Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T03:28:09.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigating electromagnetic scattering characteristics based on a nonlinear sea surface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2023

Xunchao Liu Open the ORCID record for Xunchao Liu [Opens in a new window] ,
Hongli Miao Open the ORCID record for Hongli Miao [Opens in a new window]  and
Jiajie Chen Open the ORCID record for Jiajie Chen [Opens in a new window]
Xunchao Liu
Affiliation:
College of Physics and Optoelectronic Engineering, Faculty of Information Science and Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China
Hongli Miao*
Affiliation:
College of Physics and Optoelectronic Engineering, Faculty of Information Science and Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China
Jiajie Chen
Affiliation:
College of Physics and Optoelectronic Engineering, Faculty of Information Science and Engineering, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China
*
Corresponding author: Hongli Miao; Email: oumhl@ouc.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Establishing a precise electromagnetic scattering model of surfaces is of great significance for comprehending the underlying mechanics of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imaging. To describe surface electromagnetic scattering more comprehensively, this paper established a nonlinear integral equation model with the Creamer model and bispectrum (IEM-C). Based on the IEM-C model, the effect of parameters, such as radar wave incidence angle, wind speed and direction of sea surfaces, and different polarization modes on the backscattering coefficients of C-band radar waves, was systematically evaluated. The results show that the IEM-C model can characterize both the vertical nonlinear features due to wave interactions and the horizontal nonlinear features due to the wind direction. The sensitivity of the sea surface backscattering coefficient in the IEM-C model to nonlinear effects varies with different incident angles. At the incident angle of 30°, the IEM-C model exhibits the most significant nonlinear effects. The nonlinear effects of the IEM-C model vary under different wind speeds. By comparing with the measured data, it is proved that the IEM-C model is closer to the real sea surface scattering situation than the IEM model.

Keywords

bispectrumelectromagnetic scatteringIEMnonlinearsecond-order creamer
Type
Research Paper
Information
International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies , First View , pp. 1 - 9
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with the European Microwave Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boccaletti, G, Ferrari, R, Adcroft, A, Ferreira, D and Marshall, J (2005) The vertical structure of ocean heat transport. Geophysical Research Letters 32(10), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, Y, Dong, X, Jiang, X, Zhang, Y, Zhu, D, Sun, Q, Wang, Z, Niu, X, Chen, W, Zhu, C, Jing, Z, Tang, S, Li, Y, Chen, J, Chu, X, Xu, C, Wang, T, He, Y, Han, B, Zhang, Y, Wang, M, Wu, W, Xia, Y, Chen, K, Qian, Y, Shi, P, Zhan, H and Peng, S (2021) Ocean surface current multiscale observation mission (OSCOM): Simultaneous measurement of ocean surface current, vector wind, and temperature. Progress in Oceanography 193, .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikeda, M and Dobson, F (1995) Oceanographic Applications of Remote Sensing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Tsang, L, Kong, JA and Ding, KH (2004) Scattering of Electromagnetic Waves: Theories and Applications, Vol. 15. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Du, Y, Yang, J, Yang, X, Tsang, L, Chen, KS, Johnson, JT and Yin, J (2020) Electromagnetic scattering and emission from large rough surfaces with multiple elevations using the MLSD-SMCG method. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 59(7), 5393–5406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, AK (1994) Microwave Scattering and Emission Models and Their Applications. Boston, London: Artech House.Google Scholar
Bruce, NC and Dainty, JC (1991) Multiple scattering from random rough surfaces using the Kirchhoff approximation. Journal of Modern Optics 38(3), 579–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soto-Crespo, JM, Nieto-Vesperinas, M and Friberg, AT (1990) Scattering from slightly rough random surfaces: A detailed study on the validity of the small perturbation method. Josaa 7(7), 1185–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voronovich, A (1994) Small-slope approximation for electromagnetic wave scattering at a rough interface of two dielectric half-spaces. Waves in Random Media 4(3), .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, KS, Fung, AK and Weissman, DE (1992) A backscattering model for ocean surface. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 30(4), 811–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, Y, Du, Y and T, MW (2019) Simulation and analysis of fully polarimetric microwave bistatic scattering from anisotropic ocean surface. Haiyang Xuebao 41(3), 155–168.Google Scholar
Fung, AK, Li, Z and Chen, KS (1992) Backscattering from a randomly rough dielectric surface. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 30(2), 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, KS, Fung, AK and Amar, F (1993) An empirical bispectrum model for sea surface scattering. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 31(4), 830–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, KS, Wu, TD, Tsang, L, Li, Q, Shi, J and Fung, A (2003) Emission of rough surfaces calculated by the integral equation method with comparison to three-dimensional moment method simulations. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 41(1), 90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rino, CL, Crystal, TL, Koide, AK, Ngo, HD and Guthart, H (1991) Numerical simulation of backscatter from linear and nonlinear ocean surface realizations. Radio Science 26(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creamer, DB, Henyey, F, Schult, R and Wright, J (1989) Improved linear representation of ocean surface waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 205, 135–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soriano, G, Joelson, M and Saillard, M (2006) Doppler spectra from a two-dimensional ocean surface at L-band. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 44(9), 2430–2437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, X, Zhang, X, Dang, H and Tan, X (2020) Analysis of microwave backscattering from nonlinear sea surface with currents: Doppler spectrum and SAR images. International Journal of Microwave and Wireless Technologies 12(7), 598–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, PA, Ouellette, JD, Toporkov, JV and Johnson, JT (2022) A simulation study of significant wave height retrieval from bistatic scattering of signals of opportunity. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 19, 1–5.Google Scholar
Yueh, SH, Tang, W, Fore, AG, Neumann, G, Hayashi, A, Freedman, A, Chaubell, J and Lagerloef, GS (2013) L-band passive and active microwave geophysical model functions of ocean surface winds and applications to Aquarius retrieval. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 51(9), 4619–4632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elfouhaily, T, Chapron, B, Katsaros, K and Vandemark, D (1997) A unified directional spectrum for long and short wind-driven waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 102(C7), 15781–15796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daley, JC (1973) Wind dependence of radar sea return. Journal of Geophysical Research 78(33), 7823–7833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arikan, F and Vural, N (2005) Simulation of sea clutter at various frequency bands. Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications 19(4), 529–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar