Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

89 views

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- Matemáticas Resueltos(Soluciones) Primitivas-Integrales 2º Bachillerato Opción B-COU
- MA8151 Engineering Mathematics Syllabus
- Thomas Finney - Chapter 13 (www.myUET.net.tc).pdf
- Pubdet Pumdet Paper
- Mathematics Notes and Formula for Class 12 Chapter 7. Integrals
- Paper 23-Monte Carlo Ray Tracing Based Non-Linear Mixture Model of Mixed Pixels in Earth Observation Satellite Imagery Data
- Mathematics Notes and Formula for Class 12 chapter 7. Integrals .pdf
- Markov Chain
- Signals Analysis
- Young Inequality
- Stieltjes Series
- langreth.pdf
- AM Lab C__ Programs - Unknown
- class5
- Formulario de Integrales (Nxpowerlite)
- Week V
- Pertran - A Transport-perturbation Program
- Perturbations of nonlinear systems of differential equations, III.pdf
- Integrals
- Egg Lab

You are on page 1of 41

Tanos Mikhael Elfouhaily and Charles-Antoines Guerin

Centre National de la Recherche Scientique, IRPHE, Marseille, France

Institut Fresnel, Faculte des Sciences de Saint-Jer ome, Marseille, France

Abstract.

This review is intended to provide a critical and up-to-date survey of the analytical

approximate methods that are encountered in scattering from random rough surfaces.

The underlying principles of the dierent methods are evidenced and the functional

form of the corresponding scattering amplitude or cross-section is given. The reader

is referred to the original papers in order to obtain the explicit expressions of the

coecients and kernels. We have tried to identify the main strengths and weaknesses

of the various theories. We provide synthetic tables of their respective performances,

according to a dozen important requirements a valuable method should meet. Both

scalar acoustic and vector electromagnetic theories are equally addressed.

PACS numbers: 42.25.Fx, 92.10.Hm, 92.10.Cg

CONTENTS 2

Contents

1 Introduction 3

2 Notation and Denitions 3

3 Small Perturbation Method 5

3.1 Denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.2 The historical method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.3 The reduced-Rayleigh equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.4 Formal Perturbation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.5 Rigorous derivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 Kirchho Approximation 9

4.1 Tangent Plane Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.2 High-frequency regime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.3 Curvature corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.4 Nonlocal corrections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5 Unifying theories 12

5.1 Meecham-Lysanov Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.2 Phase-perturbation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.3 Small-Slope Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.4 Operator Expansion Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5.5 Tilt-Invariant Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5.6 Local Weight Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.7 Weighted Curvature Approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.8 Wiener-Hermite Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.9 Unied Perturbation Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.10 Full-Wave Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5.11 Improved Greens Function Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5.12 Volumic methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5.13 Integral Equation Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

6 Connections between functional forms 24

6.1 Local and non-local models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6.2 Gauge transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6.3 Reduction of nonlocal models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

7 Synthesis and Conclusion 26

CONTENTS 3

1. Introduction

Wave scattering by rough surfaces is an important issue in diverse areas of science

such as measurements in Medical, Optics, Acoustics, Geophysics, Communications, and

terrestrial or extraterrestrial remote sensing. Approximate models are still a necessity

due to the insurmountable numerical complexity of realistic scattering problems. Even

todays machines cannot cope with the enormous amount of computing demanded

in the case of rigorous numerical calculations of the most general three-dimensional

electromagnetic wave scattering from dielectric or conducting multi-scale surfaces.

This necessity has sprung the development of a myriad of approximate models

with more or less careful derivations from rst principles such as Maxwell equations.

Even alerted users might nd themselves lost in the meanders of more than twenty

approximate models with no or little guidance on which must be applied under what

conditions and for how long it holds until it breaks. The purpose of this review is to

help the practitioner nding his way among this plethora of models through a critical

and, we hope, exhaustive, survey. We have attempted to take a census of the existing

methods and to classify them in generic families. We adopted a strategy of dissecting

all identied scattering models in the literature by providing their functional form along

with their general performances from an analytical point of view. Our readers will

not be overwhelmed by pages of geometric and arithmetic functions describing the

coecients and kernels of each model. The reader is referred back to the original

publications for explicit expression of the kernels. It is worth mentioning at this point of

our contribution that former general reviews can be found in the classical monographs

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

Our review is only concerned with the analytical approximate scattering models.

Some other complementary reviews can be found in the recent literature. Saillard

and Sentenac [11] reviewed all rigorous numerical techniques for boundary integral

methods and large linear systems when short-range interactions dominate. Warnick and

Chew [12] listed several numerical approaches on scattering approximations, dierential

equations and surface integral equation methods. More specic reviews can be found

in [13, 14] dealing mainly with two-scale models applied to large rough surfaces such as

the ocean surface.

After introducing the notation and normalization adopted for this paper, we present

the classical approximate models. Then we present recent scattering theories along with

their interconnections before concluding with recapitulative tables.

2. Notation and Denitions

A rough surface separates the vacuum (upper medium) from a homogeneous medium

(lower medium) with dierent index (optical or acoustical). We chose the right Cartesian

coordinate ( x, y, z) system with z-axis directed upward and assume is represented

by a Cartesian equation z = h(r) = h(x, y), where h is the realization of a random

CONTENTS 4

stationary process. For an arbitrary vector a, the notation a will refer to its norm

and a to its direction. The three-dimensional position vector is R = (r, z). A

downward propagating electromagnetic plane wave with wave-vector K

0

= (k

0

, q

0

)

and wavenumber K = 2/ is incident on the surface and give rise to up-going scattered

wave-vectors in directions K = (k, q

k

). The vectors k

0

and k are the horizontal

components of the incident and scattered waves, respectively, and q

0

, q

k

are the vertical

(positive) components. They are related by the relation k

2

+ q

2

k

= k

2

0

+ q

2

0

= K

2

. The

vector Q = K K

0

is the so-called momentum transfer [15] and plays an important

role in scattering theory. We will denote Q

H

= k k

0

and Q

z

= q

k

+ q

0

its horizontal

and vertical components, respectively. Equivalently, we introduce W = K + K

0

which is inspired from Dashen and Wurmser [16]. Analogously we dene its horizontal

W

H

= k +k

0

and vertical W

z

= q

k

q

0

components.

The scattered eld above and far away from the surface is related to the incident

one through the scattering operator which reads in dyadic notation:

E

s

(R) = S(r, z)

E

0

=

e

ikr+iq

k

z

q

k

S(k, k

0

)dk

E

0

, (2.1)

or equivalently at R ,

E

s

(R) = 2i

e

iKR

R

S(k, k

0

)

E

0

, (2.2)

which is a direct consequence of the Weyl representation of the Greens function. Note

that all involved eld quantities are scalar in the acoustic case. In the electromagnetic

case, the scattered eld is usually decomposed over a polarization basis (e.g. circular,

linear horizontal and vertical etc...). Once expressed in the chosen polarization basis,

the tensor S(k, k

0

) becomes a 2x2 matrix called the scattering amplitude (SA, S(k, k

0

)).

Our normalization of the scattering amplitude (SA) diers by a trivial geometrical factor

from some other conventions. For instance, Voronovich [8] uses the prefactor

q

0

/q

k

instead of 1/q

k

in the dening equation (2.1). The scattering amplitude in our denition

and normalization takes the dimension of wavelength (meters).

The scattering amplitude satises some fundamental geometrical properties that

can be used to check the a priori correctness of an approximate method. The reciprocity

expresses the time reversal invariance of the wave in the harmonic regime:

S(k, k

0

) = S

T

(k

0

, k), (2.3)

where the superscript T stands for the transposed dyad (or matrix). The shift invariance

refers to the phase-shifting (delays in the time domain) that results from horizontal and

vertical translations of the surface:

S(k, k

0

)|

h(rd)+D

= e

iQ

H

d

e

iQ

z

D

S(k, k

0

)|

h(r)

(2.4)

The tilt invariance expresses the fact that the scattering amplitude should not depend

on the choice of the reference plane and the related coordinate system. Precisely,

S(k, k

0

)|

R()

= S(

k,

k

0

)|

, (2.5)

CONTENTS 5

where R is any rotation of the surface and the tilted vectors are the horizontal

components of the (inversely) rotated wavenumber vectors R

(K), R

(K

). This

is a very stringent condition and in general an approximate method is only required to

be tilt invariant to rst-order, namely:

S(k, k

0

)|

h+ar

= S(

k,

k

0

)|

h

+O(a

2

), (2.6)

where

k = k+q

k

a and

k

0

= kq

0

a. Given an approximate expression of the scattering

amplitude, it is sometimes impossible to verify the last property analytically, and one

often contents oneself with checking this in the limit of small roughness.

Some more quantities must be dened to better describe the measurables, such as

the scattered power and the ensemble averaged moments in the case of random surfaces.

The rst order moment is also called the coherent scattered amplitude and dened as

V (k, k

0

) = S(k, k

). (2.7)

The incoherent second order or the scattering cross-section of the rough surface is

= |S(k, k

)|

|S(k, k

)|

. (2.8)

The norm and power in the previous equation must be applied to each element of the

SA matrix. For distributed targets (innitely large surfaces of area), a normalized radar

cross-section must be used where the previous denition is normalized by the total

surface area. This latter denition is conventionally called sigma naught (

0

) and used

in remote sensing of rough surfaces such as those of oceans and soils.

3. Small Perturbation Method

The Small Perturbation Method (SPM) is the oldest and perhaps most popular method

in scattering from rough surfaces. It is a perturbative expansion of the scattering

amplitude with respect to a small height parameter (in wavelength units). It was

rst introduced by Rayleigh [17] for sound waves on sinusoidally corrugated surfaces,

then adapted by Fano [18] to optical gratings. Rice [19, 20] obtained explicit rst-

(SPM1) and second-order formulas (SPM2) for 1D conducting surfaces and computed

the rst-order in horizontal polarization for 1D dielectric rough surfaces. Later Peake

[21] derived rst-order backscattering cross-sections for both polarizations. Valenzuela

completed the calculation at second-order for 2D perturbations of levelled [22] and

tilted [23] planes. The range of validity of SPM has been studied in detail via numerical

simulations, essentially in the 2D acoustic case [24, 25, 26, 27] and for Gaussian spectra.

3.1. Denition

The scattering amplitude for SPM is functionally written as a Taylor-Volterra expansion

in surface height (h) as:

S(k, k

0

) =

1

Q

z

B(k, k

0

)(Q

H

) iB(k, k

0

)h(Q

H

)

Q

z

B

2

(k, k

0

; )h(k )h( k

0

)d +. . . , (3.9)

CONTENTS 6

where h() is the Fourier transform of the surface elevation. B(k, k

0

) and B

2

(k, k

0

; )

are the rst and second order coecients, respectively. For explicit expressions and

normalization of these coecients the reader is referred to the monograph by Voronovich

[8]. Our normalization diers slightly from that of Voronovich in that one needs to

multiply by 2q

k

q

0

the SPM1 coecient B and by q

k

q

0

/Q

z

the SPM2 coecient B

2

.

Please do also pay attention to the fact that the expressions of the kernels depends

on the orientation of the vertical axis: some authors (in particular Voronovich) chose

to illuminate the surface from below. Transposition to our convention requires formal

replacements q, q

q, q

2

have the dimension of

wavenumber squared K

2

in our normalization. Explicit expressions of these coecients

can be found in Elfouhaily et al [28] for Dirichlet, Neumann, perfect conducting, and

dielectric boundary conditions.

3.2. The historical method

Historically, the perturbative expansion to an arbitrary order is termed the Rayleigh

method (also referred to as Rayleigh-Rice or Rayleigh-Fano procedure), which relies on

the Rayleigh hypothesis. It is assumed that the representation of the electromagnetic

eld in terms of solely outgoing waves is still valid on the surface, whereas this holds

a priori only above its maximum excursion. This makes it possible to rewrite the

boundary condition for the eld at the surface in terms of scattering amplitude and

simplies considerably the identication of the perturbative orders. This method has

been used independently by several authors to derive the second-order perturbative

term, which is necessary to account for depolarization eects in the incidence plane

[22], the occurrence of surfaces plasmons [29, 30, 31, 32] and the shift of Brewster angles

[33, 34] in p-polarization. More recently, Voronovich [35, 8] has derived from this method

a compact matricial formulation of SPM2 in the general vectorial dielectric case and

Johnson et al have pushed the calculation to third- [36] and fourth- [37] orders to explore

the backscattering enhancement and the Brewster eect. The analytical formulas at

successive orders become increasingly complicated and dissuasive beyond the second-

order, and attracted, as a matter of fact, little attention in the literature. An ecient

numerical recursive scheme based on the Rayleigh method has been proposed by Bruno

and Reitich [38, 39, 40]. This allows in principle a computation of the perturbation series

at arbitrary order and with the additional use of Pade approximants for an extension

of the perturbative domain and for a gain in accuracy. However, the method seems

well suited to gratings with few Fourier coecients but we are little dubious on its

tractability for 2D random rough surfaces.

3.3. The reduced-Rayleigh equations

An interesting renement of the Rayleigh method is the so-called method of reduced

Rayleigh equations, rst proposed in [41]. The equations obtained via the classical

Rayleigh method couple the unknown scattering amplitudes of the reected and

CONTENTS 7

transmitted waves that propagate in the two homogeneous media surrounding the

surface. Using simple but astute mathematical manipulations, the equations for

the scattering amplitude in reection can be uncoupled, leading to a closed integral

equation expression for the latter. The derivation of the perturbative series becomes

straightforward. Proceeding this way, Soubret et al [42] has found a more compact

formulation than Johnson et al [36] for the third-order scattering amplitude and tailored

the technique to the case of a slab with rough boundary. Reduced Rayleigh equations

have also be used in another context to obtain an expansion in permittivity contrast

rather than surface elevation [43].

3.4. Formal Perturbation Methods

The reduced Rayleigh equations make the scattering amplitude a solution of an integral

equation which is formally similar to the Lippmann-Schwinger equation (i.e a second-

kind integral equation), well-known in potential scattering. This has inspired a new

formulation of the perturbative problem [44, 45] based on the mathematical formalism

of Quantum Mechanics, which guarantees a priori the reciprocity and unitarity of the

scattering operator. This approach allows to use formal perturbation methods based

on diagrammatic techniques [46]. This leads to an improved perturbative scheme of

the coherent and incoherent scattering amplitudes [47], by relying on Dysons and

Bethe-Salpether equations. This statistical approach is sometimes referred to as self-

energy perturbation theory [48] and has been intensively used to study the backscattering

enhancement phenomenon [49, 50], which rst shows up at the fourth perturbative order

in height for the backscattered intensity (and thereby requires the third-order scattering

amplitude) or the shift of Brewster angle for 1D surfaces [51].

Another statistical approach based on formal perturbation methods is the so-called

smoothing method, which has been developed primarily in the context of continuous

random media and discrete scatterers [52, 53], and which can be applied to any random

quantity that satises a second-kind integral equation. The smoothing method consists

in decomposing the eld into a mean and uctuating part, and to nd a second-

kind integral equation for each component, starting from the equation satised by the

deterministic eld. It is equivalent to the diagrammatic method as it leads to the same

Dysons equation for the mean eld [46]. This closed equation implies a complicated

kernel (the so-called mass operator), which is formally given by an innite series, the rst

term of which is usually retained to nd tractable solutions. The resulting approximation

for the mean eld is known as rts-order smoothing, bilocal or Bourret approximation

[54]. This is equivalent to performing the summation of an innite subseries in the

perturbation series of the averaged eld. This perturbative approach has a larger

domain of validity than the conventional one (i.e the one based on iteration, truncation

and averaging of the deterministic perturbation series). The main reason is that only

innite subseries are capable of handling properly secular terms in the pertubation series

(see the excellent discussion by Frisch [46] and e.g. the numerical comparisons in [55]).

CONTENTS 8

The smoothing method has been applied to surface scattering by Wentzel [56], Watson

and Keller [57, 58], Ishimaru [55], Berman and Dacol [59] and Brown [60, 61]. Most

of these studies are concerned with the coherent eld only. Watson and Keller were

the rst to work out the statistical cross-section with the smoothing method, in the

acoustical case:

0

= [1 +A(k, k

0

; )]

1

|B(k, k

0

)|

2

(k k

0

), (3.10)

where is the surface power spectrum, B the SPM1 kernel and A the corrective term

to the SPM1 cross-section. By comparison with the conventional perturbative method,

this formula can be seen to bring higher-order corrections to the SPM1 cross-section.

The kernel is, however, not reciprocal. Berman and Dacol combined their manifestly

reciprocal scattering amplitude formalism with the smoothing method to derive a

similar formula with a reciprocal kernel. The term smoothing approximation is also

employed to denote the rst-term approximation of the intensity operator in Bethe-

Salpether equation, that is found by diagrammatic techniques. Ishimaru et al [55] have

revisited recently the result of Watson-Keller with this approximation and also found a

similar formula with a modied, reciprocal, kernel.

3.5. Rigorous derivations

For a long time, there has been a controversy as to the Rayleigh hypothesis leads to

the correct perturbative expansion. There is, however, a rigorous way to derive this

expansion, that does not resort to any a priori assumption on the eld. It is based on

the so-called Extinction Theorem (also called Extended boundary condition or Ewald-

Oseen), which is a variant of Greens theorem. The method yields, in principle, the exact

height expansion but is much more involved, as witnessed for example by the complexity

of the calculations presented in [5]. It has been used to reinvestigate the second-order

expansion for 1D [62] and 2D conducting [63, 64] surfaces, as well as 1D [41] and 2D

dielectric surfaces [65]. It has also been employed to derive the intensity at fourth order

in height [66, 67] in the scalar Dirichlet case (i.e hard-pressure release acoustic problem)

and for 1D conducting surfaces [26]. The overall conclusion [41, 63, 68, 26] of these

studies is that Rayleigh-Fano procedure and the Extinction Theorem lead to identical

expansions in accuracy, even though the higher-order formulas are sometimes dicult

to compare as they do not have unique expressions. More recently, there has been given

general mathematical arguments [69, 35] asserting that the Rayleigh hypothesis should

yield the correct expansion at arbitrary order (at least for analytic proles), even though

its domain of applicability is very restrained.

Another original approach common to some authors [70, 71, 72, 73] consists in

expanding the eld and its derivatives at the surface in perturbative orders. The

resulting expansion is then injected into the boundary conditions, from which eective

tangential elds [70] (resp. eective surface currents [71, 72]) are deduced. The radiated

eld in space is then found by using Kirchho-Helmholtz formulae [70] (resp. dyadic

CONTENTS 9

Greens functions [71, 72]). This procedure can be used for perturbation of non-planar

(for instance cylindrical) surfaces.

The main limitation of SPM is its restricted domain of validity, as it is valid

for small RMS height/wavelength ratios. In the limit of large wavelengths, however,

this approximation tends to the true solution of the scattering problem. Thus, SPM

constitutes the reference for any approximate method in the low-frequency limit.

4. Kirchho Approximation

Together with SPM, the Kirchho approximation (KA), also known as Tangent Plane

Approximation (TPA) in its low frequency or the Physical Optics (PO) in its high

frequency forms, is the oldest and most employed method. It addresses a complete

dierent scattering regime than SPM, since it is valid for large curvature radii or locally

smooth surfaces [1].

4.1. Tangent Plane Approximation

We refer to the monographs by Ogilvy [7] or by Voronovich [8] for excellent historical

reviews on the Tangent Plane Approximation (TPA). In the Kirchho approximation,

the eld on the surface is assimilated to the eld that would be produced by a tangent

plane at the same point. Thus, it depends only on the Fresnel reection coecient at the

local incidence angle. KA is a local approximation, in that the supposed eld at a point

of a surface does not depend on the surface elsewhere, and thus does not account for

multiple scattering. A second obvious limitation is that it does not consider curvature

eects. Hence this approximation applies a priori to gently undulating surfaces and

incidence angles at which shadowing and multiple scattering eects are negligible. The

KA relies on the physical intuition of the tangent plane. It can, however, be obtained in

a mathematical way. Meecham [74] was the rst to recognize the Kirchho current as

the zeroth iteration in the second-kind integral equation governing the surface current,

under scattering of scalar acoustic waves from soft or hard surface or scattering of vector

electromagnetic waves from perfectly conducting surfaces.

The KA was rst introduced by Brekjovskikh [75, 76] and extended by Isakovich

[77] to the statistical case. It was later treated in English in the acoustic [78] and

electromagnetic [79] cases but the common reference for the western community is the

book by Beckmann and Spizzichino [1], which treats the 2D dielectric and 3D acoustic

problem. There have been several vector formulations of the PO proceeding from the

exact Stratton-Chu equations [80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85]. The Tangent Plane approximation

(TPA) of KA will also be termed the low-frequency Kirchho approximation (KA-LF).

The TPA takes the following functional form:

S(k, k

0

) =

1

Q

z

K(k

0

; h) e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

dr, (4.11)

where the (obviously non-reciprocal) kernel is dependent on the local slope as expected.

CONTENTS 10

It takes the dimension of wavenumber squared K

2

similar to the coecients of SPM in

(3.9).

Rodriguez [15, 86] has proposed a dierent approach to the KA, namely the

Momentum transfer expansion (MTE). He establishes a perturbative series for the

surface current with respect to a novel small parameter Q

H

/Q

z

, which is the ratio

of the horizontal and vertical components of the momentum transfer. KA is recovered

at rst order while the higher orders bring curvature corrections.

4.2. High-frequency regime

The complicated surface-dependence on the surface current via the local Fresnel

reection coecient make statistical formulas for the cross-section complicated in

addition to a deciency in the fundamental reciprocity property. However, resorting to

some reasonable additional assumptions, Stogryn [84] establishes a simplied statistical

formula for the cross-section on Gaussian dielectric surfaces using Taylor expansions

about zero of the correlation function and related quantities. In the 2D acoustic

case, Dacol [87] also extracts the local dependence on the Fresnel coecient via Taylor

expansions about zero. Kodis [85] establishes simplied formula by using the stationary

phase approximation (SPA) before averaging the intensity, while Barrick [88] shows that

the result is independent of the order in which the averaging process and the stationary

phase approximation are applied. The Physical Optics (PO) form of KA is also termed

the high-frequency Kirchho approximation (KA-HF), which simplies to:

S(k, k

0

) = K(k, k

0

)

1

Q

z

e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

dr, (4.12)

where the SA now is reciprocal. Hence, by taking the high-frequency limit of TPA both

statistical simplicity and reciprocity property are repaired. In the literature, one might

nd sometimes a small nuance about PO and KA-HF when shadowing is included or

not. We will not make any distinction between KA-HF and PO since shadowing eects

are not presently studied and can be added later on.

In the high-frequency regime (i.e large wavenumber), the KA amplitude reduces

to the probability density function of slopes evaluated at specular points, as was rst

noted by Barrick [89]. This is called the Specular Point Theory (SPT), alternatively the

Geometrical Optics (GO) limit or the Ray-Optics approximation [78, 79, 1, 90, 3]. Its

most common form for single reections is:

0

=

K(k, k

)

Q

2

z

2

P

k k

0

q

k

+q

0

, (4.13)

which is expressed in terms of the normalized radar cross-section where P is the

probability density function of surface slopes. GO has been mainly used for sea surface

scattering [91, 88, 92, 93, 94] and when convoluted with SPM1 it leads to the well-known

Two-Scale Model (TSM) [95, 13, 14] (TSM = SPM1 * GO1).

CONTENTS 11

4.3. Curvature corrections

Lynch [96] uses the variational principle in the acoustical case with the KA as a

trial function to improve the tangent-plane approximation. He obtains local curvature

corrections to the Kirchho surface current. This method has been subsequently referred

to as Lynch Variational Method (LVM), and has been rened and numerically tested

in [97, 98]. Another way to take curvature eects into account is the so-called Local

Parabolic Approximation (LPA), rst introduced by Belobrov and Fuks [99, 100] and

subsequently rened in [101, 102]. It is based on a quadratic, rather than linear,

approximation of the surface height together with an appropriate representation of the

free-space Greens function. The SA in both the LVM and LPA has the functional form

of a KA-LF (4.11).

The radius of curvature and the scattering angles are the sole criterions for the

validity of KA [75, 14, 3, 96] whenever nonlocal eects are negligible. For surfaces with

Gaussian spectra the key parameter is the correlation length, which must remain much

larger than the wavelength [103, 104, 25, 105]. Under multiple scattering conditions,

surface shadowing must be included in the KA approximation in order to ensure energy

conservation, among other things.

4.4. Nonlocal corrections

For large surface slopes and elevations the non-local eects can no longer be neglected. A

possibility to include multiple-scattering phenomena is to consider further iterations of

the surface current equations [74, 106, 107]. However, this results in n-fold integrals that

are dicult to evaluate, whose convergence is questionable and which are not adapted

to numerical computations especially in terms of ensemble averaged formulae.

Originally, Jin and Lax [108, 109] developed the iterative high-frequency KA even

with shadowing eects to second order (KA2-HF). Their model has the general form:

S(k, k

0

) = K

1

(k, k

0

)

e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

dr

+

K

+

2

(k, k

0

; ) e

i(k)r

1

i(q

k

+q

)h(r

1

)

e

i(k

0

)x

2

i(q

0

q

)h(r

2

)

ddr

1

dr

2

,

+

2

(k, k

0

; ) e

i(k)r

1

i(q

k

q

)h(r

1

)

e

i(k

0

)x

2

i(q

0

+q

)h(r

2

)

ddr

1

dr

2

, (4.14)

where the second order kernel is a combination of the product of two rst order

Kirchho approximations updated with some shadowing functions. Statistically

averaged shadowing corrections, suggested by Ray-Optics, have been introduced by

Beckmann [110], Wagner [111], and Smith [112] to account for non-local eects. They

have been widely used in conjunction with rst- [113, 114] and second-order KA to

elaborate a multiple scattering theory valid for large elevation RMS [108, 109, 115, 116,

117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122]. Second-[123] and multiple-[124] reections have also been

considered in this framework of Ray-Optics to explain qualitatively phenomena such as

the mechanism of backscattering enhancement.

CONTENTS 12

Nonlocal corrections are complex from an analytical as well as numerical point of

view and all analytical attempts have been limited to the second-order KA, based on

one iteration of the surface current [116, 9, 125, 126, 127]. General non-local models

will be detailed in later sections but one could mention that the high frequency limit

of these models is expected to reproduce the second-order Geometrical Optics (GO2)

dened as a correction to the GO1 cross-section by:

s=1

K

s

(k, k

, ) P

k

q

k

+sq

,

k

sq

d, (4.15)

where shadowing could be included as an extra weighting function along side the nonlocal

kernel.

For nonlocal models (4.14-4.15) based on a second-order KA, there is an ambiguity

on the integration domain of the spectral variable. A cut-o over evanescent waves (i.e

|| > K) is implicit, even though the spectral integral stems from the Weyl expansion

of the Greens function and should run over an innite domain. The reason for doing

this is that the occurrence of both signs iq

exponentially increasing terms for evanescent waves (for which q

is positive imaginary)

and cause the integral to diverge. This ad hoc assumption seems to compensate for

another error introduced in removing the cumbersome absolute values |h(r

1

) h(r

2

)|

originally present in (4.14).

5. Unifying theories

5.1. Meecham-Lysanov Method

The Meecham-Lysanov Method (MLM) is the oldest unifying theory and dates back to

the fties. It was suggested independently by Meecham [128] and Lysanov [129], for

the Dirichlet case. The unknown surface current at the surface is sought via its rst

kind (i.e single-layer potential) integral equation. The Weyl representation is used for

the corresponding Greens function, together with a key small-slope assumption: the

distance between two points on the surface is approximated by the horizontal lag. This

turns the surface integral into a convolution that can be Fourier inverted and provides

an approximate solution for the surface current. The resulting expression for the far-

eld scattering amplitude is a triple integral (two space and one frequency variables)

with a simple kernel:

S(k, k

0

) =

(k, k

0

; )e

i(k)r

1

iq

k

h(r

1

)

e

i(k

0

)r

2

iq

0

h(r

2

)

ddr

1

dr

2

. (5.16)

The KA and SPM limit are recovered [8] and non-local eects are taken into

account, owing to the two-fold space integration. Yarovoy [130] has generalized the

method to the 3D pseudo-dielectric case (polarization eects are ignored since the eld

is assumed scalar), using also an integral equation of the rst kind for the surface

elds. However, the inversion procedure that is used in the Meecham-Lysanov method

to estimate the surface current seems not adaptable to the vectorial case, since the

CONTENTS 13

corresponding integral operator is no longer invertible (essentially because it implies a

projection on the tangential direction). As a matter of fact, we are not aware of any

vectorial formulation of the method. Recently, however, a purely numerical approximate

method inspired from Meecham-Lysanov has been proposed, the so-called Small Slope

Integral Equation (SSIE) [131]. Starting from the Magnetic Field Integral Equation,

it makes the same approximation on the Greens function as Meecham-Lysanov. This

transforms the integral operator implying the unknown surface eld into a convolution

operator, that can be implemented eciently via FFT. This numerical method has in

principle the same accuracy as a Meecham-Lysanov procedure and is much faster than

a rigorous computation. The lack of analytical expression, however, prevents the use of

statistical formulae.

5.2. Phase-perturbation method

The Phase-perturbation method (PPM) originates from an idea by Shen and Maradudin

[132] but was developed by Winebrenner [133, 134] for the acoustic case. It relies on an

Ansatz rst proposed by Lynch [96] and Rytov et al [6]: the surface current on the rough

surface is written as a multiplicative (unknown) phase correction to that of a reference

plane. It is then this phase, rather than the eld itself, that is sought in the form of

a perturbative series. The corresponding expansion is found by imposing consistency

with SPM at all orders in the small roughness limit. The PPM functional form is:

S(k, k

0

) = B(k, k

0

)

1

Q

z

e

iQ

z

(k,k

0

;[h])

e

iQ

H

r

e

iQ

z

h(r)

dr (5.17)

where the functional is to rst order in surface height

(k, k

0

; [h]) =

(k, k

0

; )h()e

ir

d + (5.18)

This method has been tested, discussed and compared with other approximations by

several authors [135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 8], essentially in the 2D Dirichlet

case. To rst-order, it has been shown [135] to recover KA and SPM in the appropriate

limits, and to have a wider validity domain than the standard approximations. It is also

appropriate to establish statistical formulas via the use of cumulants [133]. Contrary

to both SPM and KA, PPM fails to satisfy reciprocity. A reciprocal variant of PPM

[142] sharing the same properties was, however, later proposed in the statistical case.

PPM has in our opinion two main drawbacks. First, it is numerically demanding since

it involves a double integral already at rst order. Second, the method seems to have

been worked out in the 2D and/or acoustic case only and we are not aware of a vectorial

formulation.

5.3. Small-Slope Approximation

The Small-Slope Approximation (SSA) was proposed by Voronovich [143, 35, 8, 144] as

a unifying theory that could reconcile SPM and KA. It starts from a structure Ansatz

for the scattering amplitude, that makes it formally similar to a KA integral with an

CONTENTS 14

unknown multiplicative correction of the integrand. This guarantees the geometrical

properties that a scattering amplitude should satisfy a priori. By construction, SSA

respects the proper shifting that follow from horizontal and vertical translation of the

surface (in that it is already superior to SPM), as well as reciprocity. The unknown

correction to a reference plane is sought in a functional Taylor expansion of roughness.

This is done by requiring consistency with SPM at all orders in the limit of small

roughness, together with some intuitive (as it has later turned out, [145, 146]) choice

of gauge to remove certain arbitrariness in the identication of coecients. In practice,

the expansion is performed at the lowest two orders only, for higher terms become too

involved. The functional form of SSA at second order (SSA2) is:

S(k, k

0

) =

1

Q

z

e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

B(k, k

0

) iQ

z

M(k, k

0

; ) h()e

ir

d

dr, (5.19)

where:

M(k, k

0

; ) =

1

2

(B

2

(k, k

0

; k ) +B

2

(k, k

0

; k

0

+) B(k, k

0

)) . (5.20)

The rst integral taken alone in (5.19) is the rst-order SSA (SSA1). Here B and B

2

are the rst- and second-order kernels of SPM, respectively.

Contrary to most perturbative approaches, the expansion is not performed with

respect to a well-determined small parameter, but is realized as a functional series

of surface roughness. Dimensional arguments have lead Voronovich to identify the

successive iterations as orders in roughness slopes (whence the terminology). However,

further discussions and numerical tests have clearly demonstrated that the expansion

cannot be recast in powers of a single parameter [147, 148, 149]. SSA at rst- (SSA1)

and second- (SSA2) order has been abundantly discussed and tested against rigorous

methods, essentially in the 2D case [27, 150, 151, 152]. Its qualitative predictions for

scattering on anisotropic sea spectra have been studied [153, 36, 154], but only recently

was it compared to 3D rigorous numerical [148] and experimental [155, 156] results. It

turns out from these experiments that SSA1 considerably extends the validity domain

of SPM, but remains outperformed by KA for large roughness in the domain where this

last method is known to be accurate. SSA2, however, seems to be remarkably accurate

and possesses some desirable properties than SSA1 does not display: it reduces exactly

(in the conducting 3D case) or approximatively (in the dielectric 3D case) to KA in the

high-frequency limit [157], accounts properly for the large-scale tilting eects [158] and

can be incorporated advantageously in a two-scale model [159]. The main limitation

of SSA2 is its numerical complexity. It involves a double integral (one space and one

frequency variable) with an oscillating complex-valued kernel that exhibits branch cuts

and singularities. For this reason SSA1, which is given by a single integral as KA-

HF, remains mostly employed, and 3D numerical implementation of SSA2 have been

achieved only recently [160, 156] in the statistical case.

SSA2 can be used to produce a manifestly reciprocal version of PPM, including the

dielectric vectorial case. This can be done easily by noting that the functional (5.19)

is obtained from the PPM functional (5.17) by mere linearization of the exponential.

CONTENTS 15

This was rst suggested by Berman and Dacol [59] in the 2D Dirichlet case. The same

observation can be used to produce a statistically tractable version of SSA2, by making

the reverse transformation (that is turning SSA2 to a PPM functional form), as was

done for instance in [155].

While Voronovichs procedure proceeds very much from astute guesswork, several

authors have tried rigorous mathematical approaches to SSA. Tatarskii [145, 161]

has developed the Quasi-slope expansion (QSE) and McDaniel [162] the Extended

Small-Slope Approximation (ESSA) in the acoustic case. They proceed from the

extinction theorem or the Meecham-Lysanov method, respectively. Then, they seek

the surface single-potential in a functional Taylor series of height and nd recursively

the coecients. They resort to a small-slope condition at some point to render the

formulas tractable (actually at lowest-two orders). Some a priori assumptions, such

as reciprocity at every order, and gauge arbitrariness are relaxed, but the obtained

approximations are close variants to SSA. ESSA does not reduce to SPM2 due to the

presence of an asymmetric kernel in addition to that of SSA2. Another attempt to

derive SSA from rst principles has been made by Elfouhaily et al [147, 163] in the

3D conducting case. Inspired by an earlier work of Holliday [164] in the backscattering

case, they proceeded through iterations of the surface current equation together with

rened small-slope approximations on the phase of the integrand. They obtained the

scattering eld in a Kirchho functional form, which was only later[149] recognized to

coincide with SSA1.

Even though SSA2 requires a double integration, it does not take spatial non-

local eects into account (this can be seen in the high-frequency limit where it reduces

to the mere rst order KA or GO1). To remedy this limitation, an improvement

of SSA was proposed by Voronovich himself [165], namely the Non-local Small-Slope

Approximation, NLSSA. Its Ansatz is identical to that of Meecham-Lysanov Method

(MLM). This method is in principle superior to SSA, but is dicult to use in practice.

It implies a triple oscillating integral which is unsuited to numerical applications. The

only numerical simulations we are aware of have been performed in the 2D Dirichlet case

for specic spectra [166, 167, 168]. More recently, Elfouhaily et al [28, 169] also adopted

the MLM and NLSSA Ansatz for the Non-local Curvature Approximation (NLCA).

5.4. Operator Expansion Method

The Operator expansion Method (OEM) originated from Hydrodynamics [170, 171, 172]

and was rst adapted to rough surface scattering by Milder for the 2D acoustic problem

[173]. It was subsequently extended to the 3D acoustic [174] case and to the conducting

[175] and dielectric vectorial problems [176]. The principle of OEM is to express the

scattered eld as a Green-Helmholtz surface integral involving the so-called Dirichlet-

to-Neumann Operator (DNO). The DNO relates the value of the eld at the surface

to the value of its normal derivative, one of which (Dirichlet or Neumann problem)

or a combination of which (dielectric case), is prescribed by the boundary condition.

CONTENTS 16

The DNO is explicit for plane waves and can be sought in a functional series of height,

whose successive orders are determined recursively. It is only the DNO, and not the

eld itself, that is expressed pertubatively and thus it is only a partial height expansion.

This makes the validity domain of OEM much wider than SPM. In the 2D acoustic

case [173], OEM has actually been shown to reproduce analytically the SPM and KA

expressions in the appropriate limits. The functional form of OEM is:

S(k, k

0

) =

e

ikriq

k

h(r)

N(k, k

0

; [h]) e

ikriq

0

h(r)

dr, (5.21)

where the kernel operator N(k, k

0

; [h]) is formally expanded in powers of surface

elevation h. In the acoustical case, the OEM kernel N does not depend on the scattering

geometry and thus the scattering amplitude is manifestly reciprocal. This is not the

case under general dielectric conditions.

The OEM iterations can be formally written as a succession of Fourier

multiplicators, that can be eciently implemented by FFT. At the rst level (actually

zero-th order for the DNO), the scattering amplitude is already a non-local triple integral

coinciding with Meecham-Lysanov method (at least in the Dirichlet case). The OEM is

very well adapted to the scalar problem but the vectorial formulation remains obscure

and has been in fact of little used. Numerical experiments have been performed for the

2D [173, 177] and 3D [174] Dirichlet case and for the vectorial case [175, 176]. For 1D

surfaces with Gaussian and Pierson-Moskowitz spectra [177], the OEM at rst-order

appears superior to both KA and SPM, and to extend their added domains of validity.

For sinusoidal gratings [173, 175, 176] it has also been shown to remain accurate for

RMS heights that go well beyond the perturbative domain and in any case superior to

SSA1. Statistical formulas have been given in the 2D acoustic case and for the coherent

eld only [178].

5.5. Tilt-Invariant Approximation

An important property that an approximate method should satisfy to cope with large

scales is the so-called tilt-invariance, as was recalled in the rst section. It is the ability

to treat correctly perturbations of a slightly tilted plane. While this is not satised by

SSA1 and was only checked recently for SSA2 [158], Charnotskii and Tatarskii [179]

constructed a method that would primarily account for the tilting eect, namely the

Tilt-Invariant Approximation (TIA), which they presented for the Dirichlet problem

only. They chose to write the surface current as a multiplicative unknown correction

to the Kirchho current, which is exact for a tilted plane. The unknown function is

sought, as usual, in a perturbative expansion that would be consistent with SPM. The

lowest order of the expansion leads back to KA, while SPM1 is recovered with the rst

two terms:

S(k, k

0

) =

K(k, k

0

)

Q

z

e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

dr i

T

1

(k

0

; )h()e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

i(Q

H

)r

ddr

CONTENTS 17

+

T

2

(k

0

;

1

,

2

)h(

1

)h(

2

)e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

i(Q

H

2

)r

d

1

d

2

dr. (5.22)

TIA is however not reciprocal in its correction to KA. Note that the rst two integrals

have the functional form of SSA2. Elfouhaily et al [149] actually demonstrated that

one could operate a simple gauge function change on SSA2 which transforms it into

TIA decomposition. The functional form of TIA motivated the nding of a new general

model for dielectric surfaces which is termed the local curvature approximation LCA

[180, 28]. LCA can be seen as a generalization of TIA to the dielectric case. The issue

of gauge arbitrariness and possible connection between models will be discussed in more

details in a later section.

5.6. Local Weight Approximation

In a series of papers [16, 181, 182], Dashen and Wurmser have developed a novel

formalism for scattering from rough surfaces, which is intermediate between variational

and perturbative methods. They investigated the change of scattering amplitude

resulting from a innitesimal variation of the rough surface itself (and not of a reference

plane) and deduced some interesting properties for the latter. In the 3D acoustic and

conducting case, they showed that, to rst order in curvature, the scattering amplitude

can be written as a low-frequency Kirchho integral with a local kernel, which is the

solution of a dierential equation that is solved explicitly. They consequently obtained

an expression of the same complexity as the KA-LF (or TPA), that takes into account

curvature eects. LWA functional form is:

S(k, k

0

) =

1

Q

z

G(k, k

0

; Q

z

h) e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

dr. (5.23)

In addition, this approximation recovers the SPM and KA limits, is reciprocal and

tilt-invariant. The authors did not give a name to their new method, but it has been

later referred to by Milder [173] and subsequently others as Local Weight Approximation

(LWA). The main limitation of LWA is its inapplicability to the dielectric case, since

the dierential equation for the local kernel becomes inextricable (due to the complex

slope dependence of the Fresnel coecients). Albeit powerful, this approach remained

relatively unknown, perhaps because it has been developed by theoretical physicists

outside the radar community.

5.7. Weighted Curvature Approximation

Recently, Elfouhaily et al [180, 28] have derived a model inspired from Dashen and

Wurmser Ansatz, which they named the Weighted Curvature Approximation (WCA).

They arrived at a scattering amplitude which is a correction to SSA1 that has the

structure of LWA, namely a Kirchho integral with a local unknown kernel, and

construct such a kernel with all desirable properties: reciprocity, compatibility with

SPM1 and KA limits and shift- and tilt-invariance. This kernel includes curvature

CONTENTS 18

eects since it is quadratic in its lowest order when expanded about zero. It is based on

a combination of SPM1 and KA kernels, evaluated at local angles. WCA is written as:

S(k, k

0

) =

1

Q

z

{B(k, k

0

) T(k, k

0

; Q

z

h)} e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

dr, (5.24)

where

T(k, k

0

; ) = B

k +k

0

+

2

,

k +k

0

k +k

0

+

2

,

k +k

0

. (5.25)

Contrary to LWA, WCA has a dielectric statistical formulation. The method has

been recently tested [183] and has shown satisfactory results.

5.8. Wiener-Hermite Approach

Nakayama (acoustic case) and Eftimiu (electromagnetic case) have used a probabilistic

approach, that we will refer to as Wiener-Hermite Approach (WHA) to the scattering

problem. They consider the scattered eld as a nonlinear stochastic functional of the

random surface, that can be expanded on a basis of orthogonal processes. This is done

via a functional Wiener-Hermite expansion. The unknown deterministic coecients are

then found either by imposing consistency with SPM [184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189] or

via the surface current equation [190, 191, 192]. Eftimiu has later rened this approach

with an Ansatz similar to TIA: the surface current is written as an amplitude correction

to the Kirchho current and sought in a functional Wiener-Hermite expansion. This

last method has been termed Phased Wiener-Hermite approach by his author [193, 194].

The SPM1 limit is recovered at rst order, but not the KA limit. The diuse scattering

cross-section of WHA can be written as follows:

0

(k, k

0

) = e

Q

2

z

(0)

Q

H

F

(k, k

) +

(k, k

; )()d (5.26)

+

(k, k

)(

)(

)d

,

where (r) and () are the surface autocorrelation function and the surface power

spectrum, respectively. WHA is structurally equivalent to SPM in its statistical

formulation.

WHA is in principle well-adapted to the statistical case as it is readily available

in ensemble averaged form, but in practice the analytical derivation of the Wiener-

Hermite functional expansion and the resulting expressions for the surface currents

become inextricably complicated beyond the rst-order.

5.9. Unied Perturbation Expansion

In the Unied Perturbation Expansion (UPE), Rodriquez et al [195, 196, 197] pursued

the former idea of the momentum transfer expansion (MTE) but changes the small

parameter from Q

H

/Q

z

to W

z

h(r). SPM and KA are recovered with the lowest two

CONTENTS 19

orders of the corresponding perturbative expansion, and SPM2 with the third order.

UPE in our notation becomes:

S(k, k

0

) =

K(k, k

0

)

Q

z

Q

H

i

F

1

(k

0

; )h()e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

i(Q

H

)r

ddr (5.27)

+

F

2

(k

0

;

1

,

2

)h(

1

)h(

2

)e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

i(Q

H

2

)r

d

1

d

2

dr.

This model is not reciprocal by construction since the expanded current is function

of the incident wave alone. Another limitation of UPE is that it is available for perfect

conducting surfaces only.

5.10. Full-Wave Approach

The Full-Wave Approach (FWA) has been introduced and developed over many years by

Bahar in the 2D case [198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203], then modied to include local slope

dependence and extended to the 3D case [204, 205, 206, 207]. The surface is seen as the

lower boundary of a semi-innite waveguide and the scattered eld is decomposed over

a basis of local modes, with unknown coecients. These local spectral components are

shown to satisfy a dierential equation of propagation along the lateral direction, the

so-called telegraphist equation for cable and waveguide transmissions. Under further

approximations such as a small-slope assumption, the equation can be solved iteratively

by the method of subsequent approximations. In the 2D Dirichlet case, the rst iteration

was recognized by Voronovich [8] to coincide with SSA1. Tractable expressions for

subsequent iterations can only be obtained via stationary phase or the steepest decent

approximations.

Ever since FWA was introduced by Bahar in early seventies, it has been

continuously evolving at a rate of more than one paper a year on average, and it is

therefore dicult to accomplish a thorough review of this model in a short paragraph.

The functional form of FWA can be written as :

S(k, k

0

) =

D

1

(k, k

0

; Q

z

h) e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

dr

+

D

+

2

(k, k

0

; , [h])e

i(k)r

1

i(q

k

+q

)h(r

1

)

e

i(k

0

)r

2

i(q

0

q

)h(r

2

)

ddr

1

dr

2

+

2

(k, k

0

; , [h])e

i(k)r

1

i(q

k

q

)h(r

1

)

e

i(k

0

)r

2

i(q

0

+q

)h(r

2

)

ddr

1

dr

2

, (5.28)

which encompasses all published forms of FWA over the years.

The FWA is essentially and originally a 2D method, as it relies on the telegraphist

equations, and the attempts that have been made by the author to extend it to

higher dimensions call on additional simplifying assumptions which are not always

mathematically justied. In an excellent critical review on the FWA, Collin [208, 209]

has given a clean and self-contained derivation of the 3D case and made comparisons

with other approximate methods. FWA is shown to reproduce SPM in the small-

roughness limit, but the KA limit is only recovered via the half-sum of the co-polarization

coecients. FWA has been constantly improved and rened by his author and some 3D

CONTENTS 20

comparisons with experimental data have been made [210], where it is found in better

agreement with data than KA and SPM. However, our subjective opinion is that FWA is

analytically as well as numerically very involved while the resulting gain in accuracy over

other unifying methods is not established. Moreover, the long series of mutually referring

papers and the successions of dierent versions of FWA that have been developed by

Bahar over thirty years render its understanding and numerical implementation dicult

to even advised users.

Two other scattering models were derived in a similar manner to FWA. The rst

is the Local Spectral Expansion Method (LSEM) developed by Garca-Valenzuela and

Collin [211, 212] for 1D surfaces but for both conducting and dielectric cases. Their

rst-order model is formed by the sum of two single integrals. The rst integral is the

high-frequency Kirchho while the second is an original form where W

z

= q

k

q

0

replaces

the standard vertical component of the momentum transfer Q

z

= q

k

+ q

0

. The second

order functional form is similar to that of SSA2 [35] and it helps the model retrieve the

low-frequency SPM2 limit. The expression of the total LSEM is:

S(k, k

0

) =

K(k, k

0

)

Q

z

e

iQ

z

h(x)

e

iQ

H

x

dx +

B(k, k

0

) K(k, k

0

)

W

z

e

iW

z

h(x)

1

e

iQ

H

x

dx

i

F(k

0

; )h()

e

iq

k

h(x)

e

iq

k

h(x)

e

i(Q

H

)x

ddx, (5.29)

where both SPM1 and SPM2 are reached. The Kirchho limit is, however, not formally

reached away from specular or backscatter where W

z

= 0. LSEM fails also some other

fundamental properties such as reciprocity, shift and tilt invariances.

The other method based on a modication of FWA derivations is the Correction

Current Method (CCM) by Schwering et al [213]. The model has a single integral form

similar to the tangent plan approximation (TPA). The kernel of CCM is formed in its

constant part by that of SPM1 in the spirit of SSA1 and FWA. The variable part of the

kernel is however original and depends simply on a quadratic form of the surface slope.

CCM is hence very structurally similar to WCA [28] with the inclusion of less orders of

surface slope. CCM exists only for 1D perfect conducting surfaces and reads:

S(k, k

0

) =

B(k, k

0

)

Q

z

1 +h

2

(x)

e

iQ

z

h(x)

e

iQ

H

x

dx. (5.30)

CCM does not reach the Kirchho approximation or the Physical Optics under the

high frequency limit. The authors did not check properly this limit by applying the

stationary phase condition, they instead concluded that KA is reached because the

half-sum of both Dirichlet and Neumann scattering amplitudes equaled KA. CCM does

however reproduce the SPM1 low-frequency limit and stays reciprocal and simple to

implement.

5.11. Improved Greens Function Methods

Another variety of unifying theories can be grouped under the common denomination

of Improved Greens Function Methods (IGFM). It is based on an improved choice of

CONTENTS 21

the Greens function in the Green-Helmholtz surface integral expressing the scattered

eld. Kodis [214, 215] and Krill and Andreo [216] combine the variational principle

with the use of half-space Greens functions. Berman and Perkins [217] use the Half-

space Greens function in conjunction with the Kirchho current in the scalar case, a

procedure which was extended by Shaw and Dougan to the 3D conducting [218] and

dielectric [219] case. They obtain a hybrid formula for the scattering amplitude, which

is written as the sum of a KA term and an SPM-like term:

S(k, k

0

) = K(k, k

0

)

1

Q

z

e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

dr i[B(k, k

0

) K(k, k

0

)]h(Q

H

). (5.31)

This expression is compatible with both SPM and KA in the appropriate limits to within

a small bias in the high-frequency limit due to the corrective term in h(Q

H

). This model

does not preserve the required shift and tilt invariance properties.

5.12. Volumic methods

There is a category of approximate methods which we call volumic because they consider

the case of a rough interface between two homogeneous media as a particular space

distribution of permittivity. The most famous is the Born approximation (BA) which

dates back to the early works of Quantum Mechanics (e.g. [220]) and has rst been

applied to general homogeneous rough surfaces in the context of X-ray and neutron

scattering [221]. The BA refers to a family of methods in which the unknown eld

satises a Lippmann-Schwinger equation, that is essentially an integral equation of

second kind, with a potential term and a Greens function in the integrand. This

is the usual representation of solution of the Schr odinger equation, but the electric eld

satisfying Maxwells equations can also be put in this form, using the dyadic Greens

functions and the permittivity contrast as potential. The solution can then formally be

expressed as an iteration series (the so-called Born- or Neumann series). The zeroth

iteration is the free eld of the reference problem. The Born approximation corresponds

to the rst iteration. In the context of scattering by rough surfaces, the incoherent

scattering amplitude takes the form:

S(k, k

0

) = U(k, k

0

)

e

iQ

H

r

e

iQ

z

h(r)

dr. (5.32)

This expression is structurally identical to SSA1 and KA-HF, but coincides with neither

of them. A consequence is that it does not recover SPM1 in the limit of small heights.

For small contrast, however, the kernel becomes identical to that of SSA1. Precisely, U

can be obtained from the SSA1/SPM1 kernel B by making the replacements q

0

, q

q, q

0

and q q. The Born approximation is valid when the permittivity contrast between

the two media is small, regardless of the roughness. Therefore the BA is mostly used

in X-ray surface scattering, a regime in which the contrasts are extremely weak. The

main weakness of the BA is that it does not take properly into account the reection

by the surface and therefore fails as one approaches the so-called critical angle, at

which total external reection occurs [222, 223]. Another (related) shortcoming of

CONTENTS 22

the method is its inconsistency with SPM1 in the limit of small heights. A great

improvement of BA in this respect can be obtained by choosing a more adapted reference

problem, namely the at surface between two media. In that case the free space Greens

function is replaced by the half-space Greens function, that depends explicitly on the

Fresnel reection coecient at the plane interface . This is the so-called Distorted-

wave Born Approximation (DWBA), a method which takes again its roots in Quantum

Mechanics [220] and was developed in the eighties for X-ray scattering by rough surfaces

[222, 224, 223]. The incoherent scattering amplitude obtained by retaining the rst-

iteration takes the following form:

S(k, k

0

) =

s,s

0

=1

U

s,s

0

(k, k

0

)

e

iQ

H

r

e

i(sq+s

0

q

0

)h(r)

dr, (5.33)

where the sum runs over all possible signs s, s

0

(four possibilities) and hence induces

dierent kernels. This method is known to provide accurate results as long as

Q

z

h <

1, where is the contrast of permittivity. The analytical expression (5.33) can be

further expanded in height to obtain SPM1 (it had in fact be shown well before [225]

that a perturbative height expansion based on a Lippmann-Schwinger equation with

half-space Greens function is consistent with SPM1). With a further iteration, the

method has been shown recently [226] to reproduce SPM2 in a compact formula that

can also be used for heterogeneous surfaces.

The Mean-eld theory (MFT) [227, 228] is a volumic and statistical approach to

rough surface scattering inspired from DWBA. The roughness interface is seen as a

permittivity uctuation in the strip limited by the maximum excursions of the surface.

A mean dielectric permittivity is obtained for each elevation by averaging over the

horizontal direction. Sampling over dierent elevations, a reference problem is dened

as a multi-layer medium whose Greens function can be computed numerically. The

DWBA is then applied to this reference problem and an ensemble average is performed

to obtain the rst two statistical moments of the electric eld. This leads readily to the

mean diuse intensity and the corresponding expression depends in a simple manner

on the reference eld and Greens function and the surface height-correlation function.

The method is semi-analytical inasmuch as the multi-layer Greens function has to be

rst computed numerically. The corresponding cross-section is of the form:

0

=

U(k, k

, z

)U

(k, k

, z

)dz

dz

e

iQ

H

r

L(r, z

, z

; )dr (5.34)

where L is an explicit functional with respect to the surface autocorrelation function

(r) and

0

= (0). U is related to the multi-layer eld and Greens function and

depends only on the surface via its RMS height. The key parameter for the validity

of the method is the permittivity contrast, which must remain moderate ( < 2).

Contrary to practically all surfacic approaches, the MFT becomes more accurate at small

correlation lengths, at a given level of (moderate but nonperturbative) RMS roughness

and permittivity. It is thus able to cope with surface parameters that do not fall in the

(known or supposed) validity domain of any surfacic method, typically for correlation

CONTENTS 23

length and RMS height that are one third of wavelength. The reason is that fast

permittivity uctuations are in favor of the homogenization process that is done at each

elevation. This has been conrmed by numerical [227, 228] as well as experimental [229]

tests. The MFT has also been numerically shown in excellent agreement with SPM1

for small roughness and moderate permittivity. Its main limitations are its restriction

to small and moderate roughness and the inability to predict cross-polarization in the

incidence plane.

5.13. Integral Equation Method

In the late 1980s, the Integral Equation Method (IEM) model was developed to bridge

the gap between SPM and PO models [230]. Initially an IEM version covering the

scattering from perfectly conducting surfaces was published [231, 232]. Subsequently

the IEM model was extended to include the case of scattering from a dielectric rough

interface [233, 9]. IEM is essentially a second iteration of the iterative Kirchho

approximation [106]. It provides an iterative solution of the pair of integral equations for

the tangential components of the electric and magnetic elds, at the dielectric interface,

developed by Poggio and Miller [234]. The expressions of the tangential surface elds are

sought as the superposition of the Kirchho surface elds and corrective terms originated

by the complementary surface currents. Hence, IEM has this functional form:

S(k, k

0

) =

F

1

(k, k

0

; Q

z

h) e

iQ

z

h(r)

e

iQ

H

r

dr (5.35)

+

F

+

2

(k, k

0

; , [h])e

i(k)r

1

i(q

k

+q

)h(r

1

)

e

i(k

0

)r

2

i(q

0

q

)h(r

2

)

ddr

1

dr

2

+

2

(k, k

0

; , [h])e

i(k)r

1

i(q

k

q

)h(r

1

)

e

i(k

0

)r

2

i(q

0

+q

)h(r

2

)

ddr

1

dr

2

.

One drawback of this approach is that the conditions for the convergence of the

iterative series are not known a priori. For instance, the parameter which should be

considered as small for this approach depends on the statistics of the rough surface

under study. To obtain the scattering coecient expressions of 2D rough surfaces in a

relatively simple form several additional approximations are made in the IEM model

(for a critical review see [126]). In the low frequency region (i.e. Ks < 2, K being

the impinging wavenumber and s the surface RMS heights), the scattering coecient

consists of single and multiple-scattering contributions. The single scattering terms

(including corrections due to complementary elds) are expressed as a series of algebraic

terms, whereas the multiple scattering terms are given as 2D three-folds integrals (quite

demanding in terms of numerical computation). Some of the assumptions made in the

IEM development have subsequently been recognized as simplistic by the same original

authors. This is the case of the spectral representation of the Greens function (as

well as of its gradient) where one of the phase terms was arbitrarily dropped leading

to wrong results for the computation of cross-polarized components (i.e. multiple-

scattering contributions). In addition, for slightly rough surfaces, the IEM fails to

CONTENTS 24

reproduce SPM in the general bistatic geometry [147]. An improved version of IEM

was released in 1997 [235], then a further corrected version was published in 2000 [236].

While the expressions of co-polarized backscattering coecient (i.e. single scattering

contribution) are not aected by these revisions, the general bistatic IEM expressions

(including multiple-scattering terms) have been continuously amended until recently

[237, 238]. Extensions of the IEM model to take into account multi-scale roughness

statistics have also been suggested [239, 240]. The IEM accuracy should deteriorate

at large incidence angle and for small radius of curvature of the rough surface. The

IEM predictions of co-polarized backscattering coecient rough surfaces with moderate

slopes and heights have been widely investigated through numerical and experimental

studies (see for instance [9, 241, 242]), where reasonable agreement has been found.

6. Connections between functional forms

6.1. Local and non-local models

In the course of this review we used several times the terminology local and nonlocal

for the dierent models. Although these concepts are rather intuitive in terms of

scattering process, it is dicult to give a general mathematical denition. We propose

to term a model local if the corresponding scattering amplitude can be written as a

single space integral with a kernel that depends only on the surface and a nite number

of derivatives (in general zero, one or two) at a given point. The generic form of a local

model is:

S(k, k

0

) =

F[k, k

0

; r; h(r); (h)(r); ..; (

n

h)(r)]dr (6.36)

SPM1, KA-LF or WCA are examples of local models. A model will be referred to

as non-local of degree (p, q) if the associated SA is a functional in h(r) and h() that

requires at least p +q integrations, with p 0 spatial and q 1 spectral variables. The

generic form for S(k, k

0

) is:

F[k, k

0

; r

1

; ..; r

p

;

1

; ..;

q

; h(r

1

); ..; h(r

p

); h(

1

); ..; h(

q

)]dr

1

..dr

p

d

1

..d

q

(6.37)

Note that possible derivatives of h can be absorbed in the Fourier integrals. The

dependence of the kernel on the Fourier variables must not be solely polynomial,

otherwise the integral can be reduced to a local form. For instance, SPM2, PPM, MLM

and TIA are non-local (0, 1), (1, 1), (2, 1) and (1, 2), respectively. Whenever a model

has a purely statistical formulation (such as GO), we will apply the same terminology

to its scattering cross-section.

The relevant question one might ask now is whether there are any possible

connections between these models. What is the transformation that reduces a nonlocal

model to a local one? Positive answers to these questions clarify most models and help

understanding not only the functional forms but also the corresponding kernels. Indeed,

most previously listed models share roughly the same functional form but with major

CONTENTS 25

dierences in their coecients or kernels. Building bridges across models could also be

seen as a criterion of cross-validation of kernels in use. Connection between models can

be established in two ways: by a gauge transformation (which preserves the degree of

non-locality) or by reduction of spatial integrals.

6.2. Gauge transformation

The main dierence between SSA (5.19) and TIA or LCA (5.22) is that the rst single

integral is multiplied by the SPM1 kernel instead of the Kirchho one. This minor

dierence has a fundamental repercussion on the second order kernel in the double

integral. It also indicates that there is some arbitrariness in the separation of the

scattering amplitude in the sum of a single and double integrals. The possibility of gauge

arbitrariness was already discussed by several authors including [8, 145, 162, 180, 28].

In this prospect, we provide the reader with a general gauge function which transforms

SSA2 (5.19) to TIA/LCA-form (5.22) (discarding the third integral). This gauge

function changes the rst- and second- orders SSA according to

B(k, k

0

) K(k, k

0

), (6.38a)

M(k, k

0

; ) M(k, k

0

; ) [B(k, k

0

) K(k, k

0

)]

W

H

W

z

Q

z

. (6.38b)

This transformed second-order kernel does not necessarily coincide with that of LCA or

TIA. However, the gauge transformation makes the functional forms agree.

6.3. Reduction of nonlocal models

Two major families of nonlocal models can be identied in our previous extensive list of

functional forms. The rst is based on the Meecham-Lysanov form (5.16). The second

family regroups all iterative Kirchho models as in (4.14). While it seems dicult

to establish links between these families, it is possible to compare their respective

transforms after a reduction process from a double spatial integral to a single one.

This reduction process is not trivial but can be outlined succinctly as follows. Let us

employ the triple integral in (4.14) as a general form which includes MLM (5.16) if the

s = sign is set to zero and the kernel to . We rst start by dening the change

of variable inspired from [162], (r

1

, r

2

) (u

1

+ u

2

, u

1

(1 )u

2

) where is an

arbitrary positive parameter (0 1). This change of variable translates the fact

that the mathematical limit of the nonlocal model when r

1

tends to r

2

depends on how

the two vectors approach each other. This arbitrariness in taking the limit is reduced

in our derivation to the sole arbitrary parameter . The reduction process yields a

constant coecient and a kernel which will be placed in the single and double integrals

as in (5.19), respectively. These reduced coecients are

B(k, k

0

) = K

s

2

(k, k

0

, k

), (6.39a)

CONTENTS 26

M(k, k

0

, ) = (q

k

+sq

)K

s

2

(k, k

0

,

) (q

k

+q

0

)K

s

2

(k, k

0

, k

)

+(q

0

sq

+

)K

s

2

(k, k

0

, +

) (6.39b)

where k

= k + (1 )k

0

and

= k

with particular choices of . All the previously listed nonlocal models can be reduced

to the SSA (5.19) and LCA (5.22) functional forms by setting to 0 or 1 and q

0

/Q

z

,

respectively. A perfect counter example of the SSA-LCA decomposition is when one

takes = 1/2 in the reduction of the nonlocal models. In this case, the reduced model

preserves all the limits reached by its nonlocal parent even though Kirchho and SMP1

kernels are not readily apparent in the analytical decomposition contrary to SSA or

LCA.

7. Synthesis and Conclusion

We provided a review of approximate scattering wave theories from random surfaces

in a unied notation that put the emphasis on the functional form of the scattering

amplitude. We have classied the models in three families, that follow approximatively

the historical evolution. The low-frequency models (SPM and variants), the high-

frequency approximation (Kirchho and variants) and the so-called unied methods,

that aim at bridging the gap between the former two. We have tried to outline the

main principles of the methods, the list of which is recapitulated in Table 7. We have

attempted to evaluate the dierent methods according to a dozen of general criteria

which we think are fundamental. The dierent performances are synthesized in Tables

3 and 4. We have made a distinction between local and non-local models, for which

we have proposed a precise denition. Some horizontal and vertical links between

nonlocal models have been developed in order to explain their apparent dierences.

At the present time, there does not seem to be a universal method that is to be

preferred systematically. All the methods present a compromise between versatility,

simplicity, numerical eciency, accuracy and robustness, with a dierent weighting

in these various elds. At a rst glance at the tables, it appears obvious that no

approximate model has fullled all listed criteria. Moreover, most models did not

even satisfy half of the requirements. One should also mention that a fair comparison

can only be accomplished between models that address the same scattering problem

(acoustic, conducting, dielectric, 2D, 3D, etc ...). There is still room for improvement

in the development of approximate scattering methods, and we hope the check-list of

performances we have proposed in Tables 3 and 4 will help future researchers.

References

[1] P. Beckmann and A. Spizzichino, The scattering of electromagnetic waves from rough surfaces.

Pergamon Press,Oxford, England, 1963.

[2] A. Ishimaru, Ed., Wave Propagation and Scattering in Random Media. New York: Academic,

1978.

CONTENTS 27

[3] F. G. Bass and I. M. Fuks, Wave scattering from statistically rough surfaces. New York:

Pergamon, 1979.

[4] F. T. Ulaby, R. K. Moore, and A. K. Fung, Microwave remote sensing: Active and Passive.

Dedham MA: Artech House, 1982.

[5] L. Tsang, J. A. Kong, and R. Shin, Theory of Microwave remote sensing. Wiley-Interscience,

New-York, 1985.

[6] S. M. Rytov, Y. A. Kravtsov, and V. I. Tatarskii, Principles of Statistical Radiophysics.

Berlin,Heidelberg: Springer, 1987.

[7] J. A. Ogilvy, Theory of wave scattering from random rough surfaces. Adam Hilger, 1991.

[8] A. G. Voronovich, Wave scattering from rough surfaces, ser. Springer Series on Wave Phenomena.

Springer, 1994.

[9] A. K. Fung, Microwave scattering and Emission Models and their Applications. Artech House,

Norwood, Massachusetts, 1994.

[10] L. Tsang, J. A. Kong, and K. H. Ding, Scattering of electromagnetic waves, ser. Wiley series in

remote sensing. Wiley-Interscience, New-York, 2000, vol. I,II,III.

[11] M. Saillard and A. Sentenac, Rigorous solutions for electromagnetic scattering from rough

surfaces, Waves in Random Media, vol. 11, pp. R103R137, 2001.

[12] K. F. Warnick and W. C. Chew, Numerical simulation methods for rough surface scattering,

Waves in Random Media, vol. 11, pp. R1R30, 2001.

[13] D. E. Barrick and W. Peake, A review of scattering from rough surfaces with dierent roughness

scales, Radio Sci., pp. 865868, 1968.

[14] G. R. Valenzuela, Theories for the interaction of electromagnetic waves and oceanic waves. A

review, Bound. Layer Met., pp. 6185, 1978.

[15] E. Rodriguez, Beyond the Kirchho approximation, Radio Sci., vol. 24, pp. 681693, 1989.

[16] R. Dashen and D. Wurmser, A new theory for scattering from a surface, J. Math. Phys., vol. 32,

no. 4, pp. 971985, 1991.

[17] L. Rayleigh, The theory of sound. MacMillan, London, 1896, 3rd Ed.

[18] U. Fano, The theory of anomalous diraction gratings and of quasi-stationary waves on metallic

surfaces (Sommerfelds waves), J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 31, pp. 213222, 1941.

[19] S. O. Rice, Reection of electromagnetic waves from slightly rough surfaces, Commun. Pure

Appl. Math., vol. 4, pp. 351378, 1951.

[20] , Reection of EM from slightly rough surfaces. Interscience, New-York, 1963.

[21] W. H. Peake, Theory of radar return from terrain, IRE National Convention Record 7, vol. Pt.

1, pp. 2741, 1959.

[22] G. R. Valenzuela, Depolarization of EM waves by slightly rough surfaces, IEEE Trans.

Antennas Propag., vol. 15, pp. 552557, 1967.

[23] , Scattering of electromagnetic waves from a tilted slightly rough surfaces, Radio Sci.,

vol. 13, no. 11, p. 1057, 1968.

[24] E. I. Thorsos and D. R. Jackson, The validity of the perturbation approximation for rough

surface scattering using a Gaussian roughness spectrum, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 86, pp.

261277, 1989.

[25] M. F. Chen and A. K. Fung, A numerical study of the regions of validity of the Kirchho and

small-perturbation rough surface scattering models, Radio Sci., vol. 23, pp. 163170, 1988.

[26] J. M. Soto-Crespo, M. Nieto-Vesperinas, and A. T. Fridberg, Scattering from slightly rough

random surfaces: A detailed study on the validity of the small perturbation method , J. Opt.

Soc. America, vol. 7, pp. 11851201, 1990.

[27] D. H. Berman, Simulations of rough surface scattering, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 89, no. 2,

pp. 623636, 1991.

[28] T. Elfouhaily, S. Guignard, R. Awadallah, and D. R. Thompson, Local and non-local curvature

approximation: a new asymptotic theory for wave scattering, Waves in Random Media, vol. 13,

no. 4, pp. 321338, 2003.

CONTENTS 28

[29] E. Kroger and E. Ktretschmann, Scattering of light by slightly rough surfaces or thin lms

including plasma resonance emission, Z. Phys., vol. 237, no. 1, 1970.

[30] J. M. Elson and R. H. Ritchie, Photon interaction at a rough metal surface, Phys. Rev. B,

vol. 4, p. 4129, 1971.

[31] V. Celli, A. M. Marvin, and F. Toigo, Light scattering from rough surface, Phys. Rev. B, vol. 11,

pp. 17791786, 1975.

[32] A. Marvin, F. Toigo, and V. Celli, Light scattering from rough surfaces, Phys. Rev. B, vol. 11,

p. 2777, 1975.

[33] R. Schier, Reectivity of slightly rough surfaces, Appl. Opt., vol. 26, pp. 704712, 1987.

[34] M. Saillard, A characterization tool for dielectric random rough surfces: Brewsters

phenomenon, Waves in Random Media, vol. 2, pp. 6779, 1992.

[35] A. G. Voronovich, Small-Slope Approximation for electromagnetic wave scattering at a rough

interface of two dielectric half-spaces, Waves in Random Media, vol. 4, pp. 337367, 1994.

[36] J. T. Johnson, Third order small perturbation method for scattering from dielectric rough

surfaces, J. Opt. Soc. America, 1999.

[37] M. A. Demir and J. T. Johnson, Fourth- and higher-order small-perturbation solution for

scattering from dielectric rough surfaces, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 2330

2337, 2003.

[38] O. P. Bruno and F. Reitich, Numerical solution of diraction problems: A method of variation

of boundaries, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 10, pp. 11681175, 1993.

[39] , Numerical solution of diraction problems: A method of variation of boundaries ii. Finitely

conducting gratings, pade approximants, and singularities, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 10, pp.

23072316, 1993.

[40] , Numerical solution of diraction problems: A method of variation of boundaries. iii Doubly

periodic gratings, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 10, pp. 25512562, 1993.

[41] F. Toigo, A. Marvin, V. Celli, and N. R. Hill, Optical properties of rough surfaces : General

properties and the small roughness limit, Phys. Rev. B, vol. 15, pp. 56185626, 1977.

[42] A. Soubret, G. Berginc, and C. Bourrely, Application of reduced Rayleigh equations to

electromagnetic wave scattering by two-dimensional randomly rough surfaces, Phys. Rev. B,

vol. 63, no. 20, pp. 245 411245 420, 2001.

[43] T. A. Leskova and A. Maradudin, X-ray scattering from a randomly rough surface, Waves in

Random Media, vol. 7, pp. 395334, 1997.

[44] G. C. Brown, V. Celli, M. Coopersmith, and M. Haller, Unitary and reciprocal expansions in

the theory of light scattering from a grating, Surf. Sci., vol. 129, pp. 507515, 1983.

[45] G. C. Brown, V. Celli, M. Haller, and A. M. Marvin, Vector theory of light scattering from

rough surface: Unitary and reciprocal expansions, Surf. Sci., vol. 136, p. 381, 1984.

[46] U. Frisch, Wave propagation in random Media, in Probabilistic Methods in Applied

Mathematics, A. T. Bharucha-Reid, Ed. New York: Academic, 1968.

[47] G. C. Brown, V. Celli, M. Haller, A. Maradudin, and A. Marvin, Resonant light scattering from

a randomly rough surface, Phys. Rev. B, vol. 31, pp. 49935005, 1985.

[48] J. A. Sanchez, A. A. Maradudin, and E. R. Mendez, Limits of validity of three perturbation

theories of the specular scattering of light from one-dimensional, randomly rough, dielectric

surfaces, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 12, pp. 15471557, 1995.

[49] A. V. Shchegrov, Enhanced backscattering of surfaces polaritons on a randomly rough surface,

Phys. Rev. B, vol. 57, no. 7, p. 4132, 1998.

[50] A. R. McGurn and A. A. Maradudin, Perturbation theory results for the diuse scattering of

light from two-dimensional randomly rough surfaces, Waves in Random Media, vol. 6, pp.

251267, 1996.

[51] A. A. Maradudin, R. E. Luna, and E. R. Mendez, The brewster eect for a one-dimensional

rough surface, Waves in Random Media, vol. 3, pp. 5160, 1993.

[52] J. Keller, Wave propagation in random media, ser. Proc. Symp. in Appl. Math. Providence, RI:

CONTENTS 29

Am. Math. Soc., 1962, vol. 13, pp. 227246.

[53] , Stochastic equations and wave propagation in random media, ser. Proc. Symp. in Appl.

Math. Providence, RI: Am. Math. Soc., 1964, vol. 16, pp. 145170.

[54] R. Bourret, Bilocal theory of randomly perturbed elds, Hugues Research Labs, Malibu, CA,

Tech. Rep., 1961.

[55] A. Ishimaru, J. D. Rockway, and Y. Kuga, Rough surface greens function based on the rst-order

modied perturbation and smoothed diagram methods, Waves in Random Media, vol. 10, pp.

1731, 2000.

[56] A. Wenzel, Smoothed boundary conditions for randomly rough surfaces, J. Math. Phys., vol. 15,

pp. 317323, 1974.

[57] J. Watson and J. Keller, Reection, scattering, and absorption of acoustic waves by rough

surfaces, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 74, p. 1887, 1983.

[58] , Rough surface scattering via the smoothing method, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 75, p.

1705, 1984.

[59] D. H. Berman and D. K. Dacol, Manifestly reciprocal scattering amplitudes for rough interface

scattering, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 87, pp. 202432, 1990.

[60] G. S. Brown, Application of the integral equation method of smoothing to random surface

scattering, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. AP-32, pp. 13081312, 1984.

[61] , The method of smoothing applied to random volume dans surface scattering, in Scattering

in Volume and Surfaces, M. Nieto-Vesperinas and J. C. Dainty, Ed. B. V. North-Holland:

Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990.

[62] D. Maystre, O. M. Mendez, and A. Roger, A new electromagnetic theory for scattering from

shallow rough surfaces, Opt. Act., vol. 30, pp. 17071723, 1983.

[63] M. Nieto-Vesperinas, Depolarization of EM waves scattered from slightly rough random surfaces

: A study by means of the extinction theorem, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 72, pp. 539547,

1982.

[64] J. P. Rossi and D. Maystre, A perturbation theory for scattering from three-dimensional rough

surfaces, J. Opt., vol. 56, pp. 219228, 1987.

[65] G. S. Agarwal, Interaction of electromagnetic waves at rough dielectric surfaces, Phys. Rev. B,

vol. 15, pp. 23712383, 1977.

[66] N. Garcia, V. Celli, and M. Nieto-Vesperinas, Exact multiple scattering of waves from random

rough surfaces, Opt. Comm., vol. 30, pp. 279281, 1979.

[67] M. Nieto-Vesperinas and N. Garcia, A detailled study of thec scatering of scalar waves from

random rough surfaces, Opt. Act., vol. 28, pp. 279281, 1981.

[68] D. R. Jackson, D. P. Winebrenner, and A. Ishimaru, Comparison of perturbation theories for

rough-surface scattering, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 83, pp. 961969, 1988.

[69] P. M. Van den Berg and J. T. Fokkema, The Rayleigh hypothesis in the theory of reection by

a grating, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 69, pp. 2731, 1979.

[70] F. G. Bass and V. G. Bocharov, Theory of electromagnetic wave scattering from a statistically

rough surface, Radio Eng. and electronics, pp. 251258, 1958.

[71] B. F. Kuryanov, The scattering of sound at a rough surface with two types of irregularities,

Soviet Phys.-Acoustics, vol. 8, pp. 252257, 1963.

[72] K. M. Mitzner, Eect of small irregularities on electromagnetic scattering from an interface of

arbitrary shape, J. Math. Phys., vol. 5, pp. 17761786, 1964.

[73] , Theory of the scattering of waves by irregular surfaces, Ph.D. dissertation, California

Institute of Technology, 1964, downloadable at http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechETD:etd-

10182002-092308.

[74] W. C. Meecham, On the use of the Kirchho approximation for the solution of reection

problems, J. Rational Mech. Anal., vol. 5, pp. 323334, 1956.

[75] L. M. Brekhovskikh, Difrakciya voln na nerovnoj poverhnosti: 1. obschaya teoriya, Zh. Eksp.

Teor. Fiz., vol. 23, pp. 275288, 1952, (in Russian).

CONTENTS 30

[76] , Difrakciya voln na nerovnoj poverhnosti: 2. Prilozheniya obschej teorii. Zh. Eksp. Teor.

Fiz., vol. 23, pp. 289304, 1952, (in Russian).

[77] M. A. Isakovich, Wave scattering from a statistically rough surface, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., vol. 23,

pp. 305314, 1952, (in Russian).

[78] C. Eckart, The scattering of sound from the sea surface, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 25, no. 3,

pp. 66570, 1953.

[79] H. Davies, The reection of electromagnetical waves from rough surfaces, Proc. IEE (London),

vol. 101, no. Part IV, pp. 209214, 1954.

[80] D. E. Barrick, A more exact theory of backscattering from statistically rough surfaces, Ph.D.

dissertation, Ohio state University, 1965.

[81] B. Semenov, Scattering of electromagnetic waves from restricted portions of rough surfaces with

nite conductivity, Radioteckhnika Elektronikha, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 5260, 1965.

[82] T. Hagfors, Backscattering from an undulating surface with application to radar returns from

the moon, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 69, no. 18, pp. 37793784, 1964.

[83] , Electromagnetic wave theory. Pergamon Press, NY, 1966, vol. 2, ch. Scattering and

transmission of electromagnetic waves at a statistically rough boundary bewteen two dielectric

media.

[84] A. Stogryn, Electromagnetic scattering from rough nitely conducting surfaces, Radio Sci.,

vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 415428, 1967.

[85] R. D. Kodis, A note on the theory of scattering from irregular surfaces, IEEE Trans. Antennas

Propag., vol. 14, no. 1, p. 77, 1966.

[86] E. Rodriguez, Beyond the Kirchho approximation II. Electromagnetic scattering, Radio Sci.,

vol. 26, pp. 121132, 1991.

[87] D. K. Dacol, The Kirchho approximation for acoustic scattering from a rough uid-elastic solid

interface, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 88, p. 978, 1990.

[88] D. E. Barrick, Rough surface scattering based on the specular point theory, IEEE Trans.

Antennas Propag., vol. 16, no. 4, 1968.

[89] , Relationship between slope probability density function and the physical optics

approximation, Proceedings of the IEEE, pp. 17281729, 1968.

[90] A. K. Fung, Theory of radar scatter from rough surface, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 69, pp. 1063

1073, 1964.

[91] C. Cox and W. Munk, Measurement of the roughness of the sea surface from photographs of

the suns glitter, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 44, pp. 838850, 1954.

[92] T. Berger, Satellite altimetry using ocean backscatter, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 20,

pp. 295309, 1972.

[93] A. Stogryn, The apparent temperature of the sea at microwaves frequencies, IEEE Trans.

Antennas Propag., vol. 15, pp. 278286, 1967.

[94] P. J. Lynch and R. J. Wagner, Rough surface scattering: Shadowing, multiple scatter and energy

conservation, J. Math. Phys., vol. 11, pp. 30323042, 1970.

[95] J. W. Wright, A new model for sea clutter, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. AP-16, pp.

217223, 1968.

[96] P. J. Lynch, Curvature corrections to rough surface scattering at high frequency, J. Acoust.

Soc. America, vol. 47, pp. 804825, 1970.

[97] O. I. Yordanov, K. Ivanova, and A. Michalev, On the Lynch variational method for scattering

of waves by randomly rough surfaces, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 21042110,

1991.

[98] K. Ivanova, M. A. Michalev, and I. Yordanov, Numerical study of scattering by rough surfaces

with intermediate and large scale roughness, Radio Sci., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 505510, 1991.

[99] A. Belobrov and I. Fuks, Short-wave asymptotic analysis of the problem of acoustic wave

diraction by a rough surface, Sov. Phys. Acoust., vol. 31, pp. 442445, 1985, (in Russian).

[100] , Depolarization of radar signal backscattered from random surface, Izv. VUZ Radioz.,

CONTENTS 31

vol. 29, pp. 10831089, 1986, (in Russian).

[101] K. Ivanova and S. L. Broshat, The method of the local parabolic approximation for rough surface

scattering, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 23262333, 1993.

[102] I. M. Fuks and A. G. Voronovich, Wave diraction by a concave statistically rough surface,

Waves in Random Media, vol. 9, pp. 501520, 1999.

[103] H. L. Chan and A. K. Fung, A numerical study of the Kirchho approximation in horizontally

polarized bakscattering from a random surface, Radio Sci., vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 811818, 1978.

[104] E. I. Thorsos, The validity of the Kirchho approximation for rough surface scattering using a

Gaussian roughness spectrum, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 83, pp. 7892, 1988.

[105] A. G. Voronovich, The limits of applicability of Kirchhos approximation in problems of

scattering of sound on a rough free surface, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, vol. 273, pp. 830834,

1983, (in Russian).

[106] E. G. Liszka and J. J. McCoy, Scattering at a rough boundaryextensions of the Kirchho

approximation, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 10931100, 1982.

[107] D. F. McCammon and S. T. McDaniel, Surface reection: on the convergence of a series solution

to a modied Helmholtz integral equation and the validity fo the Kirchho approximation, J.

Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 79, pp. 6470, 1986.

[108] Y.-Q. Jin, Multiple scattering from a randomly rough surface, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 63, no. 5,

pp. 12861292, 1988.

[109] Y.-Q. Jin and M. Lax, Backscattering enhancement from a randomly rough surface, Phys. Rev.

B, vol. 42, no. 16, pp. 98199829, 1990.

[110] P. Beckmann, Shadowing of random rough surfaces, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 13,

pp. 384388, 1965.

[111] R. J. Wagner, Shadowing of randomly rough surfaces, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 41, no. 1,

pp. 138147, 1966.

[112] B. G. Smith, Geometrical shadowing of a random rough surface, IEEE Trans. Antennas

Propag., vol. 15, pp. 668671, 1967.

[113] P. J. Lynch and R. J. Wagner, Energy conservation for rough surface scattering, J. Acoust.

Soc. America, vol. 47, no. 3, p. 816, 1970.

[114] M. I. Sancer, Shadow-corrected electromagnetic scattering from a randomly rough surface,

IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 17, pp. 577585, 1969.

[115] A. Ishimaru and J. S. Chen, Scattering from very rough surfaces based on the modied second-

order Kirchho approximation with angular and propagation shadowing, J. Acoust. Soc.

America, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 18771883, 1990.

[116] , Scattering from very rough metallic and dielectric surfaces: A theory based on the modied

Kirchho approximation, Waves in Random Media, vol. 1, pp. 2134, 1991.

[117] J. S. Chen and A. Ishimaru, Numerical simulation on the second-order Kirchho approximation

from very rough surfaces and a study of backscattering enhancement, J. Acoust. Soc. America,

vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 18461850, 1990.

[118] C. Bourlier, J. Saillard, and G. Berginc, Eect of correlation between shadowing and shadowing

points on the Wagner and Smith monostatic one-dimensional shadowed functions, IEEE

Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 3, pp. 437446, 2000.

[119] C. Bourlier, G. Berginc, and J. Saillard, Bistatic scattering coecient from one- and two-

dimensional random surfaces using the stationary phase and scalar approximation with

shadowing eect: comparisons with experiments and application to the sea surface, Waves in

Random Media, vol. 11, pp. 119147, 2001.

[120] C. Bourlier, J. Saillard, and G. Berginc, Theoretical study of the Kirchho integral from two-

dimensional randomly rough surface with shadowing eect-application on the backscattering

coecient for a perfectly, Waves in Random Media, vol. 11, pp. 91118, 2001.

[121] , Bistatic scattering coecient from one- and two-dimensional random surfaces using

the stationary phase and scalar approximation with shadowing eects. comparisons with

CONTENTS 32

experiments and application to the sea surface, Waves in Random Media, vol. 11, pp. 119147,

2001.

[122] , One- and two- dimensional shadowing functions for any height and slope stationary

uncorrelated surface in the monostatic and bistatic congurations, IEEE Trans. Antennas

Propag., vol. 50, no. 3, 2002.

[123] J. J. Embrechts, Simulation of rst and second order scattering by rough surfaces with a sound

ray formalism, J. Sound Vib., vol. 229, no. 1, pp. 6587, 2000.

[124] C. Macaskill, Geometric optics and enhanced backscatter from very rough surfaces, J. Opt.

Soc. America, vol. 8, pp. 8896, 1991.

[125] E. Bahar and M. El-Shenawee, Enhanced backscatter from one-dimensional random rough

surfaces: stationary-phase approximations to full-wave solutions, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 12,

no. 1, pp. 151161, 1995.

[126] J. L. Alvarez-Perez, An extension of the IEM/IEMM surface scattering model, Waves in

Random Media, vol. 11, pp. 307329, 2001.

[127] P. Tran and A. A. Maradudin, Scattering of a scalar beam from a two-dimensional randomly

rough hard wall: Enhanced backscattering, Phys. Rev. B, vol. 45, pp. 39363939, 1992.

[128] W. C. Meecham, Fourier transform method for the treatment of the problem of the reection of

radiation from irregular surfaces, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 28, pp. 370377, 1956.

[129] Y. P. Lysanov, About one approximate solution of the problem of acoustic wave scattering by a

rough interface, Sov. Phys. Acoust., vol. 2, pp. 190198, 1956, Engl. Transl.

[130] A. G. Yarovoy, Small-slope iteration technique for wave scattering from a rough interface of two

media, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 14131437, 1996.

[131] M. Saillard and G. Soriano, Fast numerical solution for scattering from rough surfaces with small

slopes, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., 2004, to appear.

[132] J. Shen and A. A. Maradudin, Multiple scattering of waves from random rough surfaces, Phys.

Rev. B, vol. 22, pp. 42344240, 1980.

[133] D. P. Winebrenner and A. Ishimaru, Application of the phase perturbation technique to

randomly rough surface, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 2, pp. 22852294, 1985.

[134] , Investigation of a surface eld perturbation technique for scattering from rough surface,

Radio Sci., vol. 20, pp. 161170, 1985.

[135] S. L. Broshat, L. Tsang, A. Ishimaru, and E. I. Thorsos, A numerical comparison of the phase

perturbation technique with the classical eld perturbation and Kirchho approximation for

random rough surface scattering, J. Electromagn. Waves and Appl., vol. 2, pp. 119136, 1988.

[136] S. L. Broshat, E. I. Thorsos, and A. Ishimaru, The phase perturbation technique versus an

exact numerical method for random rough surface scattering, J. Electromagn. Waves and

Appl., vol. 3, pp. 237256, 1989.

[137] K. Ivanova, M. A. Michalev, and I. Yordanov, Numerical study of the phase perturbation

technique for scattering by rough surfaces, C. R. Bulg. Acad. Sci., vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 64

67, 1989.

[138] , Study of the phase perturbation technique for scattering of waves by rough surfaces at

intermediate and large values of the roughness parameter, J. Electromagn. Waves and Appl.,

vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 401414, 1990.

[139] S. L. Broshat, E. I. Thorsos, and A. Ishimaru, A heuristic algorithm for the bistatic radar cross

section for random rough surface scattering, IEEE Trans. Geosci. and Remote Sens., vol. 28,

no. 2, 1990.

[140] A. Schatzberg and A. J. Devaney, Rough surface inverse scattering within the Rytov

approximation, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 943950, 1993.

[141] T. Yang and S. L. Broshat, Acoustic scattering from a uid-elastic-solid interface using the small

slope expansion, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 17961804, 1994.

[142] R. M. Fitzgerald and A. A. Maradudin, A reciprocal phase-perturbation theory for rough-surface

scattering, Waves in Random Media, vol. 4, pp. 275296, 1994.

CONTENTS 33

[143] A. G. Voronovich, Small-Slope Approximation in wave scattering from rough surfaces, Sov.

Phys. JETP, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 6570, 1985.

[144] , Non-classical approaches in the theory of wave scattering from rough surfaces, in

Mathematical and numerical aspects of wave propagation (Golden, CO, 1998). Philadelphia,

PA: SIAM, 1998, pp. 8488.

[145] V. I. Tatarskii, The expansion of the solution of the rough-surface scattering problem in powers

of quasi-slopes, Waves in Random Media, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 127146, 1993.

[146] S. T. McDaniel, A small-slope theory of rough surface scattering, J. Acoust. Soc. America,

vol. 95, pp. 185864, 1994.

[147] T. Elfouhaily, D. R. Thompson, D. Vandemark, and B. Chapron, A new bistatic model for

electromagnetic scattering from perfectly conducting random surfaces, Waves in Random

Media, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 281294, 1999.

[148] G. Soriano and M. Saillard, Scattering of electromagnetic waves from two-dimensional rough

surfaces with impedance approximation, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 124133,

2001.

[149] T. Elfouhaily, M. Joelson, S. Guignard, and D. R. Thompson, Analytical comparison between

the surface current integral equation and the second-order small-slope approximation, Waves

in Random Media, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 165176, 2003.

[150] E. I. Thorsos and S. L. Broshat, An investigation of the Small-Slope Approximation for scattering

from rough surfaces. part I. Theory, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 20822093,

1995.

[151] , An investigation of the Small-Slope Approximation for scattering from rough surfaces.

part II. Numerical studies, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 101, no. 5, pp. 26152625, 1997.

[152] S. T. McDaniel, A numerical study of rough surface scatterer, Journ. Comput. Acoust., vol. 8,

no. 3, pp. 443458, 2000.

[153] , Acoustic and radar scattering from directional seas, Waves in Random Media, vol. 9, pp.

537549, 1999.

[154] , Small-slope predictions of microwave backscatter from the sea surface, Waves in Random

Media, vol. 11, pp. 343360, 2001.

[155] A. G. Voronovich and V. U. Zavorotny, Theoretical model for scattering of radar signals in Ku-

and C-bands from a rough sea surface with breaking waves, Waves in Random Media, vol. 11,

pp. 247269, 2001.

[156] G. Berginc, Small-slope approximation method: a further study of vector wave scattering from

two dimensional surfaces and comparison with experimental data, in PIER 2003, 2003, pp.

251287.

[157] C. A. Guerin and M. Saillard, On the high-frequency limit of the second-order small-slope

approximation, Waves in Random Media, vol. 13, pp. 7588, 2003.

[158] A. G. Voronovich, The eect of the modulation of Bragg scattering in Small-Slope

Approximation, Waves in Random Media, vol. 12, pp. 341349, 2002.

[159] , A two-scale model from the point of view of the Small-Slope Approximation, Waves in

Random Media, vol. 6, pp. 7383, 1996.

[160] M. S. Gilbert and J. T. Johnson, A study of the higher-order small-slope approximation for

scattering from a gaussian surface, Waves in Random Media, vol. 13, pp. 137143, 2003.

[161] V. I. Tatarskii and V. V. Tatarskii, Statistical description of rough surface scattering using

the quasi-small approximation for random surfaces with a gaussian multivariate probability

distribution, Waves in Random Media, vol. 4, pp. 191214, 1994.

[162] S. T. McDaniel, An extension of the small-slope approximation for rough surface scattering,

Waves in Random Media, vol. 5, pp. 201214, 1995.

[163] T. Elfouhaily, D. R. Thompson, D. E. Freund, D. Vandemark, and B. Chapron, A new bistatic

model for electromagnetic scattering from perfectly conducting random surfaces: Numerical

evaluation and comparison with SPM, Waves in Random Media, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 3344,

CONTENTS 34

2001.

[164] D. Holliday, Resolution of a controversy surrunding the Kirchho approach and the small

perturbation method in rough surface scattering theory, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag.,

vol. 35, pp. 120122, 1987.

[165] A. G. Voronovich, Non-local Small-Slope Approximation for wave scattering from rough

surfaces, Waves in Random Media, vol. 6, pp. 151167, 1996.

[166] S. L. Broshat and E. I. Thorsos, A preliminary study of the nonlocal Small-Slope

Approximation, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 100, p. 2702, 1996.

[167] S. L. Broshat, Reection loss from a Pierson-Moskowitz sea surface using the nonlocal Small-

Slope Approximation, IEEE Trans. Geosci. and Remote Sens., vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 632634,

1999.

[168] H. Kim and J. T. Johnson, Radar images of rough surface scattering: Comparison of numerical

and analytical models, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 94100, 2002.

[169] T. Elfouhaily, S. Guignard, and D. R. Thompson, Formal tilt invariance of the non-local

curvature approximation and its connection to the integral equation method, IEEE TGARS

Letters, 2004, in press.

[170] K. M. Watson, A transport-equation description of nonlionear ocean surface wave interactions,

J. Fluid Mech., vol. 70, pp. 815826, 1975.

[171] J. W. West, A new numerical method for surface hydrodynamics, J. Geophys. Res., vol. 92,

no. C11, pp. 11 80311 824, 1987.

[172] D. M. Milder, The eects of truncation on surface-wave Hamiltonians, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 216,

pp. 249262, 1990.

[173] , An improved formalism for wave scattering from rough surface, J. Acoust. Soc. America,

vol. 89, pp. 529541, 1991.

[174] D. M. Milder and T. Sharp, An improved formalism for wave scattering from rough surface:

Numerical trials in three dimensions, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 26202626,

1992.

[175] D. M. Milder, An improved formalism for electromagnetic scattering from a perfectly conducting

surface, Radio Sci., vol. 31, pp. 13691376, 1996.

[176] R. A. Smith, The operator expansion formalism for electromagnetic scattering from rough

dielectric surfaces, Radio Sci., vol. 31, pp. 13771385, 1996.

[177] P. J. Kaczkowski and E. I. Thorsos, Application of the operator expansion method to scattering

from one-dimensional moderately rough Dirichlet random rough surfaces, J. Acoust. Soc.

America, vol. 96, pp. 957971, 1994.

[178] D. M. Milder, An improved formalism of coherent forward scatter from random rough surfaces,

Waves in Random Media, vol. 8, pp. 6778, 1999.

[179] M. I. Charnotskii and V. I. Tatarskii, Tilt-invariant theory of scattering by rough surface,

Waves in Random Media, vol. 5, pp. 36180, 1995.

[180] T. Elfouhaily, S. Guignard, and D. R. Thompson, Formal tilt invariance of the local curvature

approximation, Waves in Random Media, vol. 13, no. 4, p. L7, 2003.

[181] R. Dashen and D. Wurmser, Approximate representations of the scattering amplitude, J. Math.

Phys., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 986996, 1991.

[182] , Applications of the new scattering formalism: the dirichlet boundary condition, J. Math.

Phys., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 9971003, 1991.

[183] C. A. Guerin, G. Soriano, and T. Elfouhaily, Weighted curvature approximation: numerical tests

on 2d dielectric surfaces, Waves in Random Media, 2004, submitted.

[184] J. Nakayama, H. Ogura, and B. Matsumoto, A probabilistic theory of electromagnetic waves

scattering from a slightly rough random surface, Radio Sci., vol. 15, pp. 104957, 1980.

[185] J. Nakayama, M. Sakata, and H. Ogura, A probabilistic theory of electromagnetic waves

scattering from a slightly rough random surface: Horizontal polarization, Radio Sci., vol. 16,

pp. 831845, 1981.

CONTENTS 35

[186] , A probabilistic theory of electromagnetic waves scattering from a slightly rough random

surface: Vertical polarization, Radio Sci., vol. 16, pp. 847853, 1981.

[187] J. Nakayama, K. Mitzutani, and M. Tsuneoka, Scattering of electromagnetic waves from a

perfectly conductive slightly random surface: Depolarization in backscatter, J. Math. Phys.,

vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 14351448, 1986.

[188] J. Nakayama, L. Gao, and Y. Tamura, Scattering of a plane wave from a periodic random

surface: a probabilistic approach, Waves in Random Media, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 6578, 1997.

[189] K. Hattori, J. Nakayama, and H. Matsuoka, Wave scattering from a periodic random surface

generated by a stationary binary sequence, Waves in Random Media, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 120,

2001.

[190] C. Eftimiu, First-order Wiener-Hermite expansion in the electromagnetic scattering by

conducting rough surfaces, Radio Sci., vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 769779, 1988.

[191] , Second-order Wiener-Hermite expansion in the electromagnetic scattering by conducting

rough surfaces, Radio Sci., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 10751084, 1988.

[192] , First-order Wiener-Hermite expansion in the electromagnetic scattering by dielectric rough

surfaces, Radio Sci., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 18, 1990.

[193] , Modied Wiener-Hermite expansion in rough surface scattering, J. Opt. Soc. America,

vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 15841594, 1989.

[194] , Scattering by a rough dielectric interface: A modied Wiener-Hermite expansion

approach, J. Opt. Soc. America, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 875884, 1990.

[195] E. Rodriguez and Y. Kim, A unied perturbation expansion for surface scattering, Radio Sci.,

vol. 27, pp. 7993, 1992.

[196] E. Rodriguez, Y. Kim, and S. L. Durden, A numerical assessment of rough surface scattering

theories: Vertical polarization, Radio Sci., vol. 27, pp. 515527, 1992.

[197] E. Rodriguez and Y. Kim, A numerical assessment of rough surface scattering theories:

Horizontal polarization, Radio Sci., vol. 27, pp. 497513, 1992.

[198] E. Bahar, Radio wave propagation in stratied media with nonuniform boundaries and varying

electromagnetic parameters: Full wave analysis, Canad. J. Phys., vol. 50, pp. 31323142,

1972.

[199] , Electromagnetic wave propagation in inhomogeneous multilayered structures of arbitrarily

varying thickness-generalized eld transforms, J. Math. Phys., vol. 14, pp. 10241029, 1973.

[200] , Electromagnetic wave propagation in inhomogeneous multilayered structures of arbitrarily

varying thickness-full wave solutions, J. Math. Phys., vol. 14, pp. 10301036, 1973.

[201] , Depolarization of electromagnetic wave excited by distributions of electric and magnetic

sources in inhomogeneous multilayered structures of arbitrarily varying thickness-generalized

eld transforms, J. Math. Phys., vol. 14, pp. 15021509, 1973.

[202] , Depolarization of electromagnetic wave excited by distributions of electric and magnetic

sources in inhomogeneous multilayered structures of arbitrarily varying thickness-full wave

solutions, J. Math. Phys., vol. 14, pp. 15101515, 1973.

[203] E. Bahar and G. G. Rajan, Depolarization and scattering of electromagnetic waves by irregular

boundaries for arbitrary incident and scatter angles full wave solutions, IEEE Trans.

Antennas Propag., vol. Ap, no. 27, pp. 214225, 1979.

[204] E. Bahar, Full-wave solutions for the depolarization of the scattered radiation by rough surfaces

of arbitrary slope, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 29, pp. 443454, 1981.

[205] E. Bahar and M. A. Fitzwater, Depolarization and backscatter enhancement in light scattering

from random rough surfaces: comparison of full wave theory with experiment, J. Opt. Soc.

America, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 3343, 1989.

[206] E. Bahar, Full wave solutions for the scattering of acoustic waves excited by arbitrary source

distributions in irregular layered media, Wave Motion, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 301314, 1990.

[207] , Scattering of acoustic waves in irregular layered media: full wave solutions, Wave Motion,

vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 5365, 1990.

CONTENTS 36

[208] R. E. Collin, Electromagnetic scattering from perfectly conducting rough surfaces (a new full

wave method), IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 14661477, 1992.

[209] , Full wave theories for rough surface scattering: An updated assessment, Radio Sci.,

vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 12371254, 1994.

[210] E. Bahar, Radar scatter cross-sections for two-dimensional random rough surfaces. full wave

solutions and comparisons with experiments, Waves in Random Media, vol. 6, pp. 123, 1996.

[211] A. Garca-Valenzuela and R. E. Collin, The local spectral expansion method for scattering

from perfectly condution surfaces rough in one dimension, J. Electromagn. Waves and Appl.,

vol. 11, pp. 3769, 1997.

[212] , The local spectral expansion method for scattering from one dimensional dielectric-

dielectric rough interfaces, J. Electromagn. Waves and Appl., vol. 11, pp. 775805, 1997.

[213] F. K. Schwering, G. M. Whitman, and A. A. Triolo, New full-wave theory for scattering from

rough metal surfaces by the correction current method: the TE-polarization case, Waves in

Random Media, vol. 14, pp. 2360, 2004.

[214] R. D. Kodis, An introduction to variational techniques in electromagnetic scattering, J. SIAM,

vol. 2, p. 89, 1954.

[215] , Variational principles in high-frequency scattering, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A., vol. 54, p.

512, 1958.

[216] J. A. Krill and R. H. Andreo, Vector stochastic variational principles for electromagnetic wave

scattering, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 28, p. 770, 1980.

[217] D. H. Berman and J. S. Perkins, The Kirchho approximation and rst-order perturbation

theory for rough surface scattering, J. Acoust. Soc. America, vol. 78, p. 1045, 1985.

[218] W. T. Shaw and A. J. Dougan, Half-space Greens functions and applications to scattering of

scattering of electromagnetic waves from ocean-like surfaces, Waves in Random Media, vol. 5,

pp. 341359, 1995.

[219] , Greens function renement as an approach to radar backscatter: General theory and

application to LGA scattering form the ocean, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 46, no. 1,

pp. 5766, 1998.

[220] L. Schi, Quantum Mechanics. McGraw-Hill, 1968.

[221] P. Wong and A. Bray, Scattering from rough surfaces, Phys. Rev. B, vol. 37, pp. 7751, 1988.

[222] G. Vineyard, Grazing-incidence diraction anf the distorted-wave approximation for the study

of surfaces, Phys. Rev. B, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 41464159, 1982.

[223] S. K. Sinha, E. B. Sirota, and S. Garo, X-ray and neutron scattering from rough surfaces,

Phys. Rev. B, vol. 38, pp. 22972311, 1988.

[224] U. Mohanty and S. Rice, X-ray total external reectance diraction as a probe of the structure

of the liquid-vapor interface, J. Chem. Phys., pp. 24822487, 1983.

[225] A. A. Maradudin and D. L. Mills, Scattering and absorption of electromagnetic radiation by a

semi-innite medium in presence of surface roughness, Phys. Rev. B, vol. 11, p. 1392, 1975.

[226] C. A. Guerin and A. Sentenac, Second-order perturbation theory for scattering from

heterogeneous surfaces, J. Opt. Soc. America, 2004, to appear.

[227] A. Sentenac and J.-J. Greet, Mean-eld theory of light scattering by one-dimensional rough

surfaces , J. Opt. Soc. America, pp. 528532, 1998.

[228] O. Calvo-Perez, A. Sentenac, and J.-J. Greet, Light scattering by a two-dimensional, rough

penetrable medium : A mean-eld theory, Radio Sci., pp. 311335, 1999.

[229] O. Calvo-Perez, Diusion des ondes electromagnetiques par un lm rugueux heterog`ene, Ph.D.

dissertation, Ecole Centrale Paris, 1999.

[230] A. K. Fung and G. W. Pan, An integral equation method for rough surface scattering, in

Proceedings of the Intern. Symposium on multiple scattering of waves in random media and

random surfaces, 1986, pp. 701714.

[231] , A scattering model for perfectly conducting random surface: I. Model development, Int.

J. Remote Sens., vol. 8, no. 11, 1987.

CONTENTS 37

[232] G. W. Pan and A. K. Fung, A scattering model for perfectly conducting random surface: II.

Range of validity, Int. J. Remote Sens., vol. 8, no. 11, 1987.

[233] A. K. Fung, Z. Li, and K. S. Chen, Backscattering from a randomly rough dielectric surface,

IEEE Trans. Geosci. and Remote Sens., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 356369, 1992.

[234] A. J. Poggio and E. K. Miller, Integral Equation Solution of Three Dimentional Scattering

Problems. Computer Techniques for Electromagnetics, Pergamon, New York, 1973.

[235] C. Y. Hsieh, A. K. Fung, G. Nesti, A. J. Siber, and P. Coppo, A further study of the IEM surface

scattering model, IEEE Trans. Geosci. and Remote Sens., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 901909, 1997.

[236] K. S. Chen, T. D. Wu, and A. K. Fung, A note on multiple scattering in an IEM model, IEEE

Trans. Geosci. and Remote Sens., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 249256, 2000.

[237] A. K. Fung, Z. Li, and K. S. Chen, An improved IEM model for bistatic scattering from rough

surfaces, J. Electromagn. Waves and Appl., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 689702, 2002.

[238] K. S. Chen, T. D. Wu, L. Tsang, Q. Li, J. C. Shi, and A. K. Fung., Emission of rough surfaces

calculated by the integral equation method with comparison to three-dimensional moment

method simulations. IEEE Trans. Geosci. and Remote Sens., vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 90101, 2003.

[239] K. S. Chen, T. D. Wu, and A. K. Fung, A study of backscattering from multi-scale rough

surface, J. Electromagn. Waves and Appl., vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 961979, 1998.

[240] F. Mattia, Backstattering properties of multiscale rough surfaces, J. Electromagn. Waves and

Appl., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 493527, 1999.

[241] A. K. Fung, Z. Li, A. Shah, and M. Tjuatja, Numerical-simulation of scattering from 3-

dimensional randomly rough surfaces, IEEE Trans. Geosci. and Remote Sens., vol. 32, no. 5,

pp. 986994, 1994.

[242] G. Macelloni, G. Nesti, P. Pampaloni, S. Sigismondi, D. Tarchi, and S. Lolli, Experimental

validation of surface scattering and emission models, IEEE Trans. Geosci. and Remote Sens.,

vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 459469, 2000.

CONTENTS 38

Acronym Full name main references

BA Born Approximation [221, 223]

CCM Correction Current Method [213]

DWBA Distorted-wave Born Approximation [222, 223]

ESSA Extended Small-Slope Approximation [162]

FWA Full Wave Approach [198, 210]

GO Geometrical Optics [78, 79]

KA Kirchho Approximation [1, 3]

KA-LF Low-Frequency Kirchho Approximation [81, 82]

KA-HF High-Frequency Kirchho Approximation [84, 85]

IEM Integral Equation Method [9, 126]

IGFM Improved Greens Function Method [217, 219]

LPA Local Parabolic Approximation [99, 102]

LSEM Local Spectral Expansion Method [211, 212]

LVM Lynch Variational Method [96, 98]

LCA Local Curvature Approximation [149, 180]

LWA Local Weight Approximation [181, 182]

MFT Mean-Field Theory [227, 228]

MLM Meecham-Lysanov Method [128, 129]

MTE Momentum Transfer Expansion [15, 86]

NLCA Non-Local Curvature Approximation [28, 169]

NLSSA Non-Local Small-Slope Approximation [165]

OEM Operator Expansion Method [175, 176]

PO Physical Optics [84, 85]

PPM Phase Perturbation Method [133, 134]

QSE Quasi Slope Expansion [145, 161]

SPM Small Perturbation Method [19, 20]

SSA Small-Slope Approximation [8, 35]

TIA Tilt-Invariant Approximation [179]

TPA Tangent Plane Approximation [81, 82]

TSM Two-Scale Model [3, 14]

UPE Unied Perturbation Expansion [195, 197]

WCA Weighted Curvature Approximation [28, 183]

WHA Wiener-Hermite Approach [184, 190]

Table 1. List of acronyms (alphabetical order) together with two main

references for the corresponding method.

CONTENTS 39

Method 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

SPM (Rayleigh) - x x x x - x - -

SPM (Rigorous) x - x x x - - x -

KA-LF (TPA) x - x - - - - - -

KA-HF (PO) - x - - - - - - x

GO (SPT) - x - - - - - - x

TSM - x x x x - x - x

MTE x - x - - - - x -

LVM x - x - - - x - -

LPA x - x - - - x - -

MLM x - - x - x - x -

PPM x - x x x - - - -

SSA - x x x x - - - -

QSE x - - x - - - x -

ESSA x - - x - - - x -

NLSSA - x x x x - x - -

NLCA - x x - x - - - x

OEM x - x x - - - - -

TIA x - x x - - - x -

LCA - x x - x - - - x

LWA - x x - - - - - x

WCA - x x - x - - - x

WHA x - x x - - - x -

UPE x - x x - - x - -

FWA x - x x - - x - -

LSEM x - x x - - x - -

CCM x - x x - - x - -

IGFM x - - - - x - - -

BA - - - - - - x - -

DWBA - - - - - x x - -

MFT - - - - - x x - -

IEM x - - - - - x - -

Table 2. Main principles of the dierent methods, in their order of appearance. A

x in a row indicates that the method uses the corresponding rule.

1. Proceeds via estimation of a surface current.

2. Works directly on the scattering amplitude

3. Makes a structure Ansatz for the surface current or the scattering amplitude.

4. Uses a functional expansion of some quantity in surface height.

5. Requires consistency with SPM for the identication of some unknown series.

6. Uses a particular choice of Greens function.

7. Uses second-kind Fredholm integral equation.

8. Uses rst-kind Fredholm integral equation.

9. Uses the stationary phase approximation.

CONTENTS 40

Property 1 2 3a 3b 3c 4 5 6 7 8a 8b

SPM1

KA-LF

KA-HF

GO1 -

LVM

LPA ?

MTE

SSA1

IGFM

LWA

WCA

BA

DWBA

MFT

CCM

Table 3. Properties of the local models.

1. All types of surfaces (dielectric, conducting, acoustic)

2. Full two-dimensional surfaces.

3a. Reciprocal (manifestly)

3b. Shift invariant (to arbitrary order in shift)

3c. Tilt invariant (at least to rst order in tilt)

4. Numerically fast and stable while easy to implement

5. Statistical formulae already available or easily derivable

6. Not restricted to large correlation lengths

7. Not restricted to small surface height

8a. SPM1 limit

8b. GO1 limit

The signication of the symbols is as follows:

=satised by construction,

=satised upon inspection,

=satised under special conditions

(specular, backscattering, conducting case, etc...),

? =unknown or not tested.,

=not satised,

-=irrelevant.

CONTENTS 41

Property 1 2 3a 3b 3c 4 5 6 7 8a 8b 9a 9b 10 11

SPM2 - - (0, 1)

GO2 - - (0, 1)

WHA ? - (0, 2)

PPM - (1, 1)

SSA2 (1, 1)

QSE - (1, 1)

ESSA - (1, 1)

LSEM - (1, 1)

LCA (1, 1)

UPE (1, 2)

TIA - (1, 2)

KA2-HF - (2, 1)

MLM - (2, 1)

NLSSA (2, 1)

OEM1 (2, 1)

FWA ? (2, 1)

IEM (2, 1)

OEM2 ? ? (3, 2)

Table 4. Properties of the non-local models.

1. All types of surfaces (dielectric, conducting, acoustic)

2. Full two-dimensional surfaces.

3a. Reciprocal (manifestly)

3b. Shift invariant (to arbitrary order in shift)

3c. Tilt invariant (at least to rst order in tilt)

4. Numerically fast and stable while easy to implement

5. Statistical formulae already available or easily derivable

6. Not restricted to large correlation lengths

7. Not restricted to small surface height

8a. SPM1 limit

8b. GO1 limit

9a. SPM2 limit

9b. GO2 limit.

10. Can predict correct cross-polarization in the plane of incidence

11. Degree of non-locality (p, q)

The signication of the symbols is as follows:

=satised by construction,

=satised upon inspection,

=satised under special conditions

(specular, backscattering, conducting case, etc...),

? =unknown or not tested.,

=not satised,

-=irrelevant.

We have classied the models according to their degree of non-locality.

- Matemáticas Resueltos(Soluciones) Primitivas-Integrales 2º Bachillerato Opción B-COUUploaded bymanuel_valle_4
- MA8151 Engineering Mathematics SyllabusUploaded byPAMANI1981
- Thomas Finney - Chapter 13 (www.myUET.net.tc).pdfUploaded bykamilbisma
- Pubdet Pumdet PaperUploaded bypromitiam
- Mathematics Notes and Formula for Class 12 Chapter 7. IntegralsUploaded byVaibhav Tomar
- Paper 23-Monte Carlo Ray Tracing Based Non-Linear Mixture Model of Mixed Pixels in Earth Observation Satellite Imagery DataUploaded byEditor IJACSA
- Mathematics Notes and Formula for Class 12 chapter 7. Integrals .pdfUploaded bysbarathi
- Markov ChainUploaded bystudds_000
- Signals AnalysisUploaded byAnonymous G0oZQa
- Young InequalityUploaded byAnnisa Zakiya
- Stieltjes SeriesUploaded bysudarson47
- langreth.pdfUploaded byCannot Sleep
- AM Lab C__ Programs - UnknownUploaded byHarsh Vardhan Jha
- class5Uploaded byRakshit Patel
- Formulario de Integrales (Nxpowerlite)Uploaded byRandyRomeoChavezEras
- Week VUploaded bynino
- Pertran - A Transport-perturbation ProgramUploaded byAnisur Rahman Ripon
- Perturbations of nonlinear systems of differential equations, III.pdfUploaded byMohamed Fawzy Shrif
- IntegralsUploaded byAvneesh Gautam
- Egg LabUploaded byThM4
- B. E. AGRICULTURAL AND IRRIGATION ENGINEERING.pdfUploaded bymchakra72
- Indefinite Integration (After First Lecture) EnglishUploaded byPrashantcool1999
- IClectureprelim Part IUploaded byLee Anthony Ching
- Syllabus 2012Uploaded bylokesh
- Unit DimensionUploaded byYaj Bhattacharya
- Note on Vector IntegrationUploaded byRizwan 106
- MT2176Uploaded byJeet Juneja
- 9_2017_09_28!11_14_59_PMUploaded byPesta Sigalingging
- Chapter11.pdfUploaded byMiguel Ramirez
- ANTI- DIFFERENTIATION.pptxUploaded byJonabelle Manabat

- ch1.3Uploaded byjuntujuntu
- s 7 s8ce RegularUploaded byreloaded63
- 3.5-Finding Real Roots of Polynomial EquationsUploaded byAntonique Headman
- Matlab ApplicationUploaded byGaurav Kumar
- Mmf BookUploaded bypolepolemos
- Assignment No 2 Cs 502 SolutionUploaded byJabbar Ali Soomro
- Solving Equations elegantlyUploaded byHector Burgueño
- bjorckLSbSolving Linear Least Squares Problems by orthogonal gramschmidt orthogonalizationUploaded bydgh3
- 04 LectureUploaded bypride3351
- Matlab TutorialUploaded bymanish kumar
- OSDUploaded byEstebanRivera
- Introduction to Linear ProgrammingUploaded byreplyram123
- Bisection MethodUploaded byChongMY
- Auto SimUploaded bytyanfeng
- Chapter 5 – Numerical Integration.pptxUploaded byaben777
- Fixed-Bed_Reactor (4).pdfUploaded byAlan Zago
- assignment0.pdfUploaded bysharath1199
- Structural Engineering 2Uploaded bysm_jds
- 2Uploaded bynaman
- 052195052X_pub.pdfUploaded byAshwin Balaji
- ECE Proposed 2nd Year SyllabusUploaded bypranics3695
- Ch20Uploaded byArvind Shukla
- Solution 2Uploaded byShivani Patel
- Graeffes Root Squaring Method Example PDFUploaded byMark
- Atkinson IntroductionUploaded byElenaa
- css-applied-mathematics2-2009.pdfUploaded bySaleemAhmadMalik
- fminconUploaded bymrloadmovie
- Matrix ReviewUploaded bysandygta
- Example Runge KuttaUploaded bydnes9999
- SEEPW 2007 Engineering BookUploaded bynirmaljoshi