Radar Detection Fundamentals

Radar Systems Engineering
Lecture 6
Detection of Signals in Noise
Dr. Robert M. O’Donnell

IEEE New Hampshire Section
Guest Lecturer

Radar Systems Course 1
Detection 1/1/2010 IEEE AES Society
Block Diagram of Radar System
Transmitter
Propagation
Medium Power Waveform
Amplifier Generation
Target
T/R
Radar
Switch
Cross
Section
Antenna Signal Processor Computer
A/D Pulse Clutter Rejection

Receiver
Converter Compression (Doppler Filtering)
User Displays and Radar Control

General Purpose Computer
Parameter
Tracking Thresholding Detection
Estimation
Data
Recording
Photo Image This Lecture
Courtesy of US Air Force
Used with permission.
Radar Systems Course
Detection 11/1/2010
2
IEEE AES Society
Outline
• Basic concepts
– Probabilities of detection and false alarm
– Signal-to-noise ratio
• Integration of pulses
• Fluctuating targets
• Constant false alarm rate (CFAR) thresholding
• Summary

Detection 11/1/2010
3
IEEE AES Society
Radar Detection – “The Big Picture”
Example – Typical Aircraft Surveillance Radar
ASR-9 Range
60 nmi.
Courtesy of MIT Lincoln Laboratory

Used with permission
Transmits
Pulses at
~ 1250 Hz
Rotation
Rate
12. rpm
• Mission – Detect and

track all aircraft within
60 nmi of radar
• S-band λ ~ 10 cm

Detection 11/1/2010
4
IEEE AES Society
Range-Azimuth-Doppler Cells to Be
Thresholded
Range
Example – Typical Aircraft Surveillance Radar 60 nmi.
ASR-9
10 Pulses / Half BW
Processed into
Doppler Filter Bank
10 Doppler Filters
Range
Magnitude (dB)
0
Resolution
-25
1/16 nmi
-50 Rotation
Rate
0 50 100 12.7 rpm
Radial Velocity (kts)
Radar
As Antenna Rotates Transmits
~22 pulses / Beamwidth Pulses at
Az ~ 1250 Hz
Range - Azimuth - Doppler Cells Beamwidth
~1.2 °
~1000 Range cells
~500 Azimuth cells
~8-10 Doppler cells
5,000,000 Range-Az-Doppler Cells Is There a Target Present
to be threshold every 4.7 sec. in Each Cell?
Detection 11/1/2010
5
IEEE AES Society
Target Detection in Noise
Received Backscatter Power (dB)
40
Detected
30 False Strong
Alarm Target
Threshold
20
Weak target (not detected)
Noise
10
0
0 25 50 100 125 150 175
Range (nmi.)
• Received background noise fluctuates randomly up and down
• The target echo also fluctuates…. Both are random variables!
• To decide if a target is present, at a given range, we need to set a
threshold (constant or variable)
• Detection performance (Probability of Detection) depends of the
strength of the target relative to that of the noise and the threshold
setting
– Signal-To Noise Ratio and Probability of False Alarm

Detection 11/1/2010
6
IEEE AES Society
The Radar Detection Problem
Measurement Decision
Radar Detection
Receiver x Processing
H0 or H1
For each measurement
Probability
There are two possibilities: Measurement
Density
Target absent hypothesis, H 0
Noise only x=n p( x H 0 )
Target present hypothesis, H 1
Signal plus noise
x = a+n p( x H 1 )
Decision
For each measurement H0 H1
There are four decisions:
Don’t False
H0
Report Alarm
Truth
Missed
H1 Detection
Detection

Detection 11/1/2010
7
IEEE AES Society
Threshold Test is Optimum
Decision
Probability of Detection: The probability we choose
H0 H1 H1 when H1 is true
Don’t False PD
H0 Report Alarm
Probability of False Alarm: The probability we choose
Truth H1 when H 0 is true
Missed
H1 Detection Detection PFA
Objective:
Maximize PD subject to PFA no greater than specified
Neyman-Pearson
criterion (PFA ≤ α )
Likelihood Ratio Test

Likelihood
Ratio H1 Threshold
L( x ) =
p( x H 1 )
> η
p( x H 0 ) <H
0

Detection 11/1/2010
8
IEEE AES Society
Basic Target Detection Test
0.7
Noise Only
Noise Probability Density Target Absent
0.6
Detection
Probability Density
0.5
Threshold
0.4 Probability
Probability ofof False
False Alarm
Alarm (( P )
FA )
PFA
P
PFA = Prob{ threshold exceeded given target absent }
FA = Prob{ threshold exceeded given target absent }
i.e.
i.e. the
the chance
chance that
that noise
noise is
is called
called aa (false)
(false) target
target
0.3
We
We want
want P to be very, very low!
FA to be very, very low!
PFA
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8
Voltage

Detection 11/1/2010
9
IEEE AES Society
Basic Target Detection Test
0.7
Noise
Probability
Probability of
of Detection
Detection (( P
PDD ))
Probability Density
0.6 PDD == Prob{
P Prob{ threshold
threshold exceeded
exceeded given
given target
target present
present }}
Detection I.e.
I.e. the
the chance
chance that
that target
target is
is correctly
correctly detected
detected
Probability Density
0.5
Threshold We
We want PDD to
want P to be
be near
near 11 (perfect)!
(perfect)!
0.4
0.3 Signal-Plus-Noise
Probability Density
0.2
p( x H 1 )
0.1
Signal + Noise
Target Present
0
0 2 4 6 8
Probability Voltage
Probability of
of Courtesy of MIT Lincoln Laboratory
False
False Alarm (( P
Alarm )
FA )
PFA
Detection 11/1/2010
10
IEEE AES Society
Detection Examples with Different SNR
0.7
Noise Only Courtesy of MIT Lincoln Laboratory
0.6 Detection Threshold Used with permission
PFA = 0.01
0.5
Probability Density
0.4 Signal Plus Noise Signal Plus Noise

SNR = 10 dB SNR = 20 dB
0.3 PD = 0.61 PD ~ 1
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15
Voltage
• PDD increases with target SNR for a fixed threshold (PFA

FA
)
• Raising threshold reduces false alarm rate and increases
SNR required for a specified Probability of Detection
Detection 11/1/2010
11
IEEE AES Society
Non-Fluctuating Target Distributions
0.7
Noise pdf
Probability
0.6
0.5 Threshold
0.4 Signal-Plus-Noise pdf
0.3
0.2
0.1
00 2 4 6 8
Rayleigh Rician Voltage
⎛ r2 ⎞
p ( r H o ) = r exp ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟
⎝ 2⎠
⎛ r2 + R ⎞
p ( r H 1 ) = r exp ⎜⎜ −
2 ⎠
(
⎟⎟ I o r R ) SNR =
R
2
⎝
Set threshold rT based
rT = − 2 log e PFA
on desired false-alarm probability Used with permission
( )
∞
P = p ( r H 1 ) dr = Q
Compute detection probability for
2 ( SNR ), − 2 log e PFA
given SNR and false-alarm probability D ∫
rT
∞
⎛
where Q ( a, b ) = r exp ⎜ −
2
+ 2
⎞
⎟⎟ I o ( a r ) dr
r a
∫b ⎜
⎝ 2 ⎠
Is Marcum’s Q-Function
(and I0(x) is a modified Bessel function)

Detection 11/1/2010
12
IEEE AES Society
Probability of Detection vs. SNR
1.0
Remember
PFA=10-4 This!
Probability of Detection (PD)
0.8
SNR = 13.2 dB
PFA=10-6 needed for
0.6 PD = 0.9 and
PFA = 10-6
Steady Target
0.4
PFA=10-8
0.2 PFA=10-10
PFA=10-12
0.0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (dB)

Detection 11/1/2010
13
IEEE AES Society
Probability of Detection vs. SNR
0.9999
0.999 PFA=10-4
0.99 PFA=10-6
0.98
0.95
0.9
Remember
0.8 This!
0.7
PFA=10-8 SNR = 13.2 dB
0.5 needed for
PFA=10-10 PD = 0.9 and
0.3 PFA = 10-6
0.2
PFA=10-12 Steady Target
0.1
0.05
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Detection 11/1/2010
14
IEEE AES Society
Tree of Detection Issues
Detection
Single Pulse Multiple pulses
Non-Coherent Coherent
Fluctuating Non-Fluctuating Integration Integration
Fluctuating Non-Fluctuating
Square Law Detector Linear Detector
Fully Correlated Partially Correlated Uncorrelated
Swerling I Swerling III Swerling II Swerling IV
Single Pulse Binary

Decision Integration
Detection 11/1/2010
15
IEEE AES Society
Detection Calculation Methodology
Probability of Detection vs. Probability of False Alarm and Signal-to-Noise Ratio
Determine PDF at
Detector Output
• Single pulse
• Fixed S/N
Scan to Scan Fluctuations Pulse to Pulse Fluctuations
(Swerling Case I and III) (Swerling Case II and IV)
Integrate N fixed Average over

target pulses signal fluctuations
Average over Integrate over N

target fluctuations pulses
Integrate from PD vs. PFA, S/N, &

threshold, T, to ∞ Number of pulses, N
Detection 11/1/2010
16
IEEE AES Society
Outline
• Basic concepts
• Summary

Detection 11/1/2010
17
IEEE AES Society
Integration of Radar Pulses
Coherent Integration Pulses Noncoherent Integration
Pulses
x1 Calculate
x1 x12
x2 Sum Calculate
x2 Calculate
Calculate
Threshold
N
xn N 2
Threshold
x 2
∑x
∑x
…
2
2 n
n
n =1
…
n =1 Calculate
xN x 2N
N 2 xN
1
Target Detection
Declared if
N
∑x
n =1
n >T Target Detection
Declared if
1 N 2
∑ xn > T
N n =1
• Adds ‘voltages’ , then square
• Phase is preserved • Adds ‘powers’ not voltages
• pulse-to-pulse phase coherence required • Phase neither preserved nor required
• SNR Improvement = 10 log10 N • Easier to implement, not as efficient
Detection performance can be improved by integrating

multiple pulses
Detection 11/1/2010
18
IEEE AES Society
Integration of Pulses
1.0
Ten Pulses
Coherent Steady
Integration Coherent Target
0.8
Integration
Probability of Detection
Gain
PFA=10-6
0.6
Non-Coherent
Integration
Gain
0.4 One Pulse
Ten Pulses
Non-Coherent
Integration
0.2
0 5 10 15
Signal to Noise Ratio per Pulse (dB)
For Most Cases, Coherent Integration is More Efficient

than Non-Coherent Integration

Detection 11/1/2010
19
IEEE AES Society
Different Types of Non-Coherent Integration
• Non-Coherent Integration – Also called (“video integration”)

– Generate magnitude for each of N pulses
– Add magnitudes and then threshold
• Binary Integration (M-of-N Detection)

– Separately threshold each pulse
1 if signal > threshold; 0 otherwise
– Count number of threshold crossings (the # of 1s)
– Threshold this sum of threshold crossings
Simpler to implement than coherent and non-coherent
• Cumulative Detection (1-of-N Detection)

– Similar to Binary Integration
– Require at least 1 threshold crossing for N pulses

Detection 11/1/2010
20
IEEE AES Society
Binary (M-of-N) Integration
Pulse 1
Calculate Threshold i1
x1 x12 T
Calculate
Pulse 2
Calculate Threshold
i2 Sum
x2 2 N 2nd Threshold
m = ∑ in
x 2
T M
…
n =1
Pulse N
Calculate Threshold iN
xN T
x 2N
Individual pulse detectors: 2nd thresholding:
2
x n ≥ T, i n = 1 m ≥ M , target present
2
x n < T, i n = 0 m < M , target absent
Target present if at least M detections in N pulses

Binary Integration Cumulative Detection
At Least N
pk ( 1 − p) PC = 1 − ( 1 − p )
N! At Least
∑
N −k
PM / N =
N
M of N
k ! (N − k ) !
1 of N
Detections k =M

Detection 11/1/2010
21
IEEE AES Society
Detection Statistics for Binary Integration
0.999
1/4
0.99 2/4 “1/4”
= 1 Detection
3/4
Out of 4
0.90 4/4 Pulses
0.50
0.10 Steady
(Non-Fluctuating )
Target
PFA=10-6
0.01
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Signal to Noise Ratio per Pulse (dB)
Detection 11/1/2010
22
IEEE AES Society
Optimum M for Binary Integration
100
Steady
(Non-Fluctuating )
Target
Optimum M
PD=0.95
10
PFA=10-6
1
1 10 100
Number of Pulses
For each binary Integrator, M/N, M (optimum) ≈ 0.9 N0.8

there exists an optimum M
Detection 11/1/2010
23
IEEE AES Society
Optimum M for Binary Integration
• Optimum M varies somewhat with target fluctuation model,

PD and PFA
• Parameters for Estimating MOPT = Na 10b
Target Fluctuations a b Range of N

No Fluctuations 0.8 - 0.02 5 – 700
Swerling I 0.8 - 0.02 6 – 500
Swerling II 0.91 - 0.38 9 – 700
Swerling III 0.8 - 0.02 6 – 700
Swerling IV 0.873 - 0.27 10 – 700
Adapted from Shnidman in Richards, reference 7

Detection 11/1/2010
24
IEEE AES Society
Detection Statistics for Different Types
of Integration
Coherent and Non-Coherent Integration
0.999
Coherent Binary
Integration Integration
0.99 4 Pulses 3 of 4 Pulses
0.95
0.90 Non-Coherent
Integration
4 Pulses
0.50
0.10 Single Pulse

PFA=10-6
0.01
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Signal to Noise Ratio (dB)
Detection 11/1/2010
25
IEEE AES Society
of Integration
0.999
Coherent Binary
0.95
0.90 Non-Coherent
Integration
4 Pulses
0.50
0.10 Single Pulse

PFA=10-6
0.01
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Detection 11/1/2010
26
IEEE AES Society
of Integration
0.999
Coherent Binary
0.95
0.90 Non-Coherent
Integration
4 Pulses
0.50
0.10 Single Pulse

PFA=10-6
0.01
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Detection 11/1/2010
27
IEEE AES Society
Signal to Noise Gain / Loss vs. # of Pulses
20 10
Signal to Noise Ratio Loss (dB)

Signal to Noise Ratio Gain (dB)
Coherent Binary N1/2

8
15 Non-Coherent Binary
(Optimum M)
6
Binary
10 (Optimum M) Non-Coherent
5
Relative
Binary N1/2 2
To Coherent
Integration
0 0
1 10 100 1 10 100
Number of Pulses Number of Pulses
Steady • Coherent Integration yields the greatest gain

Target • Non-Coherent Integration a small loss
PD=0.95 • Binary integration has a slightly larger loss than regular
PFA=10-6 Non-coherent integration
Detection 11/1/2010
28
IEEE AES Society
Effect of Pulse to Pulse Correlation on
Non-Coherent Integration Gain
Equivalent Number of Independent Pulses 100
Dependent
50
Sampling σv
Region Velocity
Spread
00
20
=3
Of
N
Clutter
0
10
10
50
Independent
30
Sampling 1
5
fr =
20
Region
10
T
2 3 Pulse
Repetition
1 Rate
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
σ v / λ fr
• Non-coherent Integration Can Be Very Inefficient
in Correlated Clutter
Detection 11/1/2010
29
IEEE AES Society
Effect of Pulse to Pulse Correlation on
Non-Coherent Integration Gain
ρ (T) .99 0.9 0.1 0.02
Equivalent Number of Independent Pulses 100
Dependent
50
Sampling σv
Region Velocity
Spread
00
20
=3
Of
N
Clutter
0
10
10
50
Independent
30
Sampling 1
5
fr =
20
Region
10
T
2 3 Pulse
Repetition
1 Rate
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
σ v / λ fr
•
Non-coherent Integration Can Be Very Inefficient
Adapted from nathanson, Reference 8 in Correlated Clutter
Detection 11/1/2010
30
IEEE AES Society
Albersheim Empirical Formula for SNR
(Steady Target - Good Method for Approximate Calculations)
• Single pulse: SNR (natural units ) = A + 0.12 A B + 1.7 B

⎛ 0.62 ⎞ ⎛ PD ⎞
– Where: A = log e ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ B = log e ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
⎝ PFA ⎠ ⎝ 1 − PD ⎠
– Less than .2 dB error for:
10 −3 > PFA > 10 −7 0.9 > PD > 0.1

– Target assumed to be non-fluctuating
• For n independent integrated samples:
⎛ 4.54 ⎞
SNR n (dB ) = −5 log 10 n + ⎜ 6.2 + ⎟ log 10 (A + 0.12 A B + 1.7 B )
⎝ n + 0.44 ⎠
– Less than .2 dB error for:
SNR
Per
8096 > n > 1 10 −3 > PFA > 10 −7 0.9 > PD > 0.1
Sample
– For more details, see References 1 or 5
Detection 11/1/2010
31
IEEE AES Society
Outline
• Basic concepts
• Summary

Detection 11/1/2010
32
IEEE AES Society
Fluctuating Target Models
RCS vs. Azimuth for a Typical Complex Target
• For many types of targets, the

received radar backscatter
amplitude of the target will vary a
lot from pulse-to-pulse:
– Different scattering centers on
complex targets can interfere
constructively and destructively
– Small aspect angle changes or
frequency diversity of the
radar’s waveform can cause this
effect
• Fluctuating target models are

used to more accurately predict
detection statistics (PD vs., PFA,
B-26, 3 GHz
and S/N) in the presence of target
RCS versus Azimuth amplitude fluctuations

Detection 11/1/2010
33
IEEE AES Society
Swerling Target Models
Fluctuation Rate
Nature of RCS
Scattering Model Slow Fluctuation Fast Fluctuation
“Scan-to-Scan” “Pulse-to-Pulse”
Similar amplitudes
Exponential
(Chi-Squared DOF=2)
Swerling I Swerling II
⎛ σ⎞
p(σ ) = exp⎜ − ⎟
1
σ ⎝ σ⎠
One scatterer much (Chi-Squared DOF=4)

Larger than others
4σ Swerling III Swerling IV

⎛ 2σ⎞
p (σ ) = 2 exp⎜ − ⎟
σ ⎝ σ ⎠
σ= Average RCS (m2) Courtesy of MIT Lincoln Laboratory


Detection 11/1/2010
34
IEEE AES Society
Swerling Target Models
Fluctuation Rate
Nature of Amplitude
Scattering Model Slow Fluctuation Fast Fluctuation
“Scan-to-Scan” “Pulse-to-Pulse”
Similar amplitudes Rayleigh
⎛ a2 ⎞ Swerling I Swerling II
p(a ) =
2a
exp⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟
σ ⎝ σ⎠
One scatterer much Central Rayleigh,

Larger than others DOF=4
Swerling III Swerling IV
3
⎛ 2 a2 ⎞
p (a ) = 2 exp⎜⎜ −
8a
⎟⎟
σ ⎝ σ ⎠
σ= Average RCS (m2) Courtesy of MIT Lincoln Laboratory


Detection 11/1/2010
35
IEEE AES Society
Other Fluctuation Models
• Detection Statistics Calculations

– Steady and Swerling 1,2,3,4 Targets in Gaussian Noise
– Chi- Square Targets in Gaussian Noise
– Log Normal Targets in Gaussian Noise
– Steady Targets in Log Normal Noise
– Log Normal Targets in Log Normal Noise
– Weibel Targets in Gaussian Noise
• Chi Square, Log Normal and Weibel Distributions have
long tails
– One more parameter to specify distribution
Mean to median ratio for log normal distribution
• When used
– Ground clutter Weibel
– Sea Clutter Log Normal
– HF noise Log Normal
– Birds Log Normal
– Rotating Cylinder Log Normal
Detection 11/1/2010
36
IEEE AES Society
RCS Variability for Different
Target Models
20
Non-fluctuating Target
15
10 Constant
0
20
RCS (dBsm) 15
Swerling I/II
High
10 Fluctuation
5
0
20
Swerling III/IV 15
Medium
10
Fluctuation
5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sample # Courtesy of MIT Lincoln Laboratory

Detection 11/1/2010
37
IEEE AES Society
Fluctuating Target Single Pulse
Detection : Rayleigh Amplitude
H 1 : x = ae jφ + n Rayleigh
p(a ) =
2a ⎛ a2 ⎞
exp⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟
amplitude
H0 : x = n model
σ ⎝ σ⎠
z= x >T H1
Detection Test
x <T
Average σ
H0 SNR per ξ= 2
pulse σN
Probability of
False Alarm ⎛ T2 ⎞
(same as for
PFA = exp⎜⎜ − 2 ⎟⎟
⎝ σN ⎠
non-fluctuating)
⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Probability of
PD = ∫ p ( z > T H 1 , a) p(a) da dz PD = P FA ⎝
1 + ξ ⎠
Detection Test
⎛ T2 ⎛ 1 ⎞⎞
PD = exp⎜⎜ − 2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ σN ⎝ 1+ ξ ⎠⎠
Detection 11/1/2010
38
IEEE AES Society
Fluctuating Target Single Pulse Detection
1.0
Fluctuation Loss
0.8
0.6
Non-Fluctuating
0.4
Swerling Case 3,4
0.2 Swerling Case 1,2
PFA=10-6
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
For high detection probabilities, more signal-to-noise is required for
fluctuating targets.
The fluctuation loss depends on the target fluctuations, probability of
detection, and probability of false alarm.
Detection 11/1/2010
39
IEEE AES Society
Fluctuating Target Multiple Pulse Detection
Probability of Detection (PD) 1.0
0.8
Steady Target
Coherent Integration
0.6 Swerling 2 Fluctuations
Non-Coherent Integration, Frequency
Diversity
Swerling 1 Fluctuations
0.4 Coherent Integration, Single Frequency
0.2
PFA=10-6
N=4 Pulses
0.0
0 4 8 12 16 20
Signal-to-Noise Ratio per Pulse (dB)
• In some fluctuating target cases, non-coherent integration with
frequency diversity (pulse to pulse) can outperform coherent
integration
Detection 11/1/2010
40
IEEE AES Society
Detection Statistics for Different Target
Fluctuation Models
1.0
10 pulses
Non-coherently
Integrated
0.8 PFA=10-8
Steady Target
Swerling Case I
0.6
Swerling Case II
Swerling Case III
Swerling Case IV
0.4
0.2
0.0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) (dB) Adapted from Richards, Reference 7

Detection 11/1/2010
41
IEEE AES Society
Shnidman Empirical Formulae for SNR
(for Steady and Swerling Targets)
• Analytical forms of SNR vs. PD, PFA, and Number of pulses

are quite complex and not amenable to BOTE* calculations
• Shnidman has developed a set of empirical formulae that
are quite accurate for most 1st order radar systems
calculations:
∞ Non-fluctuating target (“Swerling 0 / 5”)
1, Swerling Case 1
K= N, Swerling Case 2
2, Swerling Case 3
2N Swerling Case 4
0 N ≤ 40
α= 1
N > 40
4
η = − 0.8 ln(4 PFA (1 − PFA )) + sign (PD − 0.5 ) − 0.8 ln (4 PD (1 − PD ))

Adapted from Shnidman in Richards, Reference 7 * Back of the Envelope
Detection 11/1/2010
42
IEEE AES Society
Shnidman Empirical Formulae for SNR
(for Steady and Swerling Targets)
⎛ N ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎞⎟
⎜
X ∞ = η⎜ η + 2 + ⎜ α − ⎟⎟
⎝ 2 ⎝ 4 ⎠⎠
C1 = (((17.7006 PD − 18.4496 ) PD + 14.5339 ) PD − 3.525 ) / K
1 ⎛⎜ 27.31 PD − 25.14 ) ⎛ ⎛ 10 − 5 ⎞ (2 N − 20 ) ⎞ ⎞⎟
C2 = e + (PD − 0.8) ⎜⎜ 0.7 ln⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎟
⎟⎟
K⎝ ⎜ ⎝ PFA ⎠ 80
⎝ ⎠⎠
C1 0.1 ≤ PD ≤ 0.872 CdB

CdB = C = 10 10
C1 + C 2 0.872 ≤ PD ≤ 0.99
SNR (dB ) = 10 log 10 (SNR )

C X∞
SNR (natural units ) =
N
Adapted from Shnidman in Richards, Reference 7

Detection 11/1/2010
43
IEEE AES Society
Shnidman’s Equation
• Error in SNR < 0.5 dB within these bounds

– 0.1 ≤ PD ≤ 0.99 10-9 ≤ PFA ≤ 10-3 1 ≤ N ≤ 100
SNR Error vs. Probability of Detection
1.0
N = 10 pulses Steady Target
Swerling I
SNR Calculation Error (dB)
PFA= 10-6 Swerling II

Swerling III
0.5 Swerling IV
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Adapted from Shnidman in Richards, Reference 7 Probability of Detection
Detection 11/1/2010
44
IEEE AES Society
Outline
• Basic concepts
• Summary

Detection 11/1/2010
45
IEEE AES Society
Practical Setting of Thresholds
Display, NEXRAD Radar, of Rain Clouds Ideal Case- Little variation in Noise
Power
Rain Backscatter Data
40
S-Band Data
Power
20 Rain
Receiver
Cloud
Noise
0
0 1 2
Courtesy of NOAA Range (nmi)
• Need to develop a methodology to set target detection

threshold that will adapt to:
– Temporal and spatial changes in the background noise
– Clutter residue from rain, other diffuse wind blown clutter,
– Sharp edges due to spatial transitions from one type of
background (e.g. noise) to another (e.g. rain) can suppress
targets
– Background estimation distortions due to nearby targets

Detection 11/1/2010
46
IEEE AES Society
Constant False Alarm Rate (CFAR)
Thresholding
CFAR Window – Range Cells CFAR Window – Range and Doppler Cells
Doppler Velocity cells Î

Range Î
“Guard”
Cells Cell to be
Thresholded
Range cells Î
Data Cells Used
• Estimate background (noise, etc.) from data to Determine
Mean Level of
– Use range, or range and Doppler filter data Background
– Set threshold as constant times the mean value of background
1 N
• Mean Background Estimate = ∑ xn
N n =1
Detection 11/1/2010
47
IEEE AES Society
Effect of Rain on CFAR Thresholding
Radar Backscatter (Linear Units) Mean Level Threshold CFAR
Range Cells C Band

5500 MHz
9 dB
Rain Cloud
2.2 dB
Receiver Noise
Receiver Noise
2.6 Slant Range, nmi 4.5
Window Slides Through Data
Cell Under Test
Courtesy of MIT Lincoln Laboratory “Guard” Cells

Data Cells for Mean Level Computation

Detection 11/1/2010
48
IEEE AES Society
Effect of Rain on CFAR Thresholding
Radar Backscatter (Linear Units) Mean Level Threshold CFAR
Range Cells
C Band
5500 MHz
9 dB
Rain Cloud
2.2 dB
Receiver Noise
Receiver Noise
2.6 Slant Range, nmi 4.5
Cell Under Test

Sharp Clutter or Interference Boundaries
Can Lead to Excessive False Alarms “Guard” Cells

Data Cells for Mean Level Computation

Detection 11/1/2010
49
IEEE AES Society
Greatest-of Mean Level CFAR
• Find mean value of N/2 cells before and after test cell
separately
• Use larger noise estimate to determine threshold
Cell Under Test

Data Cells for Mean Level 1 Data Cells for Mean Level 2
“Guard” Cells
Use Larger Value
• Helps reduce false alarms near sharp clutter or interference

boundaries
• Nearby targets still raise threshold and suppress detection

Detection 11/1/2010
50
IEEE AES Society
Censored Greatest-of CFAR
• Compute and use noise estimates as in Greatest-of, but

remove the largest M samples before computing each
average
“Censored” Data (Not Used

in Computation of Average) Cell Under Test
Data Cells for Mean Level 1 Data Cells for Mean Level 2
“Guard” Cells
Use Larger Value

• Up to M nearby targets can be in each window without
affecting threshold
• Ordering the samples from each window is computationally
expensive

Detection 11/1/2010
51
IEEE AES Society
Mean Level CFAR Performance
PFA=10-6
0.9999
Matched Filter
1 Pulse
0.999 Mean Level CFAR – 10 Samples
Mean Level CFAR – 50 Samples
0.99 Mean Level CFAR – 100 Samples
0.90
0.50
CFAR
Loss
0.10
0.01
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Signal-to-Noise Ratio per Pulse (dB)

Detection 11/1/2010
52
IEEE AES Society
CFAR Loss vs. Number of Reference Cells
6
PD= 0.9
5
PFA=10-8
4
CFAR Loss (dB)
10-6
10-4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Number of Reference Cells Adapted from Richards, Reference 7
The greater the number of reference cells in the CFAR, the better is
the estimate of clutter or noise and the less will be the loss in
detectability. (Signal to Noise Ratio)
Detection 11/1/2010
53
IEEE AES Society
CFAR Loss vs Number of Reference Cells
5
4
PFA For Single Pulse Detection
10-4 Approximation
3 10-6
10-8 CFAR Loss (dB) =
2 - (5/N) log PFA
CFAR Loss, dB
N=1
Dotted Curve PFA = 10-4
Dashed Curve PFA = 10-6
1 N=3 Solid Curve PFA = 10-8
0.7 N = 15 to 20 (typically)
0.5 N=10 Since a finite number of
0.4 cells are used, the estimate
N=30
0.3 of the clutter or noise is
N=100 not precise.
0.2
2 5 7 10 20 50 70 100
Number of Reference Cells, N
Adapted from Skolnik, Reference 1

Detection 11/1/2010
54
IEEE AES Society
Summary
• Both target properties and radar design features affect the

ability to detect signals in noise
– Fluctuating targets vs. non-fluctuating targets
– Allowable false alarm rate and integration scheme (if any)
• Integration of multiple pulses improves target detection

– Coherent integration is best when phase information is available
– Noncoherent integration and frequency diversity can improve
detection performance, but usually not as efficient
• An adaptive detection threshold scheme is needed in real
environments
– Many different CFAR (Constant False Alarm Rate) algorithms exist

to solve various problems
– All CFARs algorithms introduce some loss and additional
processing

Detection 11/1/2010
55
IEEE AES Society
References
1. Skolnik, M., Introduction to Radar Systems, McGraw-Hill,

New York,3rd Ed., 2001.
2. Skolnik, M., Radar Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, 3rd
Ed., 2008.
3. DiFranco, J. V. and Rubin, W. L., Radar Detection, Artech
House, Norwood, MA, 1994.
4. Whalen, A. D. and McDonough, R. N., Detection of Signals in
Noise, Academic Press, New York, 1995.
5. Levanon, N., Radar Principles, Wiley, New York, 1988
6. Van Trees, H., Detection, Estimation, and Modulation
Theory, Vols. I and III, Wiley, New York, 2001
7. Richards, M., Fundamentals of Radar Signal Processing,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2005
8. Nathanson, F., Radar Design Principles, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 2rd Ed., 1999.

Detection 11/1/2010
56
IEEE AES Society
Homework Problems
• From Skolnik, Reference 1

– Problems 2.5, 2.6, 2.15, 2.17, 2.18, 2.28, and 2.29
– Problems 5.13 , 5.14, and 5-18

Detection 11/1/2010
57
IEEE AES Society

Radar Detection Fundamentals

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Radar Detection Fundamentals

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Radar Systems Engineering

Dr. Robert M. O’Donnell

IEEE New Hampshire Section

A/D Pulse Clutter Rejection

User Displays and Radar Control

• Constant false alarm rate (CFAR) thresholding

IEEE New Hampshire Section

Courtesy of MIT Lincoln Laboratory

• Mission – Detect and

IEEE New Hampshire Section

IEEE New Hampshire Section

IEEE New Hampshire Section

Likelihood Ratio Test

IEEE New Hampshire Section

IEEE New Hampshire Section

0.4 Signal Plus Noise Signal Plus Noise

• PDD increases with target SNR for a fixed threshold (PFA

IEEE New Hampshire Section

Signal-to-Noise Ratio (dB)

Single Pulse Multiple pulses

Square Law Detector Linear Detector

Fully Correlated Partially Correlated Uncorrelated

Swerling I Swerling III Swerling II Swerling IV

Single Pulse Binary

Integrate N fixed Average over

Average over Integrate over N

Integrate from PD vs. PFA, S/N, &

• Constant false alarm rate (CFAR) thresholding

IEEE New Hampshire Section

Detection performance can be improved by integrating

For Most Cases, Coherent Integration is More Efficient

IEEE New Hampshire Section

• Non-Coherent Integration – Also called (“video integration”)

• Binary Integration (M-of-N Detection)

• Cumulative Detection (1-of-N Detection)

IEEE New Hampshire Section

Target present if at least M detections in N pulses

IEEE New Hampshire Section

For each binary Integrator, M/N, M (optimum) ≈ 0.9 N0.8

• Optimum M varies somewhat with target fluctuation model,

• Parameters for Estimating MOPT = Na 10b

Target Fluctuations a b Range of N

Adapted from Shnidman in Richards, reference 7

IEEE New Hampshire Section

0.10 Single Pulse

0.10 Single Pulse

0.10 Single Pulse

Signal to Noise Ratio Loss (dB)

Coherent Binary N1/2

Steady • Coherent Integration yields the greatest gain

Equivalent Number of Independent Pulses 100

• Single pulse: SNR (natural units ) = A + 0.12 A B + 1.7 B

10 −3 > PFA > 10 −7 0.9 > PD > 0.1

• Constant false alarm rate (CFAR) thresholding

IEEE New Hampshire Section

• For many types of targets, the

• Fluctuating target models are

IEEE New Hampshire Section

One scatterer much (Chi-Squared DOF=4)

4σ Swerling III Swerling IV

σ= Average RCS (m2) Courtesy of MIT Lincoln Laboratory

IEEE New Hampshire Section

One scatterer much Central Rayleigh,