Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:57:05.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of microwave backscattering from nonlinear sea surface with currents: doppler spectrum and SAR images

Part of: EuMW Special issue 2019

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2020

Xiang Su Open the ORCID record for Xiang Su [Opens in a new window] ,
Xiaoxiao Zhang Open the ORCID record for Xiaoxiao Zhang [Opens in a new window] ,
Hongxing Dang  and
Xiaomin Tan
Xiang Su*
Affiliation:
China Academy of Space Technology, Xi'an, China
Xiaoxiao Zhang
Affiliation:
School of Electronic Engineering, Xi'an University of Post & Telecommunications, Xi'an, China
Hongxing Dang
Affiliation:
China Academy of Space Technology, Xi'an, China
Xiaomin Tan
Affiliation:
China Academy of Space Technology, Xi'an, China
*
Author for correspondence: Xiang Su, E-mail: gabriel1861@163.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Electromagnetic scattering from the sea surface is of great significance in radar detection, target recognition, ocean remote sensing, etc. By introducing the action spectrum, the modified spatio-temporal variation wave spectrum is used to establish a nonlinear sea surface with currents in this paper. Traditional capillary wave modification facet scattering model (CWMFSM) can only calculate the backscattering from the wind-driven sea surface. By using the new spatio-temporal variation wave spectrum to modify the scattering amplitude of every facet, the new CWMFSM can be used to calculate the nonlinear sea surface scattering with surface currents. Therefore, the model simultaneously considers the modulation of sea surface wind and currents to the radar back echo. The dependence of backscattering coefficient from nonlinear sea surface on the incident angle and the polarization are discussed. The results verify that the nonlinear model is more consistent with the measurement data. This paper also investigates the Doppler spectrum characteristics of the sea with currents. It is found that the effect of wave–current interaction on Doppler spectra is weaker than that of wave–wave interaction. The SAR images of nonlinear sea surfaces are also simulated and different bands, polarizations, and baseline length effects on sea current detection performance of along-track interference SAR are analyzed.

Keywords

CWMFSMelectromagnetic scatteringnonlinear sea surfacenumerical simulation
Type
Research Paper
Information
International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies , Volume 12 , Special Issue 7: EuMW 2019 Special Issue , September 2020 , pp. 598 - 608
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and the European Microwave Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Zhang, X, Wu, Z and Su, X (2018) Influence of breaking waves and wake bubbles on surface-ship wake scattering at low grazing angles. Chinese Physics Letters 35, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X, Wu, Z and Su, X (2018) Electromagnetic scattering from deterministic sea surface with oceanic internal waves via the variable-coefficient gardener model. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing 11, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, WJ Jr and Moskowitz, L (1964) A proposed spectral form for fully developed wind seas based on the similarity theory of S. A. Kitaigorodskii. Journal of Geophysical Research 69, 5181–5190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasselmann, K, Barnett, T, Bouws, E, Carlson, H, Cartwright, DE, Enke, K, Ewing, JA, Gienapp, H, Hasselmann, DE and Kruseman, P (1973) Measurements of wind-wave growth and swell decay during the Joint North Sea Wave Project (JONSWAP), Deutsches Hydrographisches Institute, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Elfouhaily, T, Chapron, B, Katsaros, K and Vandemark, D (1997) A unified directional spectrum for long and short wind-driven waves. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 102, 15781–15796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, C and Munk, W (1954) Statistics of the sea surface derived from sun glitter. Journal of Marine Research 13, 198–227.Google Scholar
Creamer, DB, Henyey, F, Schult, R and Wright, J (1989) Improved linear representation of ocean surface waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 205, 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soriano, G, Joelson, M and Saillard, M (2006) Doppler spectra from a two-dimensional ocean surface at L-band. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 44, 2430–2437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, J (1968) A new model for sea clutter. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 16, 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romeiser, R and Alpers, W (1997) An improved composite surface model for the radar backscattering cross section of the ocean surface: 2. Model response to surface roughness variations and the radar imaging of underwater bottom topography. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 102, 25251–25267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, M, Chen, H and Yin, H (2011) Facet-based investigation on EM scattering from electrically large sea surface with two-scale profiles: theoretical model. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 49, 1967–1975.Google Scholar
Su, X, Zhang, X, Dang, H and Tan, X (2019) Analysis of Microwave Backscattering from Nonlinear Sea Surface with Currents. European Microwave Week, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toporkov, JV and Brown, GS (2000) Numerical simulations of scattering from time-varying, randomly rough surfaces. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 38, 1616–1625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alpers, WR, Duncan, BR and Clifford, LR (1981) On the detectability of ocean surface waves by real and synthetic aperture radar. Journal of Geophysical Research. Part C: Oceans 86, 6481–6498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daley, JC, Ransone, JT and Burkett, JA (1973) Sea-clutter Measurements on Four Frequency, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington D.C.Google Scholar