The present disclosure relates to techniques for radar-based detection of ground moving targets and more specifically to improved radar-based detection of ground moving targets using partially adaptive post pulse compression multi-waveform space-time adaptive processing techniques.
Airborne ground moving target indication (GMTI) radar must combat angle-Doppler coupled clutter caused by platform motion. In an effort to address this challenge, space-time adaptive processing (STAP) techniques have been developed. Existing STAP techniques generate a joint angle-Doppler filter to suppress the aforementioned coupled clutter and interference for subsequent detection of moving targets. For each range/Doppler cell-under-test (CUT) a unique filter is formed via estimation of the associated clutter/interference covariance matrix under the assumption that the training data used to form the matrix is independent and identically distributed (IID). The IID assumption implies that the clutter is stationary and homogeneous, and under this condition the STAP filter realized by the sample covariance matrix (SCM) estimate approaches the optimal filter, in a maximum signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) sense, as the number of training data samples increases.
However, in real-world operating environments the implication of the IID assumption (e.g., that clutter is stationary and homogeneous) does not hold due to the presence of non-homogeneous clutter. When this occurs, ground moving target detection systems utilizing traditional STAP techniques suffer severe degradation in SINR due to a variety of reasons including: insufficient sample support (e.g., insufficient IID training data); contamination of the training data by targets of interest, which may lead to self-cancellation issues; and CUT clutter discretes that are not represented in the SCM. With the additional inclusion of practical effects such as internal clutter motion, aircraft crabbing, and channel mismatch, accurate estimation of the STAP SCM remains a difficult problem.
Over the years numerous robust solutions have been proposed for this problem with varying trade-offs, assumptions, and degrees of success. A prominent trend among these is the down-selection/modification of the training data itself as a means to achieve improved ground moving target detection. In a bit of a departure from these methods, a form of STAP, referred to as multi-waveform (MuW) space-time adaptive processing (μ-STAP) has been introduced. The μ-STAP formulation involves the generation of additional training data via the application of multiple pulse compression filters that possess relatively low cross-correlation with the actual emitted waveform. Because this new training data involves different mixtures (in range) of the same data, it does not produce new independent snapshots. However, due to the range-domain “smearing” effect that occurs when applying these other filters, the additional training data μ-STAP techniques have been shown to be beneficial for non-homogeneous clutter.
μ-STAP techniques may be implemented in a variety of ways. For example, μ-STAP may be implemented in a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) mode in which lower power secondary waveforms are emitted in directions other than the primary mainbeam direction. As another example, μ-STAP may be implemented in a single-input multiple-output (SIMO) mode in which one waveform is emitted yet multiple different pulse compression filters are applied on received input radar waveforms (e.g., reflections of output radar waveforms transmitted by the radar detection system). Compared to the SIMO mode, the MIMO mode of μ-STAP provides somewhat better sidelobe clutter rejection due to waveform separability. However, MIMO mode μ-STAP also requires a more complex hardware implementation. In contrast, the SIMO mode emission requires no hardware modifications relative to standard GMTI. SIMO μ-STAP operates on a single pre-pulse compressed data stream to generate multiple post pulse compressed data streams. These data streams contain data relating to velocity, spatial location, and distance of a moving target, and may be formulated as a datacube via a multi-dimensional array (e.g., one dimension for each of velocity, spatial location, and distance). For most legacy systems, pre-pulse compressed data is not available since pulse compression is performed before analog-to-digital (A/D) sampling. In addition, hardware modifications of these systems to accommodate the μ-STAP framework would be a costly process. Thus, despite providing improved performance in the presence of non-homogeneous clutter, a significant drawback of existing μ-STAP techniques is their inability to be utilized by legacy radar systems, which perform pulse compression prior to A/D conversion and are therefore unable to utilize μ-STAP techniques, which require non-pulse compressed data to operate.
The present application discloses a new form of μ-STAP, referred to herein as post μ-STAP or Pμ-STAP, which overcomes the drawbacks associated with existing μ-STAP techniques. For example, as described in more detail below, Pμ-STAP techniques in accordance with the present disclosure facilitate the generation of additional training data and homogenization after pulse compression. Unlike the traditional μ-STAP techniques described above, which require pre-pulse compressed data to operate, the Pμ-STAP techniques disclosed in the present application are designed to utilize pulse compressed data as input.
For example, when an input radar waveform is received by a radar detection system, the input radar waveform may be pulse compressed and subjected to analog to digital conversion to form an input datacube. The input datacube may be processed using a plurality of homogenization filters to produce a plurality of homogenized datacubes, which may be used for covariance estimation and other radar processing techniques. The ability to utilize pulse compressed data as input allows Pμ-STAP techniques to be more easily applied to legacy radar systems. Additionally, the ability to utilize pulse compressed data, which may have enhanced characteristics (e.g., SNR, etc.), may improve the performance (e.g., increased capabilities to remove clutter, identify targets of interest, etc.) of radar systems implementing Pμ-STAP techniques in accordance with the present disclosure.
The foregoing has outlined rather broadly the features and technical advantages of the present invention in order that the detailed description of the invention that follows may be better understood. Additional features and advantages of the invention will be described hereinafter which form the subject of the claims of the invention. It should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that the conception and specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures for carrying out the same purposes of the present invention. It should also be realized by those skilled in the art that such equivalent constructions do not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims. The novel features which are believed to be characteristic of the invention, both as to its organization and method of operation, together with further objects and advantages will be better understood from the following description when considered in connection with the accompanying figures. It is to be expressly understood, however, that each of the figures is provided for the purpose of illustration and description only and is not intended as a definition of the limits of the present invention.
For a more complete understanding of the disclosed methods and apparatuses, reference should be made to the embodiments illustrated in greater detail in the accompanying drawings, wherein:
It should be understood that the drawings are not necessarily to scale and that the disclosed embodiments are sometimes illustrated diagrammatically and in partial views. In certain instances, details which are not necessary for an understanding of the disclosed methods and apparatuses or which render other details difficult to perceive may have been omitted. It should be understood, of course, that this disclosure is not limited to the particular embodiments illustrated herein.
Referring to
As shown in
As shown in
During operation, the transmitter 130 may generate a radar waveform for transmission as an output radar waveform 102. The output radar waveform 102 may be transmitted by the radar detection system 100, and objects within the path of the output radar waveform may reflect the output radar waveform 102. Some of these reflections may be received as input radar waveforms 104 at the antenna(s) 132. The input radar waveforms 104 may be provided as input to the signal processing circuitry 134 to facilitate processing of the input radar waveforms 104 in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure, as described in more detail below. The processing of the input radar waveforms may be utilized to perform ground moving target detection and the results of the ground moving target detection may be displayed at the display device 136. It is noted that although the radar detection system 100 is described as being configured to present results of ground moving target detection at display device 136, this has been described for purposes of illustration, rather than by way of limitation. For example, embodiments of the present disclosure may record location information or other data derived from the ground moving target detection in a database, which may be stored at memory 120 (or another memory device accessible to the radar detection system 100) instead of, or in addition to, displaying the results at the display device 136.
Referring to
As shown in
At block 240, covariance estimation may be performed on each of the homogenized datacubes generated at block 230. As illustrated in
The covariance matrices generated at block 240 may be combined at block 250 to produce a full covariance matrix. At block 260, partial adaptation processing may be performed based the full covariance matrix. It is noted that utilization of partial adaptation processing may be advantageous for various reasons. For example, when the radar detection system includes N number of antenna array elements, and there are M number of pulses in the coherent processing interval (CPI), and assuming homogeneous clutter, it can be generally expected that at least 2NM independent space-time snapshots are required to estimate the SCM within 3 dB of the optimum (in terms of average SINR). This number may be increased if the training data is non-homogeneous. For typical array sizes and CPI lengths, it is generally not feasible to expect the availability of 2NM or more IID training data samples. Likewise, the associated SCM of dimensionality NM×NM may incur too high a computational cost to invert, particularly if multiple SCMs are necessary and the result is required in real-time or near real-time. Thus, partial adaptation processing performed at block 260 may be utilized to address these issues and reduce computational complexities associated with performing ground moving target detection.
The results of the partial adaptation processing, as well as the datacube produced at block 220, may be provided as inputs to STAP processor 270. The STAP processor 270 may be configured to perform space-time adaptive processing of the inputs received from block 260 and block 220, which produces an output in which clutter has been canceled. For example, the input datacube 220 may initially include information (e.g., velocity, spatial location, and distance) associated with clutter, and the output of STAP processor 270 may be a datacube in which information associated with the clutter has been removed, and the output(s) of the STAP processor 270 may be provided to detector 280. The detector 280 may be configured to detect moving targets of interest based on the output(s) received from the STAP processor 270. For example, the detector may be configured to test each range cell and Doppler bin of the output of the STAP processor 270 for the present of a target of interest. As described above, in an aspect, information associated with detected moving targets of interest may be displayed at a display device, such as the display device 136 of
Referring back to
For SIMO μ-STAP, an airborne pulse-Doppler radar transmits a CPI of M pulses modulated with a single waveform in a given spatial direction Book via an N element uniform linear array (ULA) antenna. The received response from the illuminated scattering and noise for the mth pulse and nth antenna element may be expressed by:
where * denotes convolution, s(t) is the transmitted waveform, v(t) is additive noise, and x(t, ω, θ, θlook) is the induced scattering impinging on the array as a function of Doppler ω, spatial angle θ, and the direction of illumination θlook. It is noted that in Equation (1), y(m, n, t) represents a pre-pulse compressed input radar waveform.
The SIMO version of μ-STAP utilizes a primary pulse compression filter, denoted hprime(t), which may be a matched filter (or possible mismatched filter) for transmitted waveform s(t) and additionally defines a set of “unmatched” secondary pulse compression filters hsec, k(t) for k=1, 2, . . . , K that possess a relatively low cross-correlation with the transmitted waveform. The matched filter hprime(t) provides a range-focused estimate of the radar scattering, and low cross-correlation responses produced by the secondary filters realizes a smearing of the scattering in range that helps to homogenize the non-homogeneities of clutter discretes and targets contaminating the training data. The K+1 pulse compression responses produced by the K secondary filters and the primary filter hprime(t) can collectively be expressed as:
zprime(m,n,t)=hprime(t)*y(m,n,t)
zsec,1(m,n,t)=hsec,1(t)*y(m,n,t)
zsec,2(m,n,t)=hsec,2(t)*y(m,n,t)
. . .
zsec,K(m,n,t)=hsec,K(t)*y(m,n,t), (2)
for the n=0, 1, . . . , N−1 antenna elements and the m=0, 1, . . . , M−1 pulses in the CPI. Discretising these filter outputs and collecting the MN samples for each lth range index into a vector produces K+1 space-time snapshots denoted as zprime(l) and zsec,k(l) for k=1, 2, . . . , K.
Generally speaking, for a given spatial illumination direction zprime(l) and Doppler frequency ωD, a space-time adaptive filter ω(lCUT, θlook ωD) is generated and applied to each candidate CUT as
α(lCUT,ωD)=wH(lCUT,θlook,ωD)zprime(lCUT). (3)
The filter response α(lCUT, ωD) can then be evaluated by a detector to determine if a moving target is present at the specified range and Doppler. The STAP filter that optimizes SINR is determined according to:
w(lCUT,θlook,ωD)=R−1(lCUT)cst(θlook,ωD) (4)
where R(lCUT) is a covariance matrix of the clutter and interference in the CUT and the space-time steering vector, which may be expressed as:
cst(θlook,ωD)=ct(ωD)⊗cs(θlook), (5)
is formed by the Kronecker product of the individual temporal and spatial steering vectors.
The clutter and interference covariance matrix is usually estimated using the sample data surrounding the CUT under the assumption that this data is statistically homogeneous with the CUT snapshot. Notwithstanding the variety of ways in which training data can be modified/down-selected, the standard sample covariance matrix (SCM) estimate is obtained as:
using the set of Lprime snapshots with cardinality n(Lprime). The exclusion of range indices comprising the CUT and surrounding guard cells from the training data is generally used to avoid including possible moving targets in/near the CUT.
The problem with the SCM estimate provided by Equation (6) is that it may not be an accurate reflection of the true covariance matrix for the reasons discussed above (e.g., Equation (6) “assumes” the sample data surrounding the CUT is homogeneous with the CUT snapshot, etc.). To supplement the many robust SCM estimators that have been developed, SIMO μ-STAP formulations may make use of additional training obtained from the K secondary filters in Equation (2). For example, a “no primary” μ-STAP form of SCM can be realized as:
In Equation (7), the CUT and guard cells are not excluded since doing so would be unnecessary due to the range-smearing effect of the secondary filters. The SCM derived from Equation (7) can also be combined with the traditional SCM from (6) to form a μ-STAP SCM, which may be expressed as:
{circumflex over (R)}μ(lCUT)={circumflex over (R)}prime(lCUT)+{circumflex over (R)}μ,NP(lCUT). (8)
It is noted that diagonal loading may be used with the standard SCM (e.g., the SCM formulation provided in Equation (6)) by adding σv2IMN, for the noise power (σv2) and IMN, which is an MN×MN identity matrix. Diagonal loading can also be used with the μ-STAP SCMs (e.g., the SCM formulations of Equations (7) and (8)) and has been shown to improve robustness to nonhomogeneous clutter.
As shown above, SIMO μ-STAP utilizes a single pre-pulse compressed datacube to generate multiple post pulse compressed datacubes. However, as explained above, most legacy radar systems cannot provide pre-pulse compressed data since pulse compression is performed before A/D sampling. In addition, hardware modifications of these legacy radar systems to accommodate the MIMO μ-STAP framework would be a costly process. The Pμ-STAP techniques described above with reference to
In the description that follows, differences between the Pμ-STAP of the present disclosure and the above-described SIMO μ-STAP techniques are described. As described above with reference to
ρprime(m,n,l)=gprime(l)*zprime(m,n,l)
ρsec,1(m,n,l)=gsec,1(l)*zprime(m,n,l)
ρsec,2(m,n,l)=gsec,2(l)*zprime(m,n,l)
. . .
ρsec,K(m,n,l)=gsec,K(l)*zprime(m,n,l), (9)
where gprime(l) is the primary homogenization filter and gsec,k(l) for k=1, 2, . . . , K are the secondary homogenization filters. It is noted that the primary homogenization filters, the secondary homogenization filters, or both the primary and secondary homogenization filters may be digital filters created following analog to digital conversion. The primary homogenization filter may be a time-delayed impulse designed to have no effect on the initial pulse compression response besides aligning appropriately with secondary responses. The secondary homogenization filters may be uniform amplitude, random phase filters. For a filter discrete length C, the primary and secondary homogenization filters, respectively, may be expressed as:
where δ(●) is the impulse function and each phase value is independently drawn from a uniform distribution on [−π, +π]. One benefit of Pμ-STAP is its independence between secondary filter generation and primary waveform. For example, the above-described μ-STAP techniques require that the secondary pulse compression filters be generated a priori based on the primary filter structure. These secondary pulse compression filters must be optimized such that the cross-correlation has a sufficient decorrelation to the transmit waveform to induce homogenization. Additionally, the secondary pulse compression filters utilized by existing μ-STAP techniques will typically work for the primary waveform and only the primary waveform. In contrast, the primary and secondary homogenization filters utilized by Pμ-STAP techniques in accordance with the present disclosure do not need a priori information of the transmitted radar waveform. Traditional pulse compression techniques, such as μ-STAP, are performed using the transmitted waveform. Since Pμ-STAP techniques in accordance with the present disclosure technique may be performed post compression, Pμ-STAP does not need to incorporate the transmit waveform in the homogenization filter. Furthermore, Pμ-STAP techniques in accordance with the present disclosure may facilitate selective control with respect to the amount of decorrelation by adjusting the homogenization filter length, as illustrated in
For example, consider a linear FM (LFM) waveform pulse compressed with a normalized match filter, where r denotes the pulse duration and B represents the swept bandwidth. In
In the Pμ-STAP processing flow illustrated and described above with reference to
It noted that the use of K additional channels of training data obtained from the K secondary homogenization filters does not actually provide more independent sample support. Instead, the smearing in range by multiple filters creates the appearance that further sample support is being obtained as a by-product of accessing a greater range extent than would otherwise be achieved by the single focused pulse compression filter (range sidelobes notwithstanding). This distinction is further illustrated below during discussion of simulation results, which describes Pμ-STAP cases involving K+1 filters for K=4 according to Equation (13) and the use of only 1 secondary filter without primary data via Equation (11).
Various approaches, referred herein to as reduced-dimension multi-waveform approaches, have been developed to enable STAP-type processes to be more easily realized in practical applications. For example, to avoid inversion of an MN×MN SCM, which may need to be performed separately for each range cell, partially adaptive approaches have been developed that require less training data and incur a lower computational cost. Below, a μ-STAP scheme is evaluated in the context of reduced-dimension implementations to assess the impact of their combination. Specifically, the discussion below examines element-space post-Doppler (ESPoD), beam-space pre-Doppler (BSPrD), and beam-space post-Doppler (BSPoD) formulations. The following summarizes these implementations and discusses how μ-STAP is incorporated into each.
Element-space multi-window post-Doppler (ESPoD) applies different Doppler filters to the pulsed echoes received at each antenna element. In other words, for ESPoD the Doppler processing component is non-adaptive and localized to a set of Dt Doppler bins. Spatial processing is then fully adaptive across the N antenna elements. Therefore, each antenna element has an identical M×Dt filter bank Fm for the mth Doppler bin that can be used to construct an MN×Dt N space-time transform:
Tm=Fm⊗IN (14)
There are different ways one can select the Doppler filters in Equation (14). Below, the adjacent-bin approach is considered, though pulse repetition interval (PRI) staggered approaches are likewise applicable in the μ-STAP context. Adjacent-bin post-Doppler employs Doppler filters indexed by −P, . . . , m, . . . , m+P where:
P=(Dt−1)/2 (15)
Let U=[u0 u1 . . . uM-1] be an M×M discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix and b be a M×1 Doppler taper. The tapered mth Doppler filter is thus:
fm=a⊙um* (16)
for e denoting the Hadamard product and (•)* complex conjugation, so that the mth Doppler filter bank is:
Fm=[fm−P . . . fm . . . fm+P] (17)
Note that Dt must be odd and the Doppler filter bank should wrap around the edges of the Doppler space.
For a μ-STAP formulation, the transform in Equation (14) may be applied to the discretized versions of the primary and secondary data of Equations (2) or (9) as:
{tilde over (z)}prime,m(l)=TmHzprime(l)
{tilde over (z)}sec,1,m(l)=TmHzsec,1(l)
{tilde over (z)}sec,2,m(l)=TmHzsec,2(l)
. . .
{tilde over (z)}sec,K,m(l)=TmHzsec,K(l), (18)
which transforms the MN×1 primary and secondary snapshots into DtN×1 snapshots. The space-time steering vector from Equation (5) may likewise be transformed as:
{tilde over (c)}st,m(θlook,ωD)=TmHcst(θlook,ωD) (19)
Substituting Equation (18) into Equations (6)-(8) yields the ESPoD reduced dimension covariance matrix estimates:
{tilde over (R)}prime,m(lCUT=TmH{circumflex over (R)}prime(lCUT)Tm, (20)
{tilde over (R)}μ,NP,m(lCUT)=TmH{circumflex over (R)}μ,NP(lCUT)Tm, (21)
{tilde over (R)}μ,m(lCUT)=TmH{circumflex over (R)}μ(lCUT)Tm, (22)
respectively. It is noted that partially adaptation techniques may be applied to many μ-STAP formulations, and in each instance, a single covariance estimate is generated. The mth transformed filter is obtained in the same manner as Equation (4), yielding:
{tilde over (w)}m(lCUT,θlook,ωD)={tilde over (R)}m−1(lCUT){tilde over (c)}st,m(θlook,ωD)=(TmH{circumflex over (R)}(lCUT)Tm)−1TmHcst(θlook,ωD), (23)
for Rm the associated SCM estimate from Equations (20)-(22). The transformed adaptive filter can also be expressed in terms of the full MN-dimensional representation using the composite filter:
wm(lCUT,θlook,ωD)=Tm{tilde over (w)}m(lCUT,θlook,ωD)=Tm(TmH{circumflex over (R)}(lCUT)Tm)−1TmHcst(θlook,ωD), (24)
Additional details regarding the composite filter are described below with respect to SINR analysis.
Beam-space pre-Doppler (BSPrD) techniques are related to displaced phase center antenna (DPCA) processing. In contrast to element-space post-Doppler methods, now spatial beamforming is performed before adaptive processing. The adaptive processing may be performed over the full CPI, though the number of pulses M is often fairly large. It may be more efficient to reduce the MN-dimensional problem by beamforming over a subset of Dt pulses. As such, the CPI of M pulses is subdivided into a set of {tilde over (M)} sub-CPIs consisting of Dt pulses each where:
{tilde over (M)}=M−Dt+1, (25)
Each sub-CPI employs an identical bank of Ds beamformers for the nth antenna element, thereby realizing the MN×DtDs space-time transform:
T{tilde over (m)}n=J{tilde over (m)}⊗Gn, (26)
where J{tilde over (m)} is the M×Dt selection matrix for the {tilde over (m)} th sub-CPI defined as:
and Gn is the nth beamformer matrix. The latter can be structured via displaced-beam or adjacent-beam, which are spatial analogs to the PRI-staggered and adjacent-bin Doppler filter banks.
In like manner as before, an adjacent-beam μ-STAP formulation is described; however, it is noted that μ-STAP may be used with either displaced-beam or adjacent-beam techniques. Define the nth beamformer as:
gn=b⊙un* (28)
where b is an N×1 taper and un is the nth column of an N×N DFT matrix (based on the assumption of an ideal uniform linear array). The adjacent-beam formulation combines temporal samples from D spatial beams indexed as n−Q, . . . , n, . . . , n+Q centered around the nth column of the DFT matrix, with Q=(Ds−1)/2. The N×Ds reduced dimension beamforming matrix for the nth antenna element is thus:
Gn=[gn−Q . . . gn . . . gn+Q], (29)
Applying Equation (26) to the discretized training data from Equation (2) (μ-STAP) or Equation (9) (Pμ-STAP) in the same manner as Equation (18) now realizes transformed primary and secondary snapshots of dimension DtDs×1. Likewise, DtDs×DtDs reduced-dimension SCM estimates {tilde over (R)}{tilde over (m)},n, and an associated transformed space-time steering vector {tilde over (c)}st,{tilde over (m)},n(θlook,ωD) can be obtained by applying the adjacent-beam transform of Equation (26) as in Equations (20)-(22) and Equation (19), respectively. In such instances, the nth adaptive beamformer for the {tilde over (m)}th sub-CPI is, as in Equation (24):
{tilde over (w)}{tilde over (m)},n(lCUT,θlook,ωD)={tilde over (R)}{tilde over (m)},n−1(lCUT){tilde over (c)}st,{tilde over (m)},n(θlook,ωD)=(T{tilde over (m)}nH{circumflex over (R)}(lCUT)T{tilde over (m)}n)−1T{tilde over (m)}nHcst(θlook,ωD), (31)
for each particular combination of transformed primary/secondary data, with a corresponding full-dimension composite filter:
w{tilde over (m)},n(lCUT,θlook,ωD)=T{tilde over (m)}n{tilde over (w)}{tilde over (m)},n(lCUT,θlook,ωD)=T{tilde over (m)}n(T{tilde over (m)}nH{circumflex over (R)}(lCUT)T{tilde over (m)}n)−1T{tilde over (m)}nHcst(θlook,ωD), (32)
An additional reduced-dimension multi-waveform approach is known as beam-space post-Doppler (BSPoD). BSPoD implementations pre-process over space and time by using both the Doppler filter bank Fm from Equation (17) and the beamformer matrix Gn from Equation (29). The combined adjacent-bin/adjacent-beam formulation utilized for BSPoD realizes the MN×DtDs space-time transform:
Tm,n=Fm⊗Gn, (33)
which can also be applied as in Equations (18)-(24) to transform the primary/secondary data, the space-time steering vector, the various SCM estimates, the reduced-dimension adaptive filter, and the full-dimension composite filter.
The above-described space-time transforms and subsequent STAP implementations have been described above to provide a better understanding of the description below, in which these techniques are considered in the context of the Pμ-STAP techniques disclosed herein, which itself involves a transformation of the training data in the range domain, albeit for the purpose of enhanced robustness to non-homogeneous data rather than simply to reduce dimensionality. It is noted that the receive chain processing of
As an illustrative example of applying the above-described techniques to Pμ-STAP, consider an airborne multichannel GMTI radar that is side-looking. The antenna (e.g., the antennas 132 of
SINR analysis was performed using a normalized SNR metric cast in the partially adaptive framework. Using the optimum covariance Ropt based on clairvoyant knowledge and any composite filter, the SINR is for these reduced-dimension implementations is:
where the dependencies on lCUT, θlook, and ωD have been suppressed for brevity. By setting {circumflex over (R)}(lCUT)=Ropt in wm, Equation (28) becomes the fully adaptive clairvoyant SINR, which may be defined as:
SINRopt(ωD)=cstHRopt−1cst, (35)
Normalizing the SINR by SNR yields the SINR loss metric:
This indicates the amount of loss as a function of Doppler that is imposed collectively by clutter cancellation using the given estimated covariance matrix and the dimensionality reducing transformation.
Now, let fmin=ωmin/2π be the clairvoyant minimum detectable Doppler (MDD), which may be defined as:
where fL(LSINR) and fU(LSINR) demarcate the lower and upper edges of the clutter notch. The minimum detectable velocity can then be obtained by multiplying fmin by a half-wavelength. During evaluation of the above technique, the clutter cancellation of the optimal processing was considered to cause no more than a −3 dB SINR loss in signal power. For the parameters used in these simulations and based on clairvoyant knowledge of the clutter, the normalized clairvoyant MDD is fmin(LSINR)≅0.13, which as observed in
To ensure a meaningful comparison, the clutter notch may be excluded such that:
computed over ωD<−ωmin and ωD>ωmin (i.e. outside the clutter notch region). This value is determined as a function of the number of range sample intervals included in SCM estimation for different implementation schemes and clutter scenarios. For beam-space dimensionality reductions, N=11 receive elements are reduced to Ds=5 beams. The post-Doppler algorithms reduce M=21 to Dt2=11 and Dt1=5 pulses in each sub-CPI to compare the two sample support regimes. Adjacent-bin and adjacent-beam algorithms are uniformly tapered. Also note that PRI-staggered and displaced-beam techniques were extensively examined and found to provide similar benefits as those presented below. The number of range samples used in the SCM was varied from 1 to 2NM=682. For Pμ-STAP, range samples for SCM were increased from (K+1) to (K+1)2NM due to the extra training data from the K secondary homogenization filters. Diagonal loading was employed for all SCM estimates using the true noise power. The primary (transmit) waveform was an optimized polyphase-coded FM (PCFM) waveform [PCFM1, PCFM2] with time-bandwidth product BT=100. Four secondary homogenization filters (K=4) were utilized according to Equation (9) to provide less than 17 dB cross-correlation after the initial pulse compression stage.
Below, the performance of partially adaptive Pμ-STAP is presented in three clutter environments: 1) non-homogeneous; 2) non-homogeneous clutter with a large clutter discrete in the CUT; and 3) non-homogeneous clutter with 10 large targets in the training data. For all cases, a point target was placed in the CUT. The SINR loss for each clutter scenario and reduction combination was averaged over 50 independent Monte Carlo trials. Table 1 and FIG. Below, a comparison is presented between SISO STAP and two Pμ-STAP formulations: primary and 4 secondary filters, and 1 secondary filter (SISO Pμ-STAP) for fully adaptive and partially adaptive formulations. Table I shows the different receive processing configurations applied to each environment for each reduction technique. It is noted that the different reference numbers corresponding to the different line styles shown in Table I are shown in each of
The non-homogeneous clutter was modeled by randomly modulating the power of complex Gaussian homogeneous clutter patches for each range and angle clutter patch using a Weibull distribution with a shape parameter of 1.7. The added magnitude modulation was distributed randomly from [0, 30] dB. In addition to the spectrally white scattering from each clutter patch, internal clutter motion (ICM) was introduced to the clutter. The ICM was uniformly distributed across ±2% of the normalized Doppler response. For the adjacent-bin implementation of ESPoD,
Table 2 presents the values for improvement factor presented for ESPoD at the RMB rule of 2NM range sample intervals. As shown in Table 2, partially adaptive STAP provides an increase in SINR over fully adaptive. Additionally, Table 2 illustrates that when Pμ-STAP is utilized with a partially adaptive framework, an increase of SINR also occurs. In
The SINR-normalized SNR figures for BSPrD and BSPoD have been excluded since the results are similar. Overall, partially adaptive Pμ-STAP provides an increase in SINR performance over STAP. Therefore, μ-STAP is indeed applicable in partially adaptive techniques. Below, other more challenging non-homogeneous interference scenarios for which μ-STAP has been shown to provide a benefit relative to traditional STAP processing are considered.
Clutter discretes in a CUT are a form of non-homogeneous interference degradation to SINR since the distribution of the (SISO) training data differs from the CUT. In addition, clutter discretes can erroneously be detected as targets of interest. For the second non-homogenous clutter scenario, a large clutter discrete (e.g., 20 dB above the average clutter power) was considered as being present in the CUT. Partially adaptive techniques, ESPoD and BSPrD, are presented in
In Table 5, an Pμ-STAP improvement of 1.44 dB when Dt1=5 and 0.79 dB when Dt1=11 at 2DsDt1 range sample intervals was observed over STAP. The observed improvement was roughly 1.59 dB when Dt1=5 and 1.12 dB when Dt1=11 at 2DsDr2 range sample intervals. A common occurrence can be seen throughout these results. In particular, fully adaptive Pμ-STAP provided the greatest amount of performance improvement over STAP. As the degrees of freedom were decreased, performance over STAP also decreased at the benefit of reduced computational cost and complexity. However, since fully adaptive techniques provided the best SINR performance, the largest covariance matrix possible should be used since μ-STAP can boost SINR performance with low sample support. Therefore, in order to maximize Pμ-STAP performance, the covariance size should be maximized to the processing and hardware constraints instead of sample support requirements. This was further affirmed since a partially adaptive μ-STAP covariance reduced to DsDt2× with sample support 2DsDt1 (μ-STAP, larger covariance, lower support) had a greater mean SINR than a partially adaptive traditional STAP with a covariance size DsDt1× and sample support of 2DsDt2(STAP, smaller covariance, higher sample support) as shown in
In
As shown above, Pμ-STAP may be readily applied to existing partially adaptive STAP techniques, and Pμ-STAP outperforms STAP under several non-homogeneous clutter environments, including but not limited to environments where a clutter discrete is in the CUT or a large target is in the training data. Under these operating environments, Pμ-STAP performance thrives over STAP. In addition, Pμ-STAP performed very well when low training sample support was available to estimate the sample covariance matrix (e.g., at block 240 of
In aspects, the radar detection system 100 of
Referring to
At 1710, the method includes receiving, by a radar detection system, one or more input radar waveforms. In an aspect, the input radar waveform(s) may be the input radar waveform 104 of
At 1730, the method 1700 includes applying, by the radar detection system, a plurality of homogenization filters to the pulse compressed datacube to produce a plurality of homogenized datacubes. As described above, each of the plurality of homogenization filters may be configured to smooth out non-linearities within data of the pulse compressed datacube. Each of the homogenized datacubes may include information associated with velocity, spatial location, and distance and may provide additional training data in which range-domain smearing effects are present. As explained with reference to
At step 1740, the method 1700 includes generating, by the radar detection system, an output covariance matrix based on the plurality of homogenized pulse compressed datacubes. As described above, the output covariance matrix may be generated by calculating, by the radar detection system, a plurality of covariance matrices based on the plurality of homogenized pulse compressed datacubes, at step 1742. Each covariance matrix of the plurality of covariance matrices may be calculated based on a covariance estimation derived from a corresponding one of the plurality of homogenized pulse compressed datacubes. The plurality of covariance matrices may be combined to form the output covariance matrix, at step 1744. At step 1750 executing, by the radar detection system, a partial adaptation process against the output covariance matrix.
At step 1760 the method 1700 includes initiating, by the radar detection system, space-time adaptive processing with respect to the pulse compressed datacube and the output of the partial adaptation process to identify one or more candidate targets of interest. The space-time adaptive processing may be configured to identify one or more candidate targets of interest by filtering the pulse compressed datacube based on the output of the partial adaptation process. At 1770, the method 1700 includes detecting, by the radar detection system, one or more targets of interest from among the one or more candidate targets of interests identified by the space-time adaptive processing. As explained above, the Pμ-STAP techniques utilized by the method 1700 may improve the performance of radar systems with respect to detection of moving targets of interest. Additionally, because the method 1700 is configured to operate on pulse compressed data, the method 1700 may be utilized to upgrade legacy radar systems that are not capable of providing the pre-pulse compressed data inputs required by existing μ-STAP formulations.
Referring to
Although the embodiments of the present disclosure and their advantages have been described in detail, it should be understood that various changes, substitutions and alterations can be made herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the disclosure as defined by the appended claims. Further, although the drawings may illustrate some of the concepts disclosed herein as logical or functional blocks, it is to be understood that each of those blocks may be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software. Moreover, the scope of the present application is not intended to be limited to the particular embodiments of the process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, means, methods and steps described in the specification. As one of ordinary skill in the art will readily appreciate from the present disclosure, processes, machines, manufacture, compositions of matter, means, methods, or steps, presently existing or later to be developed that perform substantially the same function or achieve substantially the same result as the corresponding embodiments described herein may be utilized according to the present disclosure. Accordingly, the appended claims are intended to include within their scope such processes, machines, manufacture, compositions of matter, means, methods, or steps.
This application is a national phase application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of International Application No. PCT/IB2019/056509 filed Jul. 30, 2019, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/712,082 filed Jul. 30, 2018. The entire contents of each of the above-referenced disclosures is specifically incorporated by reference herein without disclaimer.
This invention was made with government support under FA8650-14-D-1722 awarded by the United States Air Force. The government has certain rights in the invention.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/IB2019/056509 | 7/30/2019 | WO |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2020/026151 | 2/6/2020 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6252540 | Hale | Jun 2001 | B1 |
9759810 | Sankar | Sep 2017 | B1 |
20070268182 | Bourdelais et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080106460 | Kurtz et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20170102458 | Schuman | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20180074185 | Capraro | Mar 2018 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Patent Cooperation Treaty, International Search Report and Written Opinion issued for PCT Application No. PCT/IB2019/056509, dated Jul. 20, 2020, 9 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210286067 A1 | Sep 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62712082 | Jul 2018 | US |