I.
INTRODUCTION
Doppler Ambiguity Resolution
Using Multiple PRF
A. FERRARI, Member, IEEE
Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis
France
C. BÉRENGUER
Université de Technologie de Troyes
France
G. ALENGRIN, Senior Member, IEEE
Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis
France
An algorithm for velocity ambiguity resolution in coherent
pulsed Doppler radar using multiple pulse repetition frequencies
(PRF) is presented. It relies on the choice of particular values for
the PRFs. The folded frequency of the target signal is obtained
by averaging the folded frequency estimates for each PRF, and a
quasi maximum likelihood criterion is maximized for ambiguity
order estimation. The fast implementation of this nonambiguous
estimation procedure is based on the fast Fourier transform
(FFT). The proposed waveform allows full exploitation of any
(even) number of PRFs, which appears to be important for
estimation improvement. The effects of the waveform parameters
and the folded frequency estimation variance on the performance
of the ambiguity order estimation procedure are evaluated
theoretically and through computer simulations. Mean square
error (MSE) curves are given to assess the Doppler frequency
estimation accuracy. Finally, the new method is compared with
a classical technique and the implementation of the algorithm in a
clutter environment is addressed.
Manuscript received September 10, 1993; revised April 10, 1994,
June 6, 1995, and June 26, 1996.
IEEE Log No. T-AES/33/3/04742.
This work was supported by DCN France (French Navy).
Authors’ addresses: A. Ferrari and G. Alengrin, I3S, UPRES-A
6070, CNRS, 41 Bd. Napoléon III, 06041 Nice, France; C.
Bérenguer, Université de Technologie de Troyes, GSI/LM2S,
BP 2060, 12 rue Marie Curie, 10010 Troyes Cedex, France.
0018-9251/97/$10.00 °
c 1997 IEEE
738 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 33, NO. 3
In a coherent pulsed Doppler radar, ambiguity can
occur in both range and radial velocity measurements.
The ambiguity domain remaining constant for
a fixed carrier frequency, as the pulse repetition
frequency (PRF) increases, moves from radial velocity
to range measurements. Surveillance radars are
seldom ambiguous in range (low PRF), their main
purpose being the observation of the area of interest.
However, the radial velocity information turns out
to be important for other tasks to be performed by
the radar system (e.g. track initialization, conflict
alert, : : :).
Several methods using “carrier frequency” or
PRF variation have been proposed to solve this
problem. The carrier frequency solution is not
always satisfactory, nor technologically affordable
(large frequency excursion requirement, radar cross
section variation) [1], and methods based on PRF
variation are generally preferred. Two main PRF
variation schemes are encountered: staggered PRF
and multiple PRF. Because of problems related to
clutter cancellation in the first variation scheme,
multiple PRF is the most commonly used waveform in
modern-day radars. In this case, ambiguity resolution
is usually achieved by searching for coincidence
between unfolded Doppler estimates for each PRF
[2—4]. Because of estimation errors, the matching
between the unfolded frequency estimates cannot
exactly occur and is replaced by a matching interval
of a given width. As the noise level increases, this
interval has to widen leading to false coincidences.
This problem worsens in the case of blind velocity
for one of the PRF. The false coincidence problem
is particularly critical when only few signal samples
(short time on target) are available and could possibly
be overcome if the estimation procedure were
performed without splitting the signal into several
shorter bursts for the computation of the folded
frequencies estimates and the following ambiguity
order evaluation.
Thus, this problem can be partly solved by using
directly the whole target signal both for folded
frequency and ambiguity order estimation, so that
the target signal coherence during the observation
is fully exploited. We propose such a solution,
based on the choice of particular PRFs. The folded
Doppler frequency is obtained by averaging the
folded frequency estimates for each PRF, and a
quasi-maximum likelihood estimation criterion of
the signal model parameters is maximized for the
ambiguity order estimation. The method allows the
use of any number of PRF, which is important in the
case of blind velocities, and its fast implementation
relies on the fast Fourier transform (FFT).
Section II presents the estimation algorithm.
Performance analysis of the new method is given in
Section III. The influence of the folded frequency
JULY 1997
 Fig. 1. Description of the multiple PRF waveform.

estimation error and the PRF parameters on ambiguity N(k) and equals 2ns Nb . Fig. 1 sketches the waveform
order measurement is particularly investigated. and summarizes the notations used in this work.
The proposed method is also compared with a
standard method. Section IV is devoted to simulations EXAMPLE 1 Let Tr = 1, Nb = 1, N(1) = 20, and
evaluating the method performance in a near-real consequently, N(2) = ¡20. The values of the PRF on
environment. Problems due to clutter reduction in this bursts 1 and 2 are
multiple PRF context are also tackled. Finally, Section 1 20
V summarizes and draws conclusions on the method. Fr (1) = = = 0:9524
Tr (1) 20 + 1
1 ¡20
II. DOPPLER FREQUENCY ESTIMATION Fr (2) = = = 1:0526:
Tr (2) ¡20 + 1
ALGORITHM

A. Signal Model The period of the sequence N(2p + 1) being taken

equal to Nb , we assume, without loss of generality,
Consider a radar transmitting bursts of ns pulses that the target is present on the 2Nb bursts defined by
with PRF Fr (k) on the kth burst. The time delay integers N(1), : : : , N(2Nb ¡ 1) and that
separating two pulses in the kth burst is Tr (k) =
1=Fr (k). To simplify mathematical developments, the N(1) < N(3) < ¢ ¢ ¢ < N(2Nb ¡ 1): (4)
elapsed time between the last pulse of burst k and the After coherent demodulation, the nth sample,
first one of burst k + 1 equals Tr (k). n = 0, : : : , ns ¡ 1, of the kth burst, k = 1, : : : , 2Nb , is
Throughout this work, we make the major modeled by
assumption that
μ ¶ ynk = xnk + bnk (5)
def 1
Tr (k) = 1 + T (1)
N(k) r = ak (fD ) exp(j2¼fD nTr (k)) + bnk (6)
where N(1), N(2), : : : is a periodic series of integers
where fD is the unknown Doppler frequency and bnk
satisfying the constraints:
is white noise representing the contribution of both
N(2p + 1) : is a positive integer (2) thermal noise and clutter whitened residue. The term
ak (fD ) contains the initial phase of the target signal
N(2p + 2) = ¡N(2p + 1), p = 0, 1, 2, : : : : (3) on burst k. Setting A = a1 (fD ) this complex initial
According to the distribution of the PRF around amplitude, we have, for k ¸ 2:
Fr = 1=Tr , this last parameter can be fixed to avoid 0 1
k¡1
X
range ambiguity, but, to simplify calculations, Tr is
ak (fD ) = A exp @j2¼ns fD Tr (q)A (7)
chosen herein equal to 1.
q=1
The waveform is then completly defined by the
values of N(k) on the odd bursts, and the pulse which can be simplified, using (1) and (3), for p =
repetition intervals on the pth couple of bursts 0, : : : , Nb ¡ 1, as
(bursts 2p + 1 and 2p + 2) are symmetrical about
1. The values taken by N(2p + 1) are discussed in a2p+1 (fD ) = A exp(j2¼fD ns 2p) (8)
a following section. We suppose that, due to the
antenna beamwidth, the target appears on at least 2Nb a2p+2 (fD ) = A exp(j2¼fD ns (2p + 1))
successive bursts, where Nb is the number of couples μ ¶
of symmetric bursts. In this case, according to (1) and ns
£ exp j2¼fD : (9)
(3), the time of target observation is independent of N(2p + 1)

FERRARI ET AL.: DOPPLER AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION USING MULTIPLE PRF 739


Fig. 2. Reduced frequency distribution on unit circle.
If the Doppler frequency fD is decomposed into its
integer part (the ambiguity order) nr and fractional
part (the folded or reduced frequency) fr ,
def
fD = fr + nr
xnk can be rewritten as
μ μ
k 1
xn = ak (fr , nr ) exp j2¼(fr + nr )n 1 +
N(k)
μ μ ¶ ¶
f maximum nonambiguous domain obtained with two
= ak (fr , nr ) exp j2¼ fr + D n (12)
N(k)
def
with ak (fr , nr ) = ak (fD ).
Hence, according to (12), the apparent frequency
of the sampled signal on bursts 2p + 1 and 2p + 2, is,
respectively, equal to
fD
f2p+1 = fr +
N(2p + 1)
fD
f2p+2 = fr ¡ : (14)
N(2p + 1)
Fig. 2 illustrates the distribution of these frequencies
on the unit circle.
The proposed estimation algorithm consists of
two steps. The first performs an estimation of the
reduced frequency fr and the second uses this result
to estimate nr .
B. Estimation of Reduced Frequency, fr
From (13) and (14), fr is the mean value of f2p+1
and f2p+2 . However, this solution cannot be directly
implemented to estimate fr , since fk (i.e., f2p+1 or
f2p+2 ) may have a modulus greater than 1, and in this
case only a folded value fk,r of this quantity can be
estimated. The problem is then to establish a relation
between fr and f2p+1,r and f2p+2,r .
First, for that purpose, the absolute value of the
difference between f2p+1 and f2p+2 :
jfD j
jf2p+1 ¡ f2p+2 j = 2
N(2p + 1)
740 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 33, NO. 3
Fig. 3. Possible locations for frequency pairs, with
f2p+1,r > f2p+2,r .
has to be lower than 0.5 to avoid any lack of
determination in the computation of fr from f2p+1 and
f2p+2 . An appropriate choice of N(2p + 1) constrains
this value to always be smaller than 0.5. Since jfD j is
bounded above by 1 + jnr j, (4) leads us to impose the
(10) following constraint on the integer N(1), which is the
smallest among the N(k):
¶¶ N(1) > 4(1 + nmax ) (16)
where nmax is the absolute value of the maximum
(11) ambiguity order to be estimated. Note that it can
be shown that this constraint is compatible with the
bursts which equals in this case lcm(Fr (1), Fr (2)),
where lcm(x, y) denotes the least common multiplier
of x and y. Different situations of the relative
distribution of the frequencies f2p+1,r and f2p+2,r on
the unit circle are sketched in Fig. 3. This figure
illustrates the remaining difficulty which is to
overcome the discontinuity at the origin of the unit
(13) circle (i.e., when fr is close to 0 or 1, see Cases 2(a)
and 2(b), Fig. 3) and to take into account the circular
nature of the discrete frequency estimates.
To illustrate this point consider the following
example.
EXAMPLE 2 Let Nb = 1, N(1) = 20, N(2) = ¡20,
fD = 2:95 (fr = 0:95, nr = 2). Consequently:
2:95
f1 = 0:95 + = 1:097 ) f1,r = 0:097
20
2:95
f2 = 0:95 ¡ = 0:802 ) f2,r = 0:802
20
and
f1,r + f2,r
= 0:449 6= fr :
2
Thus the conventional mean is not adapted for these
periodic data.
A first estimate f̂r (p) of fr is then obtained on the
pth couple of symmetric bursts as the “circular mean”
[5] of the estimates of the folded values of f2p+1 and
f2p+2 obtained by any suitable frequency estimation
(15) algorithm [6]. Denoting these estimates by f̂2p+1,r and
JULY 1997
f̂2p+2,r , f̂r (p) is defined as A comparison can be made with the criterion
obtained in the case where initial phases of the signal
1 at the beginning of each burst are independent. In this
f̂r (p) = angle(exp(j2¼ f̂2p+1,r ) + exp(j2¼ f̂2p+2,r ))
2¼ case, it can be shown that the maximum likelihood
(17) approach leads to the maximization of the following
function:
where angle(z) returns the phase angle in radians in ¯
2Nb ¯ ns ¡1
def X¯ X k
the range 0 to 2¼ of the complex number z. Li (f, n) = ¯ yq exp(¡j2¼fTr (k)q)
The estimation of the folded frequency fr can ¯
k=1 q=0
be improved by averaging the frequency estimates μ ¶¯¯2
f̂r (p) over p, for every couple of bursts. Here again, n ¯
£ exp ¡j2¼ q ¯ : (22)
a “circular mean” relying on the periodicity of the N(k) ¯
exponential function is computed:
The global maximizer of this function, which is equal
N
Xb ¡1 to the sum of the signal periodogram on each burst,
1
f̂r = angle exp(j2¼ f̂r (p)): (18) appears to be also an estimator of fD when initial
2¼ phases are dependent. Meanwhile, the estimation
p=0
obtained by this criterion has a larger variance than
the one given by L(f, n) which asymptotically reaches
C. Ambiguity Order Resolution the Cramer-Rao bound [6]. Better performance of
L(f, n) over Li (f, n) can also be justified by the fact
Under a white Gaussian noise assumption, the
that, for each burst taken separately, the localization
extension from the classical case of uniformly
of the maximum of the periodogram exhibits a high
sampled signals of the maximum likelihood
variance, associated to the Cramer-Rao bound of a
estimation criterion of fD , [6, ch. 13, pp. 408—413],
signal with ns points. For a reduced number of bursts,
is straightforward. It can be shown that this estimator,
the summation over k (burst index) does not allow a
or equivalently the estimator of the pair (fr , nr ), is
sufficient reduction of the variance.
the global maximizer of the function defined as the
Consider now the term for k = 2p + 1 of the sum
squared modulus of the scalar product of a vector
in (19), for a specified value of f, say f0 :
of measured samples ynk and a model of this vector
corresponding to a noiseless signal xnk with a complex s ¡1
nX
initial amplitude equal to 1. This function defined on yqk exp(¡j2¼f0 Tr (2p + 1)q)
[0, 1[£[¡nmax , nmax ], ([a, b[ is a half-closed, half-open q=0
μ ¶
interval and [a, b] is a closed interval) and denoted n
L(f, n) where f and n represent, respectively, the £ exp ¡j2¼ q : (23)
N(2p + 1)
decimal and integer part of the frequency variable,
can be written according to (12) and separating the f According to the inequalities stated in (4) and
and n term as (16), the inequality jnj < N(2p + 1) always holds.
¯ 2N Consequently, the expression (23) is equal to the
¯ b s ¡1
nX
def¯ X ¤ value of the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) of ynk
L(f, n) = ¯ ®k (f, n) yqk
¯ modulated by exp(¡j2¼f0 Tr (2p + 1)q) at the frequency
k=1 q=0
n=N(2p + 1). If we now assume that the number of
μ ¶¯¯2 signal samples is smaller than N(2p + 1), i.e.,
n ¯
£ exp(¡j2¼fTr (k)q) exp ¡j2¼ q ¯
N(k) ¯ ns · N(1) (24)
(19) the expression (23) represents the nth DFT bin of
the same signal zero-padded to N(2p + 1) points.
where ®k (f, n) is, from (8) and (9):
Similarly, the term for k = 2p + 2 of the sum in (19)
®2p+1 (f, n) = exp(j2¼fns 2p) (20) equals the inverse DFT of the same signal. With a
μ μ ¶¶ FFT algorithm, the number of complex multiplications
1 and additions to calculate the 2nmax points of this
®2p+2 (f, n) = exp j2¼fns 2p + 1 +
N(2p + 1) expression becomes hence N(2p + 1) log2 N(2p + 1).
μ ¶ Values of L(f0 , n) are obtained as the sum over k
n
£ exp j2¼ns : (21) (burst index) of the expression (23) windowed by
N(2p + 1)
the constant ®2p+1 (f0 , n) for odd terms and by the
Note that the coefficients ®k (f, n) simply correspond complex sine wave ®2p+2 (f0 , n) for even terms. As a
to the coefficients ak (f, n) for a signal with an initial consequence, the number of operations required to
complex amplitude equal to 1 and are obtained by compute L(f0 , n) on [¡nmax , nmax ] is bounded above by
replacing A by 1 in (8) and (9). 2Nb N(2Nb ¡ 1) log2 N(2Nb ¡ 1).

FERRARI ET AL.: DOPPLER AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION USING MULTIPLE PRF 741

 Finally, once the estimate f̂r of the reduced
frequency fr is available (from previous section), the
estimate n̂r of the ambiguity order nr is computed as
the global maximizer of the integer variable function
L(f̂r , n), evaluated by the above algorithm:
n̂r = arg max L(f̂r , n): (25)
¡nmax ·n·nmax

This two-step solution for the computation of f̂r

and n̂r does not necessary yield the pair of values that
simultaneously maximizes L(f, n). Consequently, the
next section provides a performance analysis of this Fig. 4. Illustration of reduced frequency/ambiguity order surface
algorithm. L(f, n).

III. DOPPLER ESTIMATION PERFORMANCE

ANALYSIS
In this section, we analyze the performance of
the Doppler estimation method, especially in terms
of the probability of false ambiguity order estimation
as a function of the variance of the folded frequency
estimate. The influence of the waveform parameters
N(k) is also investigated.

A. Reduced Frequency/Ambiguity Order Plane

Once f̂r has been calculated, the estimation of nr

is related to the shape of L(f̂r , n). The evaluation of
the estimation performance hence relies on the study
of the surface defined by L(f, n). As in the classical
Fig. 5. Contour plot of L(f, n) for Nb = 2, ns = 12, N(1) = 20,
case of the Dirichlet kernel for the study of properties N(3) = 80, fD = 2:3.
of the periodogram [6], this analysis is done for a
noiseless signal with frequency fD = 0. Note that, according to (28), this condition has to be
Replacing yqk by 1 in (19) gives verified only for kernels on lines defined by jnj = 1. In
¯ 2N ¯2 this case, we can write
¯Xb ¯
¯ ¤ ¤ ¯
L(f, n) = ¯ ®k (f, n)W (fTr (k) + n=N(k))¯ L(f, n) ¼ Li (f, n) (29)
¯ ¯
k=1
2Nb
X
(26)
= jW(fTr (k) + n=N(k))j2 : (30)
where W(f) is the Dirichlet kernel: k=1

def sin ¼°ns Fig. 4 sketches the shape of this surface and
W(°) = exp(j¼°(ns ¡ 1)) : (27)
sin ¼° Fig. 5 represents a contour plot of L(f, n) obtained
for Nb = 2, N(1) = 20, N(3) = 80 (hence N(2) = ¡20
Consequently, the surface L(f, n) is a weighted
and N(4) = ¡80), ns = 12 and fD = 2:3. These results
sum of Dirichlet kernels centered in the plane (f, n)
suggest the following remarks.
on lines defined by
1 1) The tradeoff between the variance of f̂r and n̂r
f=¡ n and appears clearly in Fig. 4. The larger jf̂r j is, the farther
1 + N(2p + 1)
(28) from zero the maxima of L(f̂r , n) are and then the
1
f=¡ n: higher the “risk” to have a large error on nr is.
1 ¡ N(2p + 1)
2) As the N(k) tend toward infinity, the slopes of
The difficulty for the development of L(f, n) in lines defined by (28) tend toward 0 bringing kernel
(26) comes from the initial phases terms which lead to centers together and preventing ambiguity order
“interferences” between kernels. For simplification resolution. This result is immediate from Definitions
purposes, we assume that ns is large enough to (1) and (3), since it can be seen that as the N(k)
consider that the width of kernel mainlobe is small increase, the waveform becomes similar to a single
compared with the distance between kernels centers. PRF. Thus, it clearly appears that the integers N(k)

742 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 33, NO. 3 JULY 1997
have to be as small as possible according to the
constraints stated in (16) and (24).
3) This interpretation also gives a motivation for
multiple PRF use for estimation purposes. In fact,
for the same variance of f̂r and for a constant total
number of points (2Nb ns constant), the additional use
of bursts with smaller N(k) has a “delocalization”
effect on L(f, n) maxima, reducing the estimation
error risk on nr .
C. False Ambiguity Order Estimation Probability
The simple approach proposed in the previous
section illustrated, without quantifying it, the link
between the estimation error in fr and n̂r . This section
is dedicated to a precise evaluation of the probability
of performing a false ambiguity order estimation as
a function of the variance of f̂r . As in the previous
section, we assume a noiseless signal with a null
Doppler. Moreover, f̂r is supposed to be zero-mean
and Gaussian with variance ¾f2 .
We define the probability of false ambiguity order
estimation at order n for n > 0, denoted Pfaoe (n), as
the probability that L(f̂r , n), or L(f̂r , ¡n), is greater
than L(f̂r , 0). Note that this quantity does not quantify
the probability to estimate n, or ¡n, instead of 0.
Nevertheless the expression of this last probability,
as for example a function of Pfaoe (n), is very complex
because of the dependence of the random variables
L(f̂r , k), k = ¡nmax , : : : , nmax .
Owing to the formula for L(f, n), the computation
of Pfaoe (n) requires the solution of a nonlinear
system of equations in order to determine the various
intervals where the inequalities define the probability
hold. The first step adopted to solve this problem is
to replace Pfaoe (n) by an upperbound with a simpler
expression.
For this purpose, consider the inequality:
L(f̂r , n) · Ls (f̂r , n)2 (31)
where Ls (f, n) is
2Nb
X function defined as 2= ¼ 0 exp(¡t2 ) dt.
def
Ls (f, n) = jW(fTr (k) + n=N(k))j: (32)
k=1
† estimation can be, at most, equal to one. Therefore,
Let us define now a new probability, denoted Pfaoe (n),
as the probability that Ls (f̂r , n), or Ls (f̂r , ¡n), is
†
greater than L(f̂r , 0)1=2 . According to (31), Pfaoe (n)
overestimates Pfaoe (n). However, as seen in the
† 2
previous section, the limit of Pfaoe (n) as ns tends to
infinity equals Pfaoe (n).
The error on the folded frequency estimate being
assumed small and Gaussian, and considering the
insight given by the previous section, see Fig. 4,
we assume that the condition Ls (f̂r , n), or Ls (f̂r , ¡n),
greater than L(f̂r , 0)1=2 is satisfied only for values of
FERRARI ET AL.: DOPPLER AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION USING MULTIPLE PRF
Fig. 6. Definition of fr+ and fr¡ .
f̂r in the mainlobe of L(f̂r , 0). It is important to note
that this hypothesis leads to a new upperbound for
† ‡
Pfaoe (n), Pfaoe (n), that also tends to Pfaoe (n) when ns
tends to infinity.
We propose now to evaluate this last quantity. For
that, we assume small variations of f̂r and replace
Ls (f̂r , n) and L(f̂r , 0)1=2 by their second-order series:
Ls (f̂r , n) = a0 (n) + a1 (n)f̂r + a2 (n)f̂r2 + o(f̂r3 ) (33)
L(f̂r , 0)1=2 = b0 + b2 f̂r2 + o(f̂r3 ): (34)
We denote the second-order approximations of
Ls (f̂r , n) and L(f̂r , 0)1=2 by L̂s (f̂r , n) and L̂(f̂r , 0)1=2 .
A brief development of the coefficients ak (n)
and bk is given in Appendix A. The validity of
the approximation of L(f̂r , 0)1=2 and Ls (f̂r , 1) by
L̂(f̂r , 0)1=2 and L̂s (f̂r , 1) (respectively) around f̂r = 0
has been numerically checked for different parameters
configurations.
If fr¡ and fr+ are the frequencies corresponding
to the intersections of the parabolas defined by the
previous polynomials L̂s (f̂r , n) and L̂(f̂r , 0)1=2 (see
‡
Fig. 6), we adopt the following estimate of Pfaoe (n):
‡
Pfaoe (n) = Pr(jf̂r j > fr¤ ) (35)
Z fr¤ Ã !
2 ¡f 2
= 1¡ p exp df (36)
¾f 2¼ 0 2¾f2
à !
fr¤
= 1 ¡ erf p (37)
¾f 2
with fr¤ = min(jfr¡ j, jfr+pj) and
R x erf(x) is the error
Appealing to the same arguments as above, we
suppose now that the error on the ambiguity order
we take in what follows Pfaoe = Pfaoe ‡
(1). It is clear that
a minimization of this quantity will correspond to a
minimization of the probability at other orders (n > 1).
‡
Finally, Figs. 7 and 8 represent Pfaoe (1) as a
function of 1=¾f in dB for different configurations
corresponding to the same observation time of
2Nb ns = 48 points. They validate the remarks
formulated from the reduced frequency/ambiguity
order plane analysis.
1) For Nb = 1, the probability of false ambiguity
order estimation decreases with N(1), Fig. 7.
743
 ‡
Fig. 7. Theoretical performance curves. Pfaoe (1) as function of
1=¾f2 in dB for different values of N(k). Nb = 1 and ns = 24 for
all cases. Solid line: N(1) = 100; dashed line: N(1) = 40;
dashed-dotted line: N(1) = 20; dotted line: N(1) = 10. Note that 2
last curves are superimposed.
‡
Fig. 8. Theoretical performance curves. Pfaoe (1) as function of
1=¾f2 in dB. Solid line: Nb = 1, N(1) = 70, ns = 24; dashed line:
Nb = 2, N(1) = 20, N(3) = 70, ns = 12; Dotted line: Nb = 3,
N(1) = 10, N(3) = 20, N(5) = 70, ns = 8.
2) For a constant number of samples, addition of
blocks with smaller N(k) does not worsen the results,
see Fig. 8, even though the number of samples per
burst is smaller.
Moreover, these results exhibit a threshold on
1=¾f2 under which the probability of false ambiguity
order estimation is almost zero. The existence of
this threshold, situated near 50 dB, is fundamental,
since this value is reachable by the classical modern
frequency estimators (e.g. [7]).
To conclude this section, the results of Figs. 7 and
8 have been confirmed by numerical simulations. For
this purpose, a signal xnk has been generated, f̂r has
been drawn according to the Gaussian probability
density function with mean zero and variance ¾f2
and nr has been estimated using L(f̂r , n) with ynk =
744 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 33, NO. 3
Fig. 9. Performance curves from numerical simulations. Pfaoe as
function of 1=¾f2 in dB. Nb = 1 and ns = 24 for all cases. Solid
line: N(1) = 100; dashed line: N(1) = 40; dashed-dotted line:
N(1) = 20; dotted line: N(1) = 10.
Fig. 10. Performance curves from numerical simulations. Pfaoe as
function of 1=¾f2 in dB. Solid line: Nb = 1, N(1) = 70, ns = 24;
dashed line: Nb = 2, N(1) = 20, N(3) = 70, ns = 12; Dotted line:
Nb = 3, N(1) = 10, N(3) = 20, N(5) = 70, ns = 8.
xnk . Figs. 9 and 10 have been obtained using 1000
realizations of f̂r for each value of ¾f2 . They perfectly
suit the previous conclusions. Moreover, the values
of the Pfaoe from numerical simulations are less than
those previously obtained; thus the threshold lies
near 45 dB. This confirms the fact that the theoretical
‡
values of the Pfaoe (above denoted Pfaoe ) correspond to
an upperbound of the “true” Pfaoe .
IV. SIMULATIONS
A. White Noise Only Environment
The proposed method, referred to as QMLA
(quasi-maximum likelihood algorithm), has been first
evaluated in a white noise only environment, this
situation corresponding to ideal clutter whitening.
Mean square error (MSE) curves in f̂D and f̂r as a
JULY 1997
function of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) are given
to show the performances of QMLA. The SNR is
defined as
2
def A
SNR = 20 (38)
¾
where A0 is the modulus of the amplitude A (as
defined above (7)) of the complex sinusoid at the
maximum of the beam pattern of the antenna in the
case of a Swerling 0 or nonfluctuating target; A20 is
the average power in the case of a Swerling I target.
In this latter case, the probability density function of
the target echo amplitude A is
μ ¶
A A2
p(A) = 2 exp ¡ 2 , A¸0 (39)
A0 2A0
and ¾ 2 is the white Gaussian noise variance of the
term bnk of (5).
In some cases the signal is Gaussian modulated in
order to simulate the antenna beam pattern, according
to the antenna time function, such that the 2ns Nb
points of interest lie in the ¡3 dB beamwidth.
The MSE in f̂D (resp. f̂r ) is estimated by
M
1 X k
MSE = (f̂D ¡ fDk )2 (40)
M
k=1
where M is the number of signal realizations and
f̂Dk is the estimate of the Doppler frequency fDk for
the kth signal realization. In each case, the targets
are uniformly distributed in velocity within the
maximum frequency domain allowed by N(1); see
(16). The folded frequency fk is estimated on each
burst with the “min-norm” algorithm [7], with a
predictor length equal to 4. MSE curves in f̂D and
f̂r are given in Figs. 11, 13, and 14 for different
parameters configurations and type of targets. For
more insight on the ambiguity order estimation, curves
of Pfaoe as a function of the SNR are also given in
Figs. 12 and 16. Note that both kinds of curves (MSE
and Pfaoe ) are necessary to gauge the performance of
QMLA. The combined analysis of the MSE in f̂r and
Pfaoe (corresponding to each step of the estimation
procedure) gives a better understanding of the method
behavior than for example the normalized MSE alone,
which turns out to be a poor performance indicator
in our case, since both types of possible errors (in fr
and in nr ) are mixed together. The absolute MSE in
f̂D , combined with the MSE in f̂r or the Pfaoe , is also
interesting and useful to gauge the performance of the
QMLA.
As follows, all MSE curves exhibit a threshold
shape.
1) Below the threshold (in term of SNR), both
folded and unambiguous frequencies are badly
estimated, and the error on the ambiguity order
remains high.
FERRARI ET AL.: DOPPLER AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION USING MULTIPLE PRF
Fig. 11. Comparison of reciprocal MSE in f̂r and f̂D as function
of SNR for different values of N(1); Nb = 1; ns = 24; Gaussian
antenna beam pattern; 1000 signal realizations. Solid line: MSE in
f̂D for N(1) = 100; dashed line: MSE in f̂D for N(1) = 20; dotted
and dashed-dotted line: MSE in f̂r for N(1) = 100 and N(1) = 20
(curves superimposed).
2) Above the threshold, the estimation variance
on fr becomes sufficiently small and the Pfaoe is zero.
The estimation variance on fD is then only due to the
error on fr and diminishes linearly (in dB) as the SNR
increases. Any improvement in this zone can only be
achieved through a better estimation of fr .
3) A transition zone lies between ¡5 and +10 dB.
Note that the threshold observed on MSE curves
corresponds to the threshold seen on curves of
Pfaoe as a function of 1=¾f2 . As soon as the SNR is
sufficiently high to allow a good estimation of fr , the
ambiguity order nr and fD are correctly estimated. On
Fig. 11, for N(1) = 20, the threshold is 5 dB which
corresponds to (1=¾f2 )dB ' 50 dB, i.e., the value of
the threshold found in the previous section. As seen
above, this threshold depends obviously on the choice
of N(k).
Fig. 11 reveals the influence of N(1) on the
performance of QMLA. Changing N(1) from 20 to
100, shifts almost 5 dB the transition zone. The MSE
curve for the folded frequency being identical in both
configurations, this discrepancy in performance is
perfectly illustrated by Fig. 12. The improvment is
due to false ambiguity order measurements that are
less frequent with N(1) = 20 than with N(1) = 100.
Above the greater of the two thresholds, Pfaoe equals
zero, and the method behaves similarly for both cases.
The influence of an increasing block number is
investigated in the Fig. 13. In this case, the MSE
curve for the folded frequency being different,
Pfaoe is not sufficient to explain the results. The
transition zone is here divided in two parts. From
¡4 dB to 4 dB, the results are better for the two
blocks case. Indeed, this zone corresponds to a
MSE on the folded frequency below 20 dB where
Pfaoe curves are superimposed, Fig. 7. Then the
estimation of fD depends only on the variance of f̂r .
745
 Fig. 12. Comparison of Pfaoe as function of SNR for different
values of N(1); Nb = 1; ns = 24; Gaussian antenna beam pattern;
1000 signal realizations. Solid line: N(1) = 20; dashed line:
N(1) = 100.
Fig. 13. Comparison of reciprocal MSE in f̂r and f̂D as function
of SNR for different values of Nb and N(k) and constant length of
signal 2Nb ns = 48; 1000 signal realizations. Dashed
(dashed-dotted) line: MSE in f̂D (f̂r ) with Nb = 1; N(1) = 100;
ns = 24; solid (dotted) line: MSE in f̂D (f̂r ) with Nb = 2;
N(1) = 20; N(3) = 100; ns = 12.
From 4 dB to 8 dB, the results are better for the
four blocks case. Despite the loss in f̂r MSE, the
corresponding gain in Pfaoe results in a more accurate
estimation of fD . This last SNR zone, as opposed
to the previous one, is of practical interest for radar
systems. Nevertheless, this improvement in the
transition zone is obtained at the expense of a slightly
worse estimation quality of fD above the threshold,
due to the fact that fr is estimated on half as many
points on each burst. Anyway, the use of several
blocks will be further motivated in the context of
clutter filtering and the so-called blind bursts.
Fig. 14 shows the influence of the Gaussian
modulation introduced by the antenna on QMLA’s
performance. It appears that the estimation remains
insensitive to the modulation; the slight left shift
746 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 33, NO. 3
Fig. 14. Reciprocal MSE in f̂D as function of SNR. Comparison
of method performance with (solid line) and without (dashed line)
Gaussian amplitude modulation on target signal. N(1) = 20;
Nb = 1; ns = 24; 1000 signal realizations.
Fig. 15. Comparison of reciprocal MSE in f̂r and f̂D as function
of SNR for fluctuating (Swerling I) target. 3500 signal
realizations; Nb = 1; N(1) = 20; ns = 24. Solid line: f̂D ;
dotted line: f̂r .
(2 dB) resulting from the modulation is due to the
loss in SNR, see (38), when compared with a constant
amplitude target echo.
The behavior of QMLA for a fluctuating target
(Swerling I) is reported in Figs. 15 and 16. The Pfaoe
remains high even for rather large mean SNR, and the
method does not exhibit a threshold behavior for SNR
up to 50 dB. The notches on the MSE curves are due
to large error in estimation on some vanishing target
signal realizations.
Finally, QMLA has been compared to the classical
method of searching for coincidence (or “correlation”)
between the unfolded Doppler frequency estimates on
each burst, referred to as UFM (unfolded frequency
matching), described for example in [2, 3, 8]. UFM
has been implemented using the algorithm given in
[8] since this particular implementation seems to be
the most efficient. The retained estimate for fD has
to minimize the difference between the unfolded
JULY 1997
 Fig. 16. Pfaoe as function of SNR for fluctuating (Swerling I)
target. 3500 signal realizations; Nb = 1; N(1) = 20; ns = 24.
Fig. 17. Reciprocal MSE in f̂D and f̂r as function of SNR.
Performance comparison of QMLA (solid line: f̂D ; dashed line:
f̂r ) and UFM (dashed-dotted line: f̂D ; dotted line: f̂r ). 1000 signal
candidates for every PRF. This clustering algorithm realizations; Nb = 3; N(1) = 40; N(3) = 60; N(5) = 70; ns = 5.
does not require, like QMLA, an a priori fixed
correlation interval. When the number of samples
per burst ns is large, and with only two PRF, both
methods seem to behave similarly. However, for a
constant time on target, as the number ns decreases,
and the number of bursts Nb increases, the results of
QMLA become better than UFM ones. The results of
the comparison (Pfaoe and MSE) for Nb = 3, N(1) =
40, N(3) = 60, N(5) = 70 and ns = 5 (i.e., a time on
target equal to 30 samples) are given in Figs. 17 and
18. The MSE in f̂D and f̂r are significantly better
for QMLA than for UFM in the range of moderate
SNR (between 5 and 15 dB): for a SNR of 10 dB, the
difference in terms of reciprocal MSE on f̂D between
the two methods is almost equal to 30 dB. These
results are explained by the Pfaoe curve in Fig. 18. For
QMLA the Pfaoe becomes equal to zero for a SNR
Fig. 18. Pfaoe as function of SNR for UFM (dashed line) and
greater than 8 dB, whereas UFM exhibits a non-zero QMLA (solid line). Nb = 3; N(1) = 40; N(3) = 60; N(5) = 70;
Pfaoe until a SNR threshold equals 18 dB. Thus, a ns = 5.
significative number a false correlations still occur
in this zone (i.e., between 8 and 18 dB), which lead As a conclusion, the performance of QMLA turns
to a high MSE in f̂D and f̂r . This false correlation out to be appreciable. The threshold in SNR required
problem, mentioned in several papers [3, 9], is mainly to get a good unambiguous estimate (reciprocal of the
due to the poor precision of the folded frequency MSE greater than 40 dB) is similar to the minimum
estimates on bursts of ns samples (when ns is small) SNR required to achieve good results in the target
which prevents an accurate correlation procedure. detection process [4]. Moreover, QMLA exhibits
This phenomenon disappears when ns is taken large superior performance over a standard technique
enough. UFM splits the signal into bursts and treats especially when the number of samples per burst is
them independently, whereas QMLA takes advantage small.
of the global signal coherence first by averaging
the folded frequency estimates on every burst to B. Clutter Environment
compute f̂r and then by evaluating the function L(f, n)
from the whole signal to estimate nr . This property Thus far, only the white noise-only environment
of QMLA seems to be its main advantage over the has been considered. Ground, rain, or sea clutter
classical techniques, especially in difficult estimation composed of powerful unwanted echoes, may however
contexts (i.e., small number of signal samples per alter notably the estimation performance. It is then
burst, moderate SNR). necessary to filter out the clutter. After clutter

FERRARI ET AL.: DOPPLER AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION USING MULTIPLE PRF 747

whitening, two major factors may still damage the
estimation: clutter residue can mask the target echo
frequency if the whitening process is not efficient
enough, and the filter may alter the target echo signal
(attenuation, distortion, : : : ) and make the estimation
difficult.
The aim of this section is to motivate the choice of
a particular clutter cancellation procedure, adapted
to the proposed waveform (multiple PRF) and to
demonstrate by simulations the behavior of the
method in a clutter environment after filtering. The
complete investigation on the clutter suppression is
beyond the scope of this work and the whitening
algorithm will not be fully detailed hereafter.
The problem of clutter suppression in radar signals
has been extensively treated and numerous methods
have been developed [10, ch. 4], from the classical Fig. 19. Example of clutter rejection and fD estimation.
delay-line canceler to the more sophisticated adaptive (a) Target signal (beginning at sample 500), clutter and thermal
filtering [11] or noise canceling algorithms [12]. In noise. (b) Noise references (adjacent range rings). (c) Filtered
signal. (d) Comparison of noise-free target (dashed line) and
the case of multiple PRF, the clutter rejection filter
filtered target (solid line); fD = 2:2346 and f̂D = 2:2354.
has not only to track clutter nonstationarity but also
to adapt to the hop in spectral characteristics at a
burst transition. Moreover, the filter must not alter
the target signal. Several clutter rejection methods
have been tested, and a noise canceling structure has
been chosen for the simulations. The required noise
references are taken from the range rings adjacent
to the ring of interest. A least mean square (LMS)
type algorithm is used to update the filter weights
[13]. Once the filter has been initialized, the hops
at bursts transitions remain small; this can explain
why the LMS algorithm, known for having a slow
rate of convergence, is however sufficient in our
case.
The clutter filtering step may lead to a major
problem: when the clutter and the target signals
lie in the same spectral zone, the clutter filter can
reject the target signal, and the corresponding burst Fig. 20. Reciprocal MSE in f̂D and f̂r as function of SCR. 1000
is a so-called blind burst. The presence of a blind signal realizations. Solid (dotted) line f̂D (f̂r ) with Nb = 1, ns = 24,
burst during the target observation time can worsen N(1) = 20, SNR = 100 dB; Dashed (dashed-dotted) line f̂D (f̂r )
with Nb = 2, ns = 12, N(1) = 20, N(3) = 40, SNR = 20 dB.
considerably the estimation results. This point
motivates also the use in the method of several bursts
with different N(k). It is then possible to eliminate estimation. This example has been performed with the
blind bursts before the estimation procedure and following configuration: SNR = 40 dB, SCR = ¡5 dB,
to keep enough signal to perform correctly the ns = 24, Nb = 1, N(1) = 20 and fD = 2:2346. The
unambiguous Doppler frequency measurement. estimation is then f̂D = 2:2354.
For simulations, the clutter has been synthesized
using an autoregressive model of order 2 [14]. PRF Fig. 20 represents MSE curves in f̂D and
variation and adjacent rings correlation have been f̂r as a function of SCR for SNR = 100 dB
reproduced using interpolation/decimation procedures. and SNR = 20 dB, with different parameters
It is thus possible to obtain any rational PRF and configurations (Nb = 1 or Nb = 2 for a constant
any degree of correlation between rings on synthetic signal length equal to 48 samples). The curves
signals. Clutter and thermal noise are generated in shape, exhibiting a threshold behavior, is similar
order to have given SNR and signal-to-clutter ratio to curves previously obtained. The clutter
(SCR). cancellation allows correct frequency estimation
for relatively low SCR. However the target signal
EXAMPLE 3 Fig. 19 presents an example of clutter alteration by the filtering process (see Fig. 19(d))
rejection and subsequent nonambiguous Doppler appears clearly in the culmination of MSE for SCR

748 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 33, NO. 3 JULY 1997
higher than 10 dB, whichever the SNR is (20 dB or This leads to the following expression of
100 dB). coefficients a0 (n), a1 (n), and a2 (n):
2Nb
X sin(¼nns =N(k))
V. SUMMARY a0 (n) =
sin(¼n=N(k))
k=1
A new method for non-ambiguous Doppler
2Nb
X
frequency estimation for coherent pulsed radar has sin(¼nns =N(k))
a1 (n) = r (k, n)
been presented and its performance in white-noise sin(¼n=N(k)) 1
k=1
only and noise-plus-clutter environment has been
evaluated and illustrated through both theoretical 2Nb
X sin(¼nns =N(k))
developments and computer simulations. This a2 (n) = r (k, n):
sin(¼n=N(k)) 2
new estimation scheme, based on a multiple PRF k=1
waveform, with particular repetition frequencies
values, operates directly on the entire signal and Second-Order Series of L(f̂r , 0)1=2 .
allows a fast numerical implementation. Its ability to From (19), L(f̂r , 0)1=2 can be written
use any number of different PRF (for a given signal ¯ 2N ¯
¯Xb sin ¼ f̂r Tr (k)ns ¯¯
length) lowers the probability of false ambiguity ¯
L(f̂r , 0) = ¯ exp(¡j2¼f̂r q(k)) ¯
order measurement for a given variance in the folded ¯ sin ¼ f̂ T (k) ¯
k=1 r r
frequency estimate. Nevertheless, a compromise has
to be found between the number and the length of with
blocks in order to ensure a correct global behavior q(2p + 1) = 2pns + Tr (2p + 1)(ns ¡ 1)=2
(on both the folded frequency estimation and the μ ¶
ambiguity order measurement). Its main advantage 1
q(2p + 2) = 2p + 1 + ns
over alternative techniques comes from its ability N(2p + 1)
to process directly the whole signal, hence taking
+ Tr (2p + 2)(ns ¡ 1)=2:
advantage of the signal coherence between bursts,
whereas other classical estimation methods tend The development of this expression gives
to split the signal into bursts before searching for
correlation between the unfolded frequency estimates. L(f̂r , 0) = ns j2Nb + js1 f̂r + s2 f̂r2 + o(f̂r3 )j
Because of this property, simulations have shown that
with
the paper method overcomes the false correlation (and
hence the false ambiguity order estimation) problem 2Nb
X
encountered with classical techniques and provides a s1 = ¡2¼ q(k)
significant improvement in performance. k=1
à 2N 2Nb
!
2 1 ¡ n2s Xb 2
X
2
s2 = ¼ Tr (k) ¡ 2 q(k) :
APPENDIX 6
k=1 k=1

This Appendix presents the second-order series Finally, we obtain following expressions for b0
expansion of the functions Ls (f̂r , n) and L(f̂r , 0)1=2 , and b2 :
defined in (33) and (34).
b0 = 2ns Nb
Second-Order Series of Ls (f̂r , n).
μ ¶
First, the second order series of jW(f̂r Tr (k) + s12
b2 = ns s2 + :
n=N(k))j is derived 4Nb

jW(f̂r Tr (k) + n=N(k))j

sin(¼nns =N(k)) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
=
sin(¼n=N(k)) The authors gratefully acknowledge the useful
£ (1 + r1 (k, n)f̂r + r2 (k, n)f̂r2 + o(f̂r3 )) discussions with M. Artaud of CTSN/LSA DCN,
Toulon, France.
where r1 (k, n) and r2 (k, n) are given by
r1 (k, n) = +¼Tr (k)(ns cot(¼nns =N(k)) REFERENCES

¡ cot(¼n=N(k)))
r2 (k, n) = ¡r1 (k, n)¼Tr (k)cot(¼n=N(k))
+ (1 ¡ n2s )(¼Tr (k))2 =2:
[1] Ludloff, A., Füchter, N., Hagerdorn, F., Minker, M., and
Rohling, H. (1981)
Doppler processing, waveform and performance measures
for some pulsed Doppler and MTD radars.
Ortung und Navigation, 3 (1981), 417—457.

FERRARI ET AL.: DOPPLER AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION USING MULTIPLE PRF 749

 [2] Chang, C., and Curlander, J. (1992)
Application of the multiple PRF technique to resolve
Doppler centroid estimation ambiguity for spaceborne
SAR.
IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 30
(Sept. 1992), 941—949.
[3] Ludloff, A., and Minker, M. (1985)
Reliability of velocity measurement by MTD radar.
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,
AES-21 (July 1985), 522—528.
[4] Skolnik, M. (1981)
Introduction to Radar Systems.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981.
[5] Lovell, B., Kootsookos, P., and Williamson, R. (1991)
The circular nature of discrete-time frequency estimates.
In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and
Signal Processing, 1991, 3369—3372.
[6] Kay, S. M. (1987)
Modern Spectral Estimation.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987.
[7] Tufts, D. W., and Kumaresan, R. (1982)
Estimation of frequencies of multiple sinusoids: Making
linear prediction perform like maximum likelihood.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 70 (Sept. 1982), 975—989.
[8] Trunk, G., and Brockett, S. (1993)
Range and velocity ambiguity reduction.
In IEEE National Radar Conference, 1993, 146—149.
[9] Albano, G., Cacopardi, S., and Fedele, G. (1990)
Velocity ambiguities for MPRF frequency agile radars in
multiple target environment.
In IEEE International Radar Conference, 1990, 595—599.
750 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 33, NO. 3
[10] Lewis, B. L., Kretschmer, J. F. F., and Shelton, W. W.
(1986)
Aspects of Radar Signal Processing.
Dedham, MA: Artech House, 1986.
[11] Kwag, Y. (1990)
Adaptive suppression of changing clutter and interference
with unknown spectral statistics in the sense of minimum
residue noise power.
In IEEE International Radar Conference, 1990, 356—361.
[12] Zhang, Q., and Haykin, S. (1984)
RADAR clutter suppression scheme.
Electronics Letters, 20 (Nov. 1984), 1007—1008.
[13] Bérenguer, C., and Alengrin, G. (1994)
Radar clutter rejection: Implementation and comparison
of adaptive noise cancellation schemes.
In EURASIP European Signal Processing Conference,
1994, 534—537.
[14] Haykin, S., Currie, B., and Kesler, S. (1982)
Maximum-entropy spectral analysis of radar clutter.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 70 (Sept. 1982), 953—962.
[15] Bérenguer, C. (1994)
Estimation fréquentielle et filtrage de signaux non
uniformément echantillonnés: Application à l’estimation
radar Doppler non ambiguë.
Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Nice, Sophia Antipolis,
France, 1994.
JULY 1997
 André Ferrari (S’91–M’92) was born in Senlis, France, on June 2, 1964. He
received the engineer degree from École Centrale de Lyon in 1988 and the DEA
degree and Ph.D. degree from University of Nice Sophia Antipolis in 1989 and
1992, respectively.
He is currently an Associate Professor at University of Nice Sophia Antipolis
and member of I3S laboratory. His research interest include spectral estimation
and statistical signal processing with applications to radar.

Christophe Bérenguer received the biomedical engineering degree and the MS

degree in systems control from Compiègne University of Technology, France, in
1990, and the Ph.D. degree from the University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis, France,
in 1994.
From 1991 to 1995, he was with the Laboratory of Computer Science, Signals
and Systems at Sophia Antipolis. He is currently an Associate Professor at
the Industrial Systems Engineering Department of the Troyes University of
Technology, France, and member of the Systems Modelling and Dependability
Laboratory. His current research interests are in the field of dependability,
and, more precisely, they include reliability data analysis, inspection strategies
definition, and models for quantitative analysis of systems dependability.

Gérard R. Alengrin (M’81–SM’91) was born in Toulouse, France. He received

the Doctorat d’Etat degree in physics from the University of Toulouse in 1976.
From 1968 to 1976 he was an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Electrical Engineering at the University of Toulouse. Since 1976 he has been
Professor of Automatic Control and Signal Processing at the University of Nice.
His main research interests are in the domains of automatic control (identification
and filtering) and signal processing (parametric modeling and estimation, ARMA
models, high resolution spectral algorithms, high order moments).
Dr. Alengrin was awarded a Nato Fellowship in 1987 to carry out research
activity at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, in the Aerospace
Engineering Department.

FERRARI ET AL.: DOPPLER AMBIGUITY RESOLUTION USING MULTIPLE PRF 751