Next Article in Journal
Cytokine Response of the Biomimetic Porcine Urothelial Model to Different Escherichia coli Strains
Next Article in Special Issue
Design of a Planar Antenna Array with Wide Bandwidth and Narrow Beamwidth for IR-UWB Radar Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Quantification of Salivary Nitric Oxide in Patients with Fixed Orthodontic Treatment
Previous Article in Special Issue
Design of an Interface Layer Using CPW between an Array Antenna and TRM in X-Band Radar Systems to Minimize Leakage Fields and Improve Transmission Characteristics
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Study of an Atmospheric Refractivity Estimation from a Clutter Using Genetic Algorithm

1
Department of Electronic and Electrical Engineering, Hongik University, Seoul 04066, Korea
2
Agency for Defense Development, Daejeon 34316, Korea
3
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea
4
Department of AI Convergence Network, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(17), 8566; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178566
Submission received: 21 July 2022 / Revised: 18 August 2022 / Accepted: 24 August 2022 / Published: 26 August 2022

Abstract

:

Featured Application

This article is related to atmospheric refractivity estimation from clutter images using a genetic algorithm.

Abstract

In this paper, a method for estimating atmospheric refractivity from sea and land clutters is proposed. To estimate the atmospheric refractivity, clutter power spectrums based on an artificial tri-linear model are calculated using an Advanced Refractive Prediction System (AREPS) simulator. Then, the clutter power spectrums are again obtained based on the measured atmospheric refractivity data using the AREPS simulator. In actual operation, this spectrum from measured reflectivity can be replaced with real-time clutter spectrums collected from radars. A cost function for the genetic algorithm (GA) is then defined based on the difference between the two clutter power spectrums to predict the atmospheric refractivity using the artificial tri-linear model. The optimum variables of the tri-linear model are determined at a minimum cost in the GA process. The results demonstrate that atmospheric refractivity can be predicted using the proposed method from the clutter powers.

1. Introduction

Advancements in radar technologies have led to significant improvements in the performance of long-range shipborne radar systems, which have been extensively adopted for searching and tracking enemy targets [1,2,3,4,5]. However, in such radar systems, the radar performance is sometimes degraded by weather conditions [6,7,8,9], because the propagation path of the radar signal varies when the atmospheric refractivity changes. Therefore, long-range shipborne radar systems require a real-time observation of the atmospheric conditions. To observe atmospheric conditions, a rawinsonde that can measure the atmospheric conditions at high altitude is typically used [10,11,12]. However, it is difficult to obtain the atmospheric conditions in real-time since the rawinsonde is generally operated for a limited time of less than three times a day. To achieve real-time observations of atmospheric conditions, several studies focusing on estimating refractivity from clutter (RFC) have been conducted. The RFC techniques utilizing radar sea-clutter images are often combined with various estimation methods, such as the Kalman filter [13], Monte Carlo simulation [14], and other optimization algorithms [15,16,17,18]. However, most of these studies have been conducted within the limited space around Wallops Island [13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. In addition, since the radar sea-clutter images are significantly affected by the sea wave height, it is difficult to obtain constant images, even if the atmospheric environment is assumed to be the same [20,21,22]. More recently, a study on sea-surface modeling using a deep learning method that recognizes the real-time changing state of sea waves has been reported [23].
In this paper, a method for estimating the atmospheric refractivity using both the sea and land clutters is proposed. The atmospheric refractivity can be estimated using the clutter powers, because the clutter powers are varied in real-time depending on the atmospheric refractivity. Since land clutter powers do not change much if the atmospheric environment is constant [24], the clutter powers should be obtained not only for the sea but also for the land. In the actual radar operation, more consistent prediction results can be obtained by analyzing clutter, including land terrain. To estimate the atmospheric refractivity using the clutter powers, the real terrain model around a coastal area, including a number of islands and inland in Korea, is applied to Advanced Refractive Prediction System (AREPS) electromagnetic (EM) propagation simulation software [25]. Then, different RCS models are applied to land and sea. In addition, an artificial tri-linear model that can express all atmospheric conditions, including normal, super, sub and duct, is designed. Based on the artificial tri-linear model, the clutter power spectrums are calculated using the AREPS EM simulator. At the same time, the clutter power spectrums are again obtained based on the measured atmospheric refractivity data using the AREPS simulator. Herein, data from four dates, including the duct condition among the 2021 data measured by the Heuksando Meteorological Observatory, are utilized. In actual operation, this spectrum of measured reflectivity can be replaced with real-time clutter spectrums collected from radars. A cost function for the genetic algorithm (GA) is then defined based on the difference between the use of the two calculated clutter power spectrums to predict the atmospheric refractivity. The optimum variables of the tri-linear model are determined at a minimum cost in the GA process. The results demonstrate that atmospheric refractivity can be predicted from the clutter powers using the proposed method.

2. Calculation of Clutter Power Spectrums

Figure 1 presents the propagation of the electromagnetic wave of the shipborne radar systems according to atmospheric conditions, including normal, sub, super, and duct. The atmospheric conditions are classified by the gradient of modified refractive index M in terms of the altitudes. The modified refractive index M can be calculated using the following equation [26]:
N = ( 77.6 × 10 6 × P T + 0.373 × e T 2 ) × 10 6
M = N + 0.157 × h
where N is the refractive index, P is the air pressure in millibars, e is the water vapor pressure in millibars, and T is the absolute temperature in K. The refractivity of N is replaced by the modified refractivity of M to take into consideration the Earth’s curvature according to altitude h. Normal refraction occurs when the gradient of the refractivity is 78 ≤ ∇M ≤ 157, which indicates good conditions for radar systems to search for a target. However, when the ∇M is greater (sub, ∇M > 157) or less (super, 0 < ∇M < 78) than the normal state, shipborne radar systems find it difficult to observe the exact distance and altitude of the targets due to abnormal refraction of the radio waves. Moreover, in the duct condition (∇M < 0), the wave propagation of the radar signal is trapped as if in a waveguide. Therefore, it is important to be able to anticipate atmospheric refractivity to prevent degradation of radar performance depending on the atmospheric conditions.
Figure 2 shows the observation area and scan range for obtaining the clutter power spectrum. In our analysis, the shipborne radar is located near Wando, which illuminates the north direction with a scan range of 20° (φ = 80°~100°) to obtain the clutter power spectrums from both the land and sea. Herein, the sea clutter powers are significantly affected by the sea wave height, whereas the land clutter powers do not change substantially as long as the atmospheric environment remains constant. Thus, when the radar obtains the clutter powers by illuminating not only the sea but also the land, atmospheric refractivity can be predicted more accurately.
Figure 3 presents the measured atmospheric refractivity data when atmospheric conditions are duct or normal. These data were measured at different times in the Heuksando Meteorological Observatory [27], which is the closest meteorological station to Wando. In this measurement data, Case 5 is the normal condition, whereas Cases 1, 2, 3, and 4 represent duct conditions with duct slopes (∇M) of −121, −159, −121, and −151, respectively.
Figure 4 illustrates the propagation factor according to different atmospheric conditions with the measurement data of Case 1 (normal) and Case 2 (duct). The solid black lines indicate the height of the terrain around Wando, and the terrain data are obtained from the NASA earth data center [28]. In this simulation, the radar height is assumed to be 30 m, and the observation range and altitude are 0 to 100 km and 0 to 1000 m, respectively. When the atmospheric condition is normal, radar wave propagation is disturbed by the high topography, so the shaded areas are clearly observed, as shown in Figure 4a. In contrast, when ducting occurs, a strong propagation factor is observed even behind the high terrain. The result means that the radar can have completely different propagation paths depending on the atmospheric conditions.
Figure 5 shows the clutter power spectrum according to the atmospheric conditions. The clutter power can be calculated from the propagation factor using the following equations [29]:
A = r θ c τ 2
P c = P t G 2 λ 2 A σ 0 ( 4 π ) 3 r 4
where Pt is the transmitted power, and G is the antenna gain of the radar, λ is the wavelength, and r is the range of the radar for the observation location. In addition, A is the illumination surface area by the radar signal, which can be obtained from range r, antenna beamwidth θ, light speed c, and radar pulse width τ. σ0 refers to the radar cross section (RCS) of the land [24] and sea surface [20]. Generally, the RCS for the land surface is higher than for the sea surface. When the atmospheric condition is normal, the strong clutter power spectrum is not observed over a range of 20 km, as shown in Figure 5a, because the high terrain blocks the wave propagation. On the other hand, when the atmospheric condition is duct, a strong clutter power is observed in a wide range, as shown in Figure 5b.

3. Estimation of an Atmospheric Refractivity

Figure 6 shows the shape of the tri-linear model for the atmospheric refractivity estimation method. The artificial tri-linear model consists of three lines with slopes d1, d2, and d3. In addition, the boundaries between the three lines are determined by h1 and h2. Since the slope of the tri-linear model can be changed to negative or positive values, the tri-linear model can express most atmospheric conditions, including normal, super, sub, and duct. Therefore, the tri-linear model can be utilized as an approximate atmospheric refractivity model in refractivity estimation methods.
Figure 7 presents the flow chart of the use of the GA algorithm [17,18] to predict the atmospheric refractivity from the clutter power spectrums. To predict the atmospheric refractivity, a random chromosome is first generated, and then the decoded values from the chromosome are applied to the variables of the tri-linear model. The tri-linear model is used as input to the AREPS EM propagation simulator to calculate the clutter power spectrum. At the same time, the clutter power spectrums are again obtained based on the measured atmospheric refractivity data introduced in Figure 3 using the AREPS simulator. In actual operation, this spectrum of measured reflectivity can be replaced with real-time clutter spectrums collected from radars. Herein, the cost function for the GA is then defined based on the difference between the two calculated clutter power spectrums. In the GA process, the variables of the tri-linear model are adjusted to minimize the cost through the reproduction process. Consequently, the optimum variables of the tri-linear model are determined at a minimum cost in the GA, which means that the estimated atmospheric conditions have been obtained. The GA parameters, such as population size, generations, and mutation ratio, are listed in Table 1.
Figure 8 provides a comparison of the estimated and measured atmospheric refractivity data based on the clutter powers. Estimation is conducted for the measured data in Figure 3, and the duct slopes and duct thickness of the estimated and measured values are summarized in Table 2. Based on the results shown in Table 2, the estimation errors for the duct slopes and duct thickness are maintained at below 46.1 and 36, respectively. For Case 3, the atmospheric refractivity can estimate with estimation errors for the duct slopes and duct thickness of 29 and 24, respectively. This estimation result of the best case is compared with other studies in Table 3. The results demonstrate that the atmospheric refractivity can be predicted from clutter powers using the proposed method. The proposed method is suitable for actual radar systems because it is possible to obtain more consistent prediction results by analyzing clutter, including land terrain, when operating the actual radar.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, we have investigated the method for estimating atmospheric refractivity using both sea and land clutters. To estimate the atmospheric refractivity, the artificial tri-linear model that can express all atmospheric conditions was applied in a GA process. In addition, the clutter power spectrum was calculated using an AREPS EM propagation simulator. At the same time, the clutter power spectrums were again obtained based on the measured atmospheric refractivity data. The cost function for the GA was then defined based on the difference between the two clutter power spectrums. From the estimation result, the estimation errors for the duct slopes and duct thickness were maintained at below 46.1 and 36, respectively. The results demonstrated that atmospheric refractivity can be predicted using the proposed method from the clutter powers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.J., J.K., Y.B.P. and H.C.; formal analysis, D.J. and Y.B.P.; funding acquisition, H.C.; investigation, D.J. and J.K.; methodology, D.J. and J.K.; project administration, H.C.; software, D.J. and Y.B.P.; supervision, H.C.; validation, D.J., J.K., Y.B.P. and H.C.; visualization, D.J.; writing—original draft, D.J.; writing—review and editing, D.J., J.K., Y.B.P. and H.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) of Republic of Korea under Project No. UD210013YD.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Locker, C.; Vaupel, T.; Eibert, T.F. Radiation efficient unidirectional low-profile slot antenna elements for X-band application. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2005, 53, 2765–2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Dastkhosh, A.R.; Oskouei, H.D.; Khademevatan, G. Compact low weight high gain broadband antenna by polarization-rotation technique for X-band radar. Int. J. Antennas Propag. 2014, 2014, 743046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhou, Y.; Wang, T.; Hu, R.; Su, H.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; Suo, J.; Snoussi, H. Multiple kernelized correlation filters (MKCF) for extended object tracking using X-band marine radar data. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2019, 67, 3676–3688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, A.; Krishnamurthy, V. Signal interpretation of multifunction radars: Modeling and statistical signal processing with Stochastic Context Free Grammar. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2008, 56, 1106–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, S.; Jang, D.; Kim, Y.; Choo, H. Design of S/X-Band dual-loop shared-aperture 2 × 2 array antenna. J. Electromagn. Eng. Sci. 2022, 22, 319–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lim, T.H.; Go, M.; Seo, C.; Choo, H. Analysis of the target detection performance of Air-to-Air airborne radar using long-range propagation simulation in abnormal atmospheric conditions. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lim, T.; Choo, H. Prediction of target detection probability based on air-to-air long-range scenarios in anomalous atmospheric environments. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 3943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sharma, V.; Kumar, L. Photonic-radar based multiple-target tracking under complex traffic-environments. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 225845–225856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kim, I.; Kim, H.; Lee, J.-H. Theoretical minimum detection range for a rapidly moving target and an experimental evaluation. J. Electromagn. Eng. Sci. 2021, 21, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tedesco, M.; Wang, J.R. Atmospheric correction of AMSR-E brightness temperatures for dry snow cover mapping. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2006, 3, 320–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, J.R.; Racette, P.; Triesky, M.E.; Browell, E.V.; Ismail, S.; Chang, L.A. Profiling of atmospheric water vapor with MIR and LASE. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2002, 40, 1211–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Birkemeier, W.P.; Duvosin, P.F.; Fontaine, A.B.; Thomson, D.W. Indirect atmospheric measurements utilizing rake tropospheric scatter techniques—Part II: Radiometeorological interpretation of rake channel-sounding observations. Proc. IEEE 1969, 57, 552–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yardim, C.; Gerstoft, P.; Hodgkiss, W.S. Tracking refractivity from clutter using Kalman and Particle filters. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2008, 56, 1058–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yardim, C.; Gerstoft, P.; Hodgkiss, W.S. Estimation of radio refractivity from radar clutter using Bayesian Monte Carlo analysis. IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 2006, 54, 1318–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gerstoft, P.; Rogers, L.T.; Krolik, J.L.; Hodgkiss, W.S. Inversion for refractivity parameters from radar sea clutter. Radio Sci. 2003, 38, 8053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, S.-X.; Zhao, X.-F.; Sheng, Z. Refractivity estimation from radar sea clutter. Chin. Phys. B 2009, 18, 5084–5090. [Google Scholar]
  17. Cemil, T.; Isa, N. A novel hybrid model for inversion problem of atmospheric refractivity estimation. AEU Int. J. Electron. Commun. 2018, 84, 258–264. [Google Scholar]
  18. Penton, S.E.; Hackett, E.E. Rough ocean surface effects on evaporative duct atmospheric refractivity inversions using genetic algorithms. Radio Sci. 2018, 53, 804–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Karimian, A.; Yardim, C.; Gerstoft, P.; Hodgkiss, W.S.; Barrios, A.E. Refractivity estimation from sea clutter: An invited review. Radio Sci. 2011, 46, RS6013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nathanson, F.E.; Reilly, J.P.; Cohen, M. Radar Design Principles, 2nd ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  21. Reilly, J.P.; Dockery, G.D. Influence of evaporation ducts on radar sea returns. IEEE Proc. 1990, 137, 80–88. [Google Scholar]
  22. Vilhelm, G.H.; Rashmi, M. An improved empirical model for radar sea clutter reflectivity. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2012, 49, 3512–3524. [Google Scholar]
  23. Ma, L.; Wu, J.; Zhang, J.; Wu, Z.; Jeon, G.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, T. Research on sea clutter reflectivity using deep learning model in industry 4.0. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2020, 16, 5929–5937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Feng, S.; Chen, J. Low-angle reflectivity modeling of land clutter. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. 2006, 3, 254–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Advanced Refractive Prediction System (AREPS); version 3.6; The Space and Naval Warfare System: San Diego, CA, USA, 2005.
  26. ITU. The Radio Refractive Index: Its Formula and Refractivity Data. ITU-R P.453. 2019. Available online: https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-P.453/en (accessed on 8 September 2019).
  27. University of Wyoming, Department of Atmospheric Science. Available online: https://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html (accessed on 31 January 2022).
  28. NASA. NASA Earth Data Center. Available online: https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/ (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  29. Compaleo, J.; Yardim, C.; Xu, L. Refractivity-from-clutter capable, software-defined, coherent-on-receive marine radar. Radio Sci. 2021, 56, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Wave propagation of the shipborne radar according to atmospheric conditions.
Figure 1. Wave propagation of the shipborne radar according to atmospheric conditions.
Applsci 12 08566 g001
Figure 2. Observation area and scan range of the shipborne radar systems.
Figure 2. Observation area and scan range of the shipborne radar systems.
Applsci 12 08566 g002
Figure 3. Comparison of the measured atmospheric refractivity for the different atmospheric conditions.
Figure 3. Comparison of the measured atmospheric refractivity for the different atmospheric conditions.
Applsci 12 08566 g003
Figure 4. Propagation factor according to different atmospheric conditions in the duct and normal: (a) using the measured data of Case 1; (b) using the measured data of Case 2.
Figure 4. Propagation factor according to different atmospheric conditions in the duct and normal: (a) using the measured data of Case 1; (b) using the measured data of Case 2.
Applsci 12 08566 g004
Figure 5. Clutter power spectrums according to atmospheric conditions: (a) using the measured data of Case 1; (b) using the measured data of Case 2.
Figure 5. Clutter power spectrums according to atmospheric conditions: (a) using the measured data of Case 1; (b) using the measured data of Case 2.
Applsci 12 08566 g005
Figure 6. The shape of the tri-linear model.
Figure 6. The shape of the tri-linear model.
Applsci 12 08566 g006
Figure 7. GA process for estimating atmospheric refractivity.
Figure 7. GA process for estimating atmospheric refractivity.
Applsci 12 08566 g007
Figure 8. Comparison of the estimated and real atmospheric refractivity. (a) Using the measured data of Case 2; (b) using the measured data of Case 3; (c) using the measured data of Case 4; (d) using the measured data of Case 5.
Figure 8. Comparison of the estimated and real atmospheric refractivity. (a) Using the measured data of Case 2; (b) using the measured data of Case 3; (c) using the measured data of Case 4; (d) using the measured data of Case 5.
Applsci 12 08566 g008
Table 1. Detailed information of the GA.
Table 1. Detailed information of the GA.
OptionValue
Population size30
Generations15
Elite count6
Crossover ratio40%
Mutation ratio10%
Table 2. Summary of all estimation results.
Table 2. Summary of all estimation results.
CaseDuct Slopes
(Esti.)
Duct Slopes
(Mea.)
Duct Thickness
(Esti.)
Duct Thickness
(Mea.)
Case 2−74.9−121231200
Case 3−187.5−158.5176200
Case 4−168.7−121181.5200
Case 5−194.3−151264300
Table 3. Comparison results.
Table 3. Comparison results.
Option[14][17]Our Best
Duct slopes error424029
Duct thickness error0.144724
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jang, D.; Kim, J.; Park, Y.B.; Choo, H. Study of an Atmospheric Refractivity Estimation from a Clutter Using Genetic Algorithm. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8566. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178566

AMA Style

Jang D, Kim J, Park YB, Choo H. Study of an Atmospheric Refractivity Estimation from a Clutter Using Genetic Algorithm. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(17):8566. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178566

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jang, Doyoung, Jongmann Kim, Yong Bae Park, and Hosung Choo. 2022. "Study of an Atmospheric Refractivity Estimation from a Clutter Using Genetic Algorithm" Applied Sciences 12, no. 17: 8566. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178566

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop