Source localization in shallow waters using an acoustic vector sensor array

G. Latha, A. Malarkodi, M.Ashokan & A.Thirunavukkarasu

I recommend acceptance of the manuscript after considering minor

modifications. My review is given below:

Abstract:

 What do you mean by the ‘active’ term in the abstract? Is it due to the
use of active sonar source used to compare the array performance? It is
unclear for the readers and needs clarity in the text.
 The abstract is too long and needs reduction. I have provided a
compressed part of the same. The author must check. I will prefer to
reduce the abstract further, however, leave this up to the author:
The objective of this study is to present the work carried out on the source localization in the
open sea using the Vector Sensor Array (VSA) with three elements, developed by NIOT. The
vector sensor consists of a tri-axial accelerometer and a hydrophone with the design
frequency range 100 Hz to 6 kHz and the VSA consists of 3 such sensors with 0.125m
spacing. In order to ascertain the performance of the VSA in the open sea, first, an
experiment was conducted with a known source and active measurements in shallow waters
at a depth of 17m, off Chennai coast. After completion of active measurement at sea, the
VSA was maintained in the mooring at the same location, for the collection of ambient noise
data. The VSA was retrieved successfully after two weeks and the recorded data were
analyzed for anthropogenic noise sources. Boat noise was identified and DoA estimation was
carried out using a conventional beamforming technique. Boat noise was localized with the
frequency of 350Hz at an azimuth of 45° and elevation of 35°and at a range of 15m
approximately. The results obtained from the data analysis demonstrate the performance of
the vector sensor array in underwater source localization.

Introduction:

 The introduction is generally okay with me except the term “active’.

Regarding this, my comment is given above in the abstract section.
 I am confused with the citation style adopted in the text. Is this a Current
Science style? I request the author to check.
 Authors gave a brief history of spatial array signal processing and
mention that DOA is calculated based on the given expression and also
found references from Najeem et al. Again, mentioned reference of
Benjamin in page no. 3, which should have been [13].
  The theory of beamforming appears to be based on Capon’s theory (based
on the given expression). If that is the case, we say this is a conventional
beamforming method as mentioned in some part of the text, not in the
Introduction itself.
 Beamforming technique will provide beam width etc. as given for normal
array and it is strictly based on the array parameter such as array length
and inter-element spacing.
 Authors have used conventional beamforming here. Then a significant
number of given references for the high-resolution array is not justified. If
they want to maintain the same they clarify that they use conventional
beamforming, however, use of a high-resolution array is useful in VSA
application. Otherwise, enough scope for confusion for the reader is
there.

Vector Sensor Array beamforming:

 If this technique is proposed for conventional beamforming, I have no

problem.

Remaining part of the text is well written. Vector Sensor Array is 1st time
development initiated by ESSO-NIOT in the country.

Technology is new and research is continuing worldwide.

I recommend acceptance of this manuscript for Current Science

journal.