Statistical Estimation and Tracking of Refractivity from Radar Clutter

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Refractivty estimation from radar clutter - the Marine Physical ...$

$Statistical Estimation of Refractivity from Radar Sea Clutter$

$Real time refractivity from clutter using a best fit ... - CiteSeerX$

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Tropospheric Propagation Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 1.2: Some Regional Duct Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table 2.1: Notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Table 2.2: Synthetic data case: GA estimates and Metropolis algorithm results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table 2.3: Wallops island experiment (clutter map 17): GA estimates and Metropolis algorithm results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Table 3.1: System Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table 3.2: Synthetic data case: Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table 3.3: Wallops’98 Experiment: Model Parameters . . . . . . . . . . 90 Table 4.1: Case Study I: Comparison of Tracking Algorithms and CRLB Radiosonde Station Bahrain, Persian Gulf . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Table 4.2: Performance Comparison for Case Study I . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Table 4.3: Performance Comparison for Case Study II . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Table 4.4: Case Study III: Coastal Range-Dependent Evaporation Duct Tracking, Eastern Mediterranean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Table 4.5: Performance Comparison for Case Study III . . . . . . . . . . 122 xii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to genuinely thank my advisors, Professor William S. Hodgkiss and Dr. Peter Gerstoft, for their inspirational guidance, constant support, encouragement, affection, and patience throughout my Ph.D. work, in their entirely different but equally effective American and European ways. They guided me at every step of my Ph.D. journey and helped me keep on track, teaching me not only the knowledge necessary for this dissertation but beyond that teaching me how to learn and conduct independent research which, I now realize, is far more important than the work itself. I am truly grateful for this life changing five years. I am also thankful to my committee members, Professor Kenneth Kreutz- Delgado, Professor William A. Coles, Professor William A. Kuperman, and Professor Robert Pinkel for their valuable comments and time. I would like to thank everybody at the Marine Physical Laboratory (MPL) for their help and friendship. I wish to express my gratitude to Evelyn Doudera for keeping all the graduate students at MPL well-fed and caffeinated at all times, to Chen-fen Huang for helping me at every step with our long discussions, and to all my friends at UCSD. I would like to thank Ted Rogers at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, CA for his invaluable discussions, comments and for providing us with the Wallops Island Experiment results. Finally, I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my family, my parents, my brother, his wife, little Doga and Elif for their love and constant encouragement. It would have been impossible to complete this work without their understanding and support. This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research Code 32, under grant No. N00014-05-1-0369. This dissertation is a collection of papers that were published or submitted for publication. The text of Chapter Two is in full a reprint of the material as it appears in Caglar Yardim, Peter Gerstoft, and William S. Hodgkiss, xiii
Page 1 and 2: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
Page 3 and 4: The dissertation of Caglar Yardim i
Page 5 and 6: TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page .
Page 7 and 8: 4.5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . .
Page 9 and 10: Figure 2.10: Marginal posterior pro
Page 11: Figure 4.6: Case Study II: Temporal
Page 15 and 16: VITA 1998 B.S. in Electrical Engine
Page 17 and 18: Major Field: Electrical Engineering
Page 19 and 20: The first part of this thesis discu
Page 21 and 22: 2 models. 2. Electromagnetic Theory
Page 23 and 24: 4 in nature. On the other hand if t
Page 25 and 26: 6 over the coastal regions and the
Page 27 and 28: 8 is no more bounded below by the s
Page 29 and 30: 10 Fig. 1.3 (b) shows what happens
Page 31 and 32: 12 Doppler spread radars [5] are an
Page 33 and 34: 14 1.3.1 Tropospheric Propagation U
Page 35 and 36: 16 Now the wave equation can readil
Page 37 and 38: 18 solution for U(r, p) as −p 2
Page 39 and 40: 20 where C accounts for all the con
Page 41 and 42: 22 Figure 1.5: Sea surface grazing
Page 43 and 44: 24 atmospheric index of refraction
Page 45 and 46: 26 implementation of the PF. Both K
Page 47 and 48: 28 [12] Amalia E. Barrios. Paraboli
Page 49 and 50: 2 Estimation of Radio Refractivity
Page 51 and 52: 32 requiring any additional measure
Page 53 and 54: 34 sity (PPD), which can be accompl
Page 55 and 56: 36 Posterior density of any specifi
Page 57 and 58: 38 set up the MCMC such that the de
Page 59 and 60: 40 2.2.4 Monte Carlo Integration Mo
Page 61 and 62: 42 parameter axes, it is hard to sa
Page 63 and 64:
44 2.3.4 Post-Processing After the
Page 65 and 66:
46 Figure 2.5: Initial sampling pha
Page 67 and 68:
48 0.04 c 1 −2.6 −2.4 −2.2 0.
Page 69 and 70:
50 VA Wallops Is. SPANDAR Helicopte
Page 71 and 72:
52 0.05 c 1 0 −1 −0.5 0 M−uni
Page 73 and 74:
54 (a) 200 −100 (d) 200 150 100 5
Page 75 and 76:
56 (a) 0.2 (b) 0.2 0.15 0.15 PPD(F)
Page 77 and 78:
58 d m f(·) f(m) φ(m) n N R N N e
Page 79 and 80:
60 Bibliography [1] S. Vasudevan an
Page 81 and 82:
[25] Julius Goldhirsh and Daniel Do
Page 83 and 84:
64 Hastings (M-H) and Gibbs samplin
Page 85 and 86:
66 dimensional integrals of the joi
Page 87 and 88:
68 where C d is the data error cova
Page 89 and 90:
70 By introducing a weight function
Page 91 and 92:
72 entire search space and there is
Page 93 and 94:
74 3. Gibbs Resampling: Run a fast
Page 95 and 96:
76 Figure 3.2: Voronoi cells and a
Page 97 and 98:
78 (a) 5 c 1 5 5 5 h 2 (b) 0 0.1 0.
Page 99 and 100:
80 density. However, it is sampling
Page 101 and 102:
82 (a) 5 c 1 5 5 5 h 2 (b) 0 0.1 0.
Page 103 and 104:
84 Figure 3.9: An example of range-
Page 105 and 106:
86 full PPD is 16-D, only 1-D (diag
Page 107 and 108:
88 Figure 3.11: Marginal and condit
Page 109 and 110:
90 Table 3.3: Wallops’98 Experime
Page 111 and 112:
92 Propagation Factor, F (dB) Propa
Page 113 and 114:
94 [11] L. Ted Rogers, Michael Jabl
Page 115 and 116:
4 Tracking Refractivity From Clutte
Page 117 and 118:
98 structure. These techniques can
Page 119 and 120:
100 the filter performance still he
Page 121 and 122:
102 ing autocorrelation function. T
Page 123 and 124:
104 in range using the following re
Page 125 and 126:
106 4.3.2 Unscented Kalman Filter T
Page 127 and 128:
108 4.3.3 Particle Filter The last
Page 129 and 130:
110 Let J k be the inverse of the C
Page 131 and 132:
112 Table 4.1: Case Study I: Compar
Page 133 and 134:
Table 4.2: Performance Comparison f
Page 135 and 136:
116 performance. Therefore, it can
Page 137 and 138:
118 error larger than 5 m for any 5
Page 139 and 140:
120 Table 4.3: Performance Comparis
Page 141 and 142:
122 Table 4.4: Case Study III: Coas
Page 143 and 144:
124 Since the layer is thin it has
Page 145 and 146:
126 Bibliography [1] J. R. Rowland
Page 147 and 148:
128 [23] R. A. Paulus. An overview
Page 149 and 150:
5 Conclusions and Future Work 5.1 C
Page 151 and 152:
132 • A hybrid GA-MCMC method bas
Page 153 and 154:
134 Kalman filters performed remark
Page 155:
136 mance predictions of the EKF, U
show all

Statistical Estimation and Tracking of Refractivity from Radar Clutter

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?