2.7 4.

Article

Underwater Sound Characteristics

of a Ship with Controllable Pitch
Propeller

Chenyang Zhu, Tomaso Gaggero, Nicholas C. Makris and Purnima Ratilal

https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030328
 Journal of
Marine Science
and Engineering

Article
Underwater Sound Characteristics of a Ship with Controllable
Pitch Propeller
Chenyang Zhu 1, *, Tomaso Gaggero 2 , Nicholas C. Makris 1 and Purnima Ratilal 3

1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA;

[email protected]
2 Department of Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication Engineering and Naval Architecture (DITEN),
University of Genova, 16145 Genova, Italy; [email protected]
3 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The time-dependent spectral characteristics of underwater sound radiated by an ocean

vessel has complex dependencies on ship machinery, propeller dynamics, hydrodynamics of ship
exhaust and motion, as well as ship board activities. Here the underwater sound radiated by a ship
equipped with a controllable pitch propeller (CPP) is analyzed and quantified via its (i) power spectral
density for signal energetics, (ii) temporal coherence for machinery tonal sound, and (iii) spectral
coherence for propeller amplitude-modulated cavitation noise. Frequency-modulated (FM) tonal sig-
nals are also characterized in terms of their frequency variations. These characteristics are compared
for different propeller pitch ratios ranging from 20% to 82% at fixed propeller revolutions per minute
(RPM). The efficacy and robustness of ship parameter estimation at different pitches are discussed.
Finally, analysis of one special measurement is provided, when ship changes speed, propeller pitch
and RPM over the duration of the measurement. The 50% pitch is found to be a crucial point for




this ship about which tonal characteristics of its underwater radiated sound attain their peak values,

 while broadband sound and associated spectral coherences are at a minimum. The findings here
Citation: Zhu, C.; Gaggero, T.; elucidate the effects of pitch variation on underwater sound radiated by ships with controllable pitch
Makris, N.C.; Ratilal, P. Underwater propellers and has applications in ship design and underwater noise mitigation.
Sound Characteristics of a Ship with
Controllable Pitch Propeller. J. Mar. Keywords: ship-radiated underwater sound; ship noise; controllable pitch propeller; power spectra;
Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328. https:// coherence; ship parameters; robustness; passive ocean acoustic waveguide remote sensing
doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030328

Academic Editor: Decheng Wan

Received: 9 January 2022

1. Introduction
Accepted: 17 February 2022
Published: 25 February 2022
Examining, characterizing, and monitoring the underwater sound radiated from a
ship is important to many oceanic applications. These include ship health monitoring for
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
prevention of shipboard machinery and structural failures, underwater environmental noise
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
mitigation from man-made vehicles, as well as maritime surveillance and defence [1–9]. The
published maps and institutional affil-
sound radiated from an ocean vessel can limit detection ranges in both passive and active
iations.
sonar systems for a wide range of ocean remote sensing applications [1,9–19], as well as in
ocean acoustic communication [20,21]. It may also impact the behavior and communication
of marine organisms [22–26], such as fish [13,27–31] and marine mammals [32,33].
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
The mechanisms for the sound generated by ships are described in [9,29,34–39]. The
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. sources of ship-radiated underwater sound include (i) persistent onboard machinery, such
This article is an open access article as engines and air-conditioning systems, (ii) propulsion dynamics, such as propeller and
distributed under the terms and shaft rotation, (iii) hydrodynamical effects, such as cavitation, vortex shedding, intakes and ex-
conditions of the Creative Commons hausts, and (iv) other time-limited or transient activities, such as cargo handling and mooring
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and slamming motions [4,9]. Machinery and propeller noise dominate a ship’s radiated under-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ water sound [9]. The overall underwater sound emanated by a ship comprises colored broad-
4.0/). band noise over a wide frequency range embedded with several prominent narrowband tonal

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030328 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jmse

J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 2 of 18

components from onboard machinery, along with time-varying and amplitude-modulated

sound pressure levels due to propeller rotation.
Here, we analyze and characterize the underwater sound radiated by a specific ship
with a controllable pitch propeller (CPP) and received on three vertically deployed hy-
drophones. The ship-radiated underwater sound characterization follows the approach
of Refs. [40,41] and includes the calculation of (i) the power spectral density (PSD) for
broadband sound energetics, (ii) the temporal coherence for machinery tonal sound, and
(iii) the spectral coherence for amplitude-modulated propeller cavitation noise. The fre-
quency variations of frequency-modulated (FM) tonal signals that are probably due to the
non-uniform wake from the propeller blades caused by the ship’s physical motions, such as
yaw, roll or pitch, are also quantified. The calculations are initially made on measurements
with ship at fixed propeller pitch ratio and revolutions per minute (RPM). These features are
then compared for different propeller pitch ratios ranging from 20% to 82% at a fixed RPM.
The 50% propeller pitch ratio was found to be a crucial point, at which multiple features
of ship noise attain either their peak or minimum values. The efficacy and robustness of
the ship parameter estimation at different pitches are discussed. Finally, an analysis of
one special measurement is provided when the ship’s speed, propeller pitch, and RPM are
varied over the duration of the measurement.
Studies of the effects of propeller pitch variation on the underwater sound radiated by
ships with controllable pitch propellers are limited since most previous works analyzed
data from ships with fixed-pitch propellers.. The underwater sound radiated by small ships
is analyzed in [39,42,43], while that from large commercial ships, including tanker, carrier,
cargo, and container ships, is compared and quantified in terms of source level and spectral
shape in [44]. Approaches for quantifying the cyclostationarity of ship propeller noise are
developed in [45,46].
Underwater ship-radiated sound analyses in the published literature are often based
on single hydrophone measurements. Other sensing modalities that deploy more than
a single hydrophone have been implemented. In [4], ship cavitation noise was analyzed
using the Stevens Passive Acoustic Detection System (SPADES) with two crossed pairs
of hydrophones deployed near a harbour. A large aperture, densely-sampled coherent
hydrophone array with 160-elements was employed to analyze the underwater sound
radiated from multiple ships using the Passive Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing
(POAWRS) technique over instantaneous wide areas, with >100 km diameters, in several
continental shelf environments [40,41,47,48]. The analysis was focused on the detection and
characterization of ship tonal signals, as well as passive ship localization in [47,48]. Three
different approaches were applied to the POAWRS dataset in [40,41] for the simultaneous
and automatic detection, bearing-time estimation, and acoustic signature characterization
of multiple ships over long ranges, which included broadband energetics, temporal coher-
ence for tonal extraction, and spectral coherence for cyclostationary propeller cavitation
noise analysis.
Models of ship-radiated underwater sound spectra for a wide range of ships are
useful in ship design and enhancement, sonar performance prediction, and modeling the
impact of ship noise on communication between marine fauna. In [49], ship noise spectral
levels predicted using empirical models were compared to measurements for several ships.
In [50,51], a parametric analysis of the noise spectra radiated by commercial ships operating
in different conditions was developed. A new spectral parametrization model was proposed
that delivers a better performance than traditional methods due to greater model flexibility,
based on calibration with empirical data. These analyses included ships with controllable
pitch propellers, one of which is analyzed here for signature characterization in terms of
propeller pitch ratios.

2. Data Collection
The acoustic data were acquired in an experimental campaign carried out within the
framework of EU FP7 collaborative projects AQUO [52]. The measurement procedure
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 3 of 18

followed the ANSI/ASA standard [53]. The ship-radiated underwater sound was received
on buoy-mounted hydrophones (see Figure 1a) [49]. The ship under test passed the
hydrophone array in a straight course at different operative conditions and different lateral
distances (see Figure 1b). The ship’s course and speed were kept constant from the COMEX
to FINEX points. The underwater acoustic data was recorded on the hydrophones during
the time window from the “Start Data” to “End Data” points identified in Figure 1, spanning
a 30 degree angle on both sides of the closest point of approach.

Vessel under test Supply vessel

5m

Hydrophone

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Measurement geometry for the ship-radiated underwater sound received on a vertical
hydrophone array, in (a) side view and (b) top view. The straight line distance traversed by the target
ship while the data was being recorded is represented by DWL. The horizontal distance from the
target ship to the hydrophone at the closet point of approach is represented by dcpa. (DWL = 136.9 m,
dcpa = 118.6 m).

For the present study, only data acquired by the top hydrophone was analyzed. The
sampling frequency was 13.11 kHz. The ship used for the experimental campaign was the
research vessel (RV) Nawigator XXI, equipped with a controllable pitch propeller (CPP).
The basic physical properties of this vessel are listed in Table 1, while the ship’s propeller
and engine parameters are provided in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
The ship’s machinery rotation parameters were obtained, including cylinder firing
rate CFR, engine firing rate EFR, propeller shaft frequency SF, and propeller blade pass
frequency BPF, as shown in Table 4. These parameters were calculated as follows:

RPMe 2
CFRn = · ·n (1)
60 Ns
EFRn = CFR1 · Nc · n (2)
RPM p RPMe /RGR
SFn = ·n = ·n (3)
60 60
BPFn = SF1 · Nb · n, (4)

where n represents the nth harmonic order number, RPMe is the engine RPM, RPM p is
the propeller RPM, RGR is the reduction gear rate, Nc is the number of cylinders, Ns is the
number of strokes, and Nb is the number of blades on the propeller.

Table 1. The basic parameters of the ship.

Name Type Length Breadth Draught (fore) Draught (aft) Depth Displacement
Nawigator XXI Research vessel 60.30 m 10.50 m 3.15 m 3.20 m 4.20 m 1126 m3

Table 2. The parameters of the ship’s propeller.

Propeller Type Number Pitch (%) Blade Number Model Location from aft (Perpendicular)
CPP 1 20–82% 4 abb zamech type p680/4-rps5000 3m
conventional/clt/high skew
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 4 of 18

Table 3. The parameters of the ship’s engine.

Engine Type Number Cylinder Number Stroke Number Reduction Gear Rate (RGR) RPM
Diesel (Conventional) 1 8 4 3.75 760

Table 4. The parameters of the ship’s machinery rotation.

Cylinder Firing Rate (CFR) Engine Firing Rate (EFR) Shaft Frequency (SF) Blade Pass Frequency (BPF)
Hz Hz Hz Hz
6.3 50.7 3.37 13.51

3. Ship-Radiated Underwater Sound Analysis Methods

Underwater sound radiated by a ship is a complex superimposition of both broadband
noise, mainly due to cavitation and the flow around the hull, and tonal components with
specific frequencies due to the periodicity of on-board machinery and the propulsion
system. Consequently, different techniques can be used to highlight different characteristics
of the sound emitted by a ship. Here, we employed the approaches of Refs. [40,41] to
analyze the underwater acoustic hydrophone data containing ship-radiated sound from
RV Nawigator XXI with a controllable pitch propeller, as described below.

3.1. Power Spectral Density for Signal Energetics

Traditional power spectral density (PSD) is calculated to reveal signal’s power distri-
bution across a broad frequency band. The spectral curve variations reveal the features of
ship-radiated broadband noise. Energetic narrowband tonal signal components can also be
observed in signal PSD, especially at low frequencies below 2 kHz. The Welch’s averaged
modified periodogram method [54] was used to estimate PSD:

L −1
1
Ak (n) =
L ∑ xk ( j)w( j)e− j2πin/L (5)
i =0
L
Ik ( f n ) =| A (n)|2 k = 1, 2, . . . , K (6)
U k
n
fn = n = 0, . . . , L/2 (7)
L
1 L −1 2
L i∑
U= w ( j) (8)
=0
K
1
P̂( f n ) =
K ∑ Ik ( f n ) (9)
k =1

where Ak (n) represents the finite Fourier transforms of the windowed sequence xk ( j)w( j),
Ik ( f n ) represents the corresponding modified periodogram, and U represents the factor
of window weight. The spectral estimation P̂( f n ) was then obtained from the average of
the periodograms.

3.2. Temporal Coherence Analysis for Tonal Signals

The persistent narrowband tonal sounds at distinct frequencies that are radiated from ship
machinery are typically present over long time durations and hence, are highly temporally
coherent. These tonal sounds can be detected and quantified using temporal coherence
calculations [40]. As the tonal signals have energies that are confined to relatively narrow
frequency bands and centered at certain frequencies over long time durations, the signals in
adjacent time periods are highly correlated at those tonal frequencies. Here, the magnitude-
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 5 of 18

squared coherence MSC [55,56] between two adjacent time-windowed signals was first
calculated as a function of signal frequency:

| Pxw ,xw+1 ( f )|2

MSCxw ,xw+1 ( f ) = , (10)
Pxw ,xw ( f ) Pxw+1 ,xw+1 ( f )

where xw (t) and xw+1 (t) represent signals in two adjacent time windows w and w + 1.
Then, the cross-power spectral density Pxw ,xw+1 and the power spectral densities Pxw ,xw
and Pxw+1 ,xw+1 were estimated using Welch’s averaged modified periodogram method, as
shown in Equations (5)–(9).
Next, the temporal coherence in one data unit could be obtained as the averaged
magnitude-squared coherence MSC:

N −1
1
TC ( f ) =
N−1 ∑ MSCxw ,xw+1 ( f ), (11)
w =1

where N is the total window number in one data unit. The tonal components were obtained
from the peaks of temporal coherence plotted as a function of frequency TC ( f ). Addi-
tionally, variable window sizes could be chosen to provide variable frequency resolutions
within different frequency ranges.

3.3. Frequency-Modulated Tonal Signal Analysis

At high frequencies, tonal signals have been found to have large frequency oscilla-
tions around their center frequencies [48] because they have been frequency-modulated
(FM). To analyze these FM tonal signals, tone tracks of these signals in spectrograms are
extracted. Tone tracks describe the time variation of the fundamental frequency of the tonal
signal [57,58]. To estimate the modulation frequency, DC offset is first removed from the
tone tracks of FM tonal signals. Then, by applying a Fourier transform on the resulting
tone track, the dominant modulation frequency is obtained from the peak.

3.4. Spectral Coherence Analysis for Cyclostationary Cavitation Noise

A ship’s rotating propellers generate cavitation noise that is amplitude-modulated [9]
or cyclostationary and has hidden periodicities or repetitive patterns, for instance, periodic
energy flow [59,60]. This kind of signal is spectrally coherent, inherently arising from
interfering spectral components spaced apart by the fundamental and harmonic frequen-
cies of the propeller rotation [40]. Spectral coherence analysis provides an approach for
determining the cyclic frequencies. It is based on spectral correlation, defined as the Fourier
transform of the cyclic auto-correlation function [61]:
Z ∞
Sαx ( f ) = Rαx (τ )e−i2π f τ dτ (12)
−∞
Z ∞
τ ∗ τ
Rαx (τ ) = x (t − ) x (t + )e−i2παt dt (13)
−∞ 2 2

where Rαx (τ ) is the cyclic auto-correlation function of signal x (t) at cyclic frequency α and
Sαx ( f ) is the corresponding spectral correlation.
The fast spectral correlation estimator SxFast (α, f ) [60] was utilized to estimate the spectral
correlation, which has been proven to have a great statistical performance along with the
advantage of rapid computation, where α represents cyclic frequency and f c represents
carrier frequency:
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 6 of 18

∑ Pp=0 Sx (α, f ; p)
SxFast (α, f ) = R w (0) (14)
∑ Pp=0 Rw (α − p∆ f )
K −1
1 α pN0
Sx (α, f k ; p) = ∑ XSTFT (i, f k ) XSTFT (i, f k− p )∗ e− j2π Fs (iR+ N0 ) e j2π Nw (15)
K kwk2 Fs i =0
1 α p
= 2
DFTi→α { XSTFT (i, f k ) XSTFT (i, f k− p )∗ }e− j2πN0 ( Fs − Nw ) (16)
K kwk Fs
α = p∆ f + δ (17)
Nw −1 α
Rw (α) = ∑ |w[n]|2 e− j2π (n− N0 ) Fs (18)
n =0
Nw −1 fk
XSTFT (i, f k ) = ∑ x [iR + m]w[m]e− j2πm Fs (19)
m =0

where Sx (α, f k ; p) represents the “scanning spectral correlation”, which estimates spectral
correlation from the discrete Fourier transform of the interactions between the STFT coeffi-
cients in frequency bins f k and f p−k , not necessarily spaced apart by exact α but by p∆ f ,
which is the closet frequency bin to α with some residue δ, in order to smoothly envelope
the wave packet. Rw (α) represents the window kernel from window function w with a
central time index at N0 . K is the number of windows, Nw is the window length, and P is
the maximum value of p. Based on this estimator, the spectral coherence γx (α, f c ) could
be obtained:

Sx (α, f c ) = SxFast (α, f c ) (20)

Sx (α, f c )
γx (α, f c ) = p (21)
Sx ( f c )Sx ( f c − α)

The mean spectral coherence γx (α) in the cyclic frequency α domain was obtained by
averaging across the carrier frequency f c :

1
γx (α) =
Nf c ∑ γx (α, f c ). (22)
fc

The periodicities in propeller cavitation noise energy flow could be estimated from the
peak components of the mean spectral coherence, corresponding to rotation frequencies
including harmonics of ship’s propellers.

4. Results of the Ship Noise Analysis

4.1. Ship Energetics via Power Spectral Density Analysis
The power spectral density calculations revealed the ship’s cylinder firing rate CFR.
The spectrogram analyses based on the short-time Fourier transform of the recorded data
and the corresponding power spectral density are shown in Figure 2a–d, respectively, for
the fixed propeller pitch ratio of 65%. Ship noise was dominant in the measured data
from 0 Hz to 3 kHz and could be significant up to 30 kHz at and near the closest point of
approach. The ship-radiated sound included narrowband machinery tonal signals and
broadband propeller cavitation noise. The sequence of click signals around 50 kHz was
due to the ship’s echo-sounder (see Figure 2a). At and near the closest point of approach,
Lloyd’s mirror effects were present in the measurements (Figure 2b) and the tonal signals
were most dominant.
A series of harmonic tonal signals were present in the PSD distributions (see Figure 2d).
The fundamental frequency could be estimated from the spacings between adjacent har-
monic components, estimated to be around 6.3 Hz, and corresponded to the cylinder
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 7 of 18

firing rate CFR. These CFR harmonics could only be detected from the seventh harmonic
onwards, which was around 44.1 Hz. The strongest CFR component was located at 56.7 Hz,
corresponding to the ninth harmonic. This component was slightly larger than the theo-
retical first harmonic component of the engine firing rate EFR that occurs at the eighth
harmonic of CFR. As a result, EFR and hence, the cylinder number as the ratio of EFR and
CFR could not be accurately estimated.
dB dB
150 500 170 180 180
50

Pa at 1 m

Pa at 1 m
140 400 160 170
160
Frequency (kHz)

Frequency (Hz)

40
130 300 150
160
30 140
200 150

dB re 1

dB re 1
120 140
20
120
100
140
10 110 130

100 130
0 0 10 20 30 40 50 50 100 150 200 250
50 100 150 200 250 300 100 200 300
Time (sec) Time (sec) Frequency (kHz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 2. The power spectrum of ship-radiated underwater sound at 65% propeller pitch ratio. The
spectrograms of acoustic signals (a) up to 60 kHz and (b) below 500 Hz, obtained by short-time
Fourier transform. The power spectral density (PSD) distributions of a signal (c) up to 60 kHz and
(d) below 250 Hz. Window = 16 s; overlap = 8 s; fft points = 221 ; ∆ f = 0.0625 Hz.

4.2. Ship Tonal Signals via Temporal Coherence Analysis

The ship’s tonal signal components were determined via temporal coherence analysis
in Figure 3. Here, three window sizes were used to provide different frequency resolutions
in distinct frequency ranges. At higher frequency ranges, a wider frequency resolution was
used since the tonal signals there have larger frequency oscillations. The temporal coherence
calculations detrended the data so that the CFR tonal frequency components could be
revealed more readily than in the PSD distribution (compare Figure 3a to Figure 2d).

0.4 0.1
0.6 f=1 Hz f=4 Hz f=16 Hz

0.5 0.08
0.3
0.4
TC

TC

TC

0.06
0.3 0.2
0.04
0.2
0.1 0.02
50 100 150 200 250 250 300 350 400 450 500 500 1000 1500 2000
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. The temporal coherence TC distribution of ship-radiated underwater sound at 65% propeller
pitch ratio and at frequencies (a) below 250 Hz with ∆ f = 1 Hz, (b) between 250 Hz and 500 Hz with
∆ f = 4 Hz, and (c) between 500 Hz and 2000 Hz with ∆ f = 16 Hz. The 7th to 13th harmonics of
cylinder firing rate CFR are prominent in (a).

4.3. Cyclostationary Cavitation Noise via Spectral Coherence Analysis

The spectral coherence analysis of the ship-radiated sound enabled both the propeller
blade pass frequency BPF and shaft frequency SF to be determined, the ratio of which was
the blade number. The two-dimensional spectral coherence distribution as a function of
cyclic frequency (α) and carrier frequency ( f c ) from the analysis of the recorded data is
shown in Figure 4a. The dominant spectral coherence (SC) values were located between
10 kHz and 40 kHz in the carrier frequency f c corresponding to the ship’s propeller cavita-
tion noise and around 50 kHz in carrier frequency f c corresponding to echo sounder signals.
The mean spectral coherence obtained by averaging the entire carrier frequency f c range is
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 8 of 18

shown in Figure 4b. By selecting different averaging intervals in carrier frequency f c , the
spectral coherence means for the echo-sounder signals and the ship’s propeller noise could
be separated, as shown in Figure 4c,d, respectively. The harmonic group shown in Figure 4c
had a fundamental frequency of 2.885 Hz, which corresponded to the ship’s echo-sounder
transmission rate. The harmonic group shown in Figure 4d had a fundamental frequency
of 3.384 Hz, which corresponded to the propeller shaft frequency SF. Furthermore, the
propeller blade pass frequency BPF given by the most dominant component shown in
Figure 4d was 13.54 Hz and corresponded to the fourth harmonic of the shaft frequency
SF. Hence, the propeller blade number could be estimated to be 4. These estimates were
in good or exact agreement with the values provided in Tables 2 and 4 for the known
ship’s parameters.
0.05 0.3 0.06
60
Carrier Frequency (kHz)

0 0.005 0.01 0.04

0.2 0.04
Mean SC,

Mean SC,

Mean SC,
40 0.03

0.02
20 0.1 0.02
0.01

0 0 0 0
50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 20 40 60
Cyclic Frequency (Hz) Cyclic Frequency (Hz) Cyclic Frequency (Hz) Cyclic Frequency (Hz)
(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 4. The spectral coherence (SC) of ship-radiated underwater sound at 82% pitch. (a) The
spectral coherence γ(α, f c ) plotted as function of cyclic frequency α and carrier frequency f c . The
mean spectral coherence γ(α) distributions plotted as a function of cyclic frequency α by averaging
(b) the entire carrier frequency f c range, (c) between 48 kHz and 52 kHz in the carrier frequency
f c range, and (d) the entire carrier frequency f c range, excluding 48 kHz to 52 kHz. The ship’s
cyclostationary cavitation noise shaft frequency SF first to fourth harmonics are prominent in (d).

5. A Comparison of the Ship’s Sound Characteristics at Different Propeller Pitches

5.1. Power at Different Propeller Pitches
Here, we compare the ship-radiated underwater sound power spectral density (PSD)
levels at seven different propeller pitches. For signals between 100 Hz and 2000 Hz, the PSD
level was the strongest at a 20% propeller pitch ratio (Figure 5a). The PSD then decreased
with the increase in pitch until 51% pitch, where it was at a minimum, after which the
PSD level increased with the increase in pitch. The PSD level below 250 Hz showed more
complex variations with pitch (see Figure 5b). For instance, the 20% pitch led to the lowest
PSD levels below 75 Hz. The differences were due to the different kinds of cavitation
taking place at the propeller. For a detailed analysis of the different noise emissions of each
cavitation phenomenon, see [50].

5.2. Tonal Signal Variations at Different Propeller Pitches

The power spectral density (PSD) level and temporal coherence values TC are plotted
for significant tonal signals, i.e., the 7th to 13th harmonics of CFR, as a function of propeller
pitch ratios in Figure 6a,b. The ninth harmonic of CFR had the highest PSD level and TC
value at every propeller pitch. The PSD level of all harmonic tonals of CFR varied only
slightly, between 2 dB to 4 dB with changes in pitch, with the exception of eighth harmonic
where its PSD level changed by as much as 10 dB with variations in pitch, but still remained
below the PSD level of the ninth harmonic. The temporal coherence values TC for most
of the CFR tonals were high or at the maximum at 51% propeller pitch. This could be
explained by the fact that the cavitation noise spectra was shifted toward higher frequencies
above 500 Hz for the 51% propeller pitch, as can be noted from Figure 5b. Consequently,
the tonal components below 100 Hz emerged more clearly in the spectrum.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 9 of 18

180 180
82%
82% 79%
79% 65%
170 65% 170 51%
51% 40%
40% 31%
31%

Pa at 1 m
20%

Pa at 1 m
160 20%
160

150 150

dB re 1
dB re 1

140 140

130 130

120 120
500 1000 1500 2000 50 100 150 200 250
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

(a) (b)
Figure 5. The power spectral density (PSD) distributions of ship-radiated underwater sound (a) up
to 2000 Hz and (b) below 250 Hz at different propeller pitch ratios.

168 0.7
7 th
8 th
166 0.65
9 th
10 th
164 0.6
11 th
12 th
0.55
Pa at 1 m

162 13 th
0.5
160 TC
0.45
158
dB re 1

0.4
156
0.35
154
0.3
152 0.25

150 0.2
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pitch (%) Pitch (%)

(a) (b)
Figure 6. The (a) power spectral density (PSD) and (b) temporal coherence TC of the dominant 7th to
13th tonal harmonics of the cylinder firing rate (CFR) at different propeller pitch ratios.

Frequency-modulated (FM) tonal signal features are also compared at different pro-
peller pitches in this paper. Figure 7 shows a spectrogram containing two narrowband FM
tonal signals with frequencies wavering in the ranges of 1435–1460 Hz and 1145–1170 Hz,
respectively. The mean and standard deviation of the frequency of these two FM tonal
signals are plotted as functions of propeller pitch ratios in Figure 8a,b. The mean fre-
quencies of both FM tonal signals could vary by 10 Hz with changes in propeller pitch
and were consistently low between 60% and 80% pitch. The standard deviations of FM
tonal frequencies were also the largest at high propeller pitch. The modulation frequencies
of these FM tonal signals were the largest near 50% pitch, implying that the signal tone
frequencies fluctuated the most at this pitch (see Figure 8c).

5.3. Propeller Cavitation Noise at Different Pitches

Next, propeller cavitation noise is compared at different propeller pitches via spectral
coherence. The mean spectral coherence γ(α) distribution of propeller cavitation noise
plotted as a function of cyclic frequency α is shown in Figure 9a–g for different propeller
pitches. Table 5 summarizes the capacity for the estimation of the ship’s propeller parame-
ters from spectral coherence distributions at different propeller pitches, where SF1–SF4 are
the first to fourth harmonics of shaft frequency and the fourth harmonic of shaft frequency
SF4 is the propeller blade pass frequency BPF.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 10 of 18

dB
170

1500 165

1450 160

1400 155

Frequency (Hz)
1350 150

1300 145

140
1250
135
1200
130
1150
125
1100
130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Time (sec)

Figure 7. The spectrogram of the ship-radiated underwater sound at 82% propeller pitch ratio,
showing two frequency-modulated (FM) narrowband tonal signals wavering within the frequency
ranges of 1435–1460 Hz and 1145–1170 Hz.

1460 1170 0.6

1455 1165 0.5

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)

Frequency (Hz)
1450 1160 0.4

1445 1155 0.3

1440 1150 0.2

1435 1145 0.1

20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80
Pitch (%) Pitch (%) Pitch (%)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8. The mean and standard deviation of frequency variations in ship-radiated underwater FM
tonal signals, (a) within 1435–1460 Hz and (b) within 1145–1170 Hz, at different propeller pitch ratios.
(c) The modulation frequency of FM tonal signals at different propeller pitch ratios.

0.06 0.06 0.01 0.015

0.04 0.04 0.01

Mean SC,

Mean SC,

Mean SC,
Mean SC,

0.005
0.02 0.02 0.005

0 0 0 0
10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30
Cyclic Frequency (Hz) Cyclic Frequency (Hz) Cyclic Frequency (Hz) Cyclic Frequency (Hz)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

0.01
0.03
0.02
Mean SC,
Mean SC,

Mean SC,

0.02
0.005
0.01
0.01

0 0 0
10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20 30
Cyclic Frequency (Hz) Cyclic Frequency (Hz) Cyclic Frequency (Hz)

(e) (f) (g)

Figure 9. The mean spectral coherence (SC) γ(α) distributions plotted as a function of cyclic frequency
α for propeller cavitation noise with pitch ratios at (a) 82%, (b) 79%, (c) 65%, (d) 51%, (e) 40%, (f) 31%,
and (g) 20%.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 11 of 18

The mean spectral coherence γ(α) distributions were ideal at 82% and 79% pitches, as
shown in Figure 9a, since the propeller shaft frequency SF, blade pass frequency BPF, and
blade number could be readily and correctly estimated. These propeller parameters could
also be estimated at 65% and 31% pitches, but the mean spectral coherence values were
smaller by a factor of four to six. At 65% pitch, the second harmonic of shaft frequency
SF2 could not be identified (Figure 9c). At other pitch ratios, the situation was far from
ideal. At 51% pitch, the second harmonic of shaft frequency SF2 was much larger than the
fundamental SF1 and the blade pass frequency BPF, which was SF4, implying that the
correct blade number could not be estimated (Figure 9d). At 40% pitch, the magnitudes
of the first four shaft frequency harmonics decreased with the increase in harmonic order
(Figure 9e), so both blade pass frequency BPF and blade number were uncertain. The worst
case scenario occurred at 20% pitch (Figure 9g), since only the fundamental shaft frequency
SF1 could be identified. This could be due to pressure side cavitation taking place for
negative angles of attack. Such an operative condition was very far from the designed one
and the broadband cavitation noise was very high, as can also be seen from the black curve
in Figure 5b for 20% pitch.

Table 5. The efficacy and robustness of the estimation of propeller parameters.

Pitch (%) 82 79 65 51 40 31 20
SF1 (SF) X X X X X X X
SF2 X X × X X X ×
SF3 X X X X X X ×
SF4 (BPF) X X X X X X ×
Blade Number X X X × × X ×
X represents predictable and × represents unpredictable.

The dependence of the spectral coherence on the carrier frequency f c at shaft fre-
quencies provides further insights into ship propeller cavitation noise [62]. For several
representative pitch ratios, the spectral coherences of the first four shaft frequency harmon-
ics SF1–SF4 are plotted as functions of carrier frequency f c in Figure 10a–d. At 82% pitch,
both the first and fourth harmonics of shaft frequency, SF1 and SF4, had high spectral
coherence values in the carrier frequency f c range from 10 kHz to 30 kHz. The second
and third harmonics of shaft frequency, SF2 and SF3, had comparatively low coherence
values in the same carrier frequency range but were still significant. This scenario ensured
that the propeller parameters could be estimated correctly. At the other pitches shown in
Figure 10b–d, the fourth harmonic of shaft frequency SF4 was consistently weak or similar
in magnitude to the other harmonics, so propeller blade pass frequency and blade number
could be harder to infer.
The spectral coherence γ(α, f c ) as a function of carrier frequency f c at seven distinct
propeller pitch ratios are plotted separately for the first four shaft frequency harmonics
in Figure 11a–d, respectively. The spectral coherence behavior was similar at 82% and
79% pitches, with significantly higher values for the first, third, and fourth harmonics of
shaft frequency, which led to the estimation of propeller parameters with high confidence.
The behavior at 65% and 31% pitches were similar, but with significantly lower spectral
coherence values. The spectral coherence values were low for all pitches at the fourth
harmonic of shaft frequency, except for the idealized cases of 82% and 79% pitches.

5.4. Robustness of the Estimation of Ship Parameters

Here, we summarize the robustness of the estimation of the ship’s parameters from
the underwater radiated sound at different propeller pitches.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 12 of 18

0.14 0.14
SF1 SF1
SF2 SF2
0.12 SF3 0.12 SF3
SF4 (BPF) SF4 (BPF)

0.1 0.1

0.08 0.08

SC

SC
0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Carrier Frequency (kHz) Carrier Frequency (kHz)

(a) (b)

0.14 0.14
SF1 SF1
SF2 SF2
0.12 SF3 0.12 SF3
SF4 (BPF) SF4 (BPF)

0.1 0.1

0.08 0.08
SC

SC
0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Carrier Frequency (kHz) Carrier Frequency (kHz)

(c) (d)
Figure 10. The spectral coherences (SC) γ(α, f c ) of propeller cavitation noise across the entire carrier
frequency f c range at the first four harmonics of shaft frequency, α = SF1, SF2, SF3, SF4, with
propeller pitch ratios at (a) 82%, (b) 51%, (c) 40%, and (d) 20%.

5.4.1. Engine-Related Parameters

Among the various engine-related parameters, only the cylinder firing rate CFR could
be well estimated at different pitches from the differences in adjacent harmonic frequencies
since the fundamental CFR component was not detected. Under normal conditions, the
engine firing rate EFR can be estimated to be the strongest harmonic component of CFR,
whose order number is the number of cylinders in the engine [9,63,64]. However, in this
analysis, EFR could not be correctly estimated for this ship since the corresponding eighth
harmonic was not the strongest tonal harmonic of CFR. However, the ninth harmonic
of CFR was found to be the dominant tonal, both in terms of the highest power and the
highest temporal coherence at every propeller pitch, as shown in Figure 6. As a result,
the correct cylinder number could not be estimated, but was probably near to nine (the
cylinder number provided for the ship under study is eight in Table 3).

5.4.2. Propeller-Related Parameters

Propeller-related parameters, such as shaft frequency SF, blade pass frequency BPF,
and blade number, can be estimated from the spectral coherence distributions of ship-
radiated cavitation noise [4,9,45,46,62,65]. The magnitude of the spectral coherence at one
specific frequency represents how dominant the corresponding time period is, at which
propeller blades generate cavitation noise. In other words, it indicates how many propeller
blades generate cavitation noise at approximately the same time for each rotation cycle
and whether these blades generate cavitation noise with uniform time intervals between
rotation cycles.
SF can be obtained as the fundamental frequency of the spectral coherence distribution,
if at least one blade generates cavitation noise with a uniform time interval. Under perfect
conditions, especially when all propeller blades generate cavitation noise at approximately
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 13 of 18

the same time during each propeller rotation cycle, BPF can be estimated to be the second
strongest harmonic component after SF. Then, the blade number can be obtained as the
harmonic order of BPF with respect to SF. However, under other scenarios, especially
when different propeller blades generate cavitation noise at different time instants during
each rotation cycle or only few blades generate cavitation noise, then BPF and the blade
number cannot be properly estimated, since the spectral coherence at BPF is no longer
outstanding among the harmonics of SF [4,62].
0.14 0.14
82% 82%
79% 79%
0.12 65% 0.12 65%
51% 51%
40% 40%
0.1 31% 0.1 31%
20% 20%

0.08 0.08
SC

SC
0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Carrier Frequency (kHz) Carrier Frequency (kHz)

(a) (b)

0.14 0.14
82% 82%
79% 79%
0.12 0.12 65%
65%
51% 51%
40% 40%
0.1 0.1 31%
31%
20% 20%

0.08 0.08
SC
SC

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Carrier Frequency (kHz) Carrier Frequency (kHz)

(c) (d)
Figure 11. The spectral coherences (SC) γ(α, f c ) of the (a) first, α = SF1, (b) second, α = SF2, (c) third,
α = SF3, and (d) fourth, α = SF4, harmonics of shaft frequency across the entire carrier frequency f c
range at different propeller pitch ratios, ranging from 20% to 82%.

As shown in Figure 9 and Table 5, the shaft frequency SF could be obtained at all
propeller pitches analyzed here, which means there was always at least one blade generating
cavitation noise with the change of propeller pitch. However, the blade pass frequency
BPF and blade number might not be correctly estimated. The most challenging scenario
was at 20% pitch, where only the shaft frequency SF could be obtained. This indicates that,
at this pitch, only one blade generated cavitation noise, but with a uniform time interval.

5.4.3. Gear-Related Parameters

Gear-related parameters can also be obtained, which is the reduction gear rate RGR.
According to Equations (1)–(4), after the shaft frequency SF and cylinder firing rate CFR are
estimated, the reduction gear rate RGR can be obtained from the ratio of those two [9,62].
However, there are multiple possibilities due to different engine stroke numbers. For a
2-stroke engine, the reduction gear rate is calculated as RGR = CFR/SF. For a 4-stroke
engine, the reduction gear rate is obtained as RGR = CFR · 2/SF = 6.3 · 2/3.384 = 3.723,
which matches the gear parameter for the ship under study in Table 3.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 14 of 18

5.5. Changes in Both Propeller Pitch and RPM

Here, we analyze and discuss one special measurement where the ship changed speed,
and both propeller pitch and RPM. The ship’s speed changed continuously while propeller
RPM underwent a jump over the measurement time window, as shown in Figure 12a,b.
The ship continuously increased speed from 5.5 knots to 12.5 knots. The shaft frequency
SF hovered around 3.37 Hz for the initial 3/4 of the measurement time window and then
increased to 3.8 Hz for the remaining 1/4. The jump in shaft frequency was a result of the
jump increase in propeller RPM. Detailed propeller pitch information is not available for
this measurement.
The power spectral density (PSD), temporal coherence TC, and mean spectral co-
herence γ(α) for this special measurement are shown in Figure 13a–c, respectively. The
dominant tonal at 56.8 Hz had the largest PSD and TC, similar to previous results, corre-
sponding to the ninth harmonic of CFR associated with a shaft frequency of 3.37 Hz and
a lower propeller RPM of 760. Due to the longer measurement time at low RPM (3/4 of
the measurement duration), the tonal signals were dominant at frequencies associated
with low RPM. The mean spectral coherence distribution, however, displayed harmonic
groups corresponding to shaft frequency SF of 3.8 Hz instead, which was associated with a
higher RPM of approximately 860. This result implies that the cavitation noise at high RPM
was significantly stronger and more dominant than that at low RPM, despite the smaller
measurement time at high RPM (only 1/4 of the measurement duration).

14 3.8

12 3.7
Speed (knots)

SF (Hz)

10 3.6

8 3.5

6 3.4

4 3.3
0 200 400 0 200 400
Time (sec) Time (sec)
(a) (b)
Figure 12. (a) Ship speed and (b) fundamental propeller shaft frequency SF1 change with time when
the ship changed both propeller revolutions per minute (RPM) and propeller pitch ratios.

170 0.5 0.03 0.5

Correlation Coefficient
Pa at 1 m

160
0.4
0.02 0
Mean SC,

of SC
TC

150
0.3
dB re 1

0.01 -0.5
140
0.2
130 0 -1
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250 10 20 30 40 50 20 40 60 80
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Cyclic Frequency (Hz) Pitch (%)

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 13. The (a) power spectral density (PSD), (b) temporal coherence TC, and (c) mean spectral
coherence (SC) γ(α) distributions of ship-radiated underwater sound when the ship changed both
propeller RPM and pitch ratios. (d) The correlation coefficients between the mean spectral coherence
values in (c) and those at different pitch ratios in Figure 9, with respect to the first four harmonics of
shaft frequency SF.

The mean spectral coherence variation with the increase in harmonic order, shown
in Figure 13c, was similar to that of Figure 9d, corresponding to 51% pitch, following an
“increase–decrease–increase” trend among the first four harmonics of shaft frequency SF.
The correlation coefficient between the mean spectral coherence values for the first four
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 15 of 18

harmonics of shaft frequency for the special measurement here, shown in Figure 13c, and
at different pitches, shown in Figure 9a–g, were calculated and plotted in Figure 13d. The
highest correlation for the special case here was with the 51% pitch. This indicates that
the most dominant propeller pitch for the special measurement here could be around 51%.
Besides the first four harmonics of shaft frequency, the mean spectral coherence distribution
for the special measurement, shown in Figure 13c, also clearly revealed higher order shaft
frequency harmonics, ranging from the fifth to the ninth, and twelfth.

6. Discussion
The underwater sound radiated by a ship with a controllable pitch propeller (CPP) was
analyzed and quantified as a function of propeller pitch ratio, including acoustic feature
extraction and ship parameter estimation. The ship’s acoustic signature was characterized
in terms of (i) signal energetics via power spectral density, (ii) machinery tonal sound via
temporal coherence, (iii) propeller cavitation noise via spectral coherence, and (iv) frequency-
modulated (FM) tonal signal mean and standard deviation in frequency variation. Each
of these quantities were calculated from ship-radiated underwater sound measurement at
different propeller pitch ratios, ranging from 20% to 80%, and then compared.
The 51% pitch was found to be a crucial point for this ship, because (a) the power
spectral density of the radiated sound reached the lowest levels over a broad range of
frequencies, (b) the power spectral density and temporal coherence of the ship’s significant
tonal sounds attained their highest values, and (c) the modulation frequency of the FM tonal
signals were the largest. However, the spectral coherences of shaft frequency harmonics for
the ship’s cavitation noise were among the lowest at 51% pitch.
The efficacy and robustness of the estimation of the ship’s parameters under different
propeller pitch ratios were investigated. Our analysis indicates that the cylinder firing
rate CFR could be well estimated at all propeller pitches from the frequency differences in
adjacent CFR tonal harmonics. The engine firing rate EFR and cylinder number could not
be accurately estimated since the strongest CFR harmonic was found to be one order higher
than that provided for the ship under study. The propeller shaft frequency (SF) could be
obtained from the spectral coherence analysis of the cavitation noise at every propeller
pitch. The blade pass frequency (BPF) and blade number could be estimated for several
pitches, but not all. The reduction gear rate (RGR) could be calculated from the CFR and SF
frequencies with an appropriate engine stroke number assumption. The shaft frequency
harmonics were most coherent at 79% and 82% pitches, providing the ideal distributions
for estimating the blade pass frequency, blade number, and reduction gear rate of the ship.
An analysis of one special measurement where ship changed speed, propeller pitch
and RPM over the course of the measurement indicates that the cavitation noise at high
RPM was significantly stronger than at low RPM.
These findings elucidate the effects of pitch variation on underwater sound radiated by
a specific ship with a controllable pitch propeller, which brings some valuable insights into
ship propeller design and operation. However, in order to obtain a much deeper and more
accurate understanding of underwater sound from ships with controllable pitch propellers,
more analyses should be conducted on a sufficient number of ships. More factors should
also be taken into account, including ship type, ship tonnage, ship speed, engine type,
propeller shape, propeller size, propeller material, etc.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, and investiga-
tion, C.Z., T.G. and P.R.; software and visualization, C.Z.; writing—original draft, C.Z.; writing—review
and editing, C.Z., T.G. and P.R.; funding acquisition, P.R.; supervision, N.C.M. All authors have read
and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the US Office of Naval Research (Ocean Acoustics Program)
and the US National Science Foundation.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 16 of 18

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bergmann, P.G.; Major, J.; Wildt, R. Physics of Sound in the Sea; Gordon and Breach: London, UK, 1968.
2. Arveson, P.T.; Vendittis, D.J. Radiated noise characteristics of a modern cargo ship. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2000, 107, 118–129.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Bruno, M.; Chung, K.; Salloum, H.; Sedunov, A.; Sedunov, N.; Sutin, A.; Graber, H.; Mallas, P. Concurrent use of satellite
imaging and passive acoustics for maritime domain awareness. In Proceedings of the Waterside Security Conference (WSS), 2010
International, Carrara, Italy, 3–5 November 2010.
4. Chung, K.W.; Sutin, A.; Sedunov, A.; Bruno, M. DEMON acoustic ship signature measurements in an urban harbor. Adv. Acoust.
Vib. 2011, 2011. [CrossRef]
5. Fillinger, L.; Sutin, A.; Sedunov, A. Acoustic ship signature measurements by cross-correlation method. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2010,
129, 774–778. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Leal, N.; Leal, E.; Sanchez, G. Marine vessel recognition by acoustic signature. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2015, 10, 9633–9639.
7. Ogden, G.L.; Zurk, L.M.; Jones, M.E.; Peterson, M.E. Extraction of small boat harmonic signatures from passive sonar. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 2011, 129, 3768–3776. [CrossRef]
8. Wales, S.C.; Heitmeyer, R.M. An ensemble source spectra model for merchant ship-radiated noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2002,
111, 1211–1231. [CrossRef]
9. Urick, R.J. Principles of Underwater Sound, 3rd ed.; Peninsula Publising: Los Atlos, CA, USA, 1983.
10. Makris, N.C.; Ratilal, P.; Symonds, D.T.; Jagannathan, S.; Lee, S.; Nero, R.W. Fish population and behavior revealed by
instantaneous continental shelf-scale imaging. Science 2006, 311, 660–663. [CrossRef]
11. Makris, N.C.; Ratilal, P.; Jagannathan, S.; Gong, Z.; Andrews, M.; Bertsatos, I.; Godø, O.R.; Nero, R.W.; Jech, J.M. Critical
population density triggers rapid formation of vast oceanic fish shoals. Science 2009, 323, 1734–1737. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, D.; Garcia, H.; Huang, W.; Tran, D.D.; Jain, A.D.; Yi, D.H.; Gong, Z.; Jech, J.M.; Godø, O.R.; Makris, N.C.; et al. Vast
assembly of vocal marine mammals from diverse species on fish spawning ground. Nature 2016, 531, 366–370. [CrossRef]
13. Duane, D.; Cho, B.; Jain, A.D.; Godø, O.R.; Makris, N.C. The Effect of Attenuation from Fish Shoals on Long-Range, Wide-Area
Acoustic Sensing in the Ocean. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 2464. [CrossRef]
14. Garcia, H.A.; Zhu, C.; Schinault, M.E.; Kaplan, A.I.; Handegard, N.O.; Godø, O.R.; Ahonen, H.; Makris, N.C.; Wang, D.; Huang,
W.; et al. Temporal–spatial, spectral, and source level distributions of fin whale vocalizations in the Norwegian Sea observed
with a coherent hydrophone array. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2019, 76, 268–283. [CrossRef]
15. Mohebbi-Kalkhoran, H.; Zhu, C.; Schinault, M.; Ratilal, P. Classifying humpback whale calls to song and non-song vocalizations
using bag of words descriptor on acoustic data. In Proceedings of the 2019 18th IEEE International Conference On Machine
Learning And Applications (ICMLA), IEEE, Boca Raton, FL, USA, 16–19 December 2019; pp. 865–870.
16. Seri, S.G.; Zhu, C.; Schinault, M.; Garcia, H.; Handegard, N.O.; Ratilal, P. Long Range Passive Ocean Acoustic Waveguide
Remote Sensing (POAWRS) of Seismo-Acoustic Airgun Signals Received on a Coherent Hydrophone Array. In Proceedings of
the OCEANS 2019 MTS/IEEE SEATTLE, Seattle, WA, USA, 27–31 October 2019; pp. 1–8.
17. MacLennan, D.N.; Simmonds, E.J. Fisheries Acoustics; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013;
Volume 5.
18. Vieira, M.; Amorim, M.; Sundelöf, A.; Prista, N.; Fonseca, P.J. Underwater noise recognition of marine vessels passages: Two case
studies using hidden Markov models. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2019, 77, 2157–2170. [CrossRef]
19. Duane, D.; Zhu, C.; Piavsky, F.; Godø, O.R.; Makris, N.C. The Effect of Attenuation from Fish on Passive Detection of Sound
Sources in Ocean Waveguide Environments. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 4369. [CrossRef]
20. Stojanovic, M. Underwater acoustic communications. In Proceedings of the Electro/95 International, Professional Program
Proceedings, Boston, MA, USA, 21–23 June 1995; pp. 435–440.
21. Stojanovic, M.; Preisig, J. Underwater acoustic communication channels: Propagation models and statistical characterization.
IEEE Commun. Mag. 2009, 47, 84–89. [CrossRef]
22. Dambra, R.; Firenze, E. Underwater radiated noise of a small vessel. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress on Sound
and Vibration, Florence, Italy, 12–16 July 2015; pp. 12–16.
23. Hildebrand, J.A. Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2009, 395, 5–20.
[CrossRef]
24. Merchant, N.D.; Witt, M.J.; Blondel, P.; Godley, B.J.; Smith, G.H. Assessing sound exposure from shipping in coastal waters using
a single hydrophone and Automatic Identification System (AIS) data. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2012, 64, 1320–1329. [CrossRef]
25. Vasconcelos, R.O.; Amorim, M.C.P.; Ladich, F. Effects of ship noise on the detectability of communication signals in the Lusitanian
toadfish. J. Exp. Biol. 2007, 210, 2104–2112. [CrossRef]
26. Slabbekoorn, H.; Dooling, R.J.; Popper, A.N.; Fay, R.R. Effects of Anthropogenic Noise on Animals; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2018.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 17 of 18

27. Codarin, A.; Wysocki, L.E.; Ladich, F.; Picciulin, M. Effects of ambient and boat noise on hearing and communication in three fish
species living in a marine protected area (Miramare, Italy). Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2009, 58, 1880–1887. [CrossRef]
28. Ona, E.; Godø, O.R.; Handegard, N.O.; Hjellvik, V.; Patel, R.; Pedersen, G. Silent research vessels are not quiet. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
2007, 121, EL145–EL150. [CrossRef]
29. Mitson, R. Underwater noise radiated by research vessels. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 1993, 196, 147–152.
30. Mitson, R.B.; Knudsen, H.P. Causes and effects of underwater noise on fish abundance estimation. Aquat. Living Resour. 2003,
16, 255–263. [CrossRef]
31. Hawkins, A.D.; Pembroke, A.E.; Popper, A.N. Information gaps in understanding the effects of noise on fishes and invertebrates.
Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2015, 25, 39–64. [CrossRef]
32. Veirs, S.; Veirs, V.; Wood, J.D. Ship noise extends to frequencies used for echolocation by endangered killer whales. PeerJ 2016,
4, e1657. [CrossRef]
33. Erbe, C.; Dunlop, R.; Dolman, S. Effects of noise on marine mammals. In Effects of Anthropogenic Noise on Animals; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 277–309.
34. Fréchou, D.; Dugué, C.; Briançon-Marjollet, L.; Fournier, P.; Darquier, M.; Descotte, L.; Merle, L. Marine Propulsor Noise Investi-
gations in the Hydroacoustic Water Tunnel “GTH”. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Val de Reuil, France, 17–22 September 2000; Office of Naval Research Bassin d’Essais des Carenes National Research Council:
Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
35. Bush, V.; Conant, J.B.; Tate, J.T. Principles and Applications of Underwater Sound; Technical Report; Office of Scientific Research and
Development: Washington, DC, USA, 1946; Volume 7.
36. Norwood, C. An introduction to ship radiated noise. Acoust. Aust. 2002, 30, 21–25.
37. Ojak, W. Vibrations and waterborne noise on fishery vessels. J. Ship Res. 1988, 32, 112–133. [CrossRef]
38. Gray, L.M.; Greeley, D.S. Source level model for propeller blade rate radiation for the world’s merchant fleet. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.
1980, 67, 516–522. [CrossRef]
39. Grelowska, G.; Kozaczka, E.; Kozaczka, S.; Szymczak, W. Underwater noise generated by a small ship in the shallow sea. Arch.
Acoust. 2013, 38, 351–356. [CrossRef]
40. Zhu, C.; Seri, S.G.; Mohebbi-Kalkhoran, H.; Ratilal, P. Long-range automatic detection, acoustic signature characterization and
bearing-time estimation of multiple ships with coherent hydrophone array. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 3731. [CrossRef]
41. Zhu, C. Remote Monitoring of Multiple Ships over Instantaneous Continental-Shelf Scale Region with Large-Aperture Coherent
Hydrophone Array. Ph.D. Thesis, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA, 2020.
42. Malinowski, S.J.; Gloza, I. Underwater noise characteristics of small ships. Acta Acust. United Acust. 2002, 88, 718–721.
43. Gloza, I. Identification Methods of Underwater Noise Sources Generated by Small Ships. Acta Phys. Pol. A. 2011, 119. [CrossRef]
44. McKenna, M.F.; Ross, D.; Wiggins, S.M.; Hildebrand, J.A. Underwater radiated noise from modern commercial ships. J. Acoust.
Soc. Am. 2012, 131, 92–103. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Antoni, J.; Hanson, D. Detection of surface ships from interception of cyclostationary signature with the cyclic modulation
coherence. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 2012, 37, 478–493. [CrossRef]
46. Hanson, D.; Antoni, J.; Brown, G.; Emslie, R. Cyclostationarity for ship detection using passive sonar: Progress towards a
detection and identification framework. In Proceedings of the ACOUSTICS 2009, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 23–25 November
2009; pp. 1–8.
47. Zhu, C.; Garcia, H.; Kaplan, A.; Schinault, M.; Handegard, N.O.; Godø, O.R.; Huang, W.; Ratilal, P. Detection, localization and
classification of multiple mechanized ocean vessels over continental-shelf scale regions with passive ocean acoustic waveguide
remote sensing. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1699. [CrossRef]
48. Huang, W.; Wang, D.; Garcia, H.; Godø, O.R.; Ratilal, P. Continental shelf-scale passive acoustic detection and characterization of
diesel-electric ships using a coherent hydrophone array. Remote Sens. 2017, 9, 772. [CrossRef]
49. Gaggero, T.; Rizzuto, E.; Traverso, F.; Trucco, A. Comparing ship underwater noise measured at sea with predictions by empirical
models. In Proceedings of the 21st International Congress on Sound and Vibration, Beijing, China, 13–17 July 2014; pp. 1510–1516.
50. Traverso, F.; Gaggero, T.; Tani, G.; Rizzuto, E.; Trucco, A.; Viviani, M. Parametric analysis of ship noise spectra. IEEE J. Ocean.
Eng. 2016, 42, 424–438. [CrossRef]
51. Traverso, F.; Gaggero, T.; Rizzuto, E.; Trucco, A. Spectral analysis of the underwater acoustic noise radiated by ships with
controllable pitch propellers. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2015-Genova, Genova, Italy, 18–21 May 2015; pp. 1–6.
52. AQUO. Achieve QUieter Oceans by Shipping Noise Footprint Reduction. Available online: www.aquo.eu (accessed on 8 January 2022).
53. ANSI/ASA. S12.64-2009/Part 1, Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Underwater Sound from
Ship—Part 1: General Requirements. 2009. Available online: https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/asa/ansiasas12642009partr2014
(accessed on 8 January 2022).
54. Welch, P. The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short,
modified periodograms. IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 1967, 15, 70–73. [CrossRef]
55. Goodman, J. Statistical Optics; Willey: New York, NY, USA, 1988.
56. Kay, S.M. Modern Spectral Estimation; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1988.
57. Shapiro, A.D.; Wang, C. A versatile pitch tracking algorithm: From human speech to killer whale vocalizations. J. Acoust. Soc.
Am. 2009, 126, 451–459. [CrossRef]
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 328 18 of 18

58. Baumgartner, M.F.; Mussoline, S.E. A generalized baleen whale call detection and classification system. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2011,
129, 2889–2902. [CrossRef]
59. Antoni, J. Cyclostationarity by examples. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2009, 23, 987–1036. [CrossRef]
60. Antoni, J.; Xin, G.; Hamzaoui, N. Fast computation of the spectral correlation. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2017, 92, 248–277.
[CrossRef]
61. Gardner, W. Measurement of spectral correlation. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 1986, 34, 1111–1123. [CrossRef]
62. Pollara, A.; Sutin, A.; Salloum, H. Improvement of the Detection of Envelope Modulation on Noise (DEMON) and its application
to small boats. In Proceedings of the OCEANS 2016 MTS/IEEE Monterey, Monterey, CA, USA, 19–23 September 2016; pp. 1–10.
63. Boashash, B.; O’shea, P. A methodology for detection and classification of some underwater acoustic signals using time-frequency
analysis techniques. IEEE Trans. Acoust. Speech Signal Process. 1990, 38, 1829–1841. [CrossRef]
64. Pollara, A.; Sutin, A.; Salloum, H. Modulation of high frequency noise by engine tones of small boats. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 2017,
142, EL30–EL34. [CrossRef]
65. Hanson, D.; Antoni, J.; Brown, G.; Emslie, R. Cyclostationarity for passive underwater detection of propeller craft: A development
of DEMON processing. In Proceedings of the Acoustics 2008, Geelong, VIC, Australia, 24–26 November 2008; pp. 24–26.