IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 38, NO.
2, MARCH 2000
A Fractal-Based Theoretical Framework for Retrieval
of Surface Parameters from Electromagnetic
Backscattering Data
Giorgio Franceschetti, Fellow, IEEE, Antonio Iodice, Member, IEEE, Stefania Maddaluno, and
Daniele Riccio, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—A new theoretical framework for retrieval of di-
electric and geometric surface parameters from electromagnetic
backscattering data is presented. Use is made of fractal geometry
for description of the surface. The suggested scheme leads to a
two-step procedure that allows us to retrieve the surface complex
permittivity and the fractal parameters. Limits of validity for
the procedure applicability are presented. Robustness of the
method is checked against input data measurement errors and
electromagnetic model inaccuracies. Key points for application of
the new framework to synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data are
discussed.
Index Terms—Fractals, parameter retrieval, remote sensing,
scattering.
I. INTRODUCTION
R ETRIEVAL of land surface parameters from backscat-
tered data can be performed by using theoretical [1]–[5]
as well as empirical (or semiempirical) models [6]–[9]. This
paper is concerned with the former approach.
Sound-direct electromagnetic theoretical backscattering
models are now available for evaluating the field backscattered
from random rough surfaces [10]–[15]. Accordingly, it is
worthwhile to explore if these direct models can be inverted
in order to retrieve the surface parameters from backscattered
data. The starting point is to make reference to available
theoretical backscattering evaluation techniques [10]–[15].
Three of these are: the integral equation method (IEM), which
is applicable over a wide range of surface roughnesses; the
physical optics method (PO), which can be applied to large
roughness scale; and the small perturbation method (SPM),
which can be applied to small roughness scale.
Previous work in the area of surface parameter retrieval has
shown that inversion of theoretical models leads to promising,
but never completely satisfactory, results. As a matter of fact,
the effectiveness of such methods is primarily reduced by the
Manuscript received May 4, 1999; revised September 23, 1999.
G. Franceschetti is with the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettronica e delle
Telecomunicazioni, Universitá di Napoli “Federico II,” Naples, Italy, and is
also with the University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles 90032 USA
(e-mail: francesc@irece1.irece.na.cnr.it).
A. Iodice is with the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettronica e delle Teleco-
municazioni, Universitá di Napoli “Federico II,” Naples, Italy, and is also with
Telespazio S.p.A., Rome, Italy (e-mail: iodicea@irece1.irece.na.cnr.it).
S. Maddaluno and D. Riccio are with the Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elet-
tronica e delle Telecomunicazioni, Universitá di Napoli “Federico II,” Naples,
Italy (e-mail: riccio@diesun.die.unina.it).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0196-2892(00)02082-9.
0196–2892/00$10.00 © 2000 IEEE
641
difficulty of devising a surface description suitable to natural
surfaces and at the same time sufficiently simple to lead to a
reasonable inversion technique.
Recently, backscattering models based on the fractal geom-
etry for the surface description have been presented [16]–[27].
These models allow us to evaluate the backscattering coefficient
[or the normalized radar cross section (NRCS)] in terms of rel-
evant fractal parameters. These parameters have been proven to
shed light on natural surface characteristics [28]–[32]. More-
over, only two fractal parameters are sufficient to provide a reli-
able description of a natural surface [28]–[36]. Since the fewer
the number of parameters, the better the retrieval procedure, we
believe it is worthwhile to explore if a more efficient retrieval
procedure can be devised by using such new fractal models.
Hence, in this paper, we first present an overall view of
retrieval procedures. Then, we show that the SPM and the
backscattering model, based on the fractal geometry for the sur-
face description, leads to a new, efficient, and fully theoretical
retrieval framework. Limits of validity are presented, as well as
relevant considerations on its applicability to synthetic aperture
radar (SAR) data. Guidelines for assessing the inversion scheme
robustness with respect to input data measurement errors and
electromagnetic model inaccuracies are presented. Reasons
that do not allow introduction of a full theoretical scheme based
on PO or the more general IEM are also discussed.
We restrict our analysis to retrieval of surface parameters and
do not consider any volumetric interaction between the sensed
scene and the radar signal. This is due to the very cumbersome
parameter dependence that volumetric backscattering models
exhibit. This involved dependence practically does not allow the
design of any fully theoretical retrieval framework.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II is devoted
to assessing the relationship between surface parameters and
backscattering coefficients. Section III examines the number
of parameters to be retrieved. The influence of radar system
parameters is also analyzed. It turns out that the crucial point
relies on the description of the surface correlation properties
[10]–[15]. Moreover, estimation of the surface correlation
poses several unresolved problems. Hence, in Section IV, we
move to a new description of the surface based on the fractal
geometry. In this case, modeling of a random rough surface
can be performed in a very appropriate way. In addition, some
direct backscattering models are also available to evaluate the
backscattering coefficients of a fractal surface. This allows us
to outline a new retrieval scheme for the description of the
642 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 38, NO. 2, MARCH 2000
surface from the backscattered field. In Section V, it is shown
that, considering PO and SPM, the retrieval framework can
be split into a two-step procedure. The first step allows us to
evaluate the real and imaginary part of the dielectric constant.
The second step, presented in Section VI, allows us to evaluate
the geometric parameters of the surface expressed by means
of the fractal geometry. This last step is limited to the SPM.
A conclusion and future recommendations are provided in
Section VII.
II. THEORETICAL BACKSCATTERING MODELS: THE CLASSICAL
APPROACH
In order to devise a fully theoretical framework for the re-
trieval of surface parameters from backscattered data, it is con-
venient, as a preliminary, to state key results in the available
backscattering models that allow us to compute the scattered
field whenever an appropriate set of surface parameters has been
provided.
Theoretical backscattering models, usually employed for land
surface applications [10]–[15], are IEM, PO, and SPM. Limits
of validity exist for each model [10]–[15], [37], [38]; these limits
obviously restrict the class of surfaces to which each model ap-
plies.
Each theoretical model can lead to an analytical evaluation
of the backscattering coefficients only when the surface is de-
scribed in terms of geometric and dielectric properties. The ge-
ometrical description is normally obtained by considering the
surface as an isotropic, stationary, random process character-
ized to the first order by means of a Gaussian probability den-
sity function (pdf) with zero-mean and -standard deviation. It
is characterized to the second order by means of an appropriate
autocorrelation function or corresponding power spectrum .
The dielectric description is normally performed by considering
the sensor (in the free space) that illuminates a semi-infinite ho-
mogeneous space characterized by a complex permittivity (nor-
malized to the free space case) and limited by the
rough surface described above.
For these surfaces, according to the IEM model and ne-
glecting multiple scattering, the backscattering coefficients
can be written as [14]
(2.1)
where
polarization of the transmitted field;
polarization of the received field;
incident wavenumber;
incidence angle over the surface mean plane.
In addition, in (2.1)
(2.2)
where is the zero-order Bessel function and is the surface
normalized autocorrelation function. Finally, are complex
coefficients that depend on the complex dielectric permittivity
and on the incidence angle. Their complete expression can be
found in [14].
Evaluation of the backscattering coefficients according to the
SPM leads to
(2.3)
where is given by (2.2) with , and
(2.4)
Finally, evaluation of the backscattering coefficients ac-
cording to the PO solution leads to
(2.5)
where is a complex coefficient that depends on the dielectric
permittivity and on the incidence angle. Its complete expression
can be found in [10], [11], [14].
It is not difficult to show [14] that PO and SPM can be ob-
tained from the IEM under some restrictive hypotheses.
III. SURFACE PARAMETERS RETRIEVAL FRAMEWORKS
In a theoretical retrieval scheme, the number of surface pa-
rameters to be retrieved is obviously limited to the number of
the same parameters appearing in the corresponding direct so-
lution. Note that also the radar parameters are present in any
direct solution.
Radar parameters in (2.1)–(2.5) are the electromagnetic
wavenumber , the incidence angle over the mean reference
plane and the transmitting and receiving polarization with
respect to the radar antenna reference plane.
Note that models presented in Section II rely on the assump-
tion of a zero mean surface profile. Accordingly, in (2.1)–(2.5),
no depolarization is present. Extension to include the effect of a
mean plane slope can be found in [39] and does not affect main
results presented in this paper.
The electromagnetic wavenumber and the transmitting and
receiving polarizations are known and do not need any retrieval
procedure. Conversely, this is true for the incidence angle only
if the surface mean plane is known. This is what we assume in
the following, and we do not include in the retrieval proce-
dure as a parameter to be estimated. This assumption is reason-
able in flat areas and can always be accepted if a macroscopic
surface profile (DEM), sampled at the radar resolution scale, is
provided. We do not assume any other a priori in situ knowl-
edge. Furthermore, in the SAR case, this (macroscopic) DEM
can be obtained from backscattered data if an interferometric
SAR configuration is available [40].
Under the above hypotheses, only the surface (microscopic)
parameters are to be estimated. In any theoretical model re-
ported in Section II, the number of surface parameters to be
FRANCESCHETTI et al.: FRACTAL-BASED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RETRIEVAL OF SURFACE PARAMETERS
retrieved changes according to the employed second-order geo-
metric characterization of the surface. In fact, it turns out from
(2.1)–(2.5) that the retrieval procedure must deal with two di-
electric parameters, and , while the number of geometrical
parameters is greater than one, the first being and the others
arising from the selected autocorrelation function for the sur-
face.
For a single-parameter autocorrelation function (for instance,
Gaussian or exponential form), the only additional parameter
to be retrieved is the surface correlation length . However,
single-parameter autocorrelation forms have been proved to be
unsatisfactory in the modeling of natural surfaces [14], [25],
[26]. In fact, estimation of the correlation length over natural
surface profiles has been proved to be unstable, in the sense that
the estimated correlation length changes according to the se-
lected length profile [14], [41]. In addition, it is difficult to assess
a sound relationship between the backscattering coefficient and
the correlation length. In fact, many discrepancies arise in com-
paring theoretical models with experimental results in the field
[41], [42]. In addition, some empirical backscattering models
[6] that have been applied for the retrieval of surface parame-
ters do not take into account any correlation length dependence.
Two-parameter autocorrelation functions have also been pro-
posed in the direct modeling of the backscattering from random
rough surfaces. In this case, surfaces whose characteristics may
vary according to the considered scale can also be modeled [14].
However, in this case, the number of surface parameters to be
retrieved becomes higher.
Hence, correlation length discrepancies in its use and diffi-
culties in its estimation call for new and different models for
surface description. These models are discussed in Section IV.
IV. THEORETICAL BACKSCATTERING MODELS: THE FRACTAL
APPROACH
A. Surface Description
It has been proven that the fractal geometry provides a sound
and reliable description of natural surfaces [28]–[32]. However,
in order to apply the fractal geometry to remote sensing, it is
mandatory to devise a fractal model for the surface that al-
lows a possibly approximate evaluation of the scattered electro-
magnetic field. A viable fractal model for the surface descrip-
tion is the fractional Brownian motion (fBm). By definition, an
isotropic surface belongs to the class of fBm if [32]
(4.1)
where is the Hurst coefficient, is the topothesy and
(4.2)
Hence, an fBm surface is characterized by stationary,
Gaussian-distributed height increments, while the surface is not
stationary.1 Its description relies on only the two parameters
1Note that any measured fBm surface height standard deviation depends on
the distance  for which it is determined [25], [32].
643
and . Incidentally, we note that different choices can be
made for the set of parameters representing the fBm surface
[28]–[32]. For instance, the fractal dimension and the
standard deviation of the height increments at unitary dis-
placement can be used without any restriction on the following
analysis. In fact, and are related to and
(4.3)
Once the surface has been described by means of an fBm
random process, it is not straightforward to obtain the corre-
sponding evaluation of the scattered field, because the fulfilling
of model hypotheses [20]–[23], mathematical developments
[20]–[23], limits of validity [21]–[23], and related issues
needs to be addressed. In particular, we stress that a surface
satisfying (4.1) for any small value of the distance would not
be differentiable in any point, and its root mean square (RMS)
slope would be infinite. On the other hand, a surface satisfying
(4.1) for any large value of the distance would suffer from the
infinite variance problem (infrared catastrophe). Fortunately,
real natural surfaces satisfy (4.1) only in a limited (although
wide) range of values (or, equivalently, of spatial frequen-
cies). In addition, whenever a scattering problem is in order,
the range of distances to be considered is limited on one side
by the illuminated patch size (pixel size), and on the other by
the incident electromagnetic wavelength (values of much
smaller than need not be considered). Therefore, bandlimited
fBm surfaces must be used [16], [19]–[23], and hence, the
lower and upper cutoff frequencies must be introduced. Limits
of validity of scattering models obviously depend on such
cutoff frequencies [22], [23]. However, here we want to stress
again that these latter parameters are often not related to surface
properties, but rather to its illumination (illuminated patch size,
wavelength), and therefore, they are a priori known.
B. Scattering Models
Details on evaluating the backscattered field from an fBm sur-
face can be found in the available literature. Here, we only re-
port the main results for SPM and PO. Analytical solutions in
closed form for the scattering from an fBm surface have been
recently obtained by using the IEM [25], [26]. However, they
are too involved to be used in a retrieval scheme as they are.
Furthermore, the IEM, even if applied to nonfractal surfaces, de-
serves several problems (see also Section V) in the development
of retrieval procedure. As of now, no fully theoretical inversion
scheme exists for this model (in [9], linear approximations of
(2.1) are used).
Recent advances in the electromagnetic scattering theory
from fBm surfaces have shown that the SPM backscattering
coefficient of an fBm isotropic random rough surface (except
that at near-vertical incidence) can be expressed in terms of
fractal parameters, as [21], [22]:
(4.4)
644 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 38, NO. 2, MARCH 2000
where
(4.5)
Similarly, the PO backscattering coefficient of an fBm
isotropic random rough surface can be expressed, in terms of
fractal parameters, as2
(4.6)
see [27] for perfectly conducting surfaces and [20] and [23] for
dielectric surfaces.
C. Limits of Validity
It is well known that SPM can be used if the surface height
standard deviation is much smaller than wavelength and the
RMS slope is not high, while PO can be used if the surface
mean radius of curvature is much larger than the wavelength.
However, these validity limits must be expressed in terms of the
fractal parameters appearing in (4.4)–(4.6). This point is cur-
rently under study, and with regard to the PO approach, the
reader can refer to the discussion reported in [23]. Here, we
focus our attention on the SPM, which is actually used in the
proposed retrieval procedure (see Sections V and VI).
The surface height standard deviation of an fBm surface de-
pends on its linear size. In particular, it can be shown (e.g., [22])
that
(4.7)
where is the lower cutoff frequency related to the illumi-
nated patch size . As a consequence, in order
to assess the validity of the SPM approach applied to fBm sur-
faces, we must require that
(4.8)
With regard to the RMS slope, it is related to the small scale
limit . In particular, it can be shown (see, e.g., [23]) that the
slope variance is
(4.9)
where is related to the incident wavelength ( ).
As a consequence, in order to assess the validity of the SPM
approach applied to fBm surfaces, we must require that
(4.10)
The determination of more precise limits calls for the use of
numerical methods [44] and is currently under study. However,
2For 0 < H < 1=2, expression (4.6) can be used only for small values of
kT sin #=(kT cos #) [23], [27].
(4.8) and (4.10) can be considered as useful guidelines to decide
the applicability of the SPM.
We note that, for fixed values of the fractal parameters and
and of the incident wavelength , (4.8) defines a maximum
area on the fractal surface, for which SPM is valid. Furthermore,
for fixed values of , , and of the illuminated area, (4.8) and
(4.10) define a minimum incident wavelength for which SPM is
valid.
We finally observe that for high values of the incident wave-
length, the penetration depth is not negligible, and terrain ho-
mogeneity must also be checked if a surface scattering model is
to be applied.
V. SURFACE DIELECTRIC PARAMETERS RETRIEVAL
In the general case, for the surface parameter retrieval, a min-
imization scheme with at least four unknown parameters must
be devised (see equations in Section II and discussion in Section
III). However, the overall procedure is dramatically simplified
if the backscattering coefficient can be expressed as the product
of two factors, the first dependent on polarization but indepen-
dent of surface roughness and vice versa (the second dependent
on roughness but independent of polarization). In fact, in this
case, the ratio between the backscattering coefficient at and
polarization (copolarized ratio) is independent of roughness,
and a minimization over only two real parameters must be per-
formed to retrieve the complex dielectric constant. This condi-
tion is verified by SPM and PO solutions, but is not verified by
the IEM approach (see (2.1), (2.3), and (2.5)). Furthermore, in
the PO case, the dependence on polarization is too weak, so that
the SPM is the most suitable solution for this retrieval scheme.
Obviously, applicability of the procedure will be limited to sur-
faces satisfying SPM validity limits. Furthermore, we explicitly
note that the complex dielectric constant retrieval algorithm is
independent of the employed geometric surface description.
From (2.3) and (2.4) we get
(5.1)
By analyzing the three-dimensional (3-D) plots of this ratio
for fixed values of (see Fig. 1), we note that the copolarized
ratio decreases as increases, and that for a fixed , it decreases
as and increase. Furthermore, dependence on is much
weaker than dependence on , especially if is greater than 10.
If multipolarization measured data at two or more incidence
angles are available, the complex dielectric constant can be es-
timated by minimizing the following function:
(5.2)
where is the ratio of measured backscattering coefficient at
and polarization.
We verified that, due to the monotonic behavior of versus
and for fixed , a simple steepest-descent algorithm is
able to recover the correct complex dielectric constant if the
FRANCESCHETTI et al.: FRACTAL-BASED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RETRIEVAL OF SURFACE PARAMETERS
(a)
(c)
Fig. 1. Plots of f for (a) # = 20 , (b) # = 30 , (c) # = 40 , and (d) # = 50 .
SPM holds and measured backscattering data are not affected by
errors. This test was performed by replacing in (5.2) measured
data with theoretically evaluated data (5.1) at a prescribed
value of the complex dielectric constant and applying
the minimization algorithm to the resulting function. Obviously,
this test was performed for several values of .
Let us now analyze the behavior of the proposed method with
respect to measurement errors. For polarimetric SAR data, the
main error sources are speckle noise and calibration errors.
With regard to speckle noise, we note that the SPM approx-
imation leads to a correlation coefficient between and
channels equal to unity [43], so that multiplicative speckle
noises on the two channels are equal and cancel out in the
copolarized ratio. Therefore, in principle, speckle noise does
not affect the complex dielectric constant retrieval algorithm.
In practice [43], the correlation coefficient between and
channels is slightly less than unity (0.8 0.9), and the speckle
noise slightly decreases estimation accuracy. In the following
analysis, we neglect this marginal effect, which can be made
very small by using multilook data.
645
(b)
(d)
Calibration errors over the two copolarized channels can be
modeled as follows [8]:
(5.3)
where and are the measured backscattering coefficients
is the absolute calibration error, and is the relative cali-
bration error. From (5.3), we get
(5.4)
which shows that only the relative calibration errors affect the
(complex) dielectric constant retrieval algorithm.
In order to test the effect of relative calibration errors on the
estimation accuracy, we substituted (5.4) in (5.2) with
dB, and again used a steepest-descent minimization algorithm.
Results are reported in Table I (second row) for three different
values of the complex dielectric constant, which is all the values
646 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 38, NO. 2, MARCH 2000

TABLE I TABLE II
ESTIMATION OF COMPLEX PERMITTIVITY MEASURED BACKSCATTERING COEFFICIENTS USED TO TEST THE PROPOSED
FROM BACKSCATTERED DATA AFFECTED BY RELATIVE CALIBRATION ERRORS RETRIEVAL ALGORITHM

actually measured over bare soil surfaces described in [6]. It can

has been obtained in the estimation of , whereas the errors on
be noted that the estimated is always zero, while is un-
are appreciably reduced.
derestimated, and the estimation errors increase as increases.
We now prove that the effect of relative calibration errors can be Finally, an example of application to real data is in order.
reduced if we use a modified copolarized ratio, defined by the This allows us to test the performance of the proposed retrieval
following relation: method with respect to inaccuracies of the SPM. Therefore, we
chose a surface that is within the validity region of SPM, but
close to its limit. Furthermore, in order to minimize other error
(5.5) sources, high accuracy scatterometer data are used. In partic-
ular, POLARSCAT measured data at 1.5 GHz are taken from
The corresponding function to minimize is [6] and are reported in Table II. In [6], the surface roughness is
described by using a classical (nonfractal) model, and accord-
ingly, the roughness is characterized by its standard deviation.
(5.6)
The measured value of the height standard deviation reported
in [6] is such that , so that SPM should hold [14]
By using (5.3) in (5.5) we get even if we are close to its validity limit. However, the value of
reported in [6] depends (see Section IV) on the length of the
profile used to measure it, that is, 1 m [6]. The linear size of the
(5.7) area illuminated by POLARSCAT at 1.5 GHz can be derived
from the radar data reported in [6] and is about 3 m. In view
of (4.7), this means that the value of we should consider is
Since is usually close to unity, we can assume
slightly higher than 0.13, the exact value depending on and
.
with (5.8)
The value of the complex dielectric constant obtained by in
situ measurements is [6]. Unfortunately, a signifi-
Accordingly, we get
cant underestimation is obtained by our procedure. In fact, the
retrieved dielectric constant is about . Analogous results
(5.9) are obtained by using data relevant to the same surface with a
different moisture content. The measured value of the complex
dielectric constant is [6], whereas the retrieved one is
In dB, about . This underestimation is due to the fact that the mea-
sured separation between copolarized channels is smaller with
respect to the one predicted by the SPM. This is in agreement
with the fact that numerical simulations [44] have shown that as
(5.10) the height standard deviation increases, the separation between
and backscattering coefficient decreases from the value
predicted by SPM to the one predicted by PO. In addition, this
If we compare this expression with the analogous expression for separation can be further reduced by the presence of unmodeled
, i.e., multiple scattering. This latter effect could be avoided by re-
moving the multiple scattering component from measured data
(5.11) by using the Cloude’s target decomposition theorem [9], [45].
This point is currently under investigation.
we conclude that the effect of calibration errors is smaller on In conclusion, use of the SPM and of modified backscat-
than on . tering copolarized ratio leads to a dielectric constant estimation
In order to test the effect of relative calibration errors on the scheme that correctly retrieves the actual value of the complex
estimation accuracy obtained by using the function, we sub- dielectric constant if the SPM holds and backscattering mea-
stituted (5.7) in (5.6) with dB, and used again a sured data are not affected by measurement errors. The quoted
steepest-descent minimization algorithm. Results are reported estimation scheme is insensitive to any absolute calibration
in Table I (third row) for the same three values of the complex error, are virtually unaffected by speckle noise, and is quite
dielectric constant used above. We note that no improvement robust with respect to relative calibration errors. However, it
FRANCESCHETTI et al.: FRACTAL-BASED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RETRIEVAL OF SURFACE PARAMETERS
is very sensitive to the validity of the solution we accept for
the scattered field, in this case, SPM. This is to be expected,
because the retrieval procedure is based on an analytical
solution: should the latter be invalid, the retrieval algorithm
does not converge to the right values of the dielectric constant.
Furthermore, the imaginary part of the dielectric constant
is not correctly retrieved whenever the relative calibration
error is at least 0.3 dB. A further study on this point is in
progress. However, the latter is not a great limitation, because
it is possible to use a semi-empirical model [45], [47] that
relates the soil moisture content to the real part of the dielectric
constant. If needed, the same semi-empirical model can be used
to obtain the imaginary part of the dielectric constant from the
soil moisture content.
VI. SURFACE ROUGHNESS PARAMETERS RETRIEVAL
Once the dielectric constant is known, the retrieval of geo-
metric surface parameters is in order. In this case, use of the
fractal fBm model is particularly convenient, not only because
it is very suitable for natural surface description, but also be-
cause it leads to a very simple estimation scheme based on a
linear regression. As a matter of fact, (4.4) can be rewritten as
(6.1)
Therefore, points whose coordinates are , with
(6.2)
lay on a straight line whose slope is , and whose inter-
section with the axis is . tion. By employing the
Therefore, if the dielectric constant is known, and if multifre-
quency and/or multi-incidence angle data are available, a linear
regression can be performed to evaluate and and hence
(see (4.3) and (4.5)), and . Note that whenever multifre-
quency data are used, the dielectric constant must be known
at every different employed frequency. If this is not the case, a
model to account for the dependence on frequency [46] must
be used.
We verified that the above simple linear regression algorithm
is able to recover the correct fBm fractal parameters if the SPM
model holds and measured backscattering data are not affected
by errors.
Let us now analyze the behavior of the proposed method
with respect to measurement errors (i.e., calibration errors and
speckle). It follows from (6.1) that both relative and absolute
calibration errors affect the geometric parameters retrieval.
However, if the calibration error is the same on all employed
data, it does not affect the estimate of (and hence, of ), and
the error on is equal to the calibration error. With regard to
the speckle noise, it can be reduced by increasing the number
of looks and increasing the number of employed frequencies
or incidence angles. Note however, that the range of usable
647
TABLE III
ESTIMATED FRACTAL PARAMETERS FOR DIFFERENT NUMBERS OF LOOKS.
TRUE VALUES: H = 0:6 AND S = 40 dB0
frequencies and incidence angles is limited to the validity
region of the SPM model.
Speckle noise over the backscattering coefficient can be mod-
eled as follows:
(6.3)
where is a Chi-squared distributed random variable with
parameter ( being the number of looks). Accordingly, the
mean of is 1, and its variance is . By using this speckle
model and (4.4) with , dB, and , we
simulated measured data at 1 GHz, polarization for different
numbers of looks and applied the retrieval method based on the
linear regression of (6.1). Results are summarized in Table III.
Note that for single look data, a completely unreliable estimate
of fractal parameters is obtained. For , estimates
are biased and somehow inaccurate, although reasonable. Good
results are obtained for equal or greater than 64.
Finally, in order to test the performance of the proposed re-
trieval method with respect to the accuracy of the SPM model,
we applied the linear regression of (6.1) to the multi-incidence
angle data reported in Table II and tried to retrieve the fractal
parameters of the actual surface considered in the previous sec-
polarization data and using (4.3) and
(4.5), we get and mm. In spite of the SPM
limitations, both values are within the range of values obtained
for natural surfaces by in situ measurements and reported in lit-
erature [30], [35]. By employing the polarization data, we
obtain slightly different, but still reasonable, values: ,
mm.
Unfortunately, in situ-measured fractal parameters of the con-
sidered surface are not available, and therefore, a direct com-
parison between retrieved and actual fractal parameters is not
possible. However, by using (4.5) and (4.7), we can evaluate the
fractal profile standard deviation corresponding to the retrieved
fractal parameters, and then compare it to the one reported in
[6]. Note that in (4.7), a value of the profile length must also
be inserted. In the case at hand, it is appropriate to use a pro-
file length equal to the one of the laser profilometer used in [6]
(i.e., 1 m). It turns out that retrieved fractal parameters lead to
a value of equal to about 0.2, in rather good agreement with
the value reported in [6].
At this point, we have to verify that the retrieved values of sur-
face fractal parameters satisfy the SPM limits of validity ((4.8),
(4.10)). Note that in (4.8), a value of the illuminated patch size
must also be inserted. In the case at hand, it is appropriate to use
648 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 38, NO. 2, MARCH 2000
an illuminated patch size equal to the POLARSCAT one (at 1.5
GHz, i.e., about 3 m, see Section V). It turns out that both (4.8)
and (4.10) are hardly satisfied, thus confirming that the consid-
ered surface is very close to SPM validity limit.
In conclusion, use of the fBm fractal surface model within the
SPM leads to a very simple surface parameter retrieval scheme
based on a linear regression that obviously correctly retrieves
the actual values of the fBm fractal parameters if the SPM holds
and backscattering measured data are not affected by measure-
ment errors. In addition, the fBm fractal parameters estimation
scheme is virtually unaffected by the speckle noise if the number
of look is at least 64 and seem to be robust regarding the inac-
curacies of the scattering model. Furthermore, the fBm fractal
dimension estimation scheme is insensitive to calibration errors
if the latter do not vary with the incidence angle. It is worth
recalling that the surface fractal dimension is a meaningful pa-
rameter, since it is a measure of surface roughness [28]–[32],
and that fractal parameters have been successfully used for ter-
rain classification [33]–[36].
Finally, note that an approach for the estimation of the sur-
face spectrum similar to the one we propose was presented in
[2]. However, in that paper, no reference was made to fractal
geometry, and the importance of the power spectrum exponent
coefficient was not recognized.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
A new, fully theoretical framework for the retrieval of surface
electromagnetic and geometric parameters has been presented.
The model relies on use of SPM and the fractal geometry. In
particular, the random rough surface is described by means of an
fBm fractal process. The retrieval scheme requires availability
of multipolarization data acquired at different incidence angles
and/or frequencies.
Use of SPM is motivated by the fact that it leads to an in-
version technique that can be split into two simpler steps. In
the first one, the complex permittivity is estimated, and in the
second one, the geometric surface parameters are retrieved. On
the other hand, use of fractal geometry is preferred because it
is a very suitable tool for natural surface description, and be-
cause its use in conjunction with SPM allows a straightforward
retrieval scheme based on a linear regression. As a first result,
it turns out that use of SPM, the modified backscattering copo-
larized ratio, and the fBm fractal model for the surface profile
description, lead to complex dielectric constant and fractal pa-
rameters estimation schemes that correctly retrieve the actual
values, provided that SPM holds and backscattering measured
data are affected by negligible measurement errors. Conditions
for assessing the applicability of the SPM model to fractal sur-
faces has also been provided.
Performances of the proposed method in the presence of
calibration errors and speckle noise have been tested by means
of theoretical analysis and simulations. In addition, the effect
of model inaccuracies has been tested by applying the retrieval
scheme to a set of measured data relevant to a surface that
only marginally falls within the validity limits required by
the SPM.
With regard to complex permittivity retrieval, it turned out
that the proposed estimation scheme is insensitive to any abso-
lute calibration error, is virtually unaffected by speckle noise,
and is quite robust with respect to relative calibration errors.
However, it is very sensitive to inaccuracies of the scattering
model. Furthermore, the imaginary part of the dielectric con-
stant is not correctly retrieved if a 0.3 dB relative calibration
error is present. However, the latter is not a great limitation, be-
cause it is possible to use a semi-empirical model that relates
imaginary and real parts of the dielectric constant through the
soil moisture content.
With regard to fractal geometric parameters retrieval, results
can be summarized by noting that the fBm fractal parameters es-
timation scheme is practically unaffected by the speckle noise if
the number of look is at least 64 and seem to be robust regarding
the inaccuracies of the scattering model. Furthermore, the fBm
fractal dimension estimation scheme is insensitive to calibration
errors if the latter do not vary with the incidence angle. This
latter result plays an interesting role in assessing the reliability
of fractal dimension-based procedures used for terrain classifi-
cation from radar data.
Finally, as a general comment, we stress again that our proce-
dure can be safely applied only to surfaces that satisfy SPM va-
lidity limits. Reasons that do not allow the introduction of a full
theoretical scheme based on PO model or the more general IEM
model have also been discussed. Extension of our procedure to a
wider class of surfaces would imply that it is acceptable to leave
a fully theoretical approach and to use, for instance, semi-empir-
ical models like the one reported in [9] combined with the use of
the fBm surface description. Another possibility in the future is
to develop new and reliable direct scattering models tailored on
fractal surfaces not fulfilling the SPM criteria that should also
be amenable to devising a theoretical inversion procedure.
As a guideline for future work, an extensive comparison of the
retrieval algorithm results with in situ measurements is advis-
able. Interestingly, at present, no in situ measurements of fractal
surface parameters, combined with the corresponding scattering
measurements, are available. Announced availability in the near
future [48] of a database involving in situ roughness profile data
and corresponding scattering data will allow the direct measure-
ment of surface fractal parameters, thus making it possible to
perform a complete assessment of the proposed algorithm per-
formance.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Mo, J. R. Wang, and T. J. Schmugge, “Estimation of surface rough-
ness parameters from dual-frequency measurements of radar backscat-
tering coefficients,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 26, pp.
574–579, Sept. 1988.
[2] J. J. van Zyl, C. F. Brunette, and T. G. Farr, “Inference of surface power
spectra from inversion of multifrequency polarimetric radar data,” Geo-
phys. Res. Lett., vol. 18, pp. 1787–1790, 1991.
[3] D. L. Evans, T. G. Farr, and J. J. van Zyl, “Estimates of the surface rough-
ness derived from synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data,” IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 30, pp. 382–389, Mar. 1992.
[4] E. Altese, O. Bolognani, M. Mancini, and P. A. Troch, “Retrieving soil
moisture over bare soil from ERS-1 synthetic aperture radar data: Sensi-
tivity analysis based on a theoretical surface scattering model and field
data,” Water Resources Res., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 653–661, 1996.
FRANCESCHETTI et al.: FRACTAL-BASED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR RETRIEVAL OF SURFACE PARAMETERS
[5] G. R. Taylor, A. H. Mah, F. A. Kruse, K. S. Kierein-Young, and R. D.
Bennet, “The extraction of soil properties from AIRSAR data,” Int. J.
Remote Sensing, vol. 17, no. 3, 1996.
[6] Y. Oh, K. Sarabandi, and F. T. Ulaby, “An empirical model and an inver-
sion technique for radar scattering from bare soil surfaces,” IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 30, pp. 370–381, Mar. 1992.
[7] , “An inversion algorithm for retrieving soil moisture and surface
roughness from polarimetric radar observation,” in Proc. IGARSS’94,
Pasadena, CA, pp. 1582–1584.
[8] P. C. Dubois, J. J. van Zyl, and T. Engman, “Measuring soil moisture
with imaging radars,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 33, pp.
915–926, July 1995.
[9] J. Shi, J. Wang, A. Y. Hsu, P. E. O’Neill, and E. Engman, “Estimation of
bare surface soil moisture and surface roughness parameter using L-band
SAR image data,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 35, pp.
1254–1266, Sept. 1997.
[10] F. T. Ulaby, R. K. Moore, and A. K. Fung, Microwave Remote
Sensing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982, vol. 2.
[11] L. Tsang, J. A. Kong, and R. T. Shin, Theory of Microwave Remote
Sensing. New York: Wiley, 1985.
[12] P. Beckmann and A. Spizzichino, The Scattering of Electromagnetic
Waves from Rough Surfaces. Norwood, MA: Artech House, 1987.
[13] A. K. Fung, Z. Li, and K. S. Chen, “Backscattering from a randomly
rough dielectric surface,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 30,
pp. 356–369, Mar. 1992.
[14] A. K. Fung, Microwave Scattering and Emission. Models and Their Ap-
plications. Norwood, MA: Artech House, 1994.
[15] A. Ishimaru, Wave Propagation and Scattering in Random
Media. New York: Academic, 1993.
[16] D. L. Jaggard, “On fractal electrodynamics,” in Recent Advances in
Electromagnetic Theory, H. N. Kritikos and D. L. Jaggard, Eds. Berlin,
Germany: Springer Verlag, 1990, pp. 183–223.
[17] Y. Agnon and M. Stiassnie, “Remote sensing of the roughness of a fractal
sea surface,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 96, pp. 12 773–12 779, July 1991.
[18] J. Chen, T. K. L. Lo, H. Leung, and J. Litva, “The use of fractals for
modeling EM waves scattering from rough sea surface,” IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 34, pp. 966–972, July 1996.
[19] G. Franceschetti, M. Migliaccio, and D. Riccio, “An electromagnetic
fractal-based model for the study of fading,” Radio Sci., vol. 31, pp.
1749–1759, Nov.–Dec. 1996.
[20] G. Franceschetti, A. Iodice, M. Migliaccio, and D. Riccio, “Backscat-
tering from an fBm surface,” in Proc. URSI Electromagnetic Theory
Symp., Thessaloniki, Greece, 1998, pp. 692–694.
[21] , “Scattering from a fractal sea surface,” Atti della Fondazione
Ronchi., vol. LIV, no. 3–4, pp. 455–462, May–Aug. 1999.
[22] , “Fractals and the small perturbation scattering model,” Radio Sci-
ence, vol. 34, pp. 1043–1056, Sept./Oct. 1999.
[23] , “Scattering from natural rough surfaces modeled by fractional
Brownian motion two-dimensional processes,” IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagat., vol. 47, pp. 1405–1415, Sept. 1999.
[24] M. V. Berry and T. M. Blackwell, “Diffractal echoes,” J. Phys. A Math.
Gen., vol. 14, pp. 3101–3110, 1981.
[25] F. Mattia and T. Le Toan, “Backscattering properties of multi-scale
rough surfaces,” J. Electromagn. Waves Applicat., vol. 13, pp. 491–526,
1999.
[26] A. T. Manninen, “Multiscale surface roughness and backscattering,”
Prog. Electromag. Res., vol. 16, pp. 175–203, 1997.
[27] O. Y. Yordanov and K. Ivanova, “Kirchhoff diffractals,” J. Phys. A Math.
Gen., vol. 27, pp. 5979–5993, 1994.
[28] B. B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: W. H.
Freeman, 1983.
[29] R. F. Voss, “Random fractal forgeries,” in Fundamental Algorithms for
Computer Graphics, R. A. Earnshaw, Ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer
Verlag, 1985, pp. 805–835.
[30] S. R. Brown and C. H. Scholz, “Broad band study of the topography
of natural rock surfaces,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 90, pp. 12 575–12 582,
Dec. 1985.
[31] P. Flandrin, “On the spectrum of fractional Brownian motions,” IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 35, pp. 197–199, Jan. 1989.
[32] K. Falconer, Fractal Geometry. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley, 1990.
[33] K. Yocoya, K. Yamamoto, and N. Funakubo, “Fractal-based analysis
and interpolation of 3-D natural surface shapes and their application to
terrain modeling,” Comput. Vis., Graph., Image Processing, vol. 46, pp.
284–302, 1989.
[34] C. V. Stewart, B. Moghaddam, K. J. Hintz, and L. M. Novak, “Fractional
Brownian motion models for synthetic aperture radar imagery scene seg-
mentation,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 81, pp. 1511–1522, 1993.
649
[35] T. R. Austin, A. W. England, and G. H. Wakefield, “Special problems
in the estimation of power-law spectra as applied to topographical mod-
eling,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 32, pp. 928–939, July
1994.
[36] M. Coltelli, G. Fornaro, G. Franceschetti, R. Lanari, M. Migliaccio,
J. R. Moreira, K. P. Papathanassiou, G. Puglisi, D. Riccio, and M.
Schwäbisch, “SIR-C/X-SAR multifrequency multipass interferometry:
A new tool for geological interpretation,” J. Geophys. Res., vol. 101,
pp. 23 127–23 148, 1996.
[37] M. F. Chew and A. K. Fung, “A numerical study of the regions of va-
lidity of the Kirchhoff and small-perturbation rough surface scattering
models,” Radio Sci., vol. 23, pp. 163–170, Mar.–Apr. 1988.
[38] A. Collaro, G. Franceschetti, M. Migliaccio, and D. Riccio, “Gaussian
rough surfaces and Kirchhoff approximation,” IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propagat., vol. AP-47, pp. 392–398, Feb. 1999.
[39] G. Franceschetti, M. Migliaccio, D. Riccio, and G. Schirinzi, “SARAS:
A raw signal simulator,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 30,
pp. 110–123, 1992.
[40] H. A. Zebker, C. H. Werner, P. A. Rosen, and S. Hensley, “Accuracy
of topographic maps derived from ERS-1 interferometric radar,” IEEE
Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 32, pp. 823–836, July 1994.
[41] Y. Oh and Y. C. Kay, “Condition for precise measurements of soil surface
roughness,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 36, pp. 691–695,
May 1998.
[42] E. T. Engman and J. R. Wang, “Evaluating roughness models of radar
backscatter,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. 25, pp. 709–713,
Nov. 1987.
[43] M. Borgeaud and J. Noll, “Analysis of theoretical surface scattering
models for polarimetric microwave remote sensing of bare soils,” Int.
J. Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 14, pp. 2931–2942, 1994.
[44] M. F. Chen and S. Y. Bai, “Computer simulation of wave scattering from
a dielectric random surface in two dimensions-cylindrical case,” J. Elec-
tromagn. Waves Applicat., vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 963–982, 1990.
[45] S. R. Cloude, “Uniqueness of target decomposition theorems in radar
polarimetry,” in Direct and Inverse Methods in Radar Polarimetry: Part
1. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1992, pp. 266–296.
[46] M. T. Hallikainen, F. T. Ulaby, M. C. Dobson, M. A. El-Rayes, and
L. Wo, “Microwave dielectric behavior of wet soil—Part I: Empirical
models and experimental observations,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sensing, vol. GE-23, pp. 25–34, Jan. 1985.
[47] N. R. Peplinski, F. T. Ulaby, and M. C. Dobson, “Dielectric properties of
soils in the 0.3–1.3-GHz range,” IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing,
vol. 33, pp. 803–807, May 1995.
[48] M. Borgeaud and A. Bellini, “A database for electromagnetic scattering
studies of bare soil surfaces,” in Proc. IGARSS’98, Seattle, WA, pp.
1197–1199.
Giorgio Franceschetti (S’60–M’62–SM’85–F’88)
was born in Italy.
He was appointed Full Professor of Electromag-
netic Wave Theory at the University of Naples,
Italy, in 1968. He was a Visiting Professor with
the University of Illinois, Champaign, in 1976 and
1977, the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA), in 1980 and 1982, National Somali
University, Somalia, in 1984, and the University of
Santiago de Compostela, Spain, in 1995. He was
a Research Associate with the California Institute
of Technology, Pasadena, in 1981 and 1983. He was a Director of IRECE, a
Research Institute of CNR (the Italian National Council of Research) and a
Member of the Board of the Italian Space Agency (ASI). He is currently an
Adjunct Professor at UCLA. He has published several books and more than
130 refereed papers in the field of applied electromagnetics (reflector antennas,
transient phenomena, shielding, nonlinear propagation, and scattering) and,
more recently, in the field of SAR data processing and simulation. He has
lectured in several summer schools in China, the U.K., The Netherlands, Italy,
Spain, Sweden, and the United States.
Prof. Franceschetti was a Fulbright Scholar with the California Institute of
Technology in 1973. He was the recipient of several national and international
awards.
650 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. 38, NO. 2, MARCH 2000
Antonio lodice (S’97–M’00) was born in Naples,
Italy, on July 4, 1968. He received the Laurea degree
in electronic engineering and the Ph.D. degree in
electronic engineering and computer science from
the University of Naples “Federico II,” Naples, Italy,
in 1993 and 1999, respectively.
In 1995, he was with the Istituto di Ricerca per
l’Elettromagnetismo e i Componenti Elettronici
(IRECE ), Naples, Italy, working under a Grant from
the Italian National Council of Research (CNR)
for research in the field of remote sensing. Since
1996, he has been with the Department of Electronic and Telecommunication
Engineering of the University of Naples “Federico II.” He is also currently
with Telespazio S.p.A., Rome, Italy.
His main research interests are in the field of SAR remote sensing: modeling
of electromagnetic scattering from natural surfaces, and SAR interferometry.
Stefania Maddaluno was born in Naples, Italy, on
September 24, 1972. She received the Laurea degree
in telecommunication engineering from the Univer-
sity of Naples “Federico II,” Naples, in 1998.
She joined the Department of Electronic and
Telecommunication Engineering, University of
Naples “Federico II,” where she was involved in
research in the field of remote sensing. Presently, she
is with Alenia Aerospace as an Expert in Avionics.
Daniele Riccio (M’91–SM’99) was born in Naples,
Italy, on April 13, 1962. He received the Laurea De-
gree in electronic engineering from the University of
Naples “Federico II,” Naples, in 1989.
He was a Research Scientist at the “Istituto di
Ricerca sull’Elettromagnetismo e i Componenti
Elettronici” (IRECE), Naples, of the Italian National
Council of Research (CNR). Since 1994, he has been
a Research Scientist at the Department of Electronic
and Telecommunication Engineering, University
of Naples “Federico II,” where he is a Lecturer of
Remote Sensing and Electromagnetic Diagnostic. From 1994 to 1995, he was
a Guest Scientist with the DLR High-Frequency Institute, Munich, Germany.
Since 1998, he has also been a Research Scientist with IRECE. His main
research interests are in the fields of simulation and modeling of SAR signals
relevant to terrestrial and oceanic scenes, as well as in the application of fractal
geometry to electromagnetic scattering and remote sensing.
Dr. Riccio has won several fellowships from private and public companies
(SIP, Selenia, CNR, CORISTA, CRATI) for research in the remote sensing field.