Influence off evaporation ducts on radar sea return

J.P. Reilly, BEE, MSE G.D. Dockery, BSc, MSEE

Indexing terms: Radar, Clutter, Modelling, Radio-wave propagation

Abstract: Modelling of radar sea return is discussed with consideration of propagation conditions. Both the intensity and propagation direction of energy incident at the sea surface can be significantly affected by the refractive condition of the atmosphere. The paper describes and evaluates a model that incorporates both of these effects for the situation where the propagation conditions are characterised as evaporation ducts. Such ducts are the most persistent marine propagation environment on a worldwide basis for lowaltitude propagation. It is shown that commonly encountered evaporation ducts can profoundly affect sea returns.

Georgia Institute of Technology [1], the Technology Service Corp. [2], Sittrop [3], and a hybrid model that includes work by Barton [4], summary data from References 5 and 6 and features of the Georgia Institute of Technology model. The four models are referred to here as GIT, TSC, SIT, and HYB, respectively. The GIT, TSC and HYB models are applicable over a broad frequency range, whereas the SIT model applies only to Xand Ku-bands. The GIT model is described in Appendix 7.1 of this report, and the HYB model is described in Appendix 7.2. Figs. 1 and 2 compare the models at radar frequencies of 3 and 9.3 GHz, over the grazing angle range 0.1 to 10

Introduction

Probably the most extensively studied aspect of sea return is the average reflectivity. Measurements of sea reflectivity have been made since the early days of radar, using a variety of experimental devices, and taken under a variety of environmental and operational conditions. Such observations, supplemented with theoretical principles, have lead to a variety of empirical models whose purpose is to predict average radar sea return given a knowledge of the pertinent variables related to the radar, the sea, and the method of observation. Despite attempts to account for the relevant parameters in empirical models, calculated predictions of clutter power frequently deviate significantly from measurements. We would like to account for these deviations so as to improve our ability to predict the performance of existing radar systems and to assist in the selection of design features in planned systems. In this paper we show that a significant source of variability in radar measurements may be traced to variations in the atmospheric conditions affecting lowaltitude radar propagation. We show that evaporation ducts a common marine phenomenon experienced on a worldwide basis can profoundly affect radar propagation and, consequently, the associated sea clutter.
2 Existing sea reflectivity models

1.0 Grazing angle, i

10.0

Fig. 1

Comparison of sea clutter models at S-band

, ha = 0.3 m (S 2); , ha = 1.9 m (S a 5) D.GIT; x,TSC; O, HYB Vertical polarisation, upwind look direction, 3 GHz

-80.0 0.1

1.0 Grazing angle, 4>

10.0

Fig. 2

Comparison of sea clutter models at X-band

2.1 Comparison of models

, ha = 0.3 m (S as 2); , ha = 1.9 m (S a 5) D, GIT; x, TSC; O, HYB; A, SIT Vertical polarisation, upwind look direction, 9.3 GHz

Several empirical models for calculating the average value of sea reflectivity are compared below. The studied models have been derived from publications by the
Paper 7149F (E15), first received 27th June and in revised form 27th November 1989 The authors are with The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Road, Laurel, MD 20707-6099, USA 80

degrees. Curves are shown separately for sea conditions having average wave heights of 0.3 and 1.9 m (corresponding to sea states 2 and 5). These examples apply to vertical polarisation and an upwind radar azimuth direction. The TSC, HYB and SIT models are in reasonable agreement, especially with regard to the dependency of
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 137, Pt. F, No. 2, APRIL 1990

reflectivity on grazing angle. The GIT model, on the other hand, significantly deviates from the others at low grazing angles. In the GIT model, the reflectivity varies approximately as i/^4 at small grazing angles, whereas in the other models the relationship is closer to \p2. It is worth examining the grazing angle dependency and theoretical expectations for rough surface scattering in order to gain insight into the possible role of propagation effects in explaining these discrepancies. 2.2 Backscatter from the ocean surface in standard propagation conditions All of the mean clutter cross-section models mentioned above are based to some extent on published measurements of clutter power. The GIT model, however, contains an analytical factor to account for the rapid falloff in clutter power that has been observed below a certain grazing angle in some measurements (see, for example, Reference 7); these measurements generally exhibit the \j/* falloff described in previous section. The empirical parameters in the HYB and TSC models were adjusted using a more diverse set of measurements that greatly reduce the falloff at small grazing angles. A hypothesis put forward here is that the measured data used to adjust empirical parameters in the GIT model were collected during standard, nonducting propagation conditions; this hypothesis is addressed again in Section 3.1. The adjustment factors for incidence angle in the GIT model have a dominant effect at small angles; this small-grazing-angle region will be referred to as the 'interference region' for reasons that will become clear. A tutorial discussion of the 'classical interference effect' for clutter return at small angles is presented in Reference 8; a brief description of this effect is included below. Fig. 3 (adapted from Reference 8) illustrates the general relationship between the normalised backscatter

power etc.), a0 is the clutter cross-section per unit area, Ac is the illuminated clutter area and R is the range from the radar. In the plateau region, o0 is frequently represented as being proportional to if/. In this case, since Ac grows linearly with range and since \j/ is proportional to R~l at moderate ranges, the clutter power relationship in the plateau region is PcccR (plateau region) (2)

On the other hand, o0 is sometimes taken to be constant in the plateau region, in which case the range power law in eqn. 2 is 3, rather than 4. In the region where \j/ < ij/c, a0 varies as R~ 4 , and P, o c I T 7 (interference region) (3) Fig. 4 illustrates qualitatively the expected range dependence of received clutter power.

R " 3 to R

slope

slope

Range, logarithmic scale

Fig. 4 Range dependence of received clutter power for idealised rough surface scattering (not to scale)
Critical range R, corresponds to grazing angle 4>, in Fig. 3

Large grazing angle region Small grazing angle region (i/<4 slope)

Plateau region

At small grazing angles the reflectivity behaviour can be explained in terms of the backscatter from a reflector near a smooth conducting surface. In this grazing incidence region, backscatter power is subjected to multipath interference from combined direct and forward-scattered rays from individual sea wave structures, as illustrated in Fig. 5. The propagation factor | F | 4 , can be expressed in

't

Grazing angle, \

Fig. 3 Idealised relationship between reflectivity and grazing angle for rough surface scattering
Diagram shows general relationship, but is not drawn to scale

reflectivity a0 and the grazing angle \jj. For angles less than a transition angle \j/t (to be defined later) the reflectivity varies approximately as i/f4 in accordance with theoretical expectations [9]. As the grazing angle is increased beyond \jtt, a plateau region is reached in which the reflectivity does not vary strongly with grazing angle. As the grazing angle is further increased, the reflectivity is governed by a 'near-vertical incidence' region in which the backscatter increases sharply with grazing angle. The received clutter power Pc may be expressed as (1) where Ky is a constant which involves the various terms in the radar range equation (i.e. antenna gain, transmit
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 137, Pt. F, No. 2, APRIL 1990

Fig. 5

Rough surface backscatter with multipath effect

Equivalent scattering height he is roughly associated with the transitional range R, in Fig. 4 for idealised propagation conditions

this case as [8]

I) sin if/14 (4) where he is the effective height of the scatterer, as illustrated in Fig. 5. According to Reference 8, the falloff in clutter power changes from R~3 to /?~ 7 at the range where | F | 4 = 1. The transitional grazing angle \j/t corresponding to this point is
sin \J/t = X/(4nhe) (5)
81

Pc =

-4

The transitional angle has also been related to average wave height [1] by A , = X/{Kha) sin < (6)

where K is a constant and ha is the average wave height. The experimental data examined by the authors of Reference 1 show an average value of K = 6.3 for S- through X-band, with some variation with radar wave length.
Table 1 : Transitional grazing angle for sea clutter Sea ah, m tfjt at listed frequency, deg L 1.25 GHz 2 3 4 5 6 0.124 0.279 0.496 0.775 1.116 7.00 3.11 1.75 1.12 0.78 S 3.0 GHz 2.91 1.29 0.73 0.47 0.32 C X 6.0 GHz 9.3 GHz 1.46 0.65 0.36 0.23 0.16 0.94 0.42 0.23 0.15 0.10

dent method of estimating the propagation direction, one cannot deduce a grazing-angle law from clutter power measurements based on the apparent range law. Approaches for estimating the propagation grazing angle at each range are discussed in Section 3.2. 3 Sea clutter models including propagation effects

Combining eqns. 5 and 6 results in the relationship he = 0.5ha. An alternative definition is given in Reference 10, where the value he = 0Jha was proposed.* In this paper, we will use an average of these two values to represent the effective scattering height of the sea: 0.6ft,, (7)

Although there is clearly some uncertainty in the definition of he, the clutter calculations presented in this paper are relatively insensitive to its specific value over a rather wide range. Table 1 evaluates \jtt using eqns. 5 and 7. The clutter power range laws described above are expected to occur in nonducting propagation conditions, such as the standard '4/3 earth' atmosphere. However, significant deviations from these ideal range laws are often observed in experimental data. For example, range law exponents as low as 4 have been observed in the region where 7 is expected under the standard atmosphere assumption [11]. Although clutter measurements have historically had many uncertainties with respect to the measurement conditions, the presence of ducting or near-ducting (superrefraction) conditions is the probable cause of high clutter levels at longer ranges. Indeed, certain clutter reflectivity data presented in Reference 11, applying to a period when ducting was present, can be fitted to the grazing angle relationship i//lA. Measurements from the same area, but made later in the day when ducting was absent, provided a grazing angle fit of about i^ 38 . At this point, it is useful to differentiate between the geometrical grazing angle that a straight line from the antenna makes with the surface tangent at a given range, and the angle that the incident energy makes with the same surface tangent at that range. The former angle can be calculated from geometry and is the angle used in the grazing-angle relationships mentioned above. The latter definition, however, is the one that should be used to drive empirical models of reflectivity. In standard atmosphere-type conditions, the two definitions agree when an adjustment is made to the earth radius used in the geometrical calculations. In more complicated refractive conditions, the directions of propagation at the surface is substantially modified and cannot be determined from geometry alone. Thus, without an indepen* This conclusion makes use of the relationship ha = yj(2n)oh, where ah is the RMS wave height. The quantities cited in this paper may be related to other sea indices by the following relationships: Hl/3 = l.6ha, where H 1 / 3 is the 'significant' wave height; S = 3.6y/(ha), where S is the sea state index, and ha is the average wave height in metres. 82

3.1 Propagation conditions over the ocean The influence of the atmosphere on radar propagation is frequently accounted for using an equivalent earth radius model. This depiction is justified if the vertical gradient of the microwave index of refraction is approximately constant, in which case refractive effects can be accounted for using an earth radius multiplier [12]. The radius multiplier k = 4/3 is often used and is referred to as a 'standard atmosphere' condition. Despite this nomenclature, the constant refractivity gradient is exceptional for nearsurface microwave propagation over the ocean. As noted by Hitney et al. [13], low-altitude propagation over the ocean may be subject to surface-based ducts and evaporation ducts. Surface-based ducts generally arise due to temperature inversions which result when a warm, dry air mass lies above a cool, moist air mass. Evaporation ducts, on the other hand, are formed primarily by the rapid decrease in humidity with increasing altitude just above the ocean's surface [14-16]. This humidity gradient is always present over the ocean, but the altitude at which the humidity achieves the nominal ambient value varies greatly. Table 2 lists data developed
Table 2: Average* duct heights for various global regions [from Reference 30] Area descriptor Evap. duct height, m 5.3 7.4 5.8 14.1 11.8 14.7 15-9 15.9 7.8 13.1 SFC-based duct height, m 42 64 86 118 125 202 110 99 74 85 Occurrence SFC duct, % 1.3 2.8 4.1 9.8 13.4 45.5 13.4 13.6 6.2 8.0

Northern Atlantic Eastern Atlantic Canadian Atlantic Western Atlantic Mediterranean Persian Gulf Indian Ocean Tropics Northern Pacific worldwide average

* Averages for surface-based duct are conditioned on the presence of that type of duct. In contrast, averages for evaporation ducts are taken unconditionally.

from Reference 13 concerning average heights of evaporation ducts and surface-based ocean ducts for various areas of the world. In this table, the average heights of surface-based ducts were determined conditioned on the fact that such a duct is present. A separate column in the table lists the frequency of occurrence of the surfacebased duct. The tabulated average heights for evaporation ducts, on the other hand, are taken unconditionally. Surface-based ducts can occur with rather large thicknesses but their frequency of occurrence is much lower than that of evaporation ducts for most areas of the world; the worldwide occurrence of surfacebased ducts is only 8%. Evaporation ducts, on the other hand, occur with much smaller thickness, but they are relatively common. Thus, with regard to frequency of occurrence, the evaporation duct is usually the dominant propagation mechanism affecting sea clutter data. Fig. 6 illustrates three histograms of evaporation duct heights, as determined from the publication of Hitney et
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 137, Pt. F, No. 2, APRIL 1990

al. [13]. Additional duct height statistics have been published by Anderson [17]. A duct height of zero metres on this scale indicates a constant refractivity gradient corresponding to the 4/3 earth radius model. Fig. da applies to worldwide conditions where the average duct

is desirable to account for distortions in the grazing angle in some way. In preparation for later descriptions of methods for incorporating propagation effects in clutter calculations, this section gives a brief discussion of grazing-angle issues. Fig. 7 presents grazing angles against range calculated by a geometric optics (ray tracing) method for a 4/3 earth
1.0 cr

zV ^ J ' '
5= ^

MM

1 1 1 1

h ri = 3 0 m

-20

-10 4

2> 0.1 =

\ \

:
0.01 i i i i Mill 10

4/3 earth (h d = 0 ) 1 1 1 I I |

: i
100

Range, km

Fig. 7 Grazing angles for various evaporation ducts determined from geometric optics
Antenna height = 23 m; duct height = 0 to 30 m

15

10

atmosphere, and for various evaporation ducts having heights hd of 0 to 30 m; the antenna height is 23 m. In this figure, as well as elsewhere in this paper, the calculations have been based on evaporation duct refractive index of refraction profiles defined in Reference 13 as M{h) = M(0) + 0.125& - 0.125/id In (h/h0)
10 20 Duct height, m 30 40

_.LLU

Fig. 6
ence 13)

Histograms of evaporation duct heights (adapted from Refer-

a Worldwide annual average, hd= 13.1 m b Western Atlantic, hd = 14.1 m c Eastern Atlantic, hd = 7.4 m

height is 13.1 m. Fig. 6b applies to the Western Atlantic, which includes latitudes between 20 and 40; in this region the average duct height is 14.1 m. Fig. 6c applies to the Eastern Atlantic, which includes latitudes between 40 and 60; in this region, the average duct height is 7.4 m. As a general rule, duct heights are smaller as one moves from the tropics to higher latitudes. However, even in the Northern Atlantic (latitudes between 60 and 70), the average duct height is 5.3 m. As will be demonstrated subsequently, these average evaporation ducts are large enough to affect the grazing angles, propagation factors and, ultimately, received clutter power. The GIT reflectivity model is believed to represent clutter under standard propagation conditions, since it generally reflects theoretical expectations of roughsurface scattering for a standard atmosphere at lowgrazing angles. The other empirical models provide a fit to mean clutter cross-section measurements obtained under a variety of conditions. Considering the prevalence of evaporation ducts in marine environments, it is likely that those measurements have been averaged over a variety of propagation conditions that include ducting.

3.2 Grazing angle considerations

As previously mentioned, propagation conditions can affect significantly the grazing angle at the sea surface. Due to the sensitivity of the clutter cross section to if/, it
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 137, Pt. F, No. 2, APRIL 1990

where M is the modified index of refraction, h is height above the surface in metres, hd is duct height in metres, and h0 = 0.00015 m. Eqn. 8 applies to neutrally buoyant conditions. Once the gradient dM/dh reaches the standard value of 0.118M units per metre, it is 'frozen' to that value for higher altitudes. For evaporation duct heights that are lower than the antenna height, geometric optics calculations will result in a limiting range RL beyond which no rays strike the surface; the last ray that reaches the surface will be referred to as the limiting ray. This behaviour reflects the fact that geometric optics is too simplified to indicate the coupling of energy into these ducts when the antenna is not in the duct. When the duct height is greater than the antenna height, as with the hd = 30 m case, geometric optics will generate one or more 'trapped' rays, and a limiting range R does not exist. With the exception of the hd = 30 m curve, the curves in Fig. 7 were cut off at approximately RL. The grazing angles for the various ducts shown in Fig. 7 approach asymptotic minima, if/L, at RL. This observation provides some justification for assuming that the energy propagated beyond RL is also associated with the angle \f/L. This assumption is intuitive, for instance, for duct height and frequency combinations that result in the propagation of a single waveguide mode with its associated angle [18]. In the calculations presented in the next section, i//L is assumed at all ranges greater than RL. This assumption has yet to be verified experimentally or with a more rigorous analytic study. Geometric optics results are frequency independent and correspond to propagation in the limit of very high frequencies. As a result, even small ducting structures (such as a 2 m evaporation duct) have the maximum effect on the calculated grazing angles. The accuracy of these angle estimates will depend on the size of the duct
83

1! 1 1

(8)

(or other refractive index structures) as well as the frequency. Although the frequencies at which the geometric optics calculations become inaccurate for each duct height have yet to be determined, angle estimates are expected to be quite good for UHF frequencies and higher. Future studies are expected to yield a better understanding of this issue. The methods of estimating grazing angles and calculating propagation factor values are separately treated in the modelling approaches described below. 3.3 Accounting for propagation effects As illustrated by the curves in Fig. 7, the propagation condition can significantly affect the grazing angle. Accordingly, a simple method of incorporating propagation effects into sea clutter calculations entails evaluating the GIT model with the grazing angles that result from the propagation conditions, rather than with the 4/3 earth grazing angle. The rationale of the procedure rests on the assumption that the GIT model accurately represents grazing angle dependence at small angles. Fig. 8

ing to an average wave height of 1.25 m, as indicated by eqn. 7. The calculations have made use of refractive index profiles for the various ducts that were generated by eqn. 8. The propagation factor calculations were made using

10 -20 Range ,km

i i 111 ^HYB

I I I I

I -

-40

Fig. 9 Two-way propagation factor at S- and X-band for various evaporation duct heights
Antenna height = 23 m; effective clutter height = 0.75 m a S-band b X-band

hd=30m -60

E E - 8 0 -

s
= 0

-20 " 4 10

^2

3 -ioo

I |

I I I II

I I I I I I I

hd=30m

I I I I I

100

Fig. 8 Sea reflectivity calculated using GIT model with grazing angle adjusted for propagation condition ha = 1.25 (S = 4)
a S-band b X-band

the electromagnetic parabolic equation (EMPE) propagation model, which provides a complete solution of a parabolic approximation to the Helmholtz wave equation [19, 20]. Alternative approaches for propagation modelling have been used by others [21]. It is reasonable to expect that sea returns will respond to the propagation factor applicable to near-surface altitudes. Accordingly, a method that incorporates both grazing-angle and propagation factor effects is desirable. As we alluded to earlier, the methods described here use the assumption that the GIT reflectivity calculations apply to a standard atmosphere condition. The philosophy is to remove the 4/3 earth propagation factor from the GIT reflectivity values and to substitute the propagation factor for the specific propagation condition of interest. This results in an adjusted reflectivity aop that is calculated as follows: a*M) = - ^ ^ F*(^)
<JOM]/P) = &*{$p)Fp*{\ltp)

shows the results of this procedure for S- and X-band and a vertically polarised radar at a height of 23 m. The figure shows the GIT model evaluated at the grazing angles calculated for duct heights of 0, 2, 4, 10, 20 and 30 m, and with an average wave height of 1.25 m (sea state 4). The zero duct height is the GIT model applying to the standard 4/3 earth condition. The upper broken curve is the HYB model. It can be seen in this example that a simple grazing-angle adjustment has a significant influence on the calculated reflectivity, bringing the GIT model prediction closer to the HYB predictions. At lower sea states (e.g. ha = 0.25 m), however, the adjusted GIT predictions fall significantly below (20 dB or more) the HYB predictions. This effect will be evident in the results presented below. While the method of adjustment described above appears to have practical advantages, the procedure fails to account for variation in the propagation factor which can be as important as the variations in the grazing angle. Fig. 9 provides examples of the two-way propagation factor (i.e. power relative to free space) for an S-band and X-band radar and for several evaporation duct heights. The assumed altitude is 0.75 m, correspond84

(9)
(10)

In eqn. 9, ao{^/) is the reflectivity determined from the GIT model evaluated at the grazing angle \j/, and F*(\f/) is the propagation factor for the 4/3 earth model, evaluated at a range corresponding to the grazing angle ^. In eqn. 10, Fp(i/jp) is the propagation factor for ducted propagation, evaluated at a range where the grazing angle is \j/p. In our calculations, \\ip is determined by optical ray-trace data, such as shown in Fig. 7. Beyond the limiting range, we assume that the grazing angle is equal to the asymptotic values noted at the limiting range. aop(\j/p) is the adjusted reflectivity that accounts for variations in both the grazing angle and the propagation factor. The reflectivity calculation indicated by eqns. 9 and 10 involves the ratio F*/F*, which causes the resulting answer to be relatively insensitive to the precise height that is assumed for the clutter. This assertion can be understood by noting that at the low altitudes associated with effective clutter heights, F* and F have a similar
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 137, Pt. F, No. 2, APRIL 1990

relative dependence on altitude, independent of the propagation condition. For convenience, we shall refer to the calculation method indicated by eqns. 9 and 10 as the reflectivity and propagation (REPROP) method.
-20 -40
= " HYB 1
1 IT i 1 1 1 1

I I I I 11

-60 -80
-

-100 -a
ion 120 l

N
" hd J

hd = 3 0 m ~ ""-^ 10 _
i l

1
1

1 J. 1 1 HI2rMsl1OT2O M
1 1T Mill
I-HYB

100 -

I II IIII

E *E m
o >?

-40

-60 -80 -100 -b 120 1ZU

20

h d = 30 m "" hd-

etl ecti

>

2>
4 \

20
10

cc

1 1

1 1

1 1111

10 _ 1 1~T1 1 111

I I I I 11 100 I I I III

~.

-40
U

HYB
h

-60 -80 -100 _

-c T20. 1 1

d ==

"i

0
^ ^

hd = 30 m * " ^ 20 \
4 10

1 1j

. 1 1 III

10
Range, km

I I I II I 100

Fig . 10
b />, c /i(

Reflectivity at 3 GHz calculated by REPROP method

Figs. 10 and 11 illustrate reflectivity values that are generated by using REPROP method. The antenna height is assumed to be 23 m, and the polarisation is vertical. The curves have been arbitrarily terminated at the lesser of ij/L or 0.1. Each figure includes separate plots for average wave heights of ha = 0.25, 1.25, and 2.5 m. The figures also list equivalent sea states (S) according to the footnote in Section 2.2. These values correspond to sea states 1.8, 4.0 and 5.5, respectively. The results of the HYB model (upper dashed curve), and the unmodified GIT model (lower dashed curves labelled hd = 0) are also included for comparison. Fig. 10 demonstrates that the reflectivity calculated from the GIT model is significantly increased when modified for ducting effects, and that the increase is most significant at distant ranges. Reflectivity calculated with the REPROP method is generally less than the corresponding values calculated with only a grazing angle adjustment (Fig. 8). The HYB results shown on each graph make use of grazing angles from the 4/3 earth atmosphere. At the lowest sea states (part a in each figure), the predictions are well below the HYB curves. At higher seat states (parts b and c), the reflectivity values approach, and in some cases exceed, the HYB curves. The HYB reflectivity values are typically used as an average over a variety of propagation conditions, while the GIT model values are thought to apply to standard atmosphere propagation conditions. If this conjecture is true, then one would expect the REPROP curves to fall above and below the HYB data. The trend in Fig. 10 is certainly in that direction, but there is still considerable differences between the HYB and the REPROP curves at the lowest sea states. These discrepancies are discussed further in Section 4.

a / i , = 0.25 m (S as 1.8)

= 1.25 m (S 4.0)
= 2.50 m (S 5.7) 40 _ I ^^ i ^ i i i I I I ^
I I I I I I I L

1
-40 -60

1 1 1 I I I II
HYB **

I I 111

0 -40 -80
\

hd = 30m -

_ _ _
hd =

\
0

2 0 _

-80 -100 _ _a
ion

30 m

h(j

^.

-a
-120 40 0 -40 -80 i i
M i l

S^20\/l
\ 1 11

I I I

i^2 4 \ n

IZU <5ft

| I I I II
10

I I
h

10 _ I I I I I II 100 I MINI

/u
%

1
hd

1 1Mill
^ HYB

-40

E
o

Fleet ivit

>?

-60 -80
_ b

=c

^ ^ ^ ^

d = 30m -^ '

10

**

""

cc

1
on X)

1 1 I Mill
10

I I I I II

100

1 hd = 0

-40 -60 -80 -

Ml^^

1 1 Mill

HYB 2N

I I I I I II
= 30 m _

4 1

-100
1 on 1/U

1 I

Mill
10
R a n g e , knr

1 M 1 1 1 1 100

10 Range, km

Fig. 12 model

Relative clutter power calculated using REPROP

clutter

Fifi|. 11
b h, c h

Reflectivity at 9 GHz calculated by REPROP method

s l.8) a h , = 0.25 m (S t = 1.25 m (S 4.0) = 2.50 m (S 5.7)

ha = 1.25 m (S 4.0) a 3 GHz b 6 GHz c 9 GHz

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 137, Pt. F, No. 2, APRIL 1990

85

3.4 Received clutter power The rate of falloff of clutter power may be conveniently examined by calculating a normalised power (Pcn): Pcn = PJPc(ref) (11) where Pc is the absolute clutter power and Pc(ref) is that determined under some reference set of conditions. The normalisation by Pc{ref) makes Pcn independent of radar specific variables (such as transmit power and antenna gain). For the comparison presented in this section, the reference condition is defined as the received clutter power in a 4/3 earth atmosphere and at a range of 10 km. The ratio given by eqn. 11 may be expressed alternatively as

<Top(ref)RVR?ef

(12)

where aop(R, if/d) refers to the REPROP reflectivity determined at range R, aop{ref) is the same variable corresponding to the reference condition (4/3 earth and R = 10 km) and Rref is the reference range (10 km). Fig. 12 illustrates the range dependence of Pcn for the REPROP method at frequencies of 3, 6 and 9 GHz. Individual curves are shown for the 4/3 earth atmosphere, and for duct heights of 2, 4, 10, 20 and 30 m. The oscillations that are seen at the higher frequencies and duct heights are due to multimode interference effects that arise because the larger ducts support more than one waveguide mode. The depths of the nulls are not accurately represented due to the relatively coarse range steps used in the calculations (20 steps per decade, equally spaced on a logarithmic scale). 4 Discussion

The approach for predicting clutter levels in evaporation ducting conditions presented here can potentially be applied in grazing-angle regimes where the empirical models are not advertised to work, i.e. below 0.1. The lower limit on the grazing angle that is intended to be used in the models is a result of the fact that the experimental observations on which they are based rarely include such small angles. Thus, empirically speaking, the angular dependence of the reflectivity below 0.1 is an unknown. In most cases, these small angles correspond to longer ranges and smaller reflectivity and propagation factor values such that the clutter signal levels are quite low. Nevertheless, an investigator should be aware of the speculative nature of reflectivities corresponding to such small grazing angles. The REPROP method can potentially be applied to the full frequency range over which the associated reflectivity models were originally intended. The range of applicability of the GIT model was given as 1 to 100 GHz; the range of the data base [5, 6] used in the HYB model is 0.5 to 35 GHz. The REPROP method has yet to be tested over such large frequency ranges. In principle, the REPROP method should be applicable for these frequency ranges. However, although grazing angles derived from geometric optics are sufficiently accurate, the EMPE propagation model has yet to be tested against other numerical procedures for frequencies above 20 GHz. Also, propagation becomes increasingly sensitive to atmospheric microstructure as the frequency is increased and, as a result, using the 'mean' refractivity profile defined by eqn. 8 to represent the environment may be questionable for such high frequencies. The
86

9 GHz examples presented in this paper are expected to be free of these complications, but calculations at much higher frequencies should be approached with caution. It is likely that the unmodified GIT model underpredicts reflectivity at small grazing angles under environmental conditions that deviate from a standard atmosphere. The adjustments to the GIT model suggested in this paper tend to increase the reflectivity values, thus improving their agreement with those of the HYB model. But these adjustments generally fall short of the HYB predictions, particularly at low frequencies and sea states. At 3 GHz, for example, the REPROP curves of Figs. 10 and 11 are well below the HYB results for ranges beyond 1 km. At shorter ranges, however, both REPROP and HYB models nearly converge at a range consistent with \J/t as defined in eqn. 6. In Figs. 10a and lla, the discrepancies between the HYB model and the REPROP and GIT models occur at ranges where propagation is not expected to be important; this is supported by the fact that the GIT and REPROP results are in agreement at these ranges for all of the duct heights considered. Thus, the discrepancies arise from differences in the reflectivities provided by the GIT and HYB models at low sea states. An attempt to shed light on this issue using 3 GHz, vertically polarised clutter measurements is described in Reference 22. That study suggests that the GIT model is providing the correct low sea state reflectivities, at least at 3 GHz. The predictive capability of the REPROP clutter model has only begun to be validated using measured signal and environmental data. For the particular case of S-band clutter behaviour in coastal environmental conditions, calculations using the REPROP model have been compared with some experimental data [22]. The refractive conditions during these tests varied substantially with range. As demonstrated in Reference 22, the REPROP model performed quite well in this particular instance. 5 Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the contributions of S.A. Rudie, who developed and ran computer software in support of this study. This work was supported by the NATO AAW Program Office under task 3-1-18. 6 References

1 HORST, M.M, DYER, F.B., and TULEY, M.T.: 'Radar sea clutter model'. Int. Conf. on Antennas and propagation, IEE Conf. Pub. 169, Pt 2, 1978 2 FLETCHER, C : 'Clutter subroutine'. Technology Service Corp., Silver Spring, MD, USA, Memorandum TSC-W84-01/cad, 17th August 1978 3 SITTROP, H.: 'Characteristics of clutter and targets at X- and Kuband'. AGARD Conf. Proc. No. 197, 'New techniques and systems in radar'. The Hague, The Netherlands, June 1977, pp. 28.1-28.27 4 BARTON, D.K.: 'Radars. Vol. 5' (The Raytheon Co., 1975) 5 RIVERS, W., NATHANSON, F.E., and BLAKE, L.: 'Shipboard surveillance radar environment study'. Technology Service Corp., Silver Spring, MD, USA, Report TSC-W25-8, 25th April, 1977 6 NATHANSON, F.E.: 'Radar design principles' (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1969) 7 KATZIN, M.: 'On the mechanisms of radar sea clutter', Proc. IRE, 1957, 45, (1), pp. 44-54 8 LONG, M.W.: 'Radar reflectivity of land and sea' (Artech House, 1983) 9 PEAKE, W.H.: 'Theory of radar return from rough terrain'. 1959 IRE Convention Record, 1959, 7, pp. 27-41 10 STEBEN, J.O., and URKOWITZ, H.: 'An improved model for simulating radar sea return, including sea spikes', IEE Conf. Pub. 281, Radar '87, 19th-21st October 1987, London, pp. 466-470 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 137, Pt. F, No. 2, APRIL 1990

11 DYER, F.B., GARY, M.J., and EWELL, G.W.: 'Some comments on the characterization of radar sea return'. Proc. Int. IEEE Symp. on Antennas and Propagation, Atlanta, 1974, pp. 323-326 12 SCELLING, J.C., BURROWS, C.R., and FERRELL, E.B.: 'Ultrashort-wave propagation', Proc. IRE, 1933, 21, pp. 440-461 13 HITNEY, H.V., BARRIOS, A.E., and LINDEM, G.E.: 'Engineer's refractive effects prediction system (EREPS). Revision 1.00, User's manual'. Document AD 203443 Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, July 1988 14 JESKE, H.: 'Die Ausbreitung elektromagnetischer Wellen im cm-bis m-Band iiber dem Meer unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der meteorologicschen Bedingungen in der maritimen Grenzschicht'. Hamburger Geophysikalische Einzelschriften (De Gruyter, Hamburg, 1965) 15 GOSSARD, E.E.: 'The height distribution of refractive index structure parameter in an atmosphere being modified by spatial transition at its lower boundary', Radio ScL, 1978,13, (3), pp. 489-500 16 PAULUS, R.A.: 'Practical application of an evaporation duct model', Radio ScL, 1985, 20, (4), pp. 887-896 17 ANDERSON, K.D.: 'Radar measurements at 16.5 GHz in the oceanic evaporation duct', IEEE Trans., 1989, AP-37, (1), pp. 100-106 18 BRECKHOVSKIKH, L.M.: 'Waves in layered media' (Academic Press, New York, 1980), Chap. 5 19 DOCKERY, G.D.: 'Modeling electromagnetic wave propagation in the troposphere using the parabolic equation', IEEE Trans., 1988, AP-36, (10), pp. 1464-1470 20 KO, H.W., SARI, J.W., and SKURA, J.P.: 'Anomalous microwave propagation through atmospheric ducts', The Johns Hopkins APL Tech. Dig., 1983,4, (2), pp. 12-16 21 BAUMGARTNER, G.B., HITNEY, H.V., and RAPPERT, R.A.: 'Duct propagation modelling for the integrated-refractive prediction system (IREPS)', IEE Proc. F, Commun., Radar & Signal Process., 1983, 30, (7), pp. 630-642 22 DOCKERY, G.D.: 'A method for modelling sea surface clutter in complicated propagation environments', IEE Proc. F, Radar & Signal Process., 1990, 37, (2), pp. 73-79

(b) Adjustment factors Ga = fl*/(l + 4) Gu = exp {0.25 cos <t>{\ - 2.8i/^- 0 - 3 3 } Gw = [1-94KW/(1 + Kw/15.4)] (c) Definitions for adjustment factors q = 1.93A"004 a = (14.4A + 5.5)^hJX 7.1.3 Auxiliary equations ha = 4.52 x l O " 3 ^ 5 Vw = 3.16S08 7.7.4 Units and symbols o0{H), GO{V) = reflectivity for H and V polarisation (dB m 2 /m 2 ) ha = average wave height, m k = radar wavelength, m ijj = grazing angle, radians Vw = wind velocity, m/s 0 = look direction relative to wind direction, radians 7.2 Hybrid sea clutter model The hybrid (HYB) model largely conforms to the data that were first published in Reference 6 and later elaborated on in Reference 5. The model defined here takes into account the fact that these data have been averaged over all wind directions. A transitional grazing angle is based on the definition in References 1 and 4. A polarisation adjustment has been taken directly from Reference 1, which was developed as an empirical fit to the data in Reference 6. 7.2.7 Mean reflectivity where oo is the mean reflectivity in units of dB m 2 /m 2 and <ro(ref) is a reference reflectivity applying to S (sea state) = 5, I/J (grazing angle) = 0.1, P (polarisation) = V, and <f> (look direction) = 0 (upwind). Kg, Ks, Kp, and Kd are decibel adjustments for arbitrary values of S, ij/, P, and (j>. 7.2.2 Grazing angle adjustment (Kg): Define a reference grazing angle \j/r, and a transitional angle \pt as follows:

Appendix

7.1 GIT sea clutter model 7.1.1 Frequency range = 1 to 10 GHz (a) Reflectivity equations aJLH) = 10 log [3.9 x l ( r 6 ^ 0 - 4 G f l G u G w ]

ao(H) - 1.05 In (ha + 0.015) + 1.09 In (X) + 1.27 In (il/ + 0.0001) + 9.70 (3 to 10 GHz) ao{H) - 1.73 In (ha + 0.015) + 3.76 In (X) + 2.46 In 0/f + 0.0001) + 22.2 (below 3 GHz) where ao(H) and <JO(V) are the reflectivities evaluated at H and V polarisations, respectively. (b) Adjustment factors Ga = a 4 /(l + a4) Gu = exp {0.2 cos (j>{\ - 2.8A)(/l + 0.015)--4} Gw = [1.94KW/(1 + Kw/15.4)] (c) Definitions for adjustment factors q = 1.1/(2 + 0.015) 4 a = (14.4/1 + 5.5)ij/hJX 7.1.2 Frequency range = 10 to 100 GHz (a) Reflectivity equations ao{H) = 10 log [5.78 x 1 0 - 6 ^ - 5 4 7 G a G u G J 0(V) = <*o- 1-38 In (ha) + 3.43 In (A) + 1.31 In 0/0 + 18.55
IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 137, Pt. F, No. 2, APRIL 1990

where ah is the RMS wave height. (a) for ij/t ^ \\ir 0 for \\i< ij/r 8 A/'Ar ^or Ar ^ A ^ Ar ^20 log i/',/i/'r 4- 10 log \jj/\jjt for \j/t<\jj< 30 (fc) for (A, < i/v [0 for il/ ^tj/r

7.2.3 Sea state adjustment Ks = 5(S - 5)

87

where S is the sea state. The relationship between sea state and average wave height is stated in Section 7.2.7. 7.2.4 Polarisation adjustment: With vertical polarisation, the polarisation adjustment Kp is zero. With horizontal polarisation, Kp is based on the relationships in Reference 1 as follows: 1.7 In (ha + 0.015) - 3.8 In X

where <p is the radar look angle with respect to the wind direction, defined such that (f> = 0 when looking upwind.
7.2.6 Reference reflectivity

0{ref) =

[24.4 log/-65.2 / ^ 12.5 [3.25 l o g / - 4 2 . 0 / > 12.5

7.2.7 Auxiliary equations

- 2.5 In

+ 0.0001 ) - 22.2 / < 3 GHz

Vw = 3.2S 08 (wind velocity) oh = 0.03IS2 (RMS wave height) ha = 0.08S2 (average wave height)
7.2.5 Units

1.1 In (ha + 0.015) - 1.1 In X - 1.3 In + 0.0001 J - 9.7 3 10

1.4 In (ha) - 3.4 In X - 1 . 3 In ^ - 1 8 . 6 where ha is the average wave height in metres. 7.2.5 Wind direction adjustment 1.7 log y ) ( c o s (/> -

a0: dB m 2 /m 2 X, <TZ, ha: m ij/: degrees Vw: m/s /:GHz

Kg,Kp,Kd:dB

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 137, Pt. F, No. 2, APRIL 1990