Simulation of humpback whale bubble-net feedingmodels

Spencer H. Bryngelsona) and Tim ColoniusDivision of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, 1200 E California

Blvd, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

Humpback whales can generate intricate bubbly regions, called bubble nets, via their blow-holes. They appear to exploit these bubble nets for feeding via loud vocalizations. Afully-coupled phase-averaging approach is used to model the flow, bubble dynamics, andcorresponding acoustics. A previously hypothesized waveguiding mechanism is assessed forvarying acoustic frequencies and net void fractions. Reflections within the bubbly region re-sult in observable waveguiding for only a small range of flow parameters. A configuration ofmultiple whales surrounding and vocalizing towards an annular bubble net is also analyzed.For a range of flow parameters the bubble net keeps its core region substantially quieter thanthe exterior. This approach appears more viable, though it relies upon the cooperation ofmultiple whales. A spiral bubble net configuration that circumvents this requirement is alsoinvestigated. The acoustic wave behaviors in the spiral interior vary qualitatively with thevocalization frequency and net void fraction. The competing effects of vocalization guidingand acoustic attenuation are quantified. Low void fraction cases allow low-frequency wavesto partially escape the spiral region, with the remaining vocalizations still exciting the net in-terior. Higher void fraction nets appear preferable, guiding even low-frequency vocalizationswhile still maintaining a quiet net interior.

c©2019 Acoustical Society of America.

Pages: 1–11

I. INTRODUCTION

Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) utilizesophisticated underwater feeding strategies13. They cangenerate bubbles with their dorsal surface (blowholes)and form bubble columns12, clouds12, and nets14 withcomplex swimming maneuvers10. The whales appear toleverage these bubbly regions via acoustic excitation fortrapping and corralling small fish (mostly herring andkrill12). Indeed, the whale vocalization frequencies of-ten even overlap with the resonant frequencies of the fishswim bladders16,20. However, the mechanisms by whichthe whales exploit (or suffer from22) these nets are gener-ally unknown. The bubble-net feeding strategy is focusedon here, for which the whales swim downwards in a circu-lar motion, starting from a few meters below the oceansurface. They then rotate their blowholes towards thewill-be bubble-net center and release several “bursts” ofbubbles12, creating an annular or spiral cylinder of bub-bles28 as shown in figure 1 (a) and (b) From the netexterior, from one to about 1531 whales generate a loudtrumpeting sound. The whales then rise within the netcenter and consume their prey in a process called verticallunge feeding7 (see figure 1 (c)).

Observations of bubble nets are scarce, as they usu-ally occur in isolated ocean areas. As a result, hypothesesof how whale generated acoustic waves and their inter-

a)spencer@caltech.edu

actions with bubble nets result in advantageous feedingstrategies are broad. For example, it is possible thatwhales utilize their nets to echolocate prey25, though thiscould require higher frequencies than those usually ob-served during the bubble-net feeding process. Here, thepossibility that the whales attempt to surround and traptheir prey with loud vocalizations is considered for dif-ferent acoustic mechanisms.

The first mechanism considered followsfrom Leighton 17 , who showed that the bubbly re-gion could behave as a waveguide for the whalevocalizations if certain criteria are met. For this, theacoustic waves would enter (via refraction) and reflectwithin an annular bubbly region, eventually occupyingthe entire bubble net and trapping the prey within awall of sound. However, for this to be possible, thevocalizations must be focused in a sufficiently narrowangular range, the bubble natural frequency must behigher than the vocalization frequency, and the soundmust remain sufficiently directional within the net21.While these criteria are plausible, it is unknown ifgeometric effects or nonlinear and collective bubbleinteractions or oscillations will preclude a useful degreeof waveguiding. Indeed, Leighton et al. 20 later hypothe-sized that it is improbable these criteria could be reliablyand simultaneously met, though it remains unclear ifthis mechanism is physically viable for reasonable modelparameterizations.

If the net geometry is annular, then it is possible thatthe bubble net simply shields the interior from the vocal-

Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 1

arX

iv:1

909.

1176

8v1

[ph

ysic

s.fl

u-dy

n] 2

5 Se

p 20

19

(a) (b) (c)

FIG. 1. (a) Aerial view of a humpback whale bubble net6, (b) visualization of four whales vocalizing towards a bubble net

using the present simulation method (see section II), and (c) several humpback whales lunge feeding8.

izations, which then surround the net region16. Bubblecurtains have been used to shield krill from damage incaptivity9 and herring are reluctant to cross high voidfraction bubble curtains even in the absence of acous-tic excitation28. Thus, if the effective impedance of thebubble net is large and acoustic refraction is insignifi-cant, then this conjecture is plausible. However, a readyassessment of this appears to be precluded by the non-uniform void fraction within the net, acoustic interac-tions between multiple whales, and geometric effects ofthe circular bubbly region.

More recently, it was noticed that the nets might in-stead have spiral shapes18. Other acoustic mechanismsare possible if this is the case. For example, Leightonet al. 19 described that the whales could reflect their vo-calizations within the bubble-free region of the net, whichmight allow a single whale to surround the entire netregion with sound. Further, this would utilize a largerfraction of the energy they generate, instead of squan-dering the portion that is reflected away from the net inthe waveguide scenario20. However, like above, it is chal-lenging to anticipate and confirm a full operating mecha-nism via only theoretical and ray-tracing analysis due tothe non-uniform bubbly regions, collective bubbly effects,low-frequency behaviors, and the sum-and-difference fre-quencies that could arise.

As a step towards understanding this feeding strat-egy, the present goals are to determine if a waveguidingbehavior can be observed, to what degree the interior ofthe bubble net is kept quiet when directly excited by loudvocalizations, and the acoustic behavior and attenuationfor spiral net configurations. It is possible to perform insitu or laboratory experiments to analyze such configu-rations. For example, Leighton et al. 18 used expandedpolystyrene to model the acoustic impedance. How-ever, it remains challenging to reliably control the bubblepopulation distribution or accurately observe the reflec-tion and refractions that occurs near the bubble wall.This motivates the use numerical simulations to considera range of possible flow parameters (net void fraction,vocalization frequency and orientation, etc.) and netgeometries. Here, the simulation model used includesbubble–bubble interactions, nonlinear bubble dynamics

including surface tension, viscosity, and mass transfer,geometric effects due to the bubble-net wall thickness,and the finite breadth of the driving acoustics. Thismodel and the numerical methods used for its solutionare described in greater detail in section II. Results arepresented in section III for acoustically excited circularand spiral bubble nets for a range of model and flow pa-rameters. The implications of these results are discussedin section IV.

II. MODEL SYSTEM AND NUMERICAL METHODS

A. Problem setup

Schematics of the problems considered are shown infigure 2. The nominal height of the bubble net is at leastas large as its nominal radius32, so the bubble net flowsystem is modeled as two dimensional on average, thoughthe individual bubbles are spherical. This model doesnot account for some of the more intricate upward spiralor double-loop three-dimensional bubble net geometriesthat have been reported32, nor buoyant effects due to ris-ing bubbles. Instead, it is utilized to test the hypothesesdiscussed in section I. The net region is either an annu-lus of radius ro and nominal thickness δ (figure 2, left) orthe same annulus with the addition of an Archimedeanspiral of radius r = ro + bφ, turning parameter b = ro/π,and the same thickness (figure 2, right). Net parame-ters ro = 10 m and δ = 4 m are used, both of which arereasonable estimates for actual bubble nets7. The netis located at the center of a side-length L = 6ro squaredomain. It is filled with spherical gas bubbles of densityρg = 1 kg/m3 and radius Ro = 1 mm, which follows fromthe approxmimation of Wiley et al. 32 , though variationsof these parameters will be discussed. The bubbly wa-ter has void fraction α that varies with radial coordinater up to its initial maximum value αo at r = ro via aGaussian bump as

α(r) = αo exp

(−1

2

(r − ro)2

σ2δ

), (1)

where σδ = δ/3. The domain is otherwise occupied withwater of density ρl = 998 kg/m3.

2 Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

x

y

(a)

θ

1.5ro

2ro

(b) (b)

(b) (b)

ro

δ

Water

Bubbly waterαo

(c)

ro + bφ

roφ

FIG. 2. Problem setups: Annular (left) and spiral bubble-nets (right). The lines (a–c) indicate different acoustic source

locations and directions (see text).

Whale vocalizations are represented as one-waywaves emitted from a line-source of length La = 0.2ro at aspecified angle θ, frequency f , and amplitude A. Hump-back whales can produce sounds ranging from 10 Hz to30 kHz24,25, though the trumpeting calls associated withbubble net feeding are usually around a few kilohertz29.Constructive sum-and-difference frequencies could alsoextend the effective frequency observed at the bubble-net wall17. Thus, a frequency range of f = 0.1 kHzto 5 kHz will be discussed herein. For the bubble sizesconsidered, this corresponds to both attenuated and en-hanced effective mixture sound speeds in the bubbly re-gion4. The sound pressure of the vocalizations is aboutA = 180 dB re 1 µPa29, which is used here. These soundsusually last for minutes7, which is much longer than thesingle-bubble-oscillation time scales Thus, the acoustics-generating sources are active for the duration of the sim-ulations.

The locations of the acoustic line sources are shownin figure 2. The first configuration, shown in figure 2 (a),is a single line source with angle θ = 50◦ from the x-direction, which is used to determine if a waveguidingbehavior can be observed in the bubbly region. Thesecond configuration (figure 2 (b)) is Nw line sources(Nw = 4 shown), each 2ro from and directed towardsthe bubble net center, which is used to assess the ef-fective acoustic impedance of the bubble net. The lastconfiguration, shown in figure 2 (c), is a single line sourceof angle θ = 90◦, directed into the bubble-free arm of aspiral bubble net. Note that these sources are fixed inspace, and thus Doppler effects are not considered. How-ever, the broad frequency range considered, along withthe relative insensitivity of the results near the ends ofthis range, confirms that such effects are insignificant forcurrent purposes.

B. Physical model

The flow of a dilute suspension of bubbles in a com-pressible liquid is modeled using ensemble phase av-eraging33. This model is able to reproduce the cor-rect bubbly-mixture sound speeds, nonlinear bubble dy-namics, and their coupling to the suspending liquid1,2.The mixture-averaged equations of motion are written inquasi-conservative form4:

∂q

∂t+∇ ·F = 0 (2)

where q = {ρ, ρu, E} are the conservative variables andF = {ρu, ρuu+ pI, (E + p)u} are the fluxes. Here, ρ,u, p, and E are the mixture density, velocity vector, pres-sure, and total energy, respectively. The mixture pres-sure is

p = (1− α)pl + α

(R3pbw

R3− ρR

3R2

R3

), (3)

for which R, R, and pbw are the radius, radial veloc-ity, and wall pressure of the bubbles, respectively. Thesequantities are vectors that depend upon the equilibriumbubble sizes Ro as R(Ro) = {R1, R2, . . . , RNb

}, whereNb = 31 is the number of bins that describes the as-sumed log-normal distribution function of relative scaleparameter σ2. Overbars · denote the usual momentswith respect to this distribution. Note that cases consid-ered here are monodisperse unless stated otherwise, forwhich the bubble dynamic variables are scalars instead.

The liquid pressure pl follows from the stiffened-gasequation of state as parameterized by the specific heatratio γl and stiffness Π∞23. The void fraction is trans-

Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 3

ported as

∂α

∂t+ u · ∇α = 3α

R2R

R3, (4)

where the right-hand-side represents the change of av-eraged bubble volume. The void fraction is transportedas

The associated bubble dynamics are evaluated as

∂nφ

∂t+∇ · (nφu) = nφ, (5)

where φ ≡{R, R,pb,mv

}are the bubble dynamic vari-

ables, as will be described next, and n is the bubble num-ber density per unit volume

n =3

4π

α

R3. (6)

The bubbles as assumed to be spherical, ideal, andspatially uniform gaseous regions2. Their dynamics aredriven by pressure fluctuations of the surrounding liquidand their radial velocities and accelerations are computedvia the Keller–Miksis equation15

RR

(1− R

c

)+

3

2R2

(1− R

3c

)=

pbw − p∞ρ

(1 +

R

c

)+Rpbwρc

,

(7)

where c is the sound speed, p∞ is the bubble forcingpressure, and

pbw = pb −4µR

R− 2σ

R(8)

is the bubble wall pressure. The internal bubble pres-sure pB and the mass of the bubble contents mv followfrom a reduced model that can represent heat and masstransfer27. In whole, this single-bubble model includesthermal effects, viscous and acoustic damping, and phasechange.

C. Numerical methods

The model problem of figure 2 is spatially discretizedvia a rectilinear and uniformly spaced grid with N =3 × 103 grid points in each coordinate direction x andy, and thus ∆x = ∆y = L/N are the mesh spacings.Non-reflective boundary conditions are used to minimizefinite-L effects, though the principal results were foundto be insensitive to doubling L and N . The numericalscheme used has been described in detail before5 andis integrated into the MFC open-source solver3. Thus,it is only briefly discussed here. The fluxes of (2) aresplit spatially and integrated within cell-centered finitevolumes. The primitive variables are reconstructed at thefinite-volume-cell faces via a 5th-order WENO scheme5

and the HLLC approximate Riemann solver is used tocompute the fluxes30. The time derivative is computedusing the 3rd-order TVD Runge–Kutta algorithm11 andthe step size follows from the usual CFL criterion, whichis fixed at 0.1 based upon the speed of sound of water.

III. RESULTS

A. Observation of wave guidance in an annular bubble net

The possibility of a acoustic waveguiding behaviorin the model bubble net is considered first. Such waveguidance would entail a bending of incoming acousticwaves into the bubbly region from the exterior due tothe change of sound speed, and subsequent reflection ofthe waves back into this region when they reach the netinner wall17. For this, the configuration of figure 2 (a),which represents a directional humpback whale vocaliza-tion grazing a bubble net, is simulated and then furtherparameter variations are discussed.

Figure 3 shows the time evolution of a directionalacoustic wave of grazing a bubble net for varying vocal-ization frequencies. For the lowest frequency consideredf = 1 kHz, wave guidance is observed until t = 8.1δ/cl.This includes at least two reflections from the bubble netregion that are clearly visible. However, this behavioris nominally steady state and no further guidance is ob-served. For f = 2 kHz the vocalization refracts towardsthe net center at t = 2.7δ/cl, though by t = 5.4δ/cl nofurther wave guidance is observed. For the highest fre-quency f = 4 kHz the effective impedance of the bubblewall is large and no waves are observed in the bubblyregion, though it was confirmed that decreasing αo un-til this impedance is small results in less wave-guidancethan that observed for f = 1 kHz. The lack of continualwave-guidance, as was most pronounced in the f = 1 kHzcase, appears to be due to the dispersion of the waves asthey reflect in the non-uniform bubbly region.

Considering monodisperse bubble populations meansthat, in order to optimally promote wave guidance, theresulting acoustic wave frequency must overlap with thesingle resonance frequency of the bubble population.This challenge can be partially alleviated by consider-ing polydisperse bubble populations with a large spanof such resonant frequencies. This is considered in fig-ure 4, which uses a σ = 0.7 log-normally distribution ofbubble sizes, as is considered typical for samples of seawater26. Further, lower frequencies and larger void frac-tions are also considered as a demonstration of waveg-uide potential Figure 4 (a) show a f = 0.3 kHz case withlarger αo = 10−3 void fraction. For this case the wave-length of the exciting frequency exceeds δ, thus prohibit-ing wave-guidance. The f = 0.5 kHz, αo = 10−4 caseof figure 4 (b) shows that further decreasing f from theprevious cases considered results in a significant pollutionof the bubble-net center. This, combined with the lackof additional waveguiding observed, suggests that sucha configuration is less effective for this feeding strategy.Finally, in figure 4 (c) an otherwise previously consid-

4 Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

0.99

1

1.01

p/p∞

(i)f=

1kHz

(ii)f=

2kHz

(iii)f=

4kHz

(a) t = 2.7 δ/cl (b) t = 5.4 δ/cl (c) t = 8.1 δ/cl

FIG. 3. Pressure p for bubble-net void fraction αo = 10−4, (i)—(iii) varying acoustic source frequency f and (a)—(c) times.

The pressure scale corresponds to the maximum deviations from ambient pressure p∞ due to a 180 dB pulse. Times are

non-dimensionalized by the net thickness δ and liquid sound speed cl.

(a) f = 0.3 kHz, αo = 10−3 (b) f = 0.5 kHz, αo = 10−4 (c) f = 1 kHz, αo = 10−4

FIG. 4. Example σ = 0.7 polydisperse cases with larger αo and smaller f . Normalized pressure contours are shown.

ered case is shown, with the exception of the polydis-persity and smaller acoustic source width of La = 0.2ro(representing the possibility of a parametric sonar-likeeffect21). Again, modifying these parameters does notpromote waveguiding, seemingly due to the significant

dispersion observed in the bubbly region. Further, vary-ing the bubble-net thickness (δ), grazing angle (θ), andamplitude (A) of the incoming vocalizations did not ob-serve wave-guidance beyond about two reflections fromthe bubble-net wall.

Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 5

Thus, these results support prior claims that in prac-tice the annular bubble net likely does not reliably act asa waveguide16. Of course, additional whales carefully or-ganized around the net and vocalizing in a similar fashioncould promote excitation of the bubbly region. However,if several whales are present and cooperating, it might bemore likely that they are exploiting a more simple mech-anism: they are utilizing the bubble net as an acousticshield. This possibility is investigated next.

B. Acoustic shielding of annular bubble nets

Multiple whales vocalizing towards a bubble net aremodeled via the configuration of figure 2 (b). The flow issimulated until a steady state is reached and the resultingacoustic waves are visualized and analyzed.

The pressure p is shown in figure 5 for varying con-figurations. At long times a spatial pattern in p emerges,which changes qualitatively as the waves enter the annu-lar region and the net interior. For Nw = 8 and 12, thepressure contours are circular at the bubble-net center,though for Nw = 4 no such pattern is seen. Further, as fincreases, the bubble net increasingly shields the interiorfrom the acoustic sources and the interior acoustic wavesdiminish in magnitude; for f = 4 kHz a pattern cannotbe discerned. For increasing Nw the amplitude of p gen-erally increases, though the penetration of the waves aremost closely coupled to their frequency as the Nw = 12and f = 4 kHz case still does not noticeably penetratethe bubble net.

Figure 6 shows the loudness of the bubble net interiorfor varying vocalization frequencies, number of sources,and net void fractions. Here, SPLmax is computed as theusual maximum sound pressure level (SPL) within thebubble net interior after t = 50δ/cl (after which they vary< 1%). Consistent with the visualizations of figure 5,the interior loudness generally decreases with increasingf and decreasing Nw. For αo = 10−4, SPLmax decreaseswith increasing f until f = 4 kHz, after which it is nearlyconstant. For the more dilute αo = 10−5 cases, SPLmax

is nearly constant with increasing f until f = 4 kHz, atwhich point it decreases significantly. For the less diluteαo = 10−3, the loudness decreases a similar degree to theαo = 10−4 cases, though for a lower f = 3 kHz.

If whales are to leverage these nets to shield andcorral prey, then a small SPLmax/A is likely required tokeep the bubble net interior as an attractive location. IfSPLmax = 0.5A is used as a nominal threshold for this,then the whales must generate nets with αo & 10−4 tosufficiently damp their A = 180 dB vocalizations. Netswith a void fraction this high have the additional advan-tage that they serve to physically trap small fish, as pre-viously documented for bubble curtains9. However, thisconfiguration only makes sense when multiple whales arepresent, since multiple sources are required to surroundthe next with sound. A seemingly more robust spiral-netconfiguration that is amenable to single-whale hunting isinvestigated next.

C. Spiral-shaped bubble nets

As discussed in section I, spiral-shaped bubble netshave been proposed as a possible configuration for trap-ping prey19. Such spiral nets are considered next, includ-ing variation of net void fractions and exciting acousticfrequencies. This serves to clarify the possible acousticmechanisms that could be present in this flow configura-tion. Further, it works to resolve the parameterizationsthat promote robust feeding strategies..

Figure 7 shows example acoustic-spiral-bubble-netinteractions for a range of vocalization frequencies andtimes. For frequencies that correspond to wavelengthslarger than the bubble-free-arm spacing, e.g. the f =0.1 kHz case shown here, the waves propagate aroundthe spiral as if in a duct, with only minor attenuationdue to interactions with the bubble-net wall. For thef = 0.3 kHz case of figure 7 (ii) a different behavior isobserved. The vocalization reflects at the bubble-wall,introducing two coherent wave patterns of similar ampli-tude in the constant-width portion of the bubble-free re-gion. This interference pattern changes in the narrowing-portion of the arm, though the wave amplitudes remainsimilar. Thus, the entire bubble-free region is excited ata nearly constant amplitude. For the f = 0.5 kHz case asimilar interference pattern is observed in the constant-width portion of the spiral, though the ever decreasinggrazing angle of the reflected waves results in a qui-eter layer near the spiral center, consistent with the ray-tracing results of Leighton et al. 20 . For the f = 1 kHzcase the directionality of the acoustic waves are apparentfrom the first time shown, figure 7 (a,iv). In this case theamplitude of the waves attenuates more rapidly due to re-flection and transmission at the bubble-net wall. Further,an effectively quiet route of escape from the net center ex-ists due to the directionality of the acoustic reflections.Of course, variations in source directions and locationscould at least partially collapse this region. However,this remains a disadvantage of the high-f cases whencompared to the lower f cases that fully surround thecenter in loud vocalizations. For these reasons, higherf are not considered for this configuration. Note thatonly monodisperse cases were considered for these cases.This is because the high impedance mismatch at thebubble-net wall results in relatively little wave transmis-sion. Further, polydispersity only introduced a modesteffect on the refraction-dominated waveguiding observedin figure 4.

From the visualizations it is anticipated that αo andf have competing effects on the ability of the bubblenet to both guide and protect the central bubble-free re-gion from vocalizations. These effects are first quantifiedin figure 8 by measuring the averaged sound pressureSPLavg in four 0.2ro-thick patches located along the spi-ral portion of the net. As expected, SPLavg at location1, prior to significant interaction with the bubble wall, iseffectively independent of f for both αo.

For the higher void-fraction case (αo = 10−2),SPLavg is similar for all 4 locations along the spiral, asthere is greater internal reflection and smaller transmis-

6 Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

0.99

1

1.01

p/p∞

(i)N

w=

4(ii)

Nw

=8

(iii)N

w=

12

(a) f = 1 kHz (b) f = 2 kHz (c) f = 4 kHz

FIG. 5. Long-time pressure p for αo = 10−4 and (a)–(c) varying acoustic source frequency f and (i)–(iii) their number Nw as

labeled.

0 2 40.4

0.6

0.8

1

(a) αo = 10−3

f [kHz]

SPLmax/A

0 2 4

(b) αo = 10−4

f [kHz]

Nw = 4 8 12

0 2 4

(c) αo = 10−5

f [kHz]

FIG. 6. Maximum sound pressure level (SPLmax) within the bubble-net interior for varying f and Nw, net void fractions

(a)–(c) αo as labeled.

Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 7

(i)f=

0.1

kHz

(ii)f=

0.3

kHz

(iii)f=

0.5

kHz

(iv)f=

1kHz

(a) t = 2.4 δ/cl (b) t = 11.2 δ/cl (c) t = 51.8 δ/cl

FIG. 7. Acoustics in a αo = 10−2 spiral bubble net for (i)–(iv) vocalization frequency f at (a)–(c) times t. The normalized

pressure level p/p∞ is shown using the same scale as figures 3 and 5.

8 Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

1

2

3

40 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1(a) αo = 10−2

f [kHz]

SPLavg/A

Loc = 1 2 3 4

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

(b) αo = 10−3

f [kHz]

FIG. 8. Spatially averaged long-time sound pressure level SPLavg in the labeled regions 1–4 for (a) αo = 10−2 and (b)

αo = 10−3.

sion due to the high impedance mismatch. For the lowervolume fraction case (αo = 10−3), where the impedancemismatch is smaller, there is greater transmission ofwaves and consequently a significant reduction in SPLavg

along the spiral. These results are independent of f , withonly minor variations due to differing spatial wave pat-terns within the spiral over the range of frequencies con-sidered.

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

f [kHz]

SPLmax/A

αo = 10−2 10−3

FIG. 9. Maximum sound pressure level SPLmax in the

bubble-net center for varying f and (a) αo = 10−2 and (b)

αo = 10−3.

The αo = 10−3 cases were shown to allow a portion ofthe vocalizations to escape the bubble net entirely, whichdecreased their measured amplitude as they propagatearound the spiral. However, this lower αo also meansthat the remaining waves can more easily penetrate thecentral bubble net region, where the prey are corralled.Figure 9 illustrates this trade-off via the maximum sound

pressure level in the bubble-net center for varying αo andf . For f < 1 kHz, SPLmax is significantly smaller for theαo = 10−2 than 10−3 cases. Thus, even though a portionof the wave can escape the spiral net for the αo = 10−3

cases, it still remains louder in the central bubbly-freeregion. As a result, the αo = 10−2 configurations arepreferable for these f in terms of both surrounding theentire net with loud vocalizations and keeping the inte-rior quiet. For f = 1 kHz similar SPLmax are observed forboth αo. This is due to the trade-off between increasedrefraction in the bubbly arm of the spiral and the inabil-ity of these higher frequencies to penetrate the centralnet annulus. This behavior is expected for still higher fdue to the directionality of the waves in this regime.

Thus, for low-frequency f . 1 kHz vocalizations, ahigher αo & 10−2 void fraction is preferable in order tokeep the waves in the bubble-net spiral. For higher fre-quencies f & 1 kHz, SPLmax is relatively insensitive toαo and thus this parameter is less important. However,as was shown in figure 7, the directionality of these highfrequency vocalizations means that a quiet region canform at the interior layer of the spiral, leaving the preya possible escape route.

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

As a step towards fully understanding the complexhumpback whale bubble-net feeding process three pos-sible acoustic mechanisms were assessed: wave-guidanceand bubble-wall shielding for annular nets and vocaliza-tion guiding for spiral configurations. For this, a fully-coupled compressible bubbly flow model capable of rep-resenting the modified mixture speed of sound, geometriceffects of the curved bubble wall, and nonlinear and col-lective bubble dynamics was used. This model was solvedusing a high-order interface capturing scheme that min-imized spurious oscillations near material interfaces. Aconfiguration of acoustic-generating sources and bubbly

Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 9

regions was used as as a model of actual vocalizing hump-back whales and the bubble nets they generate. Simu-lations of this system were analyzed and connected toobserved whale feeding phenomena.

A wave-grazing flow configuration was considered todetermine if waveguiding in the bubbly region could ef-ficiently keep the bubbly region loud. Analysis showedthat for the parameterizations considered only modestwaveguiding could be observed. This was most promi-nent for relatively low frequencies (f = 1 kHz), but stillonly encompassed less than half of the bubble net. To en-sure that this was not due to the model parameterization,this conclusion was shown to be unchanged when consid-ering bubble population polydispersity, varying bubble-net thickness, acoustic frequencies, and their directional-ity, breadth, and amplitude.

A configuration representing multiple vocalizingwhales was used to quantify the attenuation and acous-tics of an annular bubble-net and the region that sur-rounded it. Qualitatively different acoustic patterns wereobserved, depending upon the number of whales present.The degree of attenuation was most strongly dependenton the frequency of the vocalizations, with significant at-tenuation of the 180 dB waves down to about 90 dB for arange of cases that overlapped with possible whale vocal-ization frequencies and net void fractions. This suggeststhat it is possible humpback whales utilize these bub-bly regions as a shield, but only if multiple whales arecooperating.

The weakness of the acoustic shielding hypothesisis associated with the required number of cooperatingwhales to utilize it. A previously proposed spiral bub-ble net configuration that could be utilized by a singlewhale was also considered19. Indeed, observations sug-gest that the shape might be closer to spiral than annular.With a single model whale vocalizing into the bubble-freeend of the spiral net, the guidance of the acoustic wavesthrough the spiral was observed. However, their behav-ior depended upon the vocalization frequency and netvoid fraction. For example, vocalizations of wavelengthsnear the width of the bubble-free arm were simply guidedthrough this region, without noticeable reflection at thebubble walls, whereas higher frequency cases displayedvarying degrees of reflections and, thus, loudness as theypropagated through the spiral. Importantly, for nets withsmaller void fractions, low frequency vocalizations wereable to penetrate the bubble arm, reducing their magni-tude when they reach the central bubble net region. Forhigher frequencies, both reflection and refraction and thebubble-net walls resulted in a directional acoustic behav-ior at ever decreasing grazing angles. These cases keptthe most of the bubble-free region loud, though for suf-ficiently high frequencies a quiet region for the modelprey to escape exist. This set of competing effects was,in part, quantified by the maximum sound pressure levelobserved in the bubble-net center. This metric suggestedthat the higher void-fraction αo = 10−2 nets consideredwere superior to the αo = 10−3 cases, even though they

guided the entirety of the whale vocalizations towardsthe bubble-net center.

Additional field observations are required to furtherclarify the space of possible configurations. For example,the exact spatial locations and directions of the whalesduring feeding would better illuminate their behaviors. Abetter estimation of the expected bubble void fractionsin the nets could also possibly rule out acoustic mech-anisms or vocalization frequencies, since this parameterwas intimately related to the viability of the configura-tions considered.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Dr. Kevin Schmidmayer for numerousfruitful discussions. This work was supported by theOffice of Naval Research under grant number N0014-17-1-2676. Associated computations utilized the ExtremeScience and Engineering Discovery Environment, whichwere supported by the US National Science Foundationunder grant number TG-CTS120005.

1Ando, K. (2010). “Effects of polydispersity in bubbly flows,”Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology.

2Bryngelson, S. H., Schmidmayer, K., and Colonius, T. (2019).“A quantitative comparison of phase-averaged models for bubbly,cavitating flows,” Int. J. Mult. Flow 115, 137–143.

3Bryngelson, S. H., Schmidmayer, K., Coralic, V., Meng, J. C.,Maeda, K., and Colonius, T. (2019). “MFC, an open-sourcehigh-order multi-component, multi-phase, and multi-scale com-pressible flow solver,” arXiv 1907.10512.

4Commander, K. W., and Prosperetti, A. (1989). “Linear pres-sure waves in bubbly liquids: Comparison between theory andexperiments,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 85(732).

5Coralic, V., and Colonius, T. (2006). “Finite-volume WENOscheme for viscous compressible multicomponent flow problems,”J. Comp. Phys. 219(2), 715–732.

6Duke Marine Lab (2018). “Highlights from Antarcticaresearch” File: “https://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/uas/highlights-from-antarctica-research”.

7D’Vincent, C. G., Nilson, R. M., and Hanna, R. E. (1985).“Vocalization and coordinated feeding behavior of the humpbackwhale in southeastern Alaska,” Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 36,41–47.

8Evadb (2007). “Whales bubble net feeding” Public do-main, File: “https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whales_Bubble_Net_Feeding.jpg”.

9Finley, L. A., Nicol, S., and MacMillan, D. L. (2003). “Theeffectiveness of a bubble curtain for preventing physical damageto antarctic krill in captivity,” Mar. Freshw. Behav. Phy. 36(4),285–293.

10Fish, F. E., and Battle, J. M. (1995). “Hydrodynamic design ofthe humpback whale flipper,” J. Morphol. 225, 51–60.

11Gottlieb, S., and Shu, C.-W. (1998). “Total variation diminish-ing Runge–Kutta schemes,” Math. Comput. 67(221), 73–85.

12Hain, J. H. W., Carter, G. R., Kraus, S. D., Mayo, C. A., andWinn, H. E. (1982). “Feeding behavior of the humpback whale,Megaptera novaeangliae, in the western North Atlantic,” FisheryBull. 8(2), 259–268.

13Ingebrigtsen, A. (1929). “Whales caught in the North Atlanticand other seas,” Int. Counc. Explor. Sea, Rapp. P.-V. Reun (56),1–26.

14Jurasz, C., and Jurasz, V. (1979). “Feeding modes of the hupm-back whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in southeastern Alaska,”

10 Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am.

Sci. Rep. Whales Res. Inst. 31, 69–83.15Keller, J. B., and Miksis, M. (1980). “Bubble oscillations of large

amplitude,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 68(628).16Leighton, T. G. (2004). “From seas to surgeries, from babbling

brooks to baby scans: The acoustics of gas bubbles in liquids,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 18(25), 3267–3314.

17Leighton, T. G. (2004). “Nonlinear bubble dynamics and theeffects on propagation through near-surface bubble layers,” inAIP Conf. Proc., edited by W. K. M. B. Porter, M. Siderius,High-Frequency Ocean Acoustics (American Institute of PhysicsMelville, New York), Vol. 728, p. 180.

18Leighton, T. G., Finfer, D., Grover, E., and White, P. R. (2007).“An acoustical hypothesis for the spiral bubble nets of humpbackwhales and the implications for whale feeding,” in Acoustics Bul-letin, Vol. 22, pp. 17–21.

19Leighton, T. G., Finfer, D. C., Grover, E. J., and White, P. R.(2007). “Spiral bubble nets of humpback whales: An acousticmechanism,” in 2nd Int. Conf. & Exhibition on “UnderwaterAcoustic Measurements: Technologies & Results”, pp. 583–588.

20Leighton, T. G., Finfer, D. C., and White, P. R. (2007). “Cavi-tation and cetacean,” Revista de Acustica 38(3/4), 37–81.

21Leighton, T. G., Richards, S. D., and White, P. R. (2004).“Trapped within a “wall of sound”,” in Acoustics Bulletin, Vol.29, pp. 24–29.

22Leighton, T. G., and White, P. R. (2014). “Dolphin-inspiredtarget detection for sonar and radar,” Arc. Acoust. 38(3), 319–332.

23Menikoff, R., and Plohr, B. J. (1989). “The Riemann problemfor fluid-flow of real materials,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 61(1), 75–130.

24Mercado, E., and Frazer, L. N. (1999). “Environmental con-strains on sound transmission by humpback whales,” J. Acoust.

Soc. Am. 106(5), 3004–3016.25Mercado, E., and Frazer, L. N. (2001). “Humpback whale song

or humpback whale sonar? A reply to Au et al.,” IEEE J. Ocean.Eng. 26(3), 406–415.

26O’Hern, T. J., d’Agostino, L., and Acosta, A. J. (1988). “Com-parison of holographic and coulter counter measurements of cav-itation nuclei in the ocean,” J. Fluids Eng. 110(200–207).

27Preston, A., Colonius, T., and Brennen, C. E. (2007). “Areduced-order model of diffusion effects on the dynamics of bub-bles,” Phys. Fluids 19(123302).

28Sharpe, F. A., and Dill, L. M. (1997). “The behaviour of Pacificherring schools in response to artifical humpback whale bubbles,”Can. J. Zool. 75, 725–730.

29Thompson, P. O., Cummings, W. C., and Ha, S. J. (1986).“Sounds, source levels, and associated behavior of humpbackwhales, Southeast Alaska,” J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80(3), 735–740.

30Toro, E., Spruce, M., and Speares, W. (1994). “Restoration ofthe contact surface in the HLL-Riemann solver,” Shock waves4(1), 25–34.

31Valsecchi, E., Corkeron, P., and Amos, W. (2002). “Social struc-ture in migrating humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae),”Mol. Ecol. 11(3), 507–513.

32Wiley, D., Ware, C., Bocconcelli, A., Cholewiak, D., Friedlaen-der, A., Thompson, M., and Weinrich, M. (2011). “Underwatercomponents of humpback whale bubble-net feeding behaviour,”Behaviour 148(5–6), 575–602.

33Zhang, D. Z., and Prosperetti, A. (1994). “Ensemble phase-averaged equations for bubbly flows,” Phys. Fluids 6(2956).

Submitted to J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 11