4.7 Article

A phase signature for detecting wet subsurface structures using polarimetric L-band SAR

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TGRS.2004.830645

关键词

finite-difference time-domain (FDTD); integral equation method (IEM); L-band; moisture; phase; polarimetry; subsurface; synthetic aperture radar (SAR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, we investigate the ability of L-band synthetic aperture radar (SAR) systems to penetrate soils to retrieve information about subsurface wet structures. Our experiment site, the Pyla dune, is a bare sandy area allowing high radar penetration and known to have large wet subsurface structures (paleosoils) at varying depths. Buried paleosoils, which act as moisture tanks, are detectable with radar, since they present a high permittivity due to their water content. By analyzing airborne polarimetric SAR data, we established that a phase signature is correlated to the buried wet palesoils: a phase difference of 23degrees between the horizontal (HH) and vertical (VV) channels was clearly observed. It allows detection of the paleosoil down to a larger depth (5.2 m) than when only considering HH and HV amplitude signals (3.5 m). In order to confirm this result, field measurements were performed that led to the same observed phase difference. We could fit our observations to the semiempirical model proposed by Oh and Sarabandi, an we reproduced the observed phenomenon using a two-layer integral equation method (EEM) model of the Pyla dune, which was completed by finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) numeri simulations. We show that the soil moisture significantly influences the radar response in terms of phase difference between the copolarized modes. Our study also shows that the single-scattering IEM model reproduces the observed phase difference fairly well for a natural outdoor site when combined to FDTD simulation results. This phase signature could be used as a new tool to map subsurface moisture in and regions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据