Bistatic scattering characterization of complex objects

被引:39
作者
Eigel, RL [1 ]
Collins, PJ
Terzuoli, AJ
Nesti, G
Fortuny, J
机构
[1] Natl RCS Test Facil, Holloman AFB, NM 88330 USA
[2] USAF, Inst Technol, Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433 USA
[3] EC Joint Res Ctr, European Microwave Signature Lab, I-21020 Ispra, VA, Italy
来源
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING | 2000年 / 38卷 / 05期
关键词
bistatic; equivalence theorems; radar cross section;
D O I
10.1109/36.868867
中图分类号
P3 [地球物理学]; P59 [地球化学];
学科分类号
0708 ; 070902 ;
摘要
This work focuses on the bistatic scattering nature of complex metal objects and assesses the accuracy of several common bistatic scattering prediction techniques: a common physical optics/physical theory of diffraction (PO/PTD) based simulation package, Kell's scattering center-derived monostatic-to-bistatic equivalence theorem (MBET), and Crispin's PO-based MEET. Monostatic and bistatic measured and simulated data are gathered and compared for three test objects of increasing complexity, Delineation between specular and nonspecular effects is highlighted to help explain when prediction techniques fail. The PO code proves erroneous at low grazing angle receive antenna positions and does not predict nonspecular type scattering well. Interestingly, however, it does accurately compute specular reflections from electrically small surface features. Kell's and Crispin's MBET's are also studied. For simple objects (e.g., flat plate) both MBET's predict scattering fairly well for bistatic angles of 30-40 degrees, with Kell's having a slight edge at larger angles, As the complexity of the object increases, MEET accuracy decreases. Neither MEET is particularly capable at bistatic angles greater than 15 degrees for objects whose scattered field is primarily comprised of specular interactions (minimally complex). Both tend to predict lower returns at larger bistatic angles. MEET accuracy holds for smaller bistatic angles with increasing geometrical complexity. The object whose geometry contains large shadowing features and a cavity supports multi-bounce, diffraction, and surface wave phenomena. The accuracy of both MBET's is limited to bistatic angles of only 5-10 degrees in this case, Each tends to predict higher than measured scattering at larger bistatic angles.
引用
收藏
页码:2078 / 2092
页数:15
相关论文
共 8 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1968, Methods of Radar Cross-Section Analysis
[2]  
Bowman J. J., 1969, ELECTROMAGNETIC ACOU
[3]  
Hecht E., 1987, OPTICS
[4]   ON DERIVATION OF BISTATIC RCS FROM MONOSTATIC MEASUREMENTS [J].
KELL, RE .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS, 1965, 53 (08) :983-&
[5]  
KNOTT EF, 1993, RADAR CROSS SECTION, P200
[6]  
KOUYOUMIJAN RG, 1965, P IEEE, V52, P983
[7]  
NESTI G, 1994, P SOC PHOTO-OPT INS, V2313, P56
[8]   SINGLE REFERENCE, 3 TARGET CALIBRATION AND ERROR CORRECTION FOR MONOSTATIC, POLARIMETRIC FREE SPACE MEASUREMENTS [J].
WIESBECK, W ;
KAHNY, D .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, 1991, 79 (10) :1551-1558