This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
A Permanent Bar Pattern Distributed Target for
Microwave Image Resolution Analysis
Yongsheng Zhou, Chuanrong Li, Lingli Tang, Lingling Ma, Qi Wang, and Qi Liu
Abstract The characterization and understanding of
microwave remote sensing image quality is essential to the
monitoring performance of sensors and the proper usage of
the acquired image. Point targets (e.g., passive corner reflectors
and active transponders) have been widely used for microwave
image resolution analysis. However, the analysis results based on
point targets do not include the effects of speckle and thermal
noise that are rare for point targets but common for distributed
targets. Since distributed targets are common in remote sensing
imaging scenes and their distinguishability is of interest in
practice, the concept of an optical bar pattern target was
extended to the microwave band, and a microwave bar pattern
target was designed and permanently built at the National
Calibration and Validation Site for High-Resolution Remote
Sensors. In this letter, the main design idea is first introduced.
Different backscatter coefficients of the bars were achieved
for different surface roughness made by black rough gravel
and a white smooth concrete plate, where the gravel size was
designed per the Rayleigh roughness criterion. The experimental
results using C-band airborne SAR and X-band KOMPSAT-5
SAR images are presented. A quantitative analysis shows that
this target could roughly evaluate the image resolution of
high-resolution microwave imaging sensor and would be a good
complement to point targets.
Index Terms Bar pattern target, calibration, image quality,
image resolution, microwave imaging, speckle, synthetic aperture
radar (SAR).
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE spatial resolution of a remote sensing sensor deter-
mines the detailed discernibility in its acquired image
and refers to the size of the smallest feature that can be
discriminated. This has a great influence on remote sens-
ing applications, such as target classification [1] and target
recognition [2]. With the development of remote sensing
sensors, the resolution has dramatically increased, which offers
an important opportunity for improving the performance of
various remote sensing applications [3], [4]. Accordingly, the
Manuscript received April 14, 2016; revised October 24, 2016; accepted
November 19, 2016. This work was supported in part by the National
High Technology Research and Development Program of China under
Grant 2013AA122903 and Grant 2013AA122904 and in part by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant 61331020, Grant 61571422,
and Grant 51409143. (Corresponding author: Chuanrong Li.)
Y. Zhou, C. Li, L. Tang, L. Ma, and Q. Wang are with the Key Laboratory
of Quantitative Remote Sensing Information Technology, Academy of
Opto-Electronics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100094, China
(e-mail: zhouys@aoe.ac.cn; crli@aoe.ac.cn; lltang@aoe.ac.cn;
llma@aoe.ac.cn; wangqi@aoe.ac.cn).
Q. Liu is with the Department of Water Hazard Research, China Institute of
Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China (e-mail:
cadyfire@163.com).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this letter are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LGRS.2016.2632181
1545-598X 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
characterization and understanding of the actual resolution has
attracted more attention from sensor manufacturers and user
communities.
For a microwave imaging sensor, e.g., synthetic aperture
radar (SAR), the range and azimuth resolution are theoreti-
cally determined by the transmitted signal bandwidth and the
antenna size. It is defined as the separability of two idealized
point targets and assessed based on the impulse response
width, which is 3 dB below the peak of the point target
impulse response function [5]. Passive corner reflectors (CRs)
and active transponders are representative point targets that
produce a sine-like response function in the SAR image. How-
ever, though widely used, the method based on CRs only partly
reveals the discriminability of an idealized point target and
does not include speckle and noise for the distributed targets.
This is because the speckle and noise do not affect the point
targets, and thus images with the same resolution but different
levels of speckle or Noise Equivalent Sigma Zero (NESZ)
will have different capabilities in distinguishing ground targets
[6]. It is understood by the research community that speckle
and noise should be considered in evaluating resolution. For
example, in [7], an equivalent spatial resolution was deter-
mined for speckle when describing potential instrument per-
formance. To facilitate comparison, the resolution calculated
by the point target is termed signal resolution, and the reso-
lution evaluatedalso with the consideration of speckle and
noiseis termed image resolution in this letter.
In the resolution analysis of an optical image, the bar
pattern target or fan-shaped target with black and white bar
pairs (to form contrast) is as widely used as the passive
corner reflectors in SAR signal resolution analysis [8], [9].
The distance between the black and white bars is known,
and the image resolution is determined by how wide the bar
pairs can be discriminated. The additional advantage of this
target is that it is a distributed target, where the user can
determine the image resolution directly from the image. With
this idea, a bar pattern target for the analysis of airborne SAR
image resolution was developed originally [10]. It utilized
rough gravel bars with strong backscatter intensity to represent
white color bars in the image and smooth concrete bars with
weak backscatter intensity to represent black color bars in the
image. It was successfully applied in the quality analysis of an
X-band PAMIR SAR image. However, only three bar width
types were used (i.e., 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4 m), which limited
the quality analysis of many other SAR images, especially
spaceborne SAR images.
To analyze the image resolution of microwave sensors
that operate at different frequencies on different platforms
(airborne and spaceborne), a permanent bar pattern target
with a bar width ranging from 0.1 to 5 m was designed and
built. This letter presents the design and test results of the
target. The remainder of this letter is organized as follows.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
Fig. 1. Factors related to backscatter coefficient.
Fig. 2. Backscatter coefficient versus incidence angle.
Section II describes the design of the bar pattern target.
Section III reports the experiments, processing methods, and
results. Section IV concludes this letter.
II. D ESIGN OF THE P ERMANENT TARGET
In this section, the design of the bar pattern targets is
introduced, including the bar material selection, surface rough-
ness design, bar width and length, bar orientation, and bar
arrangement.
A. Bar Material Selection
In optical image resolution analysis, the bar pattern target
is developed by two types of materials with different opti-
cal reflectance (i.e., black and white). Similarly, the basic
requirement in designing a microwave bar pattern target is to
select two types of bar materials with the highest contrast in
backscatter coefficients. Note that the backscatter coefficient
of the bar material is dependent on both radar parameters
and target property (see Fig. 1), so the design purpose is
to select suitable materials with the highest differences in
backscattering for different frequencies, polarizations, and
incidence angles.
The surface roughness parameters are the easiest parameters
to adjust to make the two types of bars display sufficient
contrast. Ulaby et al. [11] illustrated that the backscatter
coefficients vary with incidence angle at different roughness,
as shown in Fig. 2. When the surface is smooth or slightly
rough, the backscatter power is strong only near the zenith
angle and decreases rapidly away from the zenith angle.
The relation between the backscatter coefficient 0 and the
incidence angle can be described by the following negative
exponential function [11]:
a of surface roughness, and l is the correlation length.
( )smooth = (0)e
0 0
where a is constant. When the surface is very rough, the
backscatter coefficient is proportional to cos2 ( ) [11]
0 ( )very rough = k 0 (0) cos2 ( ).
Fig. 3. Relation between standard deviation of surface roughness and
incidence angle at different bands.
Since the roughness can be easily adjusted based on the
selection of the gravel size, the gravel was selected to form a
high-backscatter bar in the design. As a smooth surface has
a very low backscatter coefficient, the grayish white concrete
plate was selected as the low-backscatter bar. To realize optical
image resolution analysis at the same time, gravel with a black
color was chosen.
B. Bar Roughness Design
As the main problem approached by the proposed method,
the gravel bar should have sufficient roughness (i.e., backscat-
ter intensity) to exhibit contrast with the smooth concrete
plate bar.
There are many ways to determine whether a surface is
rough or smooth from an electromagnetic point of view.
According to the Rayleigh roughness criterion, the surface is
rough when the standard deviation of surface roughness h,
radar wavelength , and incidence angle satisfy the following
equation:
h>. (3)
8 cos
Using (3), Fig. 3 shows the relation between the standard
deviation of surface roughness and the incidence angle at
different radar bands. When h is 2.5 cm, the surface is rough at
the Ku-, X-, C-, and S-band and at an incidence angle ranging
between 10 and 60. Moreover, since the radius of the gravel
can be approximated as a standard deviation, the diameter of
the gravel size was finally chosen to be approximately 5 cm.
Note that the Rayleigh criterion is only a rough determina-
tion of gravel size, so the bare soil surface empirical model
of Oh et al. [12] is used to validate the grave size design.
The Oh et al. [12] model is expressed by
= 0.11Mv0.7 (cos )2.2 (1 e0.32(ks) )
0 1.8
vh (4)
0.35Mv0.65 0.4(ks)1.4
p hh
0
/vv
0
= 1 (/90) e (5)
0 0 1.2 0.9(ks)0.8
q vh /vv = 0.1(s/l + sin 1.3 ) (1 e ) (6)
where Mv is the moisture content, s is the standard deviation
(1)
Fig. 4 shows the backscattering coefficient varying with
the standard deviation of surface roughness. The contrast
is sufficient (>10 dB) at HH, VV, and VH polariza-
tions, which validates the effectiveness of the gravel size
(2) design.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ZHOU et al.: PERMANENT BAR PATTERN DISTRIBUTED TARGET FOR MICROWAVE IMAGE RESOLUTION ANALYSIS
Fig. 4. Relation between backscattering coefficient and radar frequency at
different standard deviations of surface roughness (Mv = 0.91, s = 2.5 cm).
Fig. 5. Illustration of the bar pattern target.
C. Bar Width and Length
The design of bar width must primarily consider the
resolution of the common SAR sensor. For a typical airborne
SAR, the resolution is usually finer than 1 m, so a group of
bar widths from 0.1 to 1 m with equal intervals at 0.1 m was
designed. The intervals were designed to be small (0.1 m)
because two adjacent corner reflectors cannot be placed close
due to the large size of the CR. For a typical spaceborne
SAR, the typical resolutions are 1 m (GF-3 spotlight mode,
TerraSAR high-resolution spotlight mode, KOMPSAT-5 high
resolution mode, and COSMO/SkyMed spotlight mode), 2 m
(TerraSAR spotlight mode), 3 m (TerraSAR stripmap mode,
COSMO/SkyMed stripmap mode, and Radardsat-2 ultrafine
mode), and 5 m (HJ-1C scan mode and Sentinel-1 stripmap
mode), so the corresponding bar widths (1, 2, 3, and 5 m)
were chosen, as shown in Fig. 5.
The bar length is designed per the look number require-
ment for distinguishing two bars. In [13], the probability of
error (PE) in distinguishing the two types of targets was
derived, and Fig. 6 shows the relation. It can be seen that
a look number of 5 will yield a 20% PE, so the bar length is
designed to be five times greater than the bar width, as shown
in Fig. 5.
D. Bar Placement
To analyze the range and azimuth resolution, orthogonal
bars (each group contained three or five individual bars) with
the same width were arranged.
3
Fig. 6. Relation between PE and backscattering difference  0 at different
look numbers.
To facilitate the construction in practice, these groups of
bars are compactly placed in a given area. The final size of
the entire test field is approximately 60 m 70 m.
The target orientation was designed according to the
Sun- synchronous satellite flight direction. The azimuth angle
is determined by
cos
= arcsin (7)
cos
where is the satellite inclination angle and is the latitude
of the target location. For ascending orbits, the sign before the
cosine is +; for descending orbits, the sign is .
The inclination angle of the Sun-synchronous satellite orbit
is usually between 97 and 99, and the latitude of the
permanent target location is 40518N, so the azimuth angle
was designed to be 10.
III. T EST R ESULTS OF THE TARGET
According to the abovementioned design, in 2014,
a permanent target was built inside the National Calibration
and Validation Site for High-Resolution Remote Sensors,
which is near Baotou, China. In this section, the image
resolution analysis method using this target is introduced, and
the analysis results using real SAR images are presented to
demonstrate the performance of this target.
A. Target Manufacture
The target location is 40518N, 1093750E and features
a cold semiarid climate marked by long, cold, and very dry
winters and hot and somewhat humid summers. Temperatures
often fall below 15 C in winter and rise above 30 C in
summer. The annual precipitation is approximately 300 mm,
with more than half falling in July and August. The climate
is beneficial for maintaining the target stability.
Fig. 7 shows a UAV optical image of three permanent
targets within the site. The top-right target is the newly
constructed target. The bottom two targets are checkerboard
and fan-shaped targets for optical calibration and image quality
assessment. The bar pattern target and its substructure have the
following advantages, which allow for long-term operation:
1) gravel and concrete plate that is weather resistant and
2) dust and dirt can be blown by wind or washed away by
rainwater, and the surface can dry quickly.
B. Data Processing Method
The target appears alternately dark and bright in the
SAR image. The resolution can be determined by visual
inspection, but this method suffers from subjective error.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
4 IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
Fig. 7. Bar pattern permanent target.
Fig. 8. Contrast ratios required to separate two types of bars at different
speckle levels.
To objectively analyze the image resolution, the following
method is proposed.
1) Image Interpolation (Optional): An interpolated image
is preferred to perform the analysis. The interpolation is the
same as the point target image interpolation, which is made
via an FFT zooming method with complex data.
2) Calculation of the Required Contrast Ratio fr : Since the
speckle will introduce uncertainty in discriminating two types
of bars, it is necessary to derive the required contrast ratio fr
for discriminating the bar types.
In [13], in order to discriminate two images acquired at
different times, the required contrast ratio fr was deduced;
it is a function of the number of looks L
fr = ( L + 1)/( L 1). (8)
This equation can be applied here for discriminating two types
of bars. Fig. 8 shows the contrast ratio required to separate bars
for different speckle levels. When the number of looks is 2,
the required contrast ratio is 5.8 (i.e., 7.7 dB). The required
contrast ratio decreases with the increasing number of looks.
The number of looks can be calculated based on the distrib-
uted target image (in our case, the homogeneous checkerboard
target nearby can be used). Once the number of looks has
been calculated, the required contrast ratio fr can be calculated
via (8).
3) Determination of the Discriminable Bar Width: For the
bars of different widths (from large bar width to small bar
width), we successively calculate the actual contrast ratio f b .
If the actual contrast ratio is higher than the required contrast
ratio ( f b fr ), this group is marked as discriminable.
If not, the group is marked as nondiscriminable. The
minimal width of the bar marked as discriminable is the
final image resolution assessment result.
Fig. 9. Airborne C-band SAR image of the targets.
TABLE I
A IRBORNE SAR D ATA PARAMETERS
TABLE II
AVERAGE DN OF E ACH BAR AND M INIMAL A CTUAL C ONTRAST f b [dB]
TABLE III
R EQUIRED C ONTRAST f r
C. Test Results
To demonstrate the practicability of the target, in this
section, both the airborne and spaceborne SAR data acquired
in October 2014 are used for analysis.
1) Airborne SAR Data: The imaging parameters of the
airborne C-band SAR are shown in Table I, and the image
of the bar pattern target is shown on the left side of Fig. 9.
From the visual point of view, the gravel bars and concrete
bars have distinct contrast, which validates the design of the
gravel size (roughness).
Based on the processing method proposed in the above
section, the average digital number (DN) value of each bar is
quantitatively calculated (the pixels on the same yellow lines
in Fig. 9 are averaged) and shown in Table II. Bar numbers 1,
3, and 5 indicate smooth bars. Bar numbers 2 and 4 indicate
rough bars. It can be seen that with decreasing bar width (from
5 to 0.9 m in this case), the intensity of the rough bar remains
unchanged compared with that of the smooth bar. The increase
in the smooth bars average DN value is due to being blurred
by the rough bar. Accordingly, the minimal actual contrast
decreases.
The required contrast for discriminating the two types of
bars (rough and smooth) is calculated and shown in Table III.
The required contrast for the airborne SAR image is 2.48 dB
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ZHOU et al.: PERMANENT BAR PATTERN DISTRIBUTED TARGET FOR MICROWAVE IMAGE RESOLUTION ANALYSIS
Fig. 10. KOMPSAT-5 X-band spaceborne SAR image.
TABLE IV
K OMPSAT-5 D ATA PARAMETERS
TABLE V
AVERAGE DN OF E ACH BAR AND M INIMAL A CTUAL C ONTRAST f b [dB]
on average. This value falls between the minimal actual
contrasts of 1- and 0.9-m widths, and hence it can be con-
cluded that the image resolution is better than 1 m. With a
similar analysis approach, the image resolution in the other
direction can also be determined.
For comparison, the range and azimuth signal resolution are
also calculated based on the impulse response functions (IRF)
of 14 point targets (corner reflectors), which were deployed
in the same scene. The range and azimuth signal resolution
are 0.74 and 0.78 m, respectively. The difference between the
image resolution and signal resolution analysis results is due
to the image resolution being dependent not only on the signal
resolution but also on the speckle and noise.
2) Spaceborne SAR Data: The X-band KOMPSAT-5 SAR
image was acquired for further analyzing the performance
of the bar pattern target. The imaging parameters are shown
in Table IV, and the image of the bar pattern target is shown
in the top left of Fig. 10.
Fig. 10 also shows a clear bar contrast (5-m width) between
the rough bars and smooth bars. The average DN value of
each bar is quantitatively calculated and shown in Table V.
The required contrast for discriminating the two types of
bars is calculated and shown in Table III. The required
contrast for the spaceborne SAR image is 8.79 dB on average.
5
This value falls within the minimal actual contrasts of the
5- and 3-m widths.
For comparison, seven corner reflectors were also deployed
in the same scene. Based on the analysis of IRF, the average
signal resolution is approximately 0.89 m in the azimuth
direction and 1.35 m in the ground range direction. The
calculated signal resolution is close to the nominal signal
resolution (0.9 and 1.21 m).
IV. C ONCLUSION
In this letter, the design of the permanent bar pattern target,
the data analysis method, and experiment results were pre-
sented. Rough gravel bars (with proper gravel size designing)
and smooth concrete bars exhibit good intensity contrast in
the microwave image. Moreover, the gravel and concrete plate
form a weather-resistant solution for long-term operation.
Based on the target, 0.1 to 5-m microwave images acquired
at different frequencies and different platforms (airborne and
spaceborne) can be roughly assessed. In the future, more SAR
images will be used for validating the effectiveness of the
targets. The target is open for use by the SAR community.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers
for their helpful comments and the Seventh Lab of IECAS for
providing the airborne SAR data.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Geng, J. Fan, H. Wang, X. Ma, B. Li, and F. L. Chen, High-resolution
SAR image classification via deep convolutional autoencoders, IEEE
Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 23512355, Nov. 2015.
[2] H. Lang, J. Zhang, X. Zhang, and J. M. Meng, Ship classification
in SAR image by joint feature and classifier selection, IEEE Geosci.
Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 212216, Feb. 2016.
[3] Y. S. Zhou, W. Hong, Y. P. Wang, and Y. R. Wu, Maximal effective
baseline for polarimetric interferometric SAR forest height estimation,
Sci. China Inf. Sci., vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 867876, Apr. 2012.
[4] D.-J. Kim, S. Hensley, S.-H. Yun, and M. Neumann, Detection of
durable and permanent changes in urban areas using multitemporal
polarimetric UAVSAR data, IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett., vol. 13,
no. 2, pp. 267271, Feb. 2016.
[5] A. Martnezl and J. L. Marchand, SAR image quality assessment,
Revista de Teledeteccin, no. 2, pp. 1218, Nov. 1993.
[6] J. P. Ford, Resolution versus speckle relative to geologic interpretability
of spaceborne radar images: A survey of user preference, IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 434444, Oct. 1982.
[7] I. H. Woodhouse, A. Marino, and I. Cameron, A standard index of spa-
tial resolution for distributed targets in synthetic aperture radar imagery,
Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 32, no. 23, pp. 79297938, Dec. 2011.
[8] C. R. Li et al., Permanent target for optical payload performance and
data quality assessment: Spectral characterization and a case study for
calibration, J. Appl. Remote Sens., vol. 8, no. 1, p. 083498, Jan. 2015.
[9] E. Honkavaara et al., A permanent test field for digital photogrammetric
systems, Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens., vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 95106,
Jan. 2008.
[10] K. Schulz, A. Thiele, U. Thoennessen, T. Ritter, and A. R. Brenner,
A new concept for SAR image quality assessment realizing bar patterns
in SAR images, in Proc. EUSAR, Friedrichshafen, Germany, Jun. 2008,
pp. 25.
[11] F. T. Ulaby, K. M. Richard, and A. K. Fung, Microwave Remote Sensing:
Active and Passive: Radar Remote Sensing and Surface Scattering and
Emission Theory, vol. 2. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley, 1982.
[12] Y. Oh, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, An empirical model and
an inversion technique for radar scattering from bare soil surfaces,
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 370381,
Mar. 1992.
[13] E. J. M. Rignot and J. J. van Zyl, Change detection techniques for
ERS-1 SAR data, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., vol. 31, no. 4,
pp. 896906, Jul. 1993.