A Signal Model for Simultaneous Range-Bearing

Estimation in LFMCW Radar

Peter Asuzu ∗ and Charles Thompson†
∗ Veoneer
Inc., Lowell, Massachusetts
† University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts

Abstract—A radar signal model for range-bearing estimation

is presented. The model demonstrates the signal-processing
principle for simultaneous measurement of range and bearing
using Linear Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave radar. The
trade-off in range-bearing estimation is investigated using the
model. Comparison with the range-velocity estimation model
is presented, and the implications for phase-interferometry are
examined.

I. I NTRODUCTION
The Linear Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave

...
(LFMCW) radar is commonly used for range detection
in many applications including automotive driver-assistance,
room-occupancy sensing, and industrial automation. The
signal-processing for range estimation using LFMCW mod-
ulation has been shown in [1]. The estimation of a target’s
Fig. 1. FMCW radar transceiver architecture for range-bearing estimation.
bearing angle from a linear array is well known [2]. To jointly
estimate the range and bearing parameters, an LFMCW array
can be used in which the range information is extracted from
individual elements of the array, and the bearing information
is extracted from the phase variation across the array elements
[3], [4]. However the limitations of this technique of range-

(N
-1
)Δ
bearing processing have not been previously investigated.

R
This paper develops an LFMCW radar-signal model to
2Δ

investigate the signal-processing scheme for the simultaneous

R
ΔR

measurement of range and bearing. The model is contrasted

with the higher-order range-velocity model described in [5].
Comparisons to phase-interferometry processing are also pre- Fig. 2. N -element receiving linear antenna array with inter-element spacing
sented. Some of the strengths and limitations of LFMCW d.
modulation for range-bearing estimation are uncovered. The
fractional bandwidth is identified as a system parameter that
can be used to control for the trade-off between range and window function (wr = 1: 0 ≤ t ≤ T ; wr = 0: elsewhere).
bearing uncertainties. This highlights the limit to which sys- After mixing the transmitted signal and its time-delayed ver-
tem bandwidth can be increased to improve range resolution sion, the signal at the nth receiver can be shown to be
without severely degrading bearing resolution.
yn (t) = LPF{As(t)s(t − [τ + n∆τ ])}
II. M ODEL DERIVATION A
= cos(γn t + Φn )wr (t) (2)
We begin with a multichannel FMCW radar transceiver as 2
shown in Fig. 1. The receivers are spatially arranged as a where
linear array shown in Fig. 2. The transmit signal is a sinusoid
with a linearly modulated instantaneous frequency (chirp). The γn = 2πβ[τ + n∆τ ] (3)
2
transmit signal can be written as Φn = ω0 [τ + n∆τ ] − πβ[τ + n∆τ ] (4)
2R0
s(t) = cos(ω0 t + πβt2 )wr (t) (1) τ= (5)
c
where β is chirp rate, ω0 is the starting angular frequency of ∆R d sin θ
∆τ = = (6)
the chirp, and T is the chirp’s duration. wr (t) is a rectangular c c

978-1-7281-1679-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

Implicit in (2) is the assumption that the time-delay at the where
nth receiver is much smaller than the chirp duration such that l sin θ
(τ + n∆τ )  T , and hence wr (t − [τ + n∆τ ]) ≈ wr (t). γl = 2πβ[τ + ] (12)
c
LPF{-} is the low-pass filter operator, τ is the time-delay T l sin θ l sin θ 2
between the target and the zeroth receiver, ∆τ is an incremen- φl = γl + ω0 [τ + ] + πβ[τ + ] (13)
2 c c
tal time-delay due to the additional distance ∆R traveled by
the wavefront arriving at each receiver, d is the inter-element wa (l) is a window function that represents the antenna array
spacing of the array, θ is the target’s bearing-angle which elements as a truncated series of impulses, and is given as
corresponds to the angle-of-arrival of the incident wavefront, N
X −1
and A is an amplitude coefficient that accounts for factors such wa (l) = δ(l − nd)
as atmospheric attenuation target scattering cross section. The n=0
receiving channels are assumed to have equal gains. The target, 1 ∞
L  X
whose scattering produces the plane wave front, is at a distance = rect l− δ(l − nd)
L 2 n=−∞
R0 from the zeroth receiver, and is assumed stationary for the
∞
chirp duration T . At the nth receiver, the Fourier transform of
1 L  X 2π
= rect l− gn ej d nl (14)
its low-pass filtered output yn is L 2 n=−∞
Ah i
Yn (ω) = e−jΦn δ(ω + γn ) + ejΦn δ(ω − γn ) ⊗ with
4  
ωT −jω T gn = 1/d (15)
T sinc e 2 (7)
2 L = (N − 1)d (16)
where ⊗ denotes the frequency convolution operator, and the
term following the operator is the transform of the rectangular In (14) rect(-) is the spatial rectangular window such that
window wr (t). After the convolution operation, Yn (ω) can be rect(-) = 1, 0 ≤ l ≤ L; and rect(-) = 0, elsewhere. The
written as complex exponential sum is the Fourier series representation
of the periodic impulse in Fig. 2.
AT −jω T h −jφn i
Yn (ω) = e 2 e F (ω + γn ) + ejφn F (ω − γn ) Y (ω, l) in (11) can be further simplified as
4
(8)

AT −jω T
Y (ω, l) = e 2
with 4
2
T F (ω + a0 + a1 l)e−jb0 e−jb1 l e−jb2 l +
φn = γ n + Φn (9)
2

jb0 jb1 l jb2 l2
T
 F (ω − a0 − a1 l)e e e wa (l) (17)
F (ω) = sinc ω (10)
2
where
In range-velocity measurement the change in phase-shifts
among sequential chirps is exploited for velocity estimation 4πβ
a0 = R0 (18)
[1], [5]. Similarly we can intuit that for range-bearing measure- c
sin θ
ment, the change in phase-shifts among the receiving channels a1 = 2πβ (19)
of the linear array can be exploited for bearing estimation. c
2 4πβ
The rate of change of the phase-shifts across the receiving b0 = R0 (πβT + ω0 ) − 2 R02 (20)
channels is related to the target’s bearing angle, and can be c c
 R0  sin θ
obtained from a Fourier transform in the spatial domain. By b1 = πβT + ω0 − 4πβ (21)
assembling the Fourier transform Yn (ω) from the receiving c c
channels, and then transforming the assembly in the spatial sin2 θ
b2 = −πβ 2 (22)
domain, a two-dimensional spectrum with information about c
the target’s range and bearing is obtained. This procedure is The range-bearing spectrum can be obtained from a Fourier
2
shown as follows. transform of (17). The expression F (ω±a0 ±a1 l)e∓jb2 l e∓jb1 l
First we recognize from n∆τ in (3) and (4) that nd can be implies two spatial frequency-domain operations: a convolu-
construed as the discrete version of a continuous variable l, tion with a chirp and a spatial frequency shift. F (ω ±a0 ±a1 l)
such that nd → l and Yn (ω) → Yl (ω) = Y (ω, l). Then from signifies a time-spectrum that varies in space. A direct eval-
(8), the assembly of Fourier transforms from the receiving uation of the l-domain transform of (17) is not undertaken
channels can be written as for range-bearing estimation due to the coupling of ω and l
AT −jω T h −jφl in F (-). However ω and l can be decoupled by expanding
Y (ω, l) = e 2 e F (ω + γl )+ 2
F (ω ± a0 ± a1 l)e∓jb2 l into a Taylor series, and the range-
4
bearing spectrum obtained from a Fourier transform in the
i
ejφl F (ω − γl ) wa (l) (11)
l-domain.

978-1-7281-1679-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

 Comparing (17) and [5, Eqn. (11)] and observing that which is the classical inter-element spacing limit to avoid
(l, wa ) maps to (t̂, wv ), the range-bearing spectrum can be ambiguities in phase-processing of a linear array [2], [6].
deduced from [5, Eqn. (22)] as Using the first harmonic (n = 0) in (25), the magnitude of
(26) can be written as
∞ AT L
AT −jω T X (−j)m h
 
Y(ω, k) = Y(ω, k) = ×
 
e 2
m=0 4 d
4 m=0
m! 
 −jb0 −jb1 L2
 L
dm e F (ω + a0 ) sinc [k + b1 ] +
e−jb0 Um
+ 2
e
(ω) Wa (k + b1 ) +
dk m L
 L 

− d m i ejb0 ejb1 2 F (ω − a0 ) sinc [k − b1 ] (29)
ejb0 Um 2

(ω) m Wa (k − b1 ) (23)
dk
Considering the last sinc function in (29), we can rewrite it
where using (21) as
± ∂m n o
∓jb2 l2 
 L  h λ0 k i Q 
Um (ω) = m F (ω ± a0 ± a1 l)e (24) sinc [k − b1 ] = sinc π sin θ − L (30)
∂l 
l=0 2 Q 2π λ0
  ∞
kL −jk L X 2π with
Wa (k) = L sinc e 2 ⊗ gn δ(k − n)  
2 d βT 4R0
n=−∞ Q=1+ 1− (31)
∞ 2f0 cT
L X h 2π i L  −j[k− 2π n] L
= sinc k − n e d 2 (25) The sine of the target’s bearing-angle can be obtained from
d n=−∞ d 2
the argument of the maximum of (30), and can be related to
k is the wavenumber or angular spatial frequency. Using the spatial frequency as
Y(ω, k) to determine range-bearing is termed in this paper as k λ0
range-bearing-map technique. Note that similar to the range- sin θ = (32)
2π Q
Doppler model [1], [5], the following approximations can
be employed for many practical systems: τ  l sin θ/c in Hence, the factor λ0 /Q can be used to translate the spatial
(12), and ω0 [τ + l sin θ/c]  πβ[τ + l sin θ/c]2 in (13). The frequency to the sine-of-bearing-angle. For narrow band sys-
approximations imply that the time-delay between radar and tems (f0  βT ), Q ≈ 1. A good criterion that satisfies the
target must be significantly larger than the incremental time- narrow band requirement is βT < 0.01f0 [7]. The maximum
delays at the array elements and that the quadratic time-delays unambiguous angle can be determined from (27) and (32) as
are negligible. The approximations can be shown to be near- sin−1 (λ0 /[2dQ]).
equivalent to the zero-order Taylor expansion of (23), however Applying Rayleigh’s criterion for minimum resolvability to
the approximations do not capture the crucial bandwidth term (30), the resolution of the sine-of-the-bearing-angle can be
in b1 (21). determined as
λ0 λ0
(sin θ)res = ≈ (33)
III. I MPLICATIONS FOR ANGULAR RESOLUTION QL L
It is typically desired to translate the spatial frequency Note that (33) implies that bearing resolution is improved
k/(2π) to bearing angle θ. The zero-order expansion of (23) with increasing bandwidth (increasing Q). However, a contrary
can be written as effect is observed when the higher order Taylor expansions
from (23) are taken into account. To illustrate this, the sum
 AT −jω T h −jb0 of the first three orders of the derivatives of sinc([k − b1 ] L2 )
Y(ω, k) = e 2 e F (ω + a0 )Wa (k + b1 )

m=0 4 are plotted in Fig. 3. The degradation of bearing resolution
i with higher order expansions can be seen in the figure.
+ ejb0 F (ω − a0 )Wa (k − b1 ) (26) This degradation becomes significant for large bandwidth and
To avoid aliasing in the k spectral domain, we impose the bearing angles through Um and a1 in (23), which scale the
Nyquist sampling requirement on the harmonics of (25), such higher order derivatives.
that   IV. I MPLICATIONS FOR PHASE - INTERFEROMETRY
1 kmax
≥2 (27) In phase-comparison or phase-interferometry applications
d 2π
[6], the target’s bearing-angle can be determined from the
where kmax /(2π) is the maximum spatial frequency sampled phase difference between two receiving antennas. This can be
by the array. For an FMCW radar with the transmit waveform implemented for the array in Fig. 2 by evaluating the phase-
specified in (1), kmax = 2π/λ0 , with λ0 = 2πc/ω0 . The difference between any two adjacent receivers. We note that
spatial sampling requirement of (27) can thus be rewritten as although phase-comparison is a simpler scheme than range-
λ0 bearing map, it does not lend itself well to a multiple-target
d≤ (28) scenario, where targets are at the same range but have different
2

978-1-7281-1679-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

 " 1
#!
c P − [P 2 − 4πβ(2n + 1)6 YR (γn )] 2
θ = sin−1
0 M=0 d 2πβ(2n + 1)
Magnitude (dB)

−5 1 (40)
2
−10 In (40) the larger solution of (39) has been discarded since
−15 it yields a non-physical θ. Note that for small [∆τ ]2 (f0 
−20 β∆τ ), we can approximate the bearing-angle from (37) as
−25  
−1 c 6 YR (γn )
−30 θ ≈ sin (41)
-3π -2π -π 0 π 2π 3π d P
[k − b1 ] L2 B. Phase-comparison by sum-difference
The target’s bearing can be obtained by applying the sum-
Fig. 3. Sum of the weighted derivatives of sinc([k − b1 ] L
2
): difference phase-comparison method to the receiving elements
PM 1 dm L
m=0 m! dk m sinc([k − b 1 ] 2
) of a linear array [6], [8]. For two adjacent receivers in Fig. 2,
the ratio of their difference and sum can be expressed as
Cn+1 Yn+1 (ω) − Cn Yn (ω)
bearing-angles. We now examine the implications of using Y∆Σ (ω) = (42)
the more complete signal representation in (8) on phase- Cn+1 Yn+1 (ω) + Cn Yn (ω)
comparison technique. Evaluating (42) at ω = γn , and applying the conditions of
(35) yields
A. Phase-comparison by ratio  (Cn+1 /Cn )Yn+1 (γn ) − Yn (γn )
Y∆Σ (ω) = (43)

Using the scheme of Fig. 1, the phase-difference between ω=γn (Cn+1 /Cn )Yn+1 (γn ) + Yn (γn )
two adjacent receivers can be obtained from the ratio of their
To remove the influence of channel-to-channel gain variations,
output IF signals. Using (8) we can express the ratio of the IF
we divide the first term in the numerator and denominator of
signals as
(43) by the magnitude of (36), hence arriving at a new quantity
Cn+1 Yn+1 (ω) Cn+1
YR (ω) = = × (Cn+1 /Cn )Yn+1 (γn )|YR (γn )|−1 − Yn (γn )
Cn Yn (ω) Cn Ye∆Σ (γn ) =
 −jφn+1 (Cn+1 /Cn )Yn+1 (γn )|YR (γn )|−1 + Yn (γn )
F (ω + γn+1 ) + ejφn+1 F (ω − γn+1 )

e
ejφn+1 − ejφn
 
(34) φn+1 − φn
e−jφn F (ω + γn ) + ejφn F (ω − γn ) = jφn+1 = j tan (44)
e + ejφn 2
Cn accounts for channel-to-channel gain variations; that is, for and
each channel Cn is constant, but may vary among channels. 2 tan−1 (Re{−j Ye∆Σ (γn )}) = φn+1 − φn (45)
Evaluating (34) at ω = γn , and requiring that
The operation Re{-} preserves the sign of the bearing-angle
T T such that negative angles can be unambiguously determined.
[γn − γn+1 ] ≈ 0, [γn + γn+1 ]  π, γn T  π (35)
2 2 We can obtain θ by comparing (45) and (37), and replacing
yields 6 YR (γn ) in (40) or (41) with 2 tan−1 (Re{−j Y
e∆Σ (γn )}).
 Cn+1 j(φn+1 −φn )
YR (ω) = e (36) C. Phase-comparison by cross-correlation

ω=γn Cn
The bearing-angle can be estimated by cross-correlating
γn is the argument-of-the-maximum of the right-hand side the output of two adjacent receiving channels. The Fourier
of (8). Using (9) the phase-angle of (36) can be shown to be transform of the cross-correlated channels can be used to
obtain the target bearing. Using (8) – (10), the transform of
6 YR (γn ) = φn+1 − φn = −πβ(2n + 1)[∆τ ]2 + P ∆τ (37)
the correlated channels can be written as
with YC (ω) = Cn Cn+1 Yn (−ω)Yn+1 (ω)
 2
P = πβT + ω0 − 4πβR0 /c AT
= Cn Cn+1 ×
4
  
βT 4R0
= 2πf0 1 + 1− = 2πf0 Q (38) h i
2f0 cT e−jφn F (ω − γn ) + ejφn F (ω + γn ) ×
In (38) we again see the influence of the fractional bandwidth
h i
e−jφn+1 F (ω + γn+1 ) + ejφn+1 F (ω − γn+1 ) (46)
βT /f0 . If the quantity 6 YR (γn ) has been determined from
the DFT of (2) for two adjacent channels, ∆τ and hence the Using the first condition of (35) and noting that
target’s bearing can be determined from (37) and (6) as F (ω ∓ γn )F (ω ± γn+1 ) ≈ 0, (46) can be simplified as
1 2 h
P ± [P 2 − 4πβ(2n + 1)6 YR (γn )] 2

AT
∆τ = (39) YC (ω) = Cn Cn+1 ej(φn+1 −φn ) F 2 (ω − γn )+
2πβ(2n + 1) 4

978-1-7281-1679-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

 i
e−j(φn+1 −φn ) F 2 (ω + γn )
Evaluating (47) at ω = γn yields
 2
(47) 1) Phase-comparison – exact vs. approximate formulas:
Fig. 4 shows the relative error of the estimated bearing for
a target at 80◦ . The bearing was estimated using the phase-
comparison methods. Identical results were observed among
 AT the phase-comparison methods, hence only the results from
YC (ω) = Cn Cn+1 ej(φn+1 −φn ) (48)

ω=γn 4 the cross-correlation method are shown. It can be seen from
From inspection, the bearing-angle can be obtained by replac-
ing 6 YR (γn ) in (40) or (41) with 6 YC (γn ), where 6 YC (γn )
is the phase angle of (48).
V. C OMPARISON WITH R ANGE -V ELOCITY ESTIMATION
The methodology in this paper is analogous to the range-
velocity model in [5]. Both models share a similar notational
structure. The a0 and b0 terms are identical. The a1 , b1 , and
b2 terms of the range-bearing model can be obtained from the
range-velocity model by substituting 2v0 with sin θ, where v0
is the target velocity [5]. This arises from the definition of
the time-delays in the models. In the range-bearing model the
channel-to-channel time delay is 2Rc 0 + l sin θ
c ; in the range-
velocity model the pulse-to-pulse time delay is 2Rc 0 + 2vc0 t̂ ,
where t̂ is the pulse-to-pulse time variable [5]. The bearing-
window wa (l) of the range-bearing model is an impulse-
train, whereas the velocity-window wv (t̂) in the range-velocity
model is a pulse-train [5].
Due to the structural similarities of the models, they will
exhibit similar phenomena such as the influence of velocity or
bearing on target backscatter and the uncertainty in estimating
range-velocity or range-bearing. However these phenomena
appear to be less pronounced for the range-bearing model.
Among the terms in (18) – (22), a1 and b1 principally impact
bearing-backscatter-coupling and range-bearing uncertainty.
a1 accentuates the impact of the higher-order expansions and
b1 produces a deviation in the bearing estimate. Since sin θ
which influences a1 and b1 , is a bounded quantity unlike
v0 , the impact of a1 and b1 is limited in the range-bearing
model. Nevertheless, since the range-velocity model assumes
a stationary target within each pulse, both models can be
combined to yield a three-dimensional spectrum for range-
bearing-velocity estimation. An analysis of the range-bearing-
velocity model and its attendant implications is the subject of
future investigations.
For the phase comparison techniques, velocity can be ob-
tained from (39) by making a similar substitution for sin θ
with 2v0 , and d with T̂ (pulse repetition interval). This can be
shown by evaluating (11) in [5].
VI. S IMULATIONS
To evaluate the effectiveness of the phase-comparison and
range-bearing-map methods, sinusoids were generated accord-
ing to (2), and their DFTs computed. A 1024-point DFT, zero-
padded to 2048, with 25 MHz sampling frequency was used.
The transmit frequency f0 was set to 76 GHz with a 1 GHz
bandwidth. The linear array consisted of eight elements with
an inter-element spacing of 0.5λ0 .
978-1-7281-1679-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Fig. 4 that the angles estimated from the approximation of
(41) have a relative error that increases monotonically with
range, though the scale of the error can be deemed insignificant
for the system examined. The juxtaposed subplot is for the
approximated case with βT set to zero in (38). Note the
magnitude of the error when bandwidth is neglected.
The experiment was repeated with white Gaussian noise
added to each channel. The channel noises were presumed
to be independent, thus neglecting channel cross-talk. Fig. 5
shows the relative angle error for various signal-to-noise
ratios (SNR). The noiseless case is shown in Fig. 4. The
range-dependence associated with the approximation in (41)
is obscured with worsening SNR. Thus SNR can be seen as
a limiting factor on the benefits of using the exact formula of
(40).
-2.85
approx. with βT=0
-2.95
-3.05 θ = 80°
0.15
percent angle error
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0.1
0.05 approx.
exact
0
-0.05
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Range (m)
Fig. 4. Influence of range on angle estimation using phase-comparison
formulas. approx. case (41), exact case (40).
2) Phase-comparison vs. range-bearing map: To compare
the phase-comparison and range-bearing-map methods, the
target bearing and range were fixed at 80◦ and 40 m re-
spectively. 504 zero-data channels were appended to the array
to interpolate the DFT in the bearing dimension. The SNR
for each channel was varied, and at each SNR, the relative
angle error was computed. The process was repeated for 1000
iterations. Fig. 6 shows the mean square error of the estimated
angle. For low SNR, the sum-difference method has the
smallest error; at moderate SNR (0 – 10 dB), range-bearing-
map shows the best performance. At high SNR (> 10 dB),
the angle error from the range-bearing-map method is largely
independent of SNR, but rather dependent on the size of
the bearing-domain DFT. At high SNR, in lieu of using a
prohibitively large DFT size, phase-comparison can be used
to correct for the error in the range-bearing-map method.
To further evaluate the bearing estimation methods, phase
noise was added to each channel. For simpler analysis, the
phase noise was modeled as a zero-mean random variable
 phase noise, with relaxed requirements for SNR.
θ = 80°, 40 dB SNR
percent angle error

0.4 approx.
0.2 exact
1 Range-bearing-map
0 Sum-diff
10-1
-0.2

Mean-square error
10 -2
-0.4
10-3 0 dB SNR
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
10-4
Range (m) 10-5
θ = 80°, 30 dB SNR 10-6 0 dB SNR
40 dB SNR
10-7 ≥ 20 dB SNR
percent angle error

0.4 20 dB SNR
10-8
0.2 80 dB SNR
10-9
0
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0
-0.2
Phase noise, dBc/Hz
-0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Fig. 7. Influence of phase noise and SNR on bearing estimation. R0 = 40 m,
Range (m) θ = 80◦ .

Fig. 5. Masking effect of SNR on the benefit of using the exact formula of
(40) in phase-comparison bearing estimation. VII. C ONCLUSION
The simultaneous measurement of range and bearing in
LFMCW radar has been examined. A radar-signal model
1 which establishes a basis for range-bearing estimation in
Mean-square error

10-1 Sum-difference
Ratio, cross-correlation
10 -2
10-3
10-4 Range-bearing map
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
10-9
-40 -20 0 20 40 60
SNR (dB)
Fig. 6. Influence of SNR on bearing estimation. R0 = 40 m, θ = 80◦ .
uniformly distributed over [−ρ, ρ], where |ρ| < π. The random
term was added to the argument of the cosine in (2). ρ was
determined by noting that the power of a zero-mean uniform
random variable ∈ [−ρ, ρ] is ρ2 /3, which is assumed equal to
the receiver noise power. The noise power PN can be obtained
from the definition of phase noise as PN = LPc B [9], where
L is the phase-noise-power relative to the carrier, Pc is the
carrier power, and√B is the receiver bandwidth. ρ can thus be
specified as ρ = 3LPc B.
The mean square of the relative angle-error was simulated
over phase noise at various SNR levels, and is shown in
Fig. 7. Among the phase-comparison methods, sum-difference
showed the best performance and is hence compared with
range-bearing map. Below −50 dBc/Hz, the angle error from
range-bearing-map is largely independent of phase noise,
whereas phase-comparison requires a more stringent cutoff
(−100 dBc/Hz) to become phase-noise independent. At low
phase noise, the angle error from phase-comparison is a
steeper function of SNR than range-bearing-map. Thus range-
bearing-map is seen to be more effective against noise than
phase-comparison, since it can tolerate a larger degradation in
LFMCW radar has been developed. The model is used to
highlight the strengths and limitations of LFMCW modulation
for range-bearing estimation. A comparison with the range-
velocity model shows that higher-order expansions and their
associated phenomena are less critical for the range-bearing
model. Two variants of the signal model, range-bearing-map
80 and phase-comparison, are evaluated for their effectiveness in
bearing estimation. The range-bearing-map is seen to be more
effective in the presence of noise. More in-depth studies are
warranted to investigate the noise-performance of the bearing
estimation methods.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. Barrick, “FM/CW Radar Signals and Digital Signal Processing,”
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Tech. Rep. 283-WPL
26, Jul 1973.
[2] Constantine A. Balanis, Antenna Theory, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons,
2005.
[3] D. Langer, “An Integrated MMW Radar System for Outdoor Navigation,”
Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, January 1997.
[4] F. Engels, P. Heidenreich, A. M. Zoubir, F. K. Jondral, and M. Winter-
mantel, “Advances in automotive radar: A framework on computationally
efficient high-resolution frequency estimation,” IEEE Signal Processing
Magazine, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 36–46, March 2017.
[5] P. Asuzu and C. Thompson, “A More Exact Linear FMCW Radar Signal
Model for Simultaneous Range-Velocity Estimation,” in IEEE Radar
Conference, Apr 2018.
[6] Bassem R. Mahafza, Radar Systems Analysis and Design Using MATLAB.
Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2000.
[7] P. Asuzu, “Millimeter-wave Radar Investigations of Road Conditions
and their Impact on Wheel Slip,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Massachusetts Lowell, May 2018.
[8] J. H. Roberts, “Phase comparison monopulse radar: statistics of phase
error,” Electronics Letters, vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 382–383, April 1984.
[9] David M. Pozar, Microwave Engineering, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons,
2005.

978-1-7281-1679-2/19/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE