1 / 18

Ground-Based FMCW radar during IOP3,4

Ground-Based FMCW radar during IOP3,4. H.P. Marshall, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Univ. of Colorado Gary Koh, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab, New Hampshire Rick Forster, Department of Geography, University of Utah. Outline. Brief Overview of FMCW theory

keiki
Download Presentation

Ground-Based FMCW radar during IOP3,4

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ground-Based FMCW radar during IOP3,4 H.P. Marshall, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, Univ. of Colorado Gary Koh, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Lab, New Hampshire Rick Forster, Department of Geography, University of Utah

  2. Outline • Brief Overview of FMCW theory • Processing / Calibration • Example radar profiles / snow pit data • Comparison with in-situ electrical measurements • Preliminary modeling results • Conclusions / Future Work

  3. FMCW Theory • Linear frequency chirp transmitted (T) • Received signal (R) “mixed” with transmitted wave before signal acquisition • Recorded signal contains the sum and difference frequencies from T + R • Frequency differences from reflectors linearly related to the distance to target • T=dF*pl/*BW • D=T*c/(2*sqrt(e))

  4. Signal Processing • Vertical resolution of signal ~ (pl Fs)/(BW*N) • High-resolution FFT – N > number of samples • Zero-padding, Welch window, no overlap wi=1-((n-N/2)/(N/2))^2 • Optimal (Wiener) Filtering did not improve images

  5. Calibration • Metal reflectors placed at known depths • Accurate depth scale, will also be used to calculate attenuation • Each trace normalized by integrated psd from horn to snow surface • Each scan normalized by integrated psd from known reflector on surface (shovel handle)

  6. Berthud Pass, February 22, 2003

  7. Michigan Ridge, North Park, Feb 21,2003

  8. LSOS March 25, 2003, Ku-Band (14-18 GHz)

  9. LSOS March 25, 2003, X-Band (8-12 GHz)

  10. LSOS March 25, 2003 – C-Band (2-6 GHz)

  11. Quantitatively Relating FMCW signal to physical properties • FMCW => in-situ dielectric properties (Finish snowfork) • In-situ properties => physical properties (e.g. Sihvola et al, 1985)

  12. Relationship of FMCW signal to in-situ electrical and manual measurements

  13. Density profile vs radar

  14. In-Situ Dielectric Properties

  15. Dielectric properties vs integrated psd

  16. Model results with unsmoothed, original data

  17. Density profile calculated from modeled dielectric properties

  18. Conclusions / Future Work • Find best model for wide range of snowpack types • Use results to update depth scale with multi-layer model • find optimal response function which relates broad band FMCW signal to narrowband airborne signals • Adapt for different frequency ranges, bandwidths, look angles • Suggestions?

More Related