4.7 Article

An Azimuth-Variant Autofocus Scheme of Bistatic Forward-Looking Synthetic Aperture Radar

Journal

IEEE GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING LETTERS
Volume 14, Issue 5, Pages 689-693

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/LGRS.2017.2671879

Keywords

Autofocus; azimuth variation; bistatic forward-looking synthetic aperture radar (BFSAR); Doppler coefficients; estimation-evaluation-equalization (EEE)

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61401078, 61301273]
  2. Research Fund for High-technology Project [9140A07020614DZ02099]
  3. Research Startup Fund of the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China [Y02002010201089]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities [ZYGX2014J015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In bistatic forward-looking synthetic aperture radar (BFSAR), conventional autofocus algorithms cannot estimate the phase errors accurately when the range walk is compensated in the azimuthal time domain. This problem stems from the influence of the azimuth-variant Doppler coefficients after linear range cell migration correction in azimuthal time domain. In principle, nonlinear chirp scaling processing can be carried out to remove the azimuth variance. Nevertheless, Doppler azimuth variations of the Doppler parameters induced by the motion errors are not taken into consideration and serious defocus would emerge in the final image. To cope with such a problem, an estimation-evaluation-equalization scheme is proposed before conventional autofocus for BFSAR. Different from the conventional autofocus method, the azimuth-variant Doppler coefficients are additionally estimated and equalized before autofocus, and as a consequence, phase errors can be precisely estimated. The BFSAR data processing results demonstrate the validity of the proposed method on the improvement of autofocus in BFSAR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available