A Comparison of Beamforming and Direction Finding Algorithms (Beamscan and MUSIC) on a Linear Array HF Radar in a Medium to Low Wave Energy Environment
{"title":"A Comparison of Beamforming and Direction Finding Algorithms (Beamscan and MUSIC) on a Linear Array HF Radar in a Medium to Low Wave Energy Environment","authors":"D. Cahl, G. Voulgaris, L. Leonard","doi":"10.1175/jtech-d-22-0005.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nWe assess the performance of three different algorithms for estimating surface ocean currents from two linear array HF radar systems. The delay-and-sum beamforming algorithm, commonly used with beamforming systems, is compared with two direction finding algorithms, MUltiple Signal Classification (MUSIC) and direction finding using beamforming (Beamscan). A 7-month data set from two HF radar sites (CSW and GTN) on Long Bay, SC (USA) is used to compare the different methods. The comparison is carried out on three locations (mid-point along the baseline and two locations with in situ Eulerian current data available) representing different steering angles. Beamforming produces surface current data that show high correlation near the radar boresight (R2 ≥ 0.79). At partially sheltered locations far from the radar boresight directions (59° and 48° for radar sites CSW and GTN, respectively) there is no correlation for CSW (R2 = 0) and the correlation is reduced significantly for GTN (R2 = 0.29). Beamscan performs similarly near the radar boresight (R2 = 0.8 and 0.85 for CSW and GTN, respectively) but better than beamforming far from the radar boresight (R2 = 0.52 and 0.32 for CSW and GTN, respectively). MUSIC’s performance, after significant tuning, is similar near the boresight (R2 = 0.78 and 0.84 for CSW and GTN) while worse than Beamscan but better than beamforming far from the boresight (R2 = 0.42 and 0.27 for CSW and GTN, respectively). Comparisons at the mid-point (baseline comparison) show the largest performance difference between methods. Beamforming (R2 = 0.01) is the worst performer, followed by MUSIC (R2 = 0.37) while Beamscan (R2 = 0.76) performs best.","PeriodicalId":15074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1175/jtech-d-22-0005.1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, OCEAN","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We assess the performance of three different algorithms for estimating surface ocean currents from two linear array HF radar systems. The delay-and-sum beamforming algorithm, commonly used with beamforming systems, is compared with two direction finding algorithms, MUltiple Signal Classification (MUSIC) and direction finding using beamforming (Beamscan). A 7-month data set from two HF radar sites (CSW and GTN) on Long Bay, SC (USA) is used to compare the different methods. The comparison is carried out on three locations (mid-point along the baseline and two locations with in situ Eulerian current data available) representing different steering angles. Beamforming produces surface current data that show high correlation near the radar boresight (R2 ≥ 0.79). At partially sheltered locations far from the radar boresight directions (59° and 48° for radar sites CSW and GTN, respectively) there is no correlation for CSW (R2 = 0) and the correlation is reduced significantly for GTN (R2 = 0.29). Beamscan performs similarly near the radar boresight (R2 = 0.8 and 0.85 for CSW and GTN, respectively) but better than beamforming far from the radar boresight (R2 = 0.52 and 0.32 for CSW and GTN, respectively). MUSIC’s performance, after significant tuning, is similar near the boresight (R2 = 0.78 and 0.84 for CSW and GTN) while worse than Beamscan but better than beamforming far from the boresight (R2 = 0.42 and 0.27 for CSW and GTN, respectively). Comparisons at the mid-point (baseline comparison) show the largest performance difference between methods. Beamforming (R2 = 0.01) is the worst performer, followed by MUSIC (R2 = 0.37) while Beamscan (R2 = 0.76) performs best.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology (JTECH) publishes research describing instrumentation and methods used in atmospheric and oceanic research, including remote sensing instruments; measurements, validation, and data analysis techniques from satellites, aircraft, balloons, and surface-based platforms; in situ instruments, measurements, and methods for data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation and assimilation in numerical models; and information systems and algorithms.