
Citation: | Yuming Zeng, Hao Zhou, Zhen Tian, Biyang Wen. Mapping wind by the first-order Bragg scattering of broad-beam high-frequency radar[J]. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 2021, 40(3): 153-166. doi: 10.1007/s13131-021-1752-z |
High-frequency (HF) radar, as a shore-based remote sensing system, can monitor ocean state with the advantages of large-area, real-time and all-weather operations. The current and wave mapping measurement by HF radar are now a well-accepted technology (Zhou et al., 2015). However, mapping wind with HF radar is still a challenge. Ocean surface wind is a rich source of renewable energy due to its intensity and steadiness. Wind field extraction over the ocean is helpful for wind energy detection. In addition, offshore wind field information can help a wide variety of coastal and marine activities, such as sailing, fishing and surfing. Therefore, obtaining sea surface wind information from HF radar will make a meaningful contribution to wind energy detection, marine activities and oceanographic observation networks.
HF radar’s wind direction is estimated from the ratio of first-order Bragg scattering assuming that the Bragg wave is wind-driven and aligned with the wind direction. The reliability of this assumption depends largely on the selection of radar frequency, which corresponds to the Bragg wave frequency. For high radar frequency (short Bragg wave), the Bragg waves respond rapidly to local wind excitation and also decay rapidly when the winds cease. The short Bragg waves have the disadvantage that they will saturate rapidly and thus offer no information on the magnitude of the excitation (Dexter and Theodoridis, 1982). For low radar frequency (long Bragg wave), the Bragg waves saturate at a higher wind speed, but they respond slowly to local wind excitation and are very likely to be contaminated by swell. Because first-order scattering has a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) than second-order scattering, the first-order based wind direction estimates have larger distance scales than the second-order based estimation. At present, the principle of wind direction estimation has been widely accepted, and its uncertainty lies in the determination of the wind spreading function (WSF) (Huang et al., 2004), and the left-right ambiguity relative to the radar beam. In general, generation of an HF radar wind direction map is relatively simple and feasible. Many researchers have obtained satisfactory wind direction estimation results by different HF radar systems (Heron and Rose, 1986; Fernandez et al., 1997; Wyatt et al., 2006; Wyatt, 2018; Huang et al., 2004).
Although inversion to obtain HF radar wind speed is more difficult than wind direction, some potential parameters of the HF radar Doppler spectrum that could be used have been proposed. The proposed parameters include (1) the ratio of the second-order power to the Bragg line power or the significant wave height (Barrick et al., 1974; Zeng et al., 2016), (2) the width of the spectral power surrounding the strongest Bragg line at a point 10 dB down from the peak (Stewart and Barnum, 1975), (3) the frequency position of the second-order peak (Green et al., 2009), and (4) the first-order Bragg peak (Shen et al., 2012; Kirincich, 2016). These methods can be mainly categorized into two types. The first type is that estimating the wind speed by the second-order scattering based on the second-order radar cross-section equation (second-order theory) (Barrick, 1972b) and the wind-wave relationship. The method has the advantage of not requiring additional calibration and having a wide unsaturated range. However, second-order scattering has a low SNR and is susceptible to external noise and spatial aliasing, which results in a small detection area. The second type involves estimation of wind speed from the first-order scattering only. This type includes using the relationship between the first-order spectrum power (FSP) and the energy in the directional wave spectrum at the Bragg wavelength and radar look direction (Barrick, 1972a) or using the first-order Bragg ratio (Shen et al., 2012). By using first-order scattering, these methods have some of the same features as wind direction estimation such as large detection area and rapid saturation relative to the second-order method. Because there is no calibration of the radar signal, FSP based wind speed extraction requires additional calibration from other wind detecting instruments. Maresca and Barnum (1982) concluded that the 10 dB width is not a good estimator of wind speed, and the wind speed estimates are better obtained from the second-order method by a prior wind-wave model. However, there are other restrictions of the second-order method in practical application besides the low SNR and short detection distance. These restrictions mainly come from the HF radar system technology and the details are described below.
HF radar industry offers two main genres for the technology: the phased-array genre and the crossed-loop genre. The phased-array genre has the benefits of narrow-beam and good temporal and spatial resolution, and the drawbacks of large size and high installation or maintenance costs (Heron, 2015). The crossed-loop genre has the merits of small antenna footprint and good economy, and the defects of broad-beam. The small antenna footprint facilitates a larger number of installations of crossed-loop systems around the world. Both genres can map wind direction well. However, for wind speed mapping, the two genres are very different. The phased-array genre can use both the second-order and first-order method to map wind speed. In calculating wind speed by the phased-array HF radar, the second-order method is widely used (Huang et al., 2002). For the crossed-loop HF radar, its second-order scattering cannot be extracted in each cell and it only provides homogeneous wind speed estimation in azimuth at a given range by the second-order scattering method. Hence to determine the wind speed field using this type of HF radar requires a first-order method.
The frequency shift of first-order scattering is fully used to extract surface current velocity. However, the intensity of the first-order scattering is typically neglected because of its saturation characteristic. In 2012, Shen et al. (2012) explored the possibility of deriving wind speed for longer ranges from the FSP of phased-array beam-forming HF WEllen Radar (WERA) systems. This work promoted the application of HF radar FSP in remote sensing of wave and wind parameters. In 2015, the FSP of a crossed-loop HF radar (OSMAR-S) was used to derive wave significant height by Zhou and Wen (2015). Later, Zhou et al. (2017) used the maximum FSP to estimate wind speed in a specific range, and obtained a result as good as that from the second-order inversion method. At the same time, Kirincich (2016) showed the wind field results of a broad-beam HF radar (SeaSonde) by the direct calibrated first-order scattering with the aid of an autonomous surface vehicle.
In this paper, we further analyze the effect of wind on the FSP. The analysis is based on HF radar scattering with a frequency of 13 MHz which means that the Bragg wave has a wavelength of 11 m. As the corresponding Bragg wave has a short wavelength, the Bragg wave will respond quickly to the local wind. Based on two semi-empirical models and a theoretical propagation attenuation model, we propose a space recursion method to extract the real-time wind field over the coastal ocean. The method can be applied to both broad-beam and phased-array systems and no modifications are required to adapt to either or both types of HF radar. This paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the theory and method. In Section 3 the field experiment and the analysis of the HF radar data are described. The theoretical and semi-empirical models are also formulated in this section. Model tests and wind vector mapping results are displayed in Section 4. Section 5 is the conclusion.
The FSP of HF radar is influenced by many factors. Among these, the first-order cross section and propagation attenuation are the important parts related to the wind. We can write as
$$ {P}_{\left(n,m\right)}^{\left(1\right)}\left(\varphi,u\right)\left({\rm{dB}}\right)={\sigma }_{\left(n,m\right)}^{\left(1\right)}\left(\varphi,u\right)-{A}_{\left(n,m\right)}\left(\varphi,u\right)+E, $$ | (1) |
where
The first-order cross section in cell
$$ {{\sigma }^{\left(1\right)}}_{\left(n,m\right)}\left(\varphi,u\right)={2}^{6}\pi {k}_{0}^{4}\sum _{i=\pm 1}{S}_{\left(n,m\right)}\left(\varphi,u,2{{\tilde k}}_{0}\right)\text{δ} (\omega -i{\omega }_{{\rm{B}}}), $$ | (2) |
where
$$ {S}_{\left(n,m\right)}\left(\varphi,u,2{{\tilde k}}_{0}\right)={F}_{\left(n,m\right)}\left(u,2{k}_{0}\right){G}_{\left(n,m\right)}\left(\varphi,u,2{{\tilde k}}_{0}\right), $$ | (3) |
where
The WSF determines the accuracy of the wind direction inversion and is considered to be related to wind speed. So far, many WSF models have been proposed (Apel, 1994), and there is no broad consensus as to which WSF is optimal for a given situation. Among these WSFs, the cosine model and the sech model are applied widely by HF radar. For the cosine model, the focus is on the selection of the
$$ G\left(\theta \right)={\left|{\rm{cos}}\left(0.5\theta \right)\right|}^{s}, $$ | (4) |
where
According to the WSF, wind direction can be determined by the ratios of first-order Bragg peak intensities as
$$ {R_{{\rm{Bragg}}}} = \frac{{{\sigma ^{(1)}}\left( {{\omega _{\rm{B}}}} \right)}}{{{\sigma ^{(1)}}\left( { - {\omega _{\rm{B}}}} \right)}} = \frac{{S\left( { - 2{{\tilde k}_0}} \right)}\quad }{{S\left( {2{{\tilde k}_0}} \right)}\quad} = \frac{{{\rm{G}}\left( {{{\tilde k}_0},\pi + \theta } \right)}}{{{\rm{G}}\left( {{{\tilde k}_0},\theta } \right)}}, $$ | (5) |
where
HF ground-wave propagation losses across the ocean have been estimated for several decades. Barrick (1971) derived an expression for the effective impedance of a slightly rough, finitely conducting planar surface at grazing incidence for vertical polarization. He then gave an estimate of the propagation loss across the ocean using an empirical ocean height spectrum model. Forget et al. (1982) contrasted theoretical attenuation with actual HF radar attenuation by a monostatic experiment to evaluate the relative ground wave attenuation over the sea surface. His work shows that the radar relative attenuation has a good agreement with the attenuation of Barrick’s theoretical calculation. The propagation attenuation is closely related to the effective impedance of the ocean surface. The effective impedance at grazing incidence for vertical polarization can be written as
$$ \left\{ {\begin{aligned} &{\bar \varDelta = \varDelta + \frac{1}{4}\int_{ - \infty }^\infty {\int_{ - \infty }^\infty F } (p,q)W(p,q){\rm{d}}p{\rm{d}}q}\\ &{F(p,q) = \frac{{{p^2} + {b^\prime }\varDelta \left( {{p^2} + {q^2} - {k_0}p} \right)}}{{{b^\prime } + \varDelta \left( {{b^{\prime 2}} + 1} \right)}} + \varDelta \left( {\frac{{{p^2} - {q^2}}}{2} + {k_0}p} \right)}\\ &{{b^\prime } = \frac{1}{{{k_0}}}{{\left[ {k_0^2 - {{\left( {p + {k_0}} \right)}^2} - {q^2}} \right]}^{1/2}}}\\ &\!\!W(p,q,u,\theta ) = \frac{{C{{(p\cos \theta + q\sin \theta )}^2}}}{{{g^{2.5}}{{\left( {{p^2} + {q^2}} \right)}^{13/4}}}} \exp \left\{ { - 2g/\left[ {{u^2}{{\left( {{p^2} + {q^2}} \right)}^{1/2}}} \right]} \right\} \end{aligned}} \right.\!\!\!\!\!, $$ | (6) |
where
For a monostatic HF radar, the received power can be written as
$$ {P_{\rm{r}}} = \alpha {\lambda ^2}{\left( {{F^2}/{R^2}} \right)^2}\sigma {\varDelta _s}, $$ | (7) |
where
From the above equations we can see that
(1) Build the second-order wind speed model, the WSF model and the FSP model as shown on the left chart of Fig. 8. Before applying the space recursion method, we need to establish the relationship between the maximum FSP and wind speed, namely, the FSP model. The FSP model is obtained by measuring the maximum FSP at the initial range cell which is about 5 km from the radar site. The short distance makes the effect of wind on propagation attenuation of the FSP negligible. The subsequent propagation attenuation is calculated from the initial range cell. In order to obtain more accurate wind direction attenuation and propagation attenuation, we also build a WSF model based on the cosine distribution and a theoretical propagation attenuation model. Both of these models are associated with wind speed. A month’s radar and buoy data are used to establish the second-order wind speed model, the FSP model and the WSF model between radar signal and wind speed.
(2) Obtain the approximate reference wind speed and the initial wind speed. The reference wind speed is used to judge the applicability of the method. When the reference wind speed is in the range of 4–13 m/s, the method can be applied in each patch or range-azimuth cell. The initial wind speed is used to estimate wind direction at initial range cell. The reference wind speed also can be used as the initial wind speed when it is obtained at the initial range cell. If there is no buoy wind speed at the initial range, the approximate reference wind speed and the initial wind speed
(3) Estimate the wind direction and wind speed at the initial range cell. At the initial range cell (in here we set the second range cell as the initial range cell), the propagation attenuation can be ignored. The wind direction is determined first in each patch. The wind direction and speed are obtained as
$$ \left\{\begin{aligned} & {\varphi }_{\left(2,m\right)}={\varphi }_{0\left(m\right)}\pm 2{\rm{arctan}}^{s\left({u}_{0}\right)}{R}_{\left(2,m\right)}\\ & {u}_{\left(2,m\right)}={f}_{1}\left({G}_{\left(2,m\right)}\left({u}_{0},{\varphi }_{\left(2,m\right)}\right)+{p}_{\left(2,m\right)}^{+}\right)\end{aligned}\right., $$ | (8) |
where
(4) Estimate the wind vector in a non-initial range patch as shown in the right part of Fig. 8. Assuming that the wind speed for the WSF and propagation attenuation calculation is consistent with that of the previous range cell, we use it to compensate for the energy attenuation of the FSP due to the WSF and propagation. Then, the compensated FSP is applied to extract the final wind speed in this patch by the FSP model. This process is repeated across the radar scan area to get the wind vector in each cell by
$$ \left\{\begin{aligned} {\varphi }_{\left(n,m\right)}=&{\varphi }_{0\left(m\right)}\pm 2{\rm{arctan}}^{s\left({u}_{\left(n-1,m\right)}\right)}{R}_{\left(n,m\right)}\\ {u}_{\left(n,m\right)}=&{f}_{1}\Big({A}_{\left(n,m\right)}\left({u}_{\left(n-1,m\right)},{\varphi }_{\left(n,m\right)}\right)+\\ &{G}_{\left(n,m\right)}\left({u}_{\left(n-1,m\right)},{\varphi }_{\left(n,m\right)}\right)+{p}_{\left(n,m\right)}^{+}\Big)\end{aligned}\right., $$ | (9) |
where
During February and March
Parameters | Value and setting |
Center frequency/MHz | 13 |
Bandwidth/kHz | 60 |
Transmit antenna | monopole |
Receive antenna | cross-loop/monopole |
Sweep period/s | 0.38 |
Average power/W | 100 |
Range resolution/km | 2.5 |
Coherent integration time/min | 6.5 |
Normal direction/(°) | 100 |
Transmitted waveform | FMICW pulses |
Technique of azimuthal resolution | direction finding |
We built the models based on the radar data collected from February 1 to 28, 2013. To ensure good quality, data with SNR
In this section, the actual HF radar propagation attenuation is calculated from one-month radar data. Figure 12a shows the maximum FSP in different wind speeds and ranges. The maximum FSP is assumed to come from the upwind direction and the effect of WSF can be ignored. From Fig. 12a, we can see that the radar echoes seem to reach the maximum when the wind speed is about 10 m/s. Subsequently, the maximum FSP decreases with the increased wind speed, especially in the far range cell. It results from the increased sea surface roughness. Figure 12b shows the maximum FSP loss (relative to the maximum FSP in range cell 2) under different wind speeds. The maximum FSP loss is the total propagation attenuation and seems to be attenuated linearly with the distance when the wind speed is between 3 m/s and 12 m/s. With the increase of the range cell, the differences between the attenuation under different wind speeds increase gradually. In range cell 23, the attenuation difference between the maximum and the minimum wind speed is up to about 13 dB, which is consistent with the theoretical calculation. Figure 13 shows both the theoretical and the radar extracted propagation attenuation. Basically, the difference is less than 5 dB. We apply the theoretical propagation attenuation model to compensate for the propagation attenuation.
The principle of HF radar wind direction inversion is based on the first-order Bragg ratios as Eq. (5) shows. The WSF is dependent on wind speed through the parameter
$$ s={\rm{log}}\left({R}_{{\rm{B}}}\right)/{\rm{log}}\left({\rm{tan}}\left(\left|{\theta }_{0}-{\theta }_{\omega }\right|/2\right)\right), $$ | (10) |
where
We apply the second-order scattering in the initial range cell to obtain the preliminary reference wind speed. The preliminary wind speed can be used to determine whether the first-order peak is saturated and to initialize the wind vector mapping process when the buoy data are missing. Figure 15a shows the time series of C buoy wind speed and the second-order spectrum integration at range cell 2. These two variables show a strong correlation with a R of
$$ \left\{\begin{aligned} & u\propto H_{{\rm{s}}}^{0.5}\\ & H_{{\rm{s}}}^{2}=\varepsilon {\int }_{\!\!-\infty }^{\infty }{\sigma }^{\left(2\right)}\left(\omega \right)/W\left(\omega \right){\rm{d}}\omega \\ & u\propto {\int }_{\!\!-\infty }^{\infty }{\sigma }^{\left(2\right)}\left(\omega \right)/W\left(\omega \right){\rm{d}}\omega \end{aligned}\right., $$ | (11) |
where
The FSP model is the key part for wind speed estimation. After the energy compensation for the FSP, the final wind speed can be extracted directly by the FSP model. To avoid the uncertainty caused by WSF, we track the maximum FSP of the monopole at the initial range cell. Because the model is based on the radar echoes at the initial range cell (about
$$ P_{\max}=a(u+b{)}^{-4}+c, $$ | (12) |
where
To verify the reliability of the model, we test the three models with the radar and buoy data in March. The propagation attenuation model is consistent with the theoretical model and can be considered to have high reliability, hence we no longer test it.
When there is no buoy data, the second-order model based wind speed can be used as an approximate reference and an initial wind speed. Figure 17 shows the wind speed comparison between the buoy and that obtained by the inversion of the second-order radar backscatter. The R between the two is 0.68. Around March 17, the radar radio interference was high, which we believe resulted in the overly-large wind-speed estimation. Except for this period of interference, the second-order integral model appears to perform well throughout March.
Accuracy of the FSP model is very important for the reliability of the method. Therefore, it is necessary to test the FSP model. Figure 18 shows the comparison between the buoy wind speed and the radar wind speed inverted from the FSP model. To reduce the effect of noise, a 17-point smoothing filter is applied. The R between these two is 0.80 with an RMSE of 2.84 m/s. On March 7 and 8, ships and interference are in the radar first-order spectrum area, which leads to the higher errors in wind speed estimation. The results demonstrate the applicability of the FSP model.
Figure 19 shows the radar inverted and buoy wind direction at A for wind speed above 6.5 m/s. When wind speed is above 6.5 m/s, the wind directions are more stable and reliable. Figure 14 shows the WSF model used in the wind direction inversion. To test the reliability of the model, we use the buoy wind speed in the formula and a prior reference wind direction is used to remove the directional ambiguity. In this case, the radar tends to underestimate the wind direction and the bias of the wind direction estimation is
Based on the three models we can extract the wind field (Fig. 20) from the first-order spectrum by the space recursion method as shown in the flow chart above. The wind speed extracted from the second-order spectrum is used to initialize the wind vector mapping process. To obtain a stable wind map, a Gaussian smoothing filter is applied, which is reasonable and widely used due to the typical continuity of the wind field. The estimated wind is predominately blowing from northeast to southwest along the strait, which is in line with the in-situ measurements. The differences between the estimated wind speeds are small in most areas. The differences between the estimated wind speeds are small in most areas. Since the DOAs of the positive first-order peaks are more from the normal direction as shown in Fig. 11, the wind estimates are more satisfactory in this region. Whereas, the wind estimations in the north of Buoy A are different from those in other parts of the wind field. The estimated wind directions in the north area seem perpendicular to the radar beam and they show a circumferential pattern. In this area, the Bragg ratios are small and tend to estimate wind direction to be perpendicular to the radar beam. The small Bragg ratios may be caused by wave refraction in the near-shore area, or the uncertainties in the actual distribution of the wave power along the direction, or the error of estimated DOAs. Because there is no additional wave measurement, it is difficult to separate small Bragg ratios from errors. For the wind speed, most estimations are consistent with the buoy’s wind speed, especially near the antenna normal direction area. Due to the island-caused additional propagation loss, the estimated wind speed at A and the north area of A is small. The radar-derived wind speed at long distance (above 18 range cell) is also relatively small because the compensation of the propagation attenuation is not enough. The error in propagation attenuation model has little effect on the near distance element (below range cell 10) as shown in Fig. 13. From Fig. 13, we can see that for the propagation attenuation within range cell 10, the difference between the theoretical and the actual attenuation is less than
By the FSP model, the radar estimated wind speed has an R of 0.8 and an RMSE of 2.84 m/s with the buoy. The wind direction estimated from the WSF model has an RMSE of
For the space recursion method, the propagation attenuation calculation, the WSF and the FSP models are the three main parts. The second-order integral model is only applied at the initial range cell to get a rough sea-state estimation, which is used to judge whether this method can be applied or to initialize the wind speed inversion. For a 13 MHz HF radar, the method can be applied when the wind speed is in the range of 4–13 m/s. When the wind speed is greater than 13 m/s, the change of the first-order peak with the wind speed is not obvious, and the accuracy of estimated wind speed will decrease.
The compensation of propagation attenuation is the foundation of using the FSP. Here, we have considered the influence of wind-driven sea surface roughness on the echoes’ propagation attenuation. Therefore, wind information is required to calculate the total propagation attenuation. In practical application, we use the wind of the previous range cell as the approximate value to estimate the influence of wind on echo attenuation. Based on the theoretical calculation of the
The WSF model not only has great influence on the accuracy of wind direction estimation but also is the key part for wind speed compensation. As Fig. 16b shows, in the range of wind speed from
The WSF model can be replaced by the existing oceanographic model, but the FSP model must be trained because there is no theoretical model. Moreover, the FSP model is closely related to the radar system and to the impedance of the sea surface (which can be affected by the land-sea interface or the seawater salinity), which means that for a different radar system or in a different sea area that the model needs to be trained again. Assuming deep water of the radar location, the training buoy is as close as possible to the radar. As shown in Fig. 7, the closer the buoy is to the radar, the less the difference between the propagation attenuation under different sea states and the more accurate the FSP model. Generally, the buoy location is preferably within 10 km of the radar.
In the process of using the method, we must consider the saturated wind speed range of the corresponding Bragg wave, especially in extreme cases like coastal storms. In these cases, the wind speed easily exceeds the range of saturated wind speed and a radar with lower frequency is needed. It is also important to note that the FSP is susceptible to radio frequency interference, background noise, etc. Hence we should judge these factors and eliminate their influence before using the method. When the method is applied to a broad-beam radar, we should make sure that the DOAs are estimated correctly. Multiple DOA condition may occur when currents are parallel to the radar beam. When some wind conditions are not seen during the training period, the method is still usable as long as the fitting can convergence. However, loss of large amounts of training data will affect the accuracy of the model and hence the final result.
HF radar has been an effective tool in sea state remote sensing. However, wind mapping with HF radar is still a problem, especially for a broad-beam HF radar. In this paper, we give a useful space recursion method to map the wind vector by first-order Bragg scattering. With the help of one-month of buoy data, the relationship between the FSP and the wind has been fully analyzed. The FSP and WSF models are established in the near shore for wind mapping. The models are tested using one month radar data and their performances are supported by the test results. The wind speed estimated from the FSP model and that from buoy have an R of
[1] |
Adams J E, Carroll J C, Costa E A, et al. 1984. Measurements and Predictions of HF Ground Wave Radio Propagation Over Irregular, Inhomogeneous Terrain. Boulder, CO, USA: NTIA Report, 84–151
|
[2] |
Apaydin G, Sevgi L. 2010. A novel split-step parabolic-equation package for surface-wave propagation prediction along multiple mixed irregular-terrain paths. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 52(4): 90–97. doi: 10.1109/MAP.2010.5638238
|
[3] |
Apel J R. 1994. An improved model of the ocean surface wave vector spectrum and its effects on radar backscatter. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 99(C8): 16269–16291. doi: 10.1029/94JC00846
|
[4] |
Barrick D. 1972a. First-order theory and analysis of MF/HF/VHF Scatter from the Sea. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 20(1): 2–10. doi: 10.1109/TAP.1972.1140123
|
[5] |
Barrick D. 1972b. Remote sensing of sea state by radar. In: Ocean 72-IEEE International Conference on Engineering in the Ocean Environment, Newport, RI, USA: IEEE, 186–192.
|
[6] |
Barrick D E. 1971. Theory of HF and VHF propagation across the rough sea, 2, Application to HF and VHF propagation above the sea. Radio Science, 6(5): 527–533. doi: 10.1029/RS006i005p00527
|
[7] |
Barrick D E. 1977. Extraction of wave parameters from measured HF radar sea-echo Doppler spectra. Radio Science, 12(3): 415–424. doi: 10.1029/RS012i003p00415
|
[8] |
Barrick D E, Headrick J M, Bogle R W, et al. 1974. Sea backscatter at HF: interpretation and utilization of the echo. Proceedings of the IEEE, 62(6): 673–680. doi: 10.1109/PROC.1974.9507
|
[9] |
Carvalho D, Rocha A, Gómez-Gesteira M, et al. 2014. Comparison of reanalyzed, analyzed, satellite-retrieved and NWP modelled winds with buoy data along the Iberian Peninsula coast. Remote Sensing of Environment, 152: 480–492. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2014.07.017
|
[10] |
Dexter P E, Theodoridis S. 1982. Surface wind speed extraction from HF sky wave radar Doppler spectra. Radio Science, 17(3): 643–652. doi: 10.1029/RS017i003p00643
|
[11] |
Fernandez D M, Graber H C, Paduan J D, et al. 1997. Mapping wind directions with HF radar. Oceanography, 10(2): 93–95
|
[12] |
Forget P, Broche P, De Maistre J C. 1982. Attenuation with distance and wind speed of HF surface waves over the ocean. Radio Science, 17(3): 599–610. doi: 10.1029/RS017i003p00599
|
[13] |
Green D, Gill E, Huang Weimin. 2009. An inversion method for extraction of wind speed from high-frequency ground-wave radar oceanic backscatter. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 47(10): 3338–3346. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2009.2022944
|
[14] |
Hasselmann D E, Dunckel M, Ewing J A. 1980. Directional wave spectra observed during jonswap 1973. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 10(8): 1264–1280. doi: 10.1175/1520-0485(1980)010<1264:DWSODJ>2.0.CO;2
|
[15] |
Heron M L. 2015. Comparisons of different HF ocean surface-wave radar technologies. In: 2015 IEEE/OES Eleveth Current, Waves and Turbulence Measurement (CWTM). St Petersburg, FL, USA: IEEE, 1–4
|
[16] |
Heron M L, Rose R J. 1986. On the application of HF ocean radar to the observation of temporal and spatial changes in wind direction. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 11(2): 210–218. doi: 10.1109/JOE.1986.1145173
|
[17] |
Hill D A, Wait J R. 1980. Ground wave attenuation function for a spherical earth with arbitrary surface impedance. Radio Science, 15(3): 637–643. doi: 10.1029/RS015i003p00637
|
[18] |
Huang Weimin, Gill E W, Wu Shicai, et al. 2004. Measuring surface wind direction by monostatic HF ground-wave radar at the Eastern China Sea. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 29(4): 1032–1037. doi: 10.1109/JOE.2004.834175
|
[19] |
Huang Weimin, Wu Shicai, Gill E, et al. 2002. HF radar wave and wind measurement over the Eastern China Sea. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 40(9): 1950–1955. doi: 10.1109/TGRS.2002.803718
|
[20] |
Khan R H, Mitchell D K. 1991. Waveform analysis for high-frequency FMICW radar. Radar and Signal Processing IEE Proceedings F, 138(5): 411–419. doi: 10.1049/ip-f-2.1991.0054
|
[21] |
Kirincich A. 2016. Remote sensing of the surface wind field over the coastal ocean via direct calibration of HF radar backscatter power. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 33(7): 1377–1392. doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0242.1
|
[22] |
Lai Yeping, Zhou Hao, Wen Biyang. 2017a. Surface current characteristics in the Taiwan Strait observed by high-frequency radars. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 42(2): 449–457. doi: 10.1109/JOE.2016.2572818
|
[23] |
Lai Yeping, Zhou Hao, Yang Jing, et al. 2017b. Submesoscale eddies in the Taiwan Strait observed by high-frequency radars: detection algorithms and eddy properties. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 34(4): 939–953. doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0160.1
|
[24] |
Maresca J W, Barnum J R. 1982. Estimating wind speed from HF skywave radar sea backscatter. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 30(5): 846–852. doi: 10.1109/TAP.1982.1142887
|
[25] |
Pierson W J Jr, Moskowitz L. 1964. A proposed spectral form for fully developed wind seas based on the similarity theory of S. A. kitaigorodskii. Journal of Geophysical Research, 69(24): 5181–5190. doi: 10.1029/JZ069i024p05181
|
[26] |
Schmidt R. 1986. Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation. IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 34(3): 276–280. doi: 10.1109/TAP.1986.1143830
|
[27] |
Shen Wei, Gurgel K W, Voulgaris G, et al. 2012. Wind-speed inversion from HF radar first-order backscatter signal. Ocean Dynamics, 62(1): 105–121. doi: 10.1007/s10236-011-0465-9
|
[28] |
Stewart R H, Barnum J R. 1975. Radio measurements of oceanic winds at long ranges: An evaluation. Radio Science, 10(10): 853–857. doi: 10.1029/RS010i010p00853
|
[29] |
Wyatt L R. 2018. A comparison of scatterometer and HF radar wind direction measurements. Journal of Operational Oceanography, 11(1): 54–63. doi: 10.1080/1755876X.2018.1443625
|
[30] |
Wyatt L R, Green J J, Middleditch A, et al. 2006. Operational wave, current, and wind measurements with the pisces HF radar. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 31(4): 819–834. doi: 10.1109/JOE.2006.888378
|
[31] |
Zeng Yuming, Zhou Hao, Roarty H, et al. 2016. Wind speed inversion in high frequency radar based on neural network. International Journal of Antennas and Propagation, 2016: 2706521
|
[32] |
Zhang Lei, Shi Hanqing, Yu Hong, et al. 2016. WindSat satellite comparisons with nearshore buoy wind data near the U. S. west and east coasts. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 35(7): 50–58. doi: 10.1007/s13131-016-0905-y
|
[33] |
Zhou Hao, Roarty H, Wen Biyang. 2015. Wave height measurement in the Taiwan Strait with a portable high frequency surface wave radar. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 34(1): 73–78. doi: 10.1007/s13131-015-0599-6
|
[34] |
Zhou Hao, Wang Caijun, Yang Jing, et al. 2017. Wind and current dependence of the first-order bragg scattering power in high-frequency radar sea echoes. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 14(12): 2428–2432. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2017.2768060
|
[35] |
Zhou Hao, Wen Biyang. 2015. Wave height extraction from the first-order Bragg peaks in high-frequency radars. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 12(11): 2296–2300. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2015.2472976
|
1. | Gan Liu, Yingwei Tian, Jing Yang, et al. High-Speed Target Tracking Method for Compact HF Radar. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2024, 17: 13276. doi:10.1109/JSTARS.2024.3431535 | |
2. | Jing Yang, Yingwei Tian, Caijun Wang, et al. Wind Speed Inversion Using Shore-Based UHF Radar. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2023, 61: 1. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2023.3317442 | |
3. | Fan Ding, Chen Zhao, Zezong Chen, et al. Wind Speed Extraction From First-Order Sea Echoes Using a Small-Aperture Multifrequency High-Frequency Radar. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2022, 60: 1. doi:10.1109/TGRS.2022.3170636 |
Parameters | Value and setting |
Center frequency/MHz | 13 |
Bandwidth/kHz | 60 |
Transmit antenna | monopole |
Receive antenna | cross-loop/monopole |
Sweep period/s | 0.38 |
Average power/W | 100 |
Range resolution/km | 2.5 |
Coherent integration time/min | 6.5 |
Normal direction/(°) | 100 |
Transmitted waveform | FMICW pulses |
Technique of azimuthal resolution | direction finding |