. It is similar in terms of the swath width to the surveys carried out by the MBES [5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…Of all the measurement methods other than hydroacoustic, Airborne Laser Scanning (ALS) [4] deserves a special mention. It is similar in terms of the swath width to the surveys carried out by the MBES [5].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…Recently, dual-head MBESs have become more prevalent and offer greater effective swath widths than traditional MBESs and can have multiple frequencies of reflectivity backscatter data (Grządziel and Wąż 2016;Eleftherakis et al 2018). Grządziel and Wąż (2016) reported effective swath widths for dual-head MBES to be as high as 7.5:1 in 12 m of water, which is the shallowest operational depth reported in the study. This is approximately double the effective swath width typically reported for traditional MBES; however, lower operating frequency MBES (100-400 kHz) were used in those studies, which would increase attainable swath width in deeper waters.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…The low effective swath widths of MBESs, typically 3:1 to 4:1, have been a prohibitive drawback when mapping shallow waters (Grządziel and Wąż 2016). Recently, dual-head MBESs have become more prevalent and offer greater effective swath widths than traditional MBESs and can have multiple frequencies of reflectivity backscatter data (Grządziel and Wąż 2016;Eleftherakis et al 2018). Grządziel and Wąż (2016) reported effective swath widths for dual-head MBES to be as high as 7.5:1 in 12 m of water, which is the shallowest operational depth reported in the study.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An angular swath coverage used was 140 • . The array lengths used in an EM3002D result in 1.5 • by 1.5 • beams at broadside [31]. The system sonar frequency was nominally 300 kHz.…”
Section: Mapping the Shipwreck-sitementioning
confidence: 99%