Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6



Andrew S. Paine, DERA Malvern, United Kingdom.

Abstract to another STAP monopulse approach that was derived by

extending the technique derived in [7].
An adaptive monopulse technique has recently been
developed to obtain target direction estimates with Summary of the Minimum Variance
minimum error variance. In this paper the 'minimum Adaptive Monopulse scheme for spatial
variance adaptive monopulse' technique (MVAM) is adaptive beamforming
extended to space-time adaptive processing (STAP).
Simulations of slow moving targets demonstrate the We consider a large planar phased array of elements.
advantages of using MVAM rather than other space-time Groups of element outputs are summed into subarrays and
adaptive monopulse techniques for the estimation of target it is these subarray outputs that are digitised for formation
direction and Doppler frequency. of the adaptive sum and difference beams (Figure 1).
In [9,10] it was shown that for a sum beam
Introduction constructed with subarray weight ' ', the azimuth and
elevation difference beam weights producing the
Monopulse techniques allow the direction of arrival of minimum variance estimation errors could each be
a target to be estimated to better than a beamwidth expressed by formulae of the type: -
accuracy from a single time sample of data. If adaptive
beamforming is employed the sum and difference beams -
= k 2Q-IZW, +
are distorted and the usual monopulse formulae produce
errors. These errors are greatest for scenarios causing main @'e(Re {eHG-'e})-'(f
- k 2 Re {eHG"Zoq})
beam distortion because the monopulse formula is
dependent on a constant ratio between the difference and where 4 = Q + k2 Z + AwsumwsumH
sum beam gradients at the look direction. Main beam
distortion can result from adaptive processing to suppress
and e = (C I w,,, I cq)
main beam jamming or clutter. This paper is concerned
with the main beam distortion that results from using where 'Q' is given by: -
STAP to suppress clutter and allow the detection of slow
moving targets.
A number of papers have been written on monopulse
correction schemes which account for the distortion
produced through adaptive beamforming, to produce an
improved estimate of the target direction [6,7,13].
However in the previous work, target parameter estimation
noise has not been considered in detail. In [9,10] a
minimum variance adaptive monopulse scheme was and the constraint matrix 'C' is given by:-
developed which gave the unbiased target direction
estimate least prone to the effects of noise. It was shown
that without low sidelobe beamforming of either sum or
difference beams the minimum variance solution was (3)
essentially the same as existing monopulse solutions such
as [6] for spatial adaptive beamforming and [13] for
STAP. However, when low sidelobe beamforming was
used for either sum or difference beams there could be a
marked difference between the performance of minimum
variance adaptive monopulse and other techniques.
In this paper, MVAM is extended to a STAP In equations (1) - (3), 'KO"' is the subarray data
architecture and used to find refined direction and Doppler covariance matrix, 'I' is the look direction vector, 'Fx'
estimates for a slow moving target. MVAM is compared and 'Fy' are the gradient look direction vectors, '2' and

0 (2000IEEE)
‘k2’ are the pattern fitting matrix and loading term for the described in [lo]. The most important thing to note from
low sidelobe producing Penalty fimction method [2], ‘ w , ’ equation (4) is that it is not easy to define low sidelobes
is the required quiescent low sidelobe weighting, and ‘f‘ for difference beams when there is significant mainlobe
and ‘cq’ are the right hand side values and quiescent distortion in the sum and difference beams. Equation (4)
agrees with the necessary condition that addition of any
pattern constraint satisfying ‘ Re(CHw)= f ’ for the low
multiple of the sum beam weights to the difference beam
sidelobe producing ‘quiescent constraint’ method [ 111. weights has no effect on the monopulse performance as
can be seen from the equation for the monopulse ratio: -
The formal derivation of equations (1) - (3) is given in
[101 although a more intuitive, albeit simplified, derivation
difference beam response
is given in [ 9 ] . monopulse ratio =
sum beam response (5)
\ I

In [lo] it was observed that if the sum beam noise (0, + A ~ o , ) -~ az d H z

terms in equation (2) are large, then a power minimisation -
- --
H +A
involving the matrix ‘Q’ will tend towards a solution that OSHZ 0, z
imposes the look direction null constraints ‘aaZH I = 0’
and ‘a,: I = 0’. In [8] simulations have shown that the The constant ‘A’ in equation (5) is just an additional
simple strategy of placing look direction nulls in the bias term added to the data, which is easily removed and
difference beams can improve target direction estimates has no effect on the target direction estimate.
for a spatial adaptive beamformer.
Due to the complexities of imposing a low sidelobe
Low sidelobe beamforming requirements condition during severe mainlobe distortion, the difference
beams derived in this paper do not have ‘low sidelobes’.
However, in [2] it has been shown that there are
Although the merits of low sidelobe sum beam advantages in imposing low response sidelobes for STAP
forming are well known there has been little work
detection beams to reduce sidelobe clutter and deception
investigating the merits of low sidelobe difference
jamming. In this paper, a low sidelobe condition is
beamforming in the open literature. Although it is imposed on the STAP sum response pattern but not on the
reasonable to assume that low sidelobe quiescent
STAP difference response patterns.
difference beams will reduce sidelobe clutter and
deception jamming whilst maintaining the monopulse
response, the effect during severe mainlobe distortion is Extension of adaptive monopulse to STAP
less clear. Although this statement may appear confusing
it becomes clearer if the definition of low sidelobe The formal extension of the adaptive monopulse
beamforming is investigated. For the sum beam the equations to STAP is obtained by replacing components
requirement for low sidelobes can be thought of in terms with ‘m’ elements with ‘mp’ elements (where ‘m’ is the
of detection performance. A fixed gain on the required number of subarrays and ‘p’ the number of taps).
target whilst minimising the gain from unwanted sidelobe Compound matrices with two rows for azimuth and
sources results in the low sidelobe beamforming elevation beams are replaced with three rows to include
requirement. However for the difference beam, low the additional ‘Doppler difference beam’. In this paper the
sidelobe beamforming cannot be thought of in terms of sum beam weights are derived using the Penalty function
detection performance. An appropriate low sidelobe method to obtain low sidelobes. The difficulty in
definition for the difference beam is that the contribution extending the Penalty function method to STAP is in
of error to the target direction estimates from sidelobe deciding the form of the pattern-fitting matrix ‘Z’. In this
sources must be as small as possible. Following from the paper a formulation for ‘Z’ is used which was derived on
work in [lo], it can be shown that noise errors for the the requirement that pattern-fitting weighting is
direction estimates of a unit power signal caused by a unit independent of Doppler frequency [2].
power sidelobe interference can be approximated by the
amplitude square of the beam pattern produced using the However, it should be noted that STAP processing is
subarray weights: - usually performed on a small part of the coherent
processing interval (CPI), which is preceded or followed
(4) by Doppler processing. Therefore the monopulse ratio
calculated from the range/Doppler map cells is effectively
a ratio of beam outputs calculated from taps over the
The terms ‘ R ’ and ‘ p ’ are the compound difference whole coherent processing interval (CPI). If the adaptive
STAP weights are constant over the CPI, the expression
beam weights and monopulse equation selection matrix as
for the monopulse ratio can still be evaluated as the ratio

of the adaptive STAP sub-CPI patterns (the Doppler Doppler cell 1 with normalised frequency 1/16 = 0.0625).
processing part effectively cancels). However if the STAP The monopulse ratio data was calculated as the ratio of the
weights are updated during the CPI, the monopulse ratio complex outputs from the difference and sum
must be calculated as the ratio of the effective beam rangeDoppler maps at the detection cells. The corrected
pattern with the Doppler processing. In this paper it is monopulse formula together with ‘multistep’ corrective
assumed that the STAP weights are constant over the CPI. iteration [lo] was performed and the refined target
direction estimates and Doppler estimates were calculated.
Description of simulations The estimates were accepted provided they lie in the 3dB
sum beam width and the final estimate was calculated as
The simulations were performed using in-house the overall average. This averaging technique has a similar
software for a scenario involving an airbome side looking effect to that of Mosca [5] because both techniques reduce
array radar at an altitude of 600m. Clutter retums were the contribution of poor estimates in the final average
generated using another in-house model. The radar beam estimate.
was steered to 60 degrees azimuth and zero elevation. A
number of targets were located at 62 degrees azimuth and Simulation results
0.5 degrees declination at different range gates with a
normalised Doppler frequency of 0.05625. The targets had In Figure 5 and Figure 6, the rangeDoppler map and
powers of -25dB relative to thermal noise before pulse target direction estimates using MVAM and FCAM are
compression. The side looking array (Figure 1) contained given for a simulation without clutter. As expected the
420 elements and 36 subarrays arranged in a chequerboard slow targets are easily extracted and a good target
configuration to allow DPCA processing at the subarray direction estimate is found. However when clutter is
level [2]. The elements were given uniform weights included, simple MTI clutter rejection filtering followed
(Figure 2) but the subarrays were designed to allow a good by adaptive beamforming (MTI/ABF) is unable to extract
approximation of -3OdB Taylor weights across the array the slow target from the main beam clutter (Figure 7) and
(Figure 3, Figure 4). A medium pulse repetition frequency no target direction estimates can be found.
(PRF) of 15kHz was simulated with a sampling rate of
1MHz. A single sample per pulse duration leads to 100 A four tap STAP processor is then employed to reject
unambiguous range gates. The platform velocity was the clutter but maintain gain on slow moving targets. The
165.00993mi1, which was chosen to give the correct first simulation does not use a low sidelobe technique,
velocityPRF ratio for DPCA processing between the inner which is evident from the high sidelobes in the sum
subarrays. azimuthIDoppler and elevation/Doppler cuts (Figure 8 and
Figure 9). In Figure 10 and Figure 11, as predicted there is
The time series data was processed using a spatial little difference between the MVAM and FCAM schemes
adaptive processor with a 3-stage MTI filter or a 4-tap when low sidelobe beamforming is not used. The slight
STAP processor. The covariance matrix in each case was difference is the target estimates is in fact due to the OdB
calculated without the first 10 range gates to omit diagonal loading used in the covariance matrix estimation.
adaptation near the altitude line. Only one of the target If no loading were used, the estimates would have been
range gates was included in the adaptation to allow identical.
realistic modelling of target cancellation. The
rangeDoppler map consisting of 16 Doppler bins and 100 In the second simulation, the sum beam pattern is
range gates was formed for the sum beam and a simple derived using the Penalty function technique to obtain a
constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection test was low sidelobe beam pattern with uniform gain at all
performed. Target detections were identified as those cells Doppler +frequencies. The sum azimutWDoppler and
over 13dB in the CFAR detection map. elevationDoppler cuts are shown in Figure 12 and Figure
13. In Figure 14 and Figure 15, the target direction and
The azimuth, elevation and ‘Doppler’ difference frequency estimates are shown. It can be seen that while
beams were then calculated using the minimum variance the MVAM estimates are still good, the FCAM estimates
adaptive monopulse technique or an extension to STAP of are spread out. In fact only 9 out of a possible 17 estimates
the low sidelobe adaptive monopulse technique reported in fell into the valid estimate region for FCAM whereas all
[7]. The latter technique uses constraints that are not estimates were valid for MVAM. The averages target
related to the sum beam so is referred in this paper as the parameter estimates were [-0.823, 62.345, 0.01492471 for
‘fixed constraint adaptive monopulse’ technique (FCAM). FCAM, [-0.497, 62.026, 0.05690791 for MVAM and the
The expansion point for the Doppler difference beam was actual parameters were [-OS, 62, 0.056251 (NB The look
taken as the frequency of the rangeDoppler detection cell direction parameters were [0,60,0.0625]).
determined in the sum beam detection process (in this case

Conclusions Munich, Germany, 15'h-1 7'h September 1998, pp907-
The minimum variance adaptive monopulse technique 10 Paine A.S., Minimum variance monopulse technique
has now been extended to a space-time adaptive processor. for an adaptive phased array radar, 1EE Proceedings
It was shown that there are no advantages in using MVAM o f Radar, Sonar and Navigation, Volume 145, No 6,
in place of other adaptive monopulse techniques when low December 1998, pp374-380.
sidelobe beamforining is not used. However, when low
sidelobe beam forming is used there can be significant 11 Richardson P.G., A Quiescent Pattern Control
performance advantage in using MVAM when targets are Strategyfor Adaptive Arrays. Proc EUSIPCO 94, Vol
close to the severe main beam distortion that can result 111, pp 1301-1304.
from adapting to suppress main beam clutter (this occurs 12 Richardson P.G., Subarray designfor large adaptive
for slow moving targets). Similar advantages can occur arrays. Microwaves and RF 96 Conference
when adapting in the presence of main beam jamming, e.g. Proceedings, pp.45-5 1.
see [9] or [IO].
13 Ward J., Hatke G.F., An Efficient Rooting Algorithm
For Simultaneous Angle And Doppler Estimation
References With Space-Time Adaptive Processing Radar,
Proceedings of ASILOMAR-29, IEEE 1996.
Herbert G.M., A new projection based algorithmfor
low sidelobe pattern synthesis in adaptive arrays.
Radar 97, IEE Conference Publication No. 449, 0 British Crown Copyright 2000/DERA. Published with
October 1997, pp396-400. the permission of the controller of Her Britannic Majesty's
Stationery Office.
Herbert G.M., Richardson P.G., A constrained
adaptive pattern synthesis techniquefor space-time
filtering architectures, Proceedings of the
Intemational Radar Symposium 1998, Volume 11,
Munich, Germany, 1Sth-17*September 1998, pp857-
Hughes D.T. and McWhirter J.G., Penalty function
method for sidelobe control in least squares adaptive
beamforming. SPIE Proceedings, Vol2563, 1995,
Klemm R., Antenna designfor adaptive airborne
MTI, IEE Conference, Radar 92, p296-299.
Mosca E., Angle Estimation in Amplitude Comparison
Monopulse Systems, IEEE Trans. On Aerospace &
Electronic Systems, Vol. AES-5, (2), March 1969,
~ ~ 2 0 512.
Nickel U., Monopulse estimation with adaptive
arrays. IEE Proceedings-F, Vol 140, No 5, October
1993, ~ ~ 3 0 3 - 3 0 8 .
Nickel U., Monopulse Estimation with Subarray-
Adaptive Arrays and Arbitrary Sum- and Difi^erence -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Beams. IEE Proc Radar, Sonar and Navigation, Vol
143, NO4, August 1996, pp 232-238. Crosses show subarray centres
White lines to help identify subarray borders
Nickel U., Performance of corrected ada tive
monopulse procedures, Proceedings of 5 ,(I
Intemational Conference on Radar Systems (Radar Figure 1: Antenna with 36 subarrays used in
99), Brest, France, 17'h - 2 1 St May 1999. simulations
Paine A.S., A minimum variance monopulse technique
for severe main beam jamming, Proceedings of the
International Radar Symposium 1998, Volume 11,


Figure 6: Monopulse target direction estimates for

Figure 2 : Sum beam pattern for uniform subarray clutter free example

Figure 3: Tapered subarray weighting
Figure 7: Range Doppler map for ABF/MTI when
clutter present

-1." ."/ nr ,"

U /, , ,

Figure 4: Sum beam pattern for tapered subarray Figure 8: Elevation cut ofthe azimuthiDoppler STAP
weighting response (no low sidelobe beamforming)

Figure 5 : Range/Doppler map and monopulse
estimates for ABF/MTI for clutter free Figure 9: Azimuth cut of the elevation/Doppler STAP
example response (no low sidelobe beamforming)


~ ~~
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
clwotfon ( d q m )

Figure 10: Monopulse azimuth/elevation estimates

without low sidelobe beamforming (OdB
loading used)

Figure 13: Azimuth cut of the elevation/Doppler STAP

response for low sidelobe beamforming and
uniform Doppler response

Only 9117

Figure 11: Monopulse Doppler/elevation estimates

without low sidelobe beamforming (OdB -8 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
d W o n (deqrnr)
loading used)
Figure 14: Monopulse azimuth/elevation estimates with
low sidelobe beamforming

-6 -4 -1 0 2 4 6
clsvDtlon (degrees)

Figure 15: Monopulse Doppler/elevation estimates with

low sidelobe beamforming

0British Crown Copyright 2000/DERA. Published with

Figure 12: Elevation cut of the azimuth/Doppler STAP
the permission of the controller of Her Britannic Majesty's
response for low sidelobe beamforming and
Stationery Office.
uniform Doppler response