Solving Radar Detection Problems Using Simulation

D. Curtis Schleher Naval Postgraduate School

ABSTRACT
Simulation is a well-known but often misunderstood method for predicting the detection range of radars. Recent advances in computer software and hardware have made simulation easier to apply and use. Users are putting increased reliance on computer simulation in lieu of more expensive test and evaluation. In this paper, a simulation example is given of a complex radar detection problem which is not solvable using conventional procedures. It is shown how this problem is easily solved using a MATLAB simulation on a personal computer (PC).

INTRODUCTION
The ability of radar to detect small targets at long range is one of its most important characteristics. This has led to the development of systematic procedures which provide an accurate estimate of the maximum detection range of a radar. These procedures in the form of curves, work sheets and computer algorithms can be found in radar handbooks and
Authors Current Address: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA Manuscript received February 15, 1995
0885-8985/95/ $4.00 0 1995 IEEE

textbooks [l].Computer software packages implementing these procedures are also available [ 2 ] . One of the deficiencies with the present radar detection procedures is that they were developed on the basis that the limitation on the maximum target range is imposed by the ever present receiver noise. Thus, while they accurately predict the maximum range of a radar which is exercised against a balloon-borne sphere, they generally provide inaccurate results when the detection limitation is based upon competing scatterers in the vicinity of the target called clutter. This has led to the incorporation of a clutter model into the specificationsby most users of modern radars [3]. In general, the available procedures and software are inadequate to provide accurate predictions of the maximum radar range when radar clutter is present. A similar conclusion applies to radars exposed to intentional (i.e,, ECM) or unintentional interference. An alternative to using the available radar handbooks and software is to simulate the detection problem. Most radar detection problems involving receiver noise, clutter and jamming can be solved using this method. Accuracy generally depends upon how well the clutter and interference statistics can be modeled. Simulation is the preferred method when the clutter or interferencestatistics are non-Gaussian or if the radar signal processing is nonlinear. In addition, simulation can be used to evaluate the effect of complex signal processing or radar waveforms on the radars detection range.

36

IEEE AESS Systems Magazine, April 1995

Several questions arise when simulation is being considered. The first is the practicality of determining low error probabilitiesassociated with false alarm statistics. This generally involves the generation of millions of random variables and their propagation through the radars signal processor. The second is the difficulty of generating the required computer code to represent the radars detection and environmental processes and to retrieve the desired statistical data. A third is the fidelity of radar waveform simulation necessary to determine the desired radar performance data. All of these questions relate to the size and capacity of the computer necessary to perform the simulation and the computer language used in the simulation. Fortunately, recent developments in personal computers (PCs), increasing their speed and memory capacity, have made these computers suitable for simulating radar detection problems. An inherent advantage is that these machines can be dedicated to a particular problem and run for long periods until the problem is solved. Of course, it is prudent to estimate the run-time to solve a particular problem. If this is too long, the general solution is then to reduce the fidelity of the simulation or to use variance reduction techniques such as importance sampling [4] to reduce the number of computer operations required. In addition, a number of software packages have become availablewhich make programming simulations relatively easy. One of the more capable is MATLAB. It uses a higher order language (i.e., programming is done in English commands), contains commands for most functions used in radar signal processors, allows the generation of random variables with various probability distributions, provides histograms and other statistical data associated with the signals, and also provides a graphic capability to examine signals as they propagate through the radar.

INPUT N O SAMPLES N

I
4

I
4

INPUT D f CFAR PLRAYETER

QCNERATE 100 -DIBTRlBUTED URIADLCO + NO181

I N P U T C I N RATIO

Un1ADt.S * V

OWL B I Q M A L
DU0 TIIAIO L C L D I R ) BUT

WOlOt

WOIBB

INCUT S/N

RATIO

I Y . V I

Fig. 1. Distribution Free CFAR Simulation

Several rules apply to the efficiency of the simulation. A general rule is to use analytic formulations wherever possible for quantities represented by mathematical relationships (i.e., such as the radar range equation). Also, the fidelity of the simulation model should be minimized wherever possible consistent with accuracy requirements. The accuracy of the simulation depends on both the models selected and the variance of the simulation result. Random clutter, target and interferencemodels should be selected to closely emulate the expected environment or in some cases, these are provided in the radar specification.The simulation accuracy is related to the number of trials (n) used 2 in the simulation. The normalized variance (a ) of the simulation estimate is given by:

SIMULATION FUNDAMENTALS
Determining a radars maximum range by simulation on a digital computer involves a series of experiments performed on a model of the radar to be evaluated. The outcome of each experiment is different due to the statistical nature of receiver noise, clutter, interference and target fluctuations.However, generally a simple binary decision defines the outcome of each experiment. If the detection threshold is exceeded; either a target detection or a false alarm is declared, depending upon whether a target was simulated or not. The probability of detection (Pd) is then the number of declared targets divided by the number of simulated target trials while the probability of false alarm (Pfa) is the number of false target declarationsdivided by the number of trials with no target simulated. The most critical phase of the simulation involves selection of the models used to represent the system under evaluation.The two issues are the accuracy and efficiency of the simulation.

where p = probability estimated. Equation 1 indicates that to estimate Pfa with high accuracy, then n Pfa >> 1. For example, to estimate a Pfa = loe6,then the order of lo7 trials would be required. In complex simulations, it might be impractical to generate the large number of trials required to obtain accurate results. When this occurs, then variance reduction techniques such as importance sampling must be used [4]. Importance sampling distorts the input distributions in such a way that low probability events occur much more frequently. The results are then weighted to compensate for the distortion while providing the desired accuracy. Using this technique, the number of trials can often be reduced by three-to-four orders of magnitude.

IEEE AESS Systems Magazine, April 1995

37

As an example of simulation methodology, consider the problem of determining the detection characteristics of a distribution-free CFAR for a steady target in K-distributed clutter. The simulation is relatively straightforward as indicated by the flow chart depicted in Figure 1. Solution by analysis would be very difficult. The distribution-free CFAR shown in Figure 1 uses a sliding window (128 cells wide) to determine an adaptive threshold. It determines the adaptive threshold by first ranking the 128 signal amplitudes within the window from the lowest

scan-to-scan basis. Since the clutter returns decorrelate on a scan-to-scan basis, while the target returns remain correlated; it is possible to extract targets using scan-to-scan integration. The most difficult component to model is the radar clutter. As the resolution of the radar increases, reflections from individual wave facets can return high amplitudes called sea spikes which significantly exceed target returns. The composite surface model postulates that sea clutter is due to the compound effect of reflections from the many small wave facets modulated by the underlying sea swell structure. Each

90 -

80 70 -

CNR=20dB RESOLUTION=8 FEET

G d

8
4

60 -

20

10
n

"0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

SAMPLE TIME
Fig. 2. Simulation of Sea Spikes
value to the highest value. It then selects that value k ranks displaced from the highest value. The test cell is then compared against the adaptive threshold when clutter (Pf, determination) and clutter plus a target (Pd determination) are present. The detection statistics are determined by counting the number of threshold crossings and dividing by the number of trials. of these components responds differently to the use of frequency agility by the radar. Although this form of sea clutter representation accurately represents experimentally determined sea clutter statistics, its properties are difficult to quantify analytically. Fortunately, it is relatively straightforward to simulate this form of sea clutter by emulating its physical model. Using this approach provides the added advantage that the effects of both frequency agility and high range resolution on the maximum detection range are automatically embedded in the model. To simulate this detection problem, the K-distributed clutter voltage in receiver noise is simulated by:

SIMULATION EXAMPLE
To illustrate the ease with which complicated radar detection problems can be simulated, we will describe the simulation of a radar which functions to detect small targets in sea clutter. Most radars of this class work on the same principle. They transmit a wide bandwidth providing high range resolution matched as closely as possible to the physical dimensions of the target. A rapid scanning antenna (150-300 r/min) is used to sample target and clutter returns on a

where RND is a uniformly distributed random variable 0-1, U is a root gamma (chi) variable and Pn is the noise power. The

38

IEEE AESS Systems Magazine, April 1995

inphase and quadrature components of the interference are given by

x, = r, * cos (2% * xe = rn * sin (2% *

TARGET RCS (SO M) 0.6

RND) RND)

(3)

resulting in a signal-plus-interferencerandom variable given by

(4)

0.25

o::l
1
0.1

I) FOOT RESOLUTION

where Vs is the steady or fluctuating target random variable. Figure 2 depicts a MATLAJ3 simulation of the time series generated for K-distributed clutter and receiver noise. The spiky nature of the simulated sea clutter is apparent. Also apparent is the difficulty of detecting small fluctuating targets whose magnitudes are significantly less than that of the sea spikes. A potential detection strategy is illustrated by the radar signal processing block diagram depicted in Figure 3. High range resolution (e.g., 8 feet), matched to the expected target extent, is transmitted to minimize the clutter patch size. Pulse-to-pulsefrequency agility is used to transmit a total bandwidth of 500 MHz through a combination of pulse compression and frequency agility. Frequency agility is used to reduce target fluctuation loss by integrating target retums received within an antenna beam dwell and to decorrelatethe distributed sea clutter component.
PULSE-TO-PULSE FREOUENCY AGILITY

0.05

1 FOOT

r
0
1 2 3
4

RESOLUTION

10

11

1 2 1 3

RANGE (NMI)

Fig. 4. Small Target Detection Performance for Various Resolutions

target extent is always less than the radars resolution and that 500 MHz radar bandwidth is transmitted through a combination of pulse compression and frequency agility. Scan-to-scan integration over a 5 second period is employed to capture the minimum expected target exposure time. The curve illustrates the advantage of increased resolution in detecting small targets whose range resolution extent is less than the targets extent.

CONCLUSION
Most real world radar detection problems are too complex to be solved using the conventional procedures found in radar handbooks and available software programs. A viable alternative is to solve these problems using simulation techniques. Recent advances in PCs support this trend as does recent initiatives of users to put a greater reliance on simulation in lieu of more expensive test and evaluation. The overall conclusion is that simulation can be used to solve most radar detection problems. Its use is increasing both to confirm solutions obtained by standard procedures, and also to solve complex problems not otherwise solvable by analytic methods. Rapid advances in computer science and hardware will further accelerate the use of this important tool.

FAST SCANNING ANTENNA

HIGH RANGE RESOLUTION

INTEGRATE N-PULSES RETURNED WITHIN ANTENNA BEAM DWELL

CONTROLS PERFORMS CONTROLS FALSE ALARM SCAN-TO-SCAN OVERALL FAR RATE INDEPEDENT BINARV EO P E R HOUR OF CLUTTER INTEGRATION DISTRIBUTION O N LINEAR VELOCITY TARGETS

Fig. 3. Radar Signal Processing Block Diagram

Final detection is accomplished using a binary integrator which performs scan-to-scan integration after CFAR processing. A minimum target exposure time of 5 seconds resulting in 10 antenna scans is assumed. Detection occurs when at least 8 target responses are achieved in the detection cell within the observation time. Similarly, a false alarm is declared when at least 8 random noise or sea spikes fall within the detection cell and a target is not present. Figure 4 depicts the maximum range performance determined for the radar illustrated in Figure 3. A transmitter average power of 500 watts, an antenna gain of 33 dB, a scan rate of 2 r/second and a Swerling 3 target is assumed. Figure 4 illustrates the effect of radar resolution on the ability to detect small radar targets at low grazing angles. It assumes that the

REFERENCES
[ l ] M.1. Skolnik, Radar Handbook,2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990. [2] D. Barton and W. Barton, Modem Radar System Analysis Software and Users Manual,version 2.0, Artech House, Norwood, MA, 1993.
[3] R. Lay, J. Taylor and G . Bruning, ARSR-4 Unique Solutions to Long Recognized Radar Problems,IEEE Int. Radar Conf., Washington, D.C., May 1990.

[4] R. Mitchell, Importance Sampling Applied to Simulation of False Alarm Statistics,IEEE Trans. Aerospace and Electronic Systems, Vol. AES-17, No. 1, Jan. 1981.

IEEE AESS Systems Magazine, April I995

39

~ _ _ _ _

__

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

__

~ ___

~-

D. C r i Schleher is Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the Naval Postgraduate School. Formerly, he was Vice President of uts Engineering at Telephonics Corporation, Director of Research and Development at AIL Division of Eaton Corporation, and Manager of the Advanced Development Laboratories at Raytheon Corporation. He is a Fellow of the IEEE and author of four books: MTI Radar, Automatic Detection and Radar Data Processing, Introduction to Electronic Warfare and MTI and Pulsed Doppler Radar. Dr. Schleher holds BEE, MEE and Ph.D degrees from Polytechnic University.

INSIDE AESS
NJ Coast Joint AES/EM Chapter
Robert Doto, Speaker, Deputy PM Combat ID Subject: Battlefield Combat ID Program 28 November 1994 Demo of Combat ID Display Models (From left to right): Seymour Krevsky, Secretary, NJ Coast Joint AES/EM Chapter; Robert Doto, Speaker; Seymour Hirsch of Questech, Inc.; Samuel Sequer, Chairman NJ Coast Joint AES/EM Chapter; and George Hessel, Treasurer, NJ Coast Joint AES/EM Chapter

Presentation of Plaque to the General for the Presentation of the Talk State of Cecom 30 November 1994 at Gibbs Hall, Fort Monmouth, NJ (From left to right): Major General Oho J. Guenther; NJ Coast Chapter AES/EM Vice Chairman, John Van Savage

40

IEEE AESS Systems Magazme, April 1995

__ _

_ _