Due to the maximum physical size constraints of airborne weather radar antennas, a desired narrow antenna beam is often not achieved, thus resulting in less-than-desired detail in displayed weather data. This is especially evident in vertical displays (relatively new to the industry) and is worse with smaller antennas (e.g., those used in business jets).
Well-known Doppler beam-sharpening techniques will not work well straight ahead of the aircraft or in the vertical direction. Also, the natural Doppler noise of weather might be another challenge.
Small aircraft can fit only small, wide-beam antennas, thus limiting their beam-sharpening abilities.
A straightforward approach of converting to frequency domain and multiplying by an inverse of the beam pattern (either real or a “softened” notional antenna) fails to work with real data because it involves dividing by very small numbers and thus the data became unstable.
A processor receives a column of quantized reflectivity data associated with an antenna from a radar system. The processor adjusts the column of quantized reflectivity data based on estimated quantized reflectivity data associated with a beam pattern for an antenna that is larger than the antenna associated with the received column of quantized reflectivity data.
The present invention makes use of a notional “desired antenna” to relax constraints (i.e., simulate a “larger antenna” with narrower beam). This enables the algorithm to converge quicker to an optimal solution, while reducing memory requirements. The present invention also makes use of a smooth (e.g., Gaussian) perturbing function matched to desired antenna response. This provides an optimally smooth output, helps the algorithm converge quicker, reduces memory requirements, and addresses quantization without smearing the output.
Preferred and alternative embodiments of the present invention are described in detail below with reference to the following drawings:
The present invention is a system, method, and computer program product for improving detail of a weather radar display at range.
The weather radar system 40 receives signals that arise from the scattering of transmitted pulses from the external environment, including primarily weather and terrain. The received signals are passed to the processor 42, which uses the received signals to update estimates of weather reflectivity contained in the memory 43 (i.e., volumetric (3-D) buffer). The processor 42 generates an image for presentation on the display device 44, based on any control signals sent from the user interface 48 or based on settings within the processor 42.
The present invention focuses on one-dimensional vertical columns of reflectivity out of a volumetric weather buffer and an optimum curve associated with that column of data; see
A pseudo-truth signal t(x) is determined by convolving the “real-truth” raw reflectivity data (optimal) r(x) with a beam-shape weighting function BL(x) corresponding to an antenna with half the beamwidth (or equivalently, twice the diameter). Weighting functions corresponding to other sized antenna may be used. BL(x) is the beamwidth function of a notional “larger” antenna with a smaller (but not infinitely small) beamwidth. When the “raw” reflectivity is convolved with BL(x) a “smoother” (less detailed) function is produced. A sharpening process (
Then the model of
As shown in
Example of B(x) functions in general:
Ba(x)=e−k(x/θ
where k=4 ln √{square root over (2)}
θa=Beamwidth
θ30=3 degrees
θ60=θL=1.5 degrees
θC=2.6 degrees
first with an added shifted perturbing function;
second with a subtracted shifted perturbing function; and
third without any shifted perturbing function.
Each convolution is quantized into N altitude levels to get {circumflex over (q)}(n). N is selected based on a design decision trading off number of voxels (memory locations) against “smoothness.” For RDR-4000 produced by Honeywell Inc. N is determined as a function of range and fits N altitude levels into a range from 0 to 60,000 ft, for example:
20 NM Buffer: N=32
40 NM Buffer: N=16
80 NM Buffer: N=8
160 NM Buffer: N=4
320 NM Buffer: N=2.
Then the MSE of each of the quantized results {circumflex over (q)}(n) and the reflectivity signal q(n) is determined. A Gaussian perturbing function is shifted, based on which of the guesses {circumflex over (q)}(n) has the lowest MSE. The shifted Gaussian function is combined with a delta factor. This combination adjusts the value added to or subtracted from {circumflex over (t)}(x) for the next iteration. After a predetermined number of iterations or a “goal” MSE has been attained, the process is complete.
An empirical calculus-of-variations approach is taken, summarized as:
perturb latest guess of t(x); and
if MSE is decreased, keep perturbed function otherwise revert to previous low MSE.
A smooth perturbation function is used that matches a desired beam shape of the reflectivity data (see
Although the estimate {circumflex over (t)}(x) does not completely match the ideal r(x), the estimate {circumflex over (t)}(x) is certainly closer to the truth than the quantized or nonquantized version's result. Comparable optimizations may be used.
The present invention also provides an optimally smooth output without the further “spreading” from moving-, averaging-, or interpolation-type smoothing.
After the process of
In one embodiment, the iterative process shown in
While the preferred embodiment of the invention has been illustrated and described, as noted above, many changes can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the scope of the invention is not limited by the disclosure of the preferred embodiment. Instead, the invention should be determined entirely by reference to the claims that follow.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/430,009 filed Jan. 5, 2011, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3614778 | Graham et al. | Oct 1971 | A |
| 4387373 | Longuemare, Jr. | Jun 1983 | A |
| 4851848 | Wehner | Jul 1989 | A |
| 4978961 | Williams et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
| 5442364 | Lee et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
| 5469167 | Polge et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
| 5502447 | Kumpfbeck et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
| 5831570 | Ammar et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
| 5847673 | DeBell | Dec 1998 | A |
| 6236351 | Conner et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
| 6542110 | Lohner et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6591171 | Ammar et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
| 7106250 | Blunt et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
| 7109912 | Paramore et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
| 7333047 | Fullerton et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
| 7372394 | Woodell et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
| 7417586 | Thomas et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
| 7535412 | Blunt et al. | May 2009 | B1 |
| 7616150 | Woodell | Nov 2009 | B1 |
| 20030139662 | Seidman | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20040227658 | VandenBerg | Nov 2004 | A1 |
| 20060152402 | Krikorian et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20070026900 | Smith | Feb 2007 | A1 |
| 20080143585 | Thomas et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
| 20080297405 | Morrison et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
| 20090051584 | Hellsten | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| 20090231185 | Hamalainen | Sep 2009 | A1 |
| 20120056780 | Antonik et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
| Entry |
|---|
| Sadjadi et al., Radar synthetic vision system for adverse weather aircraft landing, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems vol. 35, No. 1, Jan. 1999, IEEE Log No. T-AES/.5/1/01485. |
| Search Report from European patent application No. 12150213.2, dated May 4, 2012, 4 pp. |
| Examination Report from counterpart European patent application No. 12150213.2, dated Jun. 13, 2012, 5 pp. |
| Response to Examination Report dated Jun. 13, 2012, from counterpart European patent application No. 12150213.2, filed Oct. 1, 2012, 6 pp. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20120169531 A1 | Jul 2012 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61430009 | Jan 2011 | US |