Experimental analysis of the effects of bistatic target scattering on synthetic aperture

sonar imagery
Thomas E. Blanford, Joonho D. Park, Shawn F. Johnson, and Daniel C. Brown

Citation: Proc. Mtgs. Acoust. 39, 070001 (2019); doi: 10.1121/2.0001248

View online: https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001248
View Table of Contents: https://asa.scitation.org/toc/pma/39/1
Published by the Acoustical Society of America

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Investigation of a rupture-induced underwater sound source

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 39, 005001 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001252

Development of an in-air circular synthetic aperture sonar system as an educational tool

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 36, 070002 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001025

Contextual knowledge-aided sparse Bayesian learning method for bathymetric sonar

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 39, 055005 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001241

Mapping the ocean floor in extreme resolution using interferometric synthetic aperture sonar
Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 38, 055003 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001058

Scattering statistics of rock outcrops: Model-data comparisons and Bayesian inference using mixture
distributions
The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 145, 761 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5089892

Histotripsy in collagenous tendons

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics 39, 020004 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001249
Volume 39 http://acousticalsociety.org/

178th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America

San Diego, California
2-6 December 2019

Underwater Acoustics: Paper 1pUWb1

Experimental analysis of the effects of bistatic target

scattering on synthetic aperture sonar imagery
Thomas E. Blanford, Joonho D. Park, Shawn F. Johnson and Daniel C. Brown
Applied Research Laboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA, 16804;
teb217@psu.edu; jdp971@psu.edu; sfj102@psu.edu; dcb19@psu.edu

Downward looking synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) systems, such as those used to detect surficial and buried
unexploded ordinance, may use arrays with large spatial extent compared to the depth of the targets they are
imaging. With such systems the targets are in the near field of the physical array formed by the projector and
receiver. Beamforming algorithms, data representation schemes, and automated target recognition algorithms can
benefit from considering the bistatic scattering patterns of targets in this geometry. In downward looking SAS
systems, resonant scattering behavior may be used to discriminate targets from clutter because scattering from
the sediment-water interface may obscure the geometric scattering response of targets. An experimental analysis
of the effects on SAS imagery due to bistatic collection geometries was conducted using an in-air laboratory
setup with resonant targets. This data was used to develop a signal processing algorithm that may help improve
target localization, detection, and identification by focusing re-radiated resonant energy from targets. Results
from the application of this algorithm are compared for an approximately monostatic and a truly bistatic SAS
collection geometry using an aluminum pipe target.

Published by the Acoustical Society of America

© 2020 Acoustical Society of America. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0001248

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 1
T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

1. INTRODUCTION

Synthetic aperture sonar (SAS) systems can form high resolution imagery that may be used to detect,
localize, and identify objects in an underwater environment. A typical SAS array consists of one or more
transmitters and an array of receivers that are physically separated from the transmitters. Imagery is formed
by coherently combining backscattered signals over an ensemble of pings. Many SAS systems are used
in a sidescan geometry where the array is mounted on an underwater vehicle or towbody and are oriented
to image towards starboard or port. These systems may image objects that are tens to hundreds of meters
away in range and the sensor is typically positioned so that the range of grazing angles spans approximately
5 to 50 degrees.1 This sensing geometry is typically used for imaging proud objects. Sound waves will
penetrate a flat sediment interface when the angle of incidence is greater than the critical angle for the
relative compressional wavespeeds in the sediment and the water.2 Sidescan SAS systems can image buried
objects, but their performance is generally best when the incidence angle is greater than the critical angle.3
Downward looking SAS systems, however, image directly below the host vehicle at near-normal in-
cidence to the seafloor. Operation near normal incidence can improve the performance of buried object
imaging and several sensors have been developed for this purpose.4–6 Unlike sidescan SAS systems, objects
interrogated by a downward looking SAS system may be only a few meters away from the array. In such
systems, because of the very short range, the relative position of both the transmitter and receivers to the
object may influence the backscattered signals depending on the particular bistatic scattering angle.7
The bistatic scattering angle subtended between the transmitter, the object and the receiver is determined
by the collection geometry. Figure 1 illustrates a hypothetical SAS array consisting of a single transmitter
and four receivers in several collection geometries. The different geometries may be compared in terms of
r, the range to the objects, and the Fraunhofer distance8 Df for the array. The Fraunhofer distance is the
limit between the near-field and far-field of the array and is given by

2L2
Df = (1)
λ
where λ is the acoustic wavelength in the medium and L is the length of the SAS array. In Fig. 1a, r > Df ,
for all of the elements in the array. In this case the physical bistatic SAS array is well approximated as an
array of four monostatic elements.9 This collection geometry is common for sidescan SAS systems.
Downward looking SAS systems, such as the Sediment Volume Search Sonar (SVSS),6 often operate
less than 3 meters above the bottom. In such a system, objects may be interrogated in both approximately
monostatic or truly bistatic geometries depending on the pair of transmitter and receiver that is used. In
Fig. 1b the object is interrogated with a transmitter and a receiver separated by a distance L1 . The range
to the object is greater than the Fraunhofer distance for this transmitter-receiver pair. Like the sidescan
system in Fig. 1a, the bistatic angle is small and scattering measured from this pair is well approximated
as if it were from a monostatic array element. In Fig. 1c, however, the object is interrogated with the
furthest separated transmitter-reciever pair in the array. The bistatic angle is much larger for this pair and a
monostatic approximation is not valid for this pair because the r ≤ Df .
Signal processing strategies may be designed to exploit the range of bistatic scattering angles and the
acoustic response of the objects to improve detection, identification, and localization of objects. The collec-
tion geometry typical of downward looking SAS systems, however, creates unique challenges compared to
sidescan SAS systems.

2. CHALLENGES OF DOWNWARD LOOKING SAS

In downward looking SAS imagery, proud and buried objects compete for contrast with the scattering
from the sediment-water interface and the sediment volume. Dynamic range compression is commonly

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 2

T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 1: Some SAS collection geometries allow for the truly bistatic array to be well approximated as a
series of monostatic elements when the range to the objects is much greater than the length of the physical
array. In (a), the range to the object is much greater than the length of the array. This geometry is
common for sidescan SAS systems and allows for a monostatic approximation. In shallow water systems,
the monostatic approximation may only be valid for certain transmitter-receiver pairs. In (b), the array
is in shallow water but the monostatic approximation still holds for the first transmitter-receiver pair. In
(c) however, the object is imaged with the transmitter and the last receiver. This pair must be treated as
bistatic.

required in order to see all the desired features in the imagery. An example of this is shown in Fig. 2
with data collected by the SVSS. The raw data are beamformed and displayed with a 40 dB dynamic range
normalized to the maximum intensity pixel in Fig. 2a. A series of steel pipes and concrete cylinders lying
proud on the sediment are visible around 0 m in depth. The short objects have a length to diameter ratio of
of 2:1 and the long objects have a length to diameter ratio of 4:1. The kl values for the objects are between
35 and 70, where k is the wavenumber at the center frequency of the SVSS system and l is the length of the
cylinder.
Scattering from the sediment-water interface forms a bright layer directly below the objects that is com-
parable to their intensity, but few features are visible in the sediment bottom. The SVSS system aims to
detect both proud and buried objects. In order to see buried objects in the imagery, depth varying normal-
ization is applied to the imagery to account for the attenuation of sound in marine sediments and the strong
intensity of the interface scattering. This normalization compresses the dynamic range of the imagery. Fig-
ure 2b shows the same image as Fig. 2a after the depth varying normalization is applied. The pipes have
strong resonant scattering behavior which results in late time, defocused energy appearing directly below
the objects in the imagery.10 The concrete cylinders are less resonant and have significantly less intense late
time energy. The intensity and appearance of this late time energy can be used to detect and discriminate
between types of objects.11 Applying the normalization techniques in order to better observe the sediment
volume in the imagery emphasizes the late time energy from resonant objects.
When objects are buried near the sediment-water interface it may not be possible to observe the ge-
ometric scattering response of the objects because they do not contrast with the intensity of the interface
scattering in neighboring pixels. If the objects are resonant, however, the late time defocused energy will
still appear below the object. This late time energy may have greater contrast with the sediment volume
scattering than the geometric response does with the interface. Figure 3 shows another set of objects imaged
with the SVSS: a shotput, short aluminum pipe, and long aluminum pipe. The image is shown after the

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 3

T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: An image collected with the SVSS shows a set of aluminum and concrete cylindrical objects
that are proud on a lake bed. In (a) the raw image intensity is shown on a decibel scale. Scattering from
the sediment appears directly below the objects at a similar intensity. In order to better visualize objects
that may be buried in the sediment, a range varying normalization algorithm is applied to the image
(b). This normalization emphasizes the late time resonant energy which may be used as a discriminator
between types of objects.

depth varying normalization has been applied. The geometric response of all the objects are either partially
or completely obscured by the scattering from the upper sediment. The late time, resonant energy, however,
is clearly visible from all three objects. In this scenario, the late time energy alone may be the only acoustic
response that can be used to identify and precisely locate the objects.
The remainder of this paper will investigate a signal processing strategy that may be used to improve
localization and identification of objects when only their late time energy is visible in the imagery. An
analogous in-air experiment is used to develop and explore this signal processing technique. The in-air
array contains both approximately monostatic and truly bistatic transmitter-receiver pairs that are used to
compare the effects of the SAS collection geometry on this signal processing technique.

3. IN-AIR EXPERIMENT

In downward looking SAS systems, resonant objects may be interrogated from both approximately
monostatic and truly bistatic collection geometries. As the late time energy is important in detecting and
identifying objects, an analogous experiment was conducted in air to investigate resonant objects and de-
velop signal processing strategies that can be used to improve their detection, localization, and identification.
The experiment was designed to explore differences in the late time energy when it is observed from an ap-
proximately monostatic versus a bistatic array geometry.

A. DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The in-air experiment is housed in an anechoic chamber with an acoustic array mounted on a vertical
positioning track. The acoustic array operates in a band from 11.5-26.5 kHz and consists of a single trans-
mitter and two receivers. The transmitter is a 20 mm Peerless OX20SC02-04 loudpeaker tweeter powered
by a Krohn-Hite Model 7500 amplifier. Two GRAS 46AM microphones that are matched within 0.2 dB over
this band are used as receivers. A National Instruments USB-4431 is used to generate and acquire signals.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 4

T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

Figure 3: When objects are buried, the geometric response may not be visible because it is obscured by
the strong scattering of the upper sediment layers. In this depth normalized image, collected with the
SVSS, a series of objects are buried between 2 and 8 cm below the sediment-water interface. In all cases,
the geometric response is partially or completely obscured by the scattering from the sediment and but the
late time, resonant response of the object is clearly visible in the imagery. When the geometric response
is obscured, the late time energy must be used to precisely localize and identify objects.

Objects are placed on a rotating platform whose center is 85 cm from the array. This allows for the objects
to be moved relative to the fixed array in a circular SAS collection geometry.12
The layout of the acoustic array is designed to create two separate SAS collection geometries. One mi-
crophone is located 5 cm below the transmitter, forming a transmitter-receiver pair that is well approximated
as monostatic. (For the rest of the paper, this approximately monostatic imaging geometry will be referred
to as simply ”monostatic”.) The second microphone is suspended with an arm 45 cm to the side of the
transmitter. This forms a pair with the transmitter than cannot be approximated as monostatic. The bistatic
angle between the transmitter, the center of the platform, and the second microphone is 28 degrees. Separate
sets of imagery are formed using each microphone in order to explore differences between the monostatic
(microphone 1) and bistatic (microphone 2) geometries.

B. LATE TIME FOCUSING ALGORITHM

Typical synthetic aperture beamforming techniques form an image by inverting the forward model for
geometric scattering. For a single transmission, the forward model approximates the scattered field as a
coherent summation of returns from each point within the scene. These individual returns are each delayed
by the propgation time from the source to the scattering point and back to the receiver. Acoustic energy
received by the array that does not fit this model will appear out of focus. When the incident acoustic wave
excites an acoustic resonance in an object, for example, the object may continue to re-radiate acoustic energy
for a period of time that continues to propagate back to the receiver. This resonant energy from the object
arrives later in time than the geometric scattering response. Late time, non-geometric scattering therefore
appears out of focus and spatially separated from the object because the acoustic response from the object
violates the simple forward model at the root of the beamforming algorithm.
When the geometric scattering response of an object is obscured in the imagery, a technique that can
aid object localization is to focus the late time energy. Equation 2 describes a backprojection algorithm that
can be used to focus the late time energy. The value of a pixel in the image at ξ¯ is found by delaying the
recorded time series pressure signal and integrating over the synthetic aperture. The delay for each time

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 5

T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

series is the time that corresponds to the propagation time from the transmitter at ξ¯T to the pixel and back
to the receiver at ξ¯R , plus an additional time τ . This algorithm focuses the geometric scattering response
when τ = 0 and late time energy when τ > 0. As objects with resonances or high-order multiple scattering
paths will re-radiate acoustic energy for a period of time, multiple values of τ may result in focused late
time energy. Gradually incrementing τ will generate a sequence of images that shows the progressive focus
of the late time energy in a set of data.
ZZ  
¯ 1 ¯ ¯
|ξ − ξR | + |ξ − ξT | + τ, ξR , ξT dξ¯T dξ¯R
¯ ¯ ¯ ¯


f (ξ, τ ) = p (2)
c

This algorithm, described here in the time domain, can be similarly implemented in the wavenumber domain
by modifying a polar format algorithm to recover the late time focused imagery.
Figure 4 applies the late time focusing algorithm to data collected from a pair of objects with the in-
air setup: a soda bottle without a cap and the same soda bottle with a cap. Imagery from the monostatic
collection geometry is shown for three different values of τ . When τ = 0, the geometric response of each
object is in focus. Next, τ is increased to 800µs. At this delay, the geometric response of each object has
defocused. late time energy, however, comes into focus at a point below and to the left of the center of the
image for the uncapped bottle. The same late time focusing is not observed in the capped bottle at this delay.
Finally, τ is increased again to 1600µs. At this delay there is again focusing of late time energy for the
uncapped bottle at the same point, though at a lower intensity, as at 800µs. There is again no similar focus
at this point in the image for the capped bottle. Given that the focusing of this late time energy is present
only when the bottle is uncapped, it is likely that this is acoustic energy that entered the bottle through the
mouth and reflected once (for τ = 800µs) and twice (for τ = 1600µs) off the back of the bottle.
Focusing late time energy in the image domain can be used to precisely localize objects. Figure 5
demonstrates how the focusing can aid localization with the uncapped soda bottle. In Fig. 5a, the imagery
is shown for τ = 800µs. In Fig. 5b, the geometric (τ = 0) response of the object is overlaid on the
τ = 800µs image from Fig. 5a. It is clear from this figure that the point at which the late time energy has
focused at τ = 800µs is at the mouth of the soda bottle. Given that the energy that focuses at this point
is likely to have been re-radiated from the mouth of the bottle, it is expected that it would focus at this
point. This same algorithm could be applied to localize objects in downward looking SAS systems when the
geometric response of the object is obscured by the sediment. With such a sensor, however, it is necessary
to consider any differences in the observation of late time, non-geometric energy between monostatic and
bistatic collection geometries.

C. COMPARISON OF LATE TIME ENERGY FOR MONOSTATIC AND BISTATIC COLLEC-

TION GEOMETRIES
The in-air experimental setup was also used to collect scattering data on a 2 inch diameter, 8 inch long
aluminum pipe (kl = 70). Figure 6 compares the imagery created with the monostatic and bistatic array
geometries with no late time focusing delay (τ = 0). Defocused, late time energy is clearly observed
above and below the object in both images. Notably, however, the late time energy is lower in intensity in
the bistatic imaging geomery. A possible explanation for the lower intensity stems from the fact that the
coupling of acoustic waves onto structural modes of an object is a reciprocal process. The angles at which
acoustic energy couples on effectively are the same angles these waves couple back off into the medium
effectively. In the monostatic imaging geometry, when the object is positioned at an angle relative to the
transmitter that allows energy to couple on to the object, the microphone is located at that same angle to
capture the re-radiated acoustic energy. In the bistatic geometry, however, this is not necessarily true. The
bistatic microphone may not be located in a position at which it will receive strong re-radiated sound.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 6

T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

(a) Cap off, τ = 0 (b) Cap off, τ = 800µs (c) Cap off, τ = 1600µs

(d) Cap on, τ = 0 (e) Cap on, τ = 800µs (f) Cap on, τ = 1600µs

Figure 4: Imagery, with various values for the late time focusing delay, is formed from in-air acoustic
collected on a soda bottle with and without a cap in the monostatic array geometry. When τ = 0 and the
geometric response from the soda bottle appears in focus. A square outline from a metal plate used to
support the soda bottle can also be seen in these images. As τ increases the geometric response defocuses.
late time energy when the cap is off the soda bottle, however, focuses at a particular point when τ = 800µs
and τ = 1600µs. This same phenomenon does not occur when the bottle is capped. This is likely acoustic
energy that both enters and is later re-radiated through the mouth of the bottle.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 7

T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

(a) (b)

Figure 5: Focusing late time energy may be used to improved object localization. In (a), the imagery for
the uncapped soda bottle is shown for τ = 800µs. In (b), the geometric response of the object (τ = 0)
is superimposed onto the imagery for τ = 800µs. It is apparent that the point in the image where the
late time energy is focusing is at the mouth of the soda bottle. This is a likely indicator that this late time
energy was re-radiated from the mouth of the bottle.

(a) (b)

Figure 6: An aluminum pipe is imaged with both a monostatic (a) and bistatic (b) array geometry with
zero late time focusing delay (τ = 0). Defocused, late time energy is observed above and below the
geometric response of the object in both images. Similar patterns appear in the the focus of the late time
energy for both collection geometries. The intensity of the late time energy, however, is several decibels
lower for the bistatic geometry.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 8

T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

(a) (b)

Figure 7: The same aluminum pipe is now imaged with a late time focusing delay of 2 ms and is shown
for both the monostatic (a) and bistatic (b) array geometries. At this time, the geometric response of the
object has defocoused out of the plane of the image and only late time energy is visible. The patterns that
are visible in the late time energy are probably indicative of multiple structural waves having been excited
in the pipe.

Applying the late time focusing algorithm to this data yields an intricate set of patterns that evolves
as τ increases. Figure 7 compares the late time focusing with τ = 2 ms between the monostatic and
bistatic array geometries. At this delay the geometric response of the pipe has defocused out of the view
of the image. As in Fig. 6, the late time energy appears with lower intensity in the bistatic case than in the
monostatic case. There are, however, similar features in the imagery. A set of arcs appears to the sides in
both images. This is believed to be acoustic energy, either from the internal fluid, structural waves in the
aluminum, or a combination of both, that is re-radiated from the ends of the pipes. A set of wedges also
appear emanating from the center in both images. These are believed to be acoustic energy that is re-radiated
from the broadside of the pipe.
These patterns evolve as τ increases from zero and different types of waves focus and defocus. The
set of images that is formed is rich in features that appear to be common to both monostatic and bistatic
observation geometries. There has been substantial research in extracting features in imagery for automated
object detection. The features that form in the imagery as τ increases may be able to aid object detection
algorithms to improve performance in addition to improving object localization.13, 14

4. CONCLUSION

Downward looking synthetic aperture sonar systems that operate in shallow water may interrogate ob-
jects from both approximately monostatic and truly bistatic array geometries. late time energy due to non-
geometric scattering is a feature that in certain environments must be used for detection, identification, and
localization of objects. An analogous experiment was conducted in air to explore how late time energy ra-
diated from objects can be used to localize and identify objects and understand how the collection geometry
may impact these results. A late time focusing algorithm can be used in the image domain to map late time
energy back to where it likely originated in space. This algorithm may help to precisely localize objects
when the geometric response is not clearly visible in the imagery. When this algorithm is applied to scatter-
ing data from a hollow aluminum pipe, a rich set of features is observed in the late time focused imagery.
These features may be able to aid automated detection algorithms that operate in the image domain.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 9

T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-19-
1-2221, as well the Applied Research Laboratory - Penn State. This research was supported in part by
the U.S. Department of Defense, through the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
(SERDP). The SERDP support was provided under the munitions response portfolio of Dr. David Bradley.
This material is based, in part, upon work supported by the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity
under Contract No. W912HQ-16-C-0006.

REFERENCES
1 M. Couillard, J. Groen, and W. L. Fox, “Performance assessment of the MUSCLE synthetic aperture
sonar,” in Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Underwater Acoustics, Edinburgh, UK (2012).
2 L.E. Kinsler, A. R. Frey, A. B. Coppens, and J. V. Sanders, Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th ed. (John
Wiley and Sons, 2000).
3 J.E. Piper, K. W. Commander, E. I. Thorsos, and K. L. Williams, “Detection of buried targets using a
synthetic aperture sonar,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 27(3), 495–504 (2002).
4 S.Schock, A. Tellier, J. Wulf, J. Sara, and M. Ericksen, “Buried object scanning sonar,” IEEE J. Oceanic
Eng. 26(4), 677–689 (2001) doi: 10.1109/48.972111.
5 K. Williams, T. McGinnis, V. Miller, B. Brand, and R. Light, “Limited scope design study for multi-sensor

towbody,” techreport MR-2501, Univeristy of Washington (2016).

6 D. C. Brown, S. F. Johnson, I. D. Gerg, and C. F. Brownstead, “Simulation and testing results for a
sub-bottom imaging sonar,” Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics (2019).
7 D. S. Plotnick and P. L. Marston, “Multiple scattering, layer penetration, and elastic contributions to
sas images using fast reversible processing methods,” in Proceedings of EUSAR 2016: 11th European
Conference on Synthetic Aperture Radar (2016), pp. 1–3.
8 J. W. Goodman, Statistical Optics (John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, 1985).
9 A. Bellettini and M. A. Pinto, “Theoretical accuracy of synthetic aperture sonar micronavigation using a
displaced phase centre antenna,” IEEE J. Oceanic Eng. 27(4), 780–789 (2002).
10 K.L. Williams, S. G. Kargl, E. I. Thorsos, D. S. Burnett, J. L. Lopes, M. Zampolli, and P. L. Marston,
“Acoustic scattering from a solid aluminum cylinder in contact with a sand sediment: Measurements,
modeling, and interpretation,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 127(6), 3356–3371 (2010) doi: 10.1121/1.
3419926.
11 J.Foster and M. White, “Pattern recognition expert system for mine classification and detection sonar,” in
Proceedings. IEEE Energy and Information Technologies in the Southeast’ (1989), Vol. 1, pp. 277–282.
12 M. Soumekh, Synthetic Aperture Radar Signal Processing with MATLAB Algorithms (John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., 1999).
13 J.Dale, A. Galusha, J. Keller, and A. Zare, “Evaluation of image features for discriminating targets from
false positives in synthetic aperture sonar imagery,” in Detection and Sensing of Mines, Explosive Objects,
and Obscured Targets XXIV, edited by S. S. Bishop and J. C. Isaacs, International Society for Optics and
Photonics, SPIE (2019), Vol. 11012, pp. 65 – 81, doi: 10.1117/12.2519486.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 10

T. E. Blanford et al. Bistatic target scattering in synthetic aperture sonar imagery

14 D. P. Williams,
“Exploiting phase information in synthetic aperture sonar images for target classification,”
in 2018 OCEANS - MTS/IEEE Kobe Techno-Oceans (OTO) (2018), pp. 1–6.

Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 39, 070001 (2020) Page 11