The data stored in this repository is related to the Journal article by H. Dogan, P.R. White, and T.G. Leighton, “Acoustic wave propagation in gassy porous marine sediments: the rheological and the elastic effects” to appear in the Journal Acoustic Society of America in 2017.
 
The data given in the Excel files replicates the results presented in the manuscript with the same numbering to the Figures. Given below are some further details about each figure:

Figure 1: This figure plots the damping coefficients given in Eqs. 27a-27e. The material properties for taken from the column for the Ocean silt sample in Table 1. In Fig. 1b, the counterparts of the results obtained from the Anderson and Hampton theory (Ref. [2]) are also shown. 

Figure 2: In this figure, the damping coefficients given in Eqs. 27a-27e are plotted versus the drive frequency. The sediment sample taken is the Harbor mud in Table 1. The results obtained with the theories in Refs. [2] and [4] using the same parameter values are also shown for comparison.  

Figure 3: In Fig. 3a, the sound speed versus the drive frequency result obtained using Eq. (28) for Harbor mud in Table 1 are shown and compared with the results from the theories in Refs. [2] and [4]. In fig. 3b, the same computation is carried out for the ocean silt sample given in Table 1. The results from the Refs. [2] and [4] are also shown. 

Figure 4: In Fig. 4, the attenuation results as a function of the drive frequency are shown. The results are obtained using Eq. (29) of the present manuscript. The sediment sample is the Harbor mud given in Table 1. For comparison purposes, the results from the Refs. [2] and [4] are also shown. The figure takes the gas void fraction value as 0.068%. 

Figure 5: In this figure, the attenuation results in gassy sediment with monodisperse bubble populations are compared with gas-free sediment. The line depicted as ´EDFM´ shows the attenuation in gas-free sediment. Two different bubble radii (500 microns and 2 mm) are used. The gas void fraction value is taken as 0.1%.  

Furthermore, an Electronic supplement file is added for this paper to the University of Southampton repository and to the Journal of Acoustical Society of America database. The Electronic Supplement contains explanations on how to verify that the low and high frequency limits of the sound speed presented in the current paper approach to the ones predicted by the Effective Density Fluid Model (EDFM, Ref. [34] of the current paper). The Electronic Supplement includes two figures: 

Figure E1: In this figure, the sound speed in water-saturated sediment is plotted vs frequency using the EDFM. In subfigure E1a, the parameter values are taken exactly same as the ones in Ref. (34), except that the frequency axis is extended to 1 MHz instead of the upper bound 100 kHz in the original Figure 2 in Ref. [34], in order to show the asymptotic limit in both subfigures E1a and E1b. In Fig. E1b, the parameter values are taken from the Appendix of the current paper, and the porosity values are taken from Table 1 of the current paper, where 0.75 is the porosity of mud and 0.68 is the porosity of silt. 

Figure E2: In this figure, the sound speed in gassy sediment and water-saturated sediment is plotted vs the frequency. In Fig. E2a, the sound speed in mud with and without gas bubbles (the latter being calculated with EDFM theory) is shown. It has been shown that the high frequency limits are identical and the low frequency sound speed can be predicted closely with Mallock-Wood equation for sound speed in suspensions. In Fig. E2b, the same comparison is repeated for silt sediment with and without gas bubbles. The parameter values are taken from Table 1 of the current paper for mud (Fig. E2a) and for silt (E2b). 

Note that no additional data file in Excel format is added to the repository for this fig. E2, because the curves in Figure E2 replots the results in Fig. 3 and Fig. E1. Namely, the EDFM results in Fig. E2 are the same as the ones in Fig. E1b. Further, the results for gassy mud in Fig. E2a are identical with Fig. 3a, except that the frequency axis is limited to 400 kHz in the latter, where the sound speed already reaches its asymptotic limit. Similarly, the results for gassy silt in Fig. E2b are identical with the ones in Fig. 3b; the frequency axis in the latter is limited to 400 kHz where the sound speed already reaches its asymptotic limit.