| Literature DB >> 28933722 |
Xuepan Zhang1, Lu Liu2, Xuejing Zhang3.
Abstract
Accurate and efficient moving target imaging is an important challenge for targets recognition in current synthetic aperture radar (SAR) combined with a ground moving target indication (GMTI) system. As the key but unknown parameter, the Doppler rates are estimated conventionally by searching any possible values for moving targets imaging. However, this conventional estimation method suffers from low accuracy or low efficiency due to the searching procedure. Focusing on these, we present a method to efficiently image the moving targets without the Doppler rate by Doppler delayed interferometry, and the imaged localization, which is parameterized pseudo-localization, is used to estimate the Doppler rate. In order to improve the estimation accuracy, an improved method based on the Newton method of approximation is proposed by exploiting the unused amplitude information. Compared with the conventional methods, the proposed improved method capable of high accuracy and low computation complexity simultaneously can meet the accurate and efficient requirements in the practical applications. Comparison simulations and real data processing results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods.Entities:
Keywords: Doppler delayed interferometry; Doppler rate estimation; GMTI; SAR; moving targets imaging
Year: 2017 PMID: 28933722 PMCID: PMC5579520 DOI: 10.3390/s17081714
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
System parameters.
| System Parameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Carrier frequency | 8.85 GHz |
| Number of the channels | 3 |
| Channels space | 0.56 m |
| Bandwidth of the transmitted signal | 40 MHz |
| Sampling frequency | 60 MHz |
| Velocity of the platform | 120 m/s |
| Pulse repetition frequency | 1000 Hz |
| Nearest slant range | 9000 m |
Figure 1Imaging results by range-Doppler algorithm (RDA).
Figure 2Imaging results by Doppler delay interferometry (DDI).
Figure 3Azimuth localization comparison.
Figure 4Doppler rate estimation comparison results. (a) estimation accuracy comparison; (b) computational complexity comparison.
Figure 5Moving targets imaging results. (a) by RDA with Doppler rate of stationary parameters, and (b) re-imaging results by the estimated Doppler rate.
Figure 6Clutter suppression results.
Figure 7Keystone transform results.
Figure 8Moving target imaging results comparison.