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

IF 1.9 4区 地球科学 Q2 ENGINEERING, OCEAN
D. Cahl, G. Voulgaris, L. Leonard
{"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.
中低波能量环境下线阵高频雷达波束形成和测向算法(波束扫描和MUSIC)的比较
我们评估了三种不同算法在两种线性阵列高频雷达系统中估计表面洋流的性能。将波束形成系统中常用的延迟和波束形成算法与多信号分类(MUSIC)和波束形成测向(Beamscan)两种测向算法进行了比较。利用美国南卡罗来纳州长湾两个高频雷达站(CSW和GTN)的7个月数据集对不同方法进行了比较。在代表不同转向角度的三个位置(沿基线的中点和有现场欧拉电流数据的两个位置)进行了比较。波束形成产生的表面电流数据在雷达轴视附近显示出高度相关(R2≥0.79)。在远离雷达瞄准方向的部分掩蔽位置(雷达站点CSW和GTN分别为59°和48°),CSW与GTN的相关性显著降低(R2 = 0.29),而CSW与GTN的相关性显著降低(R2 = 0.29)。波束扫描在雷达瞄准眼附近表现相似(CSW和GTN分别为R2 = 0.8和0.85),但优于远离雷达瞄准眼的波束形成(CSW和GTN分别为R2 = 0.52和0.32)。经过显著调整后,MUSIC在近波束瞄准镜处的性能相似(CSW和GTN的R2分别为0.78和0.84),而在远离波束瞄准镜处的性能逊于波束扫描,而优于波束成形(CSW和GTN的R2分别为0.42和0.27)。在中点的比较(基线比较)显示了方法之间最大的性能差异。波束成形(R2 = 0.01)效果最差,MUSIC (R2 = 0.37)次之,而波束扫描(R2 = 0.76)效果最好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
135
审稿时长
3 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信