Sonny Smith SPIE Conference Paper (May-3-2011) | Bandwidth (Signal Processing) | Filter (Signal Processing)

Cross-correlation analysis of noise radar signals propagating through lossy dispersive media

Sonny Smith and Ram M. Narayanan Pennsylvania State University, Department of Electrical Engineering, University Park, PA 16802, USA
ABSTRACT
Correlation detection is an essential ingredient in noise radar. Such detection is achieved via coherent signal processing, which, conceivably, gives the best enhancement in the signal-to-noise ratio. Over the years, much research and progress has been made on the use of noise radar systems as means for effective through-wall detection. Information about a particular target’s range and/or velocity are often acquired by comparing and analyzing both transmit and received waveforms. One of the widely used techniques employed to measure the degree of similarity between the two signals is correlation. The aforementioned methodology determines to what extent two waveforms match by multiplying and shifting one signal with respect to a time-lagged version of the second signal. This feature of correlation is very applicable to radar signals since a received signal from a target is delayed on the path of return to the receiving antenna. Transmission and reflection impairments will distort the propagating signals and degrade the correlation. Thus, it is essential that we try to study the effects that such degradations can have on the signals that will be used in the correlation process. This paper presents some concepts of a noise radar system, simulation studies, and an analysis of the results ascertained. Keywords: Correlation, Noise Radar, Probability of False Alarm, Probability of Detection, Bandwidth Degradation, Dispersive Media

1. INTRODUCTION
The operation of noise radars hinges on the correlation of the reflected signal from the target with a time-delayed replica of the transmit waveform.1 Research in noise radar has garnered much attention in the past decades; however, many important aspects of the ultra wideband (UWB) signal, i.e. noise, have yet to be sufficiently scrutinized in such systems. UWB delineates waveforms that have instantaneous fractional bandwidths greater than 25% with respect to the center frequency.2 The propagation of UWB noise or noise-like signals through various media is of chief concern since it impacts the scope of detection and tracking of targets via means of coherent signal processing. As these waveforms propagate through various stages, distortion begins to degrade the amplitude and phase of the both the transmit replica and the target reflected signals. Sources of such distortion to the signal arise from hardware design (which includes, but not limited to, the radar components and overall configuration), the antennas and polarization of choice, the environment, non-ideal scatters from the target, as well as the media through which the signal propagates. Examples of media which can cause signal distortion include reinforced concrete and cinder block walls. Depending on the orientation of the rebars in the reinforced concrete, the transmit signal may encounter polarization effects. Alternatively, due to the wall properties (thickness as a function of frequency) of concrete, the waveform may suffer from loss of frequency components. In the case of cinder blocks, contingent on the dimensions of the empty space in between the structure, oscillations may arise, causing notch like features in the frequency spectrum. In Reference 3, through the modeling of cinder block walls, the authors show that certain resonance frequencies will trap most of the power creating a notch at those frequencies. Moreover, Honcharenko and Bertoni confirm that the internal arrangement of typical concrete cinder block walls create a periodic structure that display frequency dependent transmission and reflection properities in the ultra high frequency range.4 Their work suggests that due to the periodicity high
Further author information: (Send correspondence to Sonny Smith or Ram M. Narayanan) Sonny Smith: E-mail: sus309@psu.edu, Telephone: 1 814 863 2602 Ram M. Narayanan : E-mail: rnarayanan@engr.psu.edu , Telephone: 1 814 863 2602

Experimentally. much knowledge of the electromagnetic properties of building materials concern themselves with few materials and with relatively narrow bandwidths. Although Ref. in order to achieve adequate SNRs of returns from objects behind lossy obscurement. Moreover.8 However. such media tend to act as low pass filters to incoming waveforms. Ultimately. their amplitude and phase are affected in some filter like capacity. drywall.e. 9 examines propagation through building materials across a wide frequency range (several gigahertz). Floquet waves) can propagate in non-specular directions away from the wall leading to further signal distortion. input noise to the system. Such cases demonstrate that propagation paths through walls are frequency dependent (i.e. Notwithstanding the presence of multipath phenomena. the author demonstrated that the probability of detection relied heavily upon the measure of correlation between the received and delayed replica of the transmitted waveform. reinforced concrete pillar. office partition). etc. A study of these effects in through-wall applications is therefore of great importance.g. As shown in Ref. and non-uniform structures (e. similar to narrow band signals. we can possibly improve the accuracy (i. were shown to have their dielectric constants decrease with frequency. Similarly. we begin to establish the foundation for such an analysis via simulation work. the coherent random noise radar is able to detect a target with small probability of false alarm for a given probability of detection. Unfortunately. Moreover. such information provides a . there are still factors that significantly influence the propagation of UWB signals. in Ref. and in doing so. The authors found that not only due UWB signals suffer attenuation. as they propagate through walls. and the Receiving Operating Characteristics (ROC) of noise radars that employ coherent signal processing techniques. 2.). maximize the probability of detection and minimize the probability of false alarms) of a noise radar system. the authors depict the magnitude (in dB) and phase (in radians) of the insertion transfer function for the case of a wooden wall. For instance. the propagation velocity is a function of frequency). the researchers concluded that UWB signals undergo severe degradations for the following reasons: (1) the frequency dependent dielectric constants of the particular media. correlation. and (2) each spectral component (or band of components) of the signal suffers attenuation and distortion differently.e. In this paper. Such degradation could severely affect the correlation of the delayed transmit and receive waveforms. we can still appreciate some of the results that would be applicable to most UWB technology. there are scenarios in which signals must propagate through various media. the lower frequency components usually lag the higher frequency components at the output. or overall system losses. Moreover. the scrutiny of these problems and possible remedies to address these issues are instrumental in augmenting the performance of radar imaging. In general. wood.1 Through-wall Propagation for UWB signals Through-wall detection faces many unique challenges in the collecting and processing of transmit and received signals. 9. These determinants are a function of the environment. glass. DISPERSIVE MEDIA There are numerous considerations that must be analyzed for the application of correlation to find a target’s range. the dielectric constants of non-uniform structures exhibited atypical behavior. thereby reducing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Unequal signal distortion in the delayed transmit and the receive chains will reduce the correlation (or similarity) between these signals.7 Therefore.5 Additionally. specifically the medium of propagation. As indicated in Reference 9. on average. 2. Uniform structures. whereas. concrete block.2 GHz) some power (i. for an input that propagates through a frequency-dispersive medium. The materials tested could be divided into two groups: uniform structures (e. Compared to a narrow band of frequencies.frequencies (above 1.g. any information on the electromagnetic properties of different construction materials in the UWB frequency range would prove to be beneficial as we continue to explore the trade-offs in UWB technology. ultra-wideband provides better resolution and is less susceptible to frequency-dependent losses. The authors of Reference 10 performed a series of measurements to acquire the wall transfer functions of different materials. radars must operate at high peak power or use coherent integration techniques at low peak power with a high pulse rate frequency. there is not much literature on the propagation of UWB noise signals in general. but also endure distortion due to the dispersive nature of the media. 6. The motivation for our study is to make a connection between bandwidth degradation. This work investigates the measure of correlation versus the degradation in bandwidth via different filtering regimes. the availability of such information is lacking.

2 Chebyshev Type I Filter The cheby1(n. (2) attenuation that resembles a bandstop filter. it is necessary to know a priori the electromagnetic properties of the building material in question. Nonetheless.1 Butterworth Filter The butter(n. Like the Butterworth. hence. To accurately model wall responses to radar waveforms. (2) performs zero phase distortion. 1 + a(2)z −1 + . highpass. which is where the magnitude of the filter equals 1 . Wp) command designs lowpass. for a given filter order N. The magnitude response for the Chebyshev Type I is equiripple in the passband and monotonic in the stopband. then filters with the correct coefficients (that are functionally similar in frequency response to the selected media) may be designed and used in simulation on UWB signals. the phase response is less linear than that of the Butterworth filers. + a(n − 1)z −n (1) . and IIR (iircomb) filters which produce the filter coefficients for each distinct filter. we used the MatLAB software package.. Data collected for real walls can potentially be modeled by these contrived wall responses (created by the merging of different standard filter responses). Furthermore. Understanding the aforementioned examples will enable us to develop and describe wall transmission responses based on mathematical combinations of these simple cases. The magnitude response for the Butterworth is maximally flat in the passband and monotonically decreasing. highpass. Unfortunately. and (3) a filter transfer function that is the square of the magnitude of the original filter (a result of the filtering process that occurs in both forward and reverse direction). the Butterworth filter has a wider transition region than other filters. propagation through one way of the wall ought to be the same (or similar) for propagation through the other side (owing to reciprocity). and (3) attenuation that resembles a notch like filter. R. Should one characterize the frequency response of a wall as a transfer function. and bandstop digital and analog Butterworth filters.. such filters sacrifice a flat passband for a steeper roll off in the transition region.11 For the purposes of simulating what different walls (as filters) might do to an UWB signal. b(1) + b(2)z −1 + .. b and a. bandpass. the third property of the filtfilt command is desirable as we are normally concerned with two-way propagation.. The transfer equation for the Chebyshev Type I filter used by MatLAB is identical to Equation (1).2 Filters Filtering is a process by which unwanted components or features in a signal are removed. this paper examines the following basic cases (with commonly known filters): (1) attenuation that resembles a low pass filter. and bandstop digital and analog Chebyshev Type I filters. respectively) used by MatLAB is provided below: H(z) = 2. + b(n + 1)z −n . we chose to use the filtfilt command to perform the digital filtering on our simulated input UWB signal.general wealth of knowledge about wall attenuation as function of frequency for certain materials. where 1 is the Nyquist frequency 2 (in π radians/sample). bandpass. Chebyshev Type I (cheby1). ranges between 0 and 1. Unfortunately. In our simulations. Wn) command designs lowpass.2. The transfer equation for the Butterworth filter (with b and a being coefficients of the numerator and denominator. The filtfilt command has three interesting properties: (1) a filter order that is twice that of the filter specified by the the coefficients. The cutoff frequency. The passband edge frequency is given by Wp and the peak to peak ripple is given by R (dB). the order of the filter is specified by N. Inclusive in this coding platform are the commands for Butterworth (butter). The order of the filter is specified by N and it has a normalized cutoff frequency Wn. For a given design specification. 2. The magnitude and phase response of the filters used in the simulations were not included in this paper. Assuming no change in incident angle or original setup. the required filter order N is less than the order for Butterworths. 2.2.

The Rice probability density function (integrated over the same range as Pf a ) describes this probability and it is denoted by Pd . noise) in terms of it’s statistical properties. ”Noise radars” refer to radars which transmit a random. 3.1.1 Probability of Detection and False Alarm Skolnik’s book13 states the probability of a false alarm is the probability that noise will cross some given threshold and be considered a target when only (unwanted) noise is present. In general. a duplicate copy of the transmit signal (reference signal) and the returned signal are multiplied and averaged together. or noisy. signal. to obtain the greatest improvement in signal-to-noise ratio.2.1 Noise The non-deterministic behavior of noise only enables us to describe the random process (i. In receiver chain of the radar. At the output of this correlation function.2. noise voltage) on some given interval and φ is the mean square value of x (i. In literature. Bw) command designs a digital notching filter with order N and with the width of the filter notch at -3 dB set to the filter bandwidth. the distance) between the transmit and received signals. Vt. The two quantities are essential for characterizing the radar’s capabilities. Given the random nature of noise.e. 1 − αz −n (2) 3.g. the different correlation peaks are indicative of signals showing high degrees of similarity and the lag values (at those peaks) correspond to the delay (or equivalently. The transfer equation for the IIR Comb filter (with α and b as positive scalars and n as the filter order) used by MatLAB is provided below: H(z) = b 1 − z −n . Radars that use random noise signals normally employ coherent signal processing techniques. there are no ambiguities in the measurement of range or velocity. to ∞. µ = 0) white Gaussian noise simulated in MatLAB. Bw.e. when transmitted. NOISE AND CORRELATION An UWB radar is not necessarily a noise radar.3 IIR Comb Filter The iircomb(n. random noise radars are finding useful applications because of the unique and inherent attributes of noise and noise-like signals. the correlation process allows one to measure the degree of similarity between two time signals. and. they are often used as parameters for the ROC curve of a radar system. the power of x). The false-alarm probability and the detection probability are usually specified by the system requirements.7 the authors note that the data representing a variety of random physical phenomena is closely approximated by the Normal (Gaussian) probability density function (pdf): 1 −(x − µ)2 p(x) = √ exp( ) 2φ2 φ 2π (3) where p(x) is the probability of finding x (e. Since a noise signal is aperiodic.e. noise radars offer the following benefits (list not extensive): (1) Noise waveforms are inexpensive to generate both in analog and digital formats. Today. The probability of detection is the probability that a signal (in this case our own noise signal) will exceed the threshold Vt and be identified as a target. (3) Noise waveforms are inherently anti-jam and interference resistant. For a given probability of false alarm. a matched filter approach may not be realizable. This paper used zero mean (i.1 In general. 3. either by matched filter or correlation. etc. however the two radars due exhibit very similar characteristics. Reference 12 states that cross-correlation has a higher minimum detectable signal than the optimal detector and improves spatial resolution for multiple targets. one wishes to achieve a certain probability of detection in order to have . (4) Noise waveforms are spectrally very efficient and can share spectral bands without mutual interference. (2) Noise waveforms have featureless low-probability of intercept/lowprobability of detection (LPI/LPD) characteristics and are therefore covert. It is denoted by Pf a and is given by the Rayleigh pdf integrated from some voltage threshold. However.

9 0..4 ρ=0.0.7 ρ=0. reproduced from his paper. Our study investigates how certain degradations/distortions in the bandwidth of a noise signal affect its correlation. Pd 0.0.2. Pd 0. the cross-correlation between x1 (t) and a filtered x2 (t) (by means of a non-linear device) is proportional to the cross correlation function of the original pair of random time signals. the unscaled..2 ρ=0.9 0.9 0.. we note the trend: the higher the ρ value. Pf −10 −5 10 0 0 10 −15 10 10 False alarm probability.a desirable signal-to-noise ratio. Furthermore. x1 (t) and x2 (t). −∞ < n < ∞. y) command. 1 1 0.. 1. and (2) that the correlation coefficient ρ can be related to the input SNR. the better the ROC curve is for the probability of detection versus the probability of false alarm. coupled with the fact that our . Pf −10 −5 10 0 (c) N = 50 (d) N = 100 Figure 1.8 Detection probability. and by extension. its ROC..4 0. The paper14 by Brown substantiates the claim that given two stationary random processes.0. Pd ρ=0. 6) We can infer from Figure 1 that various correlation coefficient values will render different ROC curves.4 ρ=0. (b) N = 25..3. (c) N = 50 and (d) N = 100 (ref. (a) N = 1.3 ρ=0. P −1 10 0 0 10 −15 f 10 10 False alarm probability. P −10 −5 10 0 f (a) N = 1 1 ρ=0. with the xcorr(x. 3.3.2. and E[*] is the expectation operator).. Pd 0.4 0. raw cross correlation given by the following equation:    N −m−1 ∗ xn+m yn n=0 ∗ Rˆ (−m) yx Rˆ (m) = xy :m≥0 :m<0 .0.2 ρ=0..9 (b) N = 25 1 ρ=0.2 0..8 ρ=0.6 ρ=0.6 he showed (1) that an increase in the integration of the number of samples resulted in a higher Pd .9 0.8 Detection probability. MatLAB implements an estimation of the cross correlation sequence.8 Detection probability.6 ρ=0. Moreover. using that relationship he obtained Fig.4 ρ=0. Detection probability (Pd ) versus false alarm probability (Pf a ) for different number of samples N integrated.8 Detection probability.3.2 Correlation Correlation is defined as a statistical relationship characterizing the dependence of two or more random variables or two or more series of measurements. ∗ Rxy (m) = E[xn+m yn ] (where x and y are random processes.2 0.2 0 −2 10 10 False alarm probability.6 0. by default.0. further.5 ρ=0.2 0 10 −15 10 10 False alarm probability.9 ρ =0...0.2.6 ρ=0.6 0.2 0.2 0. (4) The auto correlation is treated as a special case of the cross correlation sequence in which the input parameter is just one variable. MatLAB provides. In Dawood’s paper..

Clearly. as the bandwidth degradation increases. and (4) cross correlate the original signal and the filtered signal. 5. As the percentage of bandwidth degradation increases. . (2) obtain the transfer function coefficients for different types of filtering regimes. a load impedance of 50 ohms. we obtained an effective correlation coefficient by normalizing the xcorr(x. Moreover. In MatLAB. White Gaussian Noise (Transmitted) 3 Transmitted Signal 2 Amplitude [Volts] 1 0 −1 −2 −3 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 Figure 2. a. the study attempted to see how the correlation between the original transmit signal and the filtered noise signal degraded. Figure 3 shows the correlation coefficient versus bandwidth degradation for Butterworth lowpass filters of Order 1 and Order 5. x’) by xcorr(x) (where x is the original (transmit) noise signal and x’ is the filtered (received) noise signal). (3) apply those coefficients using the filtfilt (b. the correlation coefficient decreases. a length of 10000. x) command to filter the transmit signal. 4. we are able to relate the notion of the correlation coefficient to the correlation of our waveforms. Figure 2 shows the white Gaussian noise in the time domain generated by MatLAB. Figure 4 illustrates (a) various bandwidth degradation percentages of the filtered (received) signal. each simulation. and sampling frequency of 1 kHz). in the general sense.work deals with zero mean Gaussian noise signals. and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective filtered signal for a Butterworth lowpass filter of Order 1. the filtered signal looks more and more dissimilar from the original noise signal. load impedance: 50 ohms. SIMULATION SETUP All simulations were programmed in MatLAB. tried to capture what a dispersive type of media (given as a transfer function) might do to a noise or noise like signal.signal power: 10 dBm. thus. We define bandwidth degradation as different filtered portions of the received signal. White Gaussian Noise . We assumed that the delayed transmit replica was undistorted. RESULTS The following section outlines the results obtained from the different simulations. The underlying principles of each simulation were: (1) generate a white Gaussian noise signal (with a signal power of 10 dBm. we looked at the effects of distortions on the correlation caused by the influence of filtering on the received signal alone. and.

and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal Butterworth lowpass Order 1.5 dB. Amplitude [Volts] 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 Amplitude [Volts] Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 0 Amplitude [Volts] 4 2 0 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation Filtered Signal 0 −2 Filtered Signal Amplitude [Volts] 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation Filtered Signal 2 0 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation Filtered Signal Amplitude [Volts] 2 Amplitude [Volts] 1 0. which we attribute to its unique filter.5 0 −0.6 0.Correlation Coefficient Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation in Bandwidth (Butterworth Lowpass) 1 Order 1 Butterworth Lowpass Order 5 Butterworth Lowpass 0.Butterworth lowpass Order 1.5 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 (a) FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation 0. . and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective filtered signal for the specified Chebyshev Type I lowpass filter.02 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.02 0 |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 (b) Figure 4.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of Bandwidth Degradation [where 100% = full degradation] 100 Figure 3.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.4 0.02 0 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0 0 100 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation 0. (a) Filtered (received) Signal .8 0. bandwidth degradation for a Butterworth lowpass filter Order 1 and Order 5.04 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| 0. the Chebyshev Type I filtering case appears to permit more bandwidth degradation and still maintain decent correlation coefficient values. Figure 6 shows (a) various bandwidth degradation percentages of the filtered (received) signal.02 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 0.04 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal 0. Correlation coefficient vs.04 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation 0. Figure 5 depicts the correlation coefficient versus bandwidth degradation for Chebyshev Type I lowpass filter of Order 1 and ripple factor of 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0. In comparison to the Butterworth lowpass filter.02 0 |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation 0.

06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0. However. Correlation coefficient vs. Even with the bandstop filtering option. Figure 7 depicts the correlation coefficient versus bandwidth degradation for Chebyshev Type I bandstop filter of Order 2 and ripple factor of 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0. .Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation in Bandwidth (Cheby1 Lowpass) 1 Order 1 Cheby1 Lowpass Correlation Coefficient 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| 0.02 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation 0.04 0.04 0. and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal Chebyshev Type I lowpass Order 1.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation 0.5 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 (a) FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0 0 100 0 0 100 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation 0.04 0.4 0. Amplitude [Volts] 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 Amplitude [Volts] Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 0 Amplitude [Volts] 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 Amplitude [Volts] 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation Filtered Signal 2 0 −2 −4 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation Filtered Signal 0 0 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation Filtered Signal 2 Amplitude [Volts] 2 0 −2 Amplitude [Volts] 0. and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective filtered signal for the specified Chebyshev Type I bandstop filter.8 0. Figure 8 shows (a) various bandwidth degradation percentages of the filtered (received) signal.02 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 0. bandwidth degradation for a Chebyshev Type I lowpass filter Order 1.04 0.02 0 0 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| |Y(f)| |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 (b) Figure 6.6 0. (a) Filtered (received) Signal . The filtering scheme for the Chebyshev Type I bandstop was to degrade from the center frequency to the extremes.Chebyshev Type I lowpass Order 1.5 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 −0.5 dB.04 0. note that due to the filtering stratagem.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of Bandwidth Degradation [where 100% = full degradation] 100 Figure 5.02 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation 0. Figure 7 still maintains the general shape like that of Figure 5. the denotation of full bandwidth degradation is different in this case.

Figure 10 shows (a) a certain percentage of bandwidth degradation across the band of frequencies for filtered (received) signal.Chebyshev Type I bandstop Order 1.02 0.04 0. and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective filtered signal for the specified Chebyshev Type I bandstop filter.05 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.02 0.8 0.03 0. Figure 9 depicts the correlation coefficient versus 10 percent degradation across the bandwidth for Chebyshev Type I bandstop filter of Order 2 and ripple factor of 0. (a) Filtered (received) Signal .01 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 80% Degradation 0.4 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.03 0.02 0.05 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.5 −1 −1.03 0.01 0 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 98% Degradation 0. The filtering scheme for the Chebyshev Type I bandstop filter (in this case) was to remove a certain percentage of the bandwidth from different portions of the signal. Correlation coefficient vs. and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal .05 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0.5 0 1 Filtered Signal (Received) with 98% Degradation Filtered Signal 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 (a) FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 2% Degradation 0.5 dB.2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Percent of Bandwidth Degradation [where 50% = full degradation] 50 Figure 7.01 0 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation 0.02 0.03 0.04 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0. Filtered Signal (Received) with 2% Degradation 4 Filtered Signal Amplitude [Volts] 2 0 −2 −4 Amplitude [Volts] 2 1 0 −1 −2 0 3 Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation Filtered Signal 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 Filtered Signal (Received) with 80% Degradation 2 Filtered Signal Amplitude [Volts] 1 0 −1 −2 Amplitude [Volts] 0. bandwidth degradation for a Chebyshev Type I bandstop filter Order 2. . the correlation coefficient remains fairly constant.Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation in Bandwidth (Cheby1 Bandstop) 1 Order 2 Chebyshev Type I Bandstop Filter Correlation Coefficient 0.6 0. As expected.5 0 −0.01 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 (b) Figure 8.Chebyshev Type I bandstop Order 1.

Amplitude [Volts] 0 −5 Amplitude [Volts] Amplitude [Volts] Amplitude [Volts] Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 Amplitude [Volts] 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 Amplitude [Volts] 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 (a) FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 0.Chebyshev Type I bandstop Order 2.06 FFT of Filtered Signal FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.Chebyshev Type I bandstop Order 2.02 |Y(f)| 0 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal FFT of Filtered Signal 0.06 0.4 0.02 0 0 100 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0. .02 |Y(f)| 0 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 0. The filtering scheme for the IIR comb filter was to decide upon a particular frequency (or frequencies) to remove and then vary the width of the notch.06 0.04 0.04 0. and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal . (a) Filtered (received) Signal . This graph resembles that of the Butterworth case.04 |Y(f)| 0.2 0 10 Correlation Coefficient 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage at which Lower Cut−Off Frequency is set 70 80 Figure 9. Figure 11 shows the correlation coefficient versus bandwidth degradation for IIR comb filter of Order 10.06 FFT of Filtered Signal FFT of Filtered Signal 0. Correlation coefficient vs 10 percent degradation across bandwidth for a Chebyshev Type I bandstop filter Order 2.6 Order 2 Chebyshev Type I Bandstop Filter 0.04 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 (b) Figure 10.06 0.Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation of 10% across the Bandwidth (Cheby1 Bandstop) 1 0.02 0 0 100 0.8 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0. and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective filtered signal for a IIR comb filter. Figure 12 illustrates (a) various bandwidth degradation percentages of the filtered (received) signal.04 0.

1 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| 0.05 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 90% Degradation 0. Our simulations indicate that (1) dissimilar filtering regimes affect the correlation of noise signals in some distinct manner.IIR comb filter.6 0.IIR comb filter. Ultimately.05 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation 0.1 FFT of Filtered Signal 0. Amplitude [Volts] 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 Amplitude [Volts] Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 5 Filtered Signal 0 −5 0 Amplitude [Volts] 2 Filtered Signal 0 −2 Amplitude [Volts] 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation Filtered Signal 2 0 −2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 90% Degradation Filtered Signal 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation Filtered Signal Amplitude [Volts] 1 0 −1 Amplitude [Volts] 0. and (2) a certain percentage of bandwidth loss that may result from possible environmental factors (e.5 0 −0.05 0 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 0.2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of Bandwidth Degradation [where 100% = full degradation] 100 Figure 11.1 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.g.1 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.05 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation 0.05 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 (b) Figure 12.8 0.4 0. the relationship between the degradation of bandwidth and the correlation coefficient can extend even further to the concept of detection . Correlation coefficient vs. Moreover.05 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation 0. bandwidth degradation for an IIR comb filter.1 FFT of Filtered Signal 0. it may be possible to represent wall responses (over given frequency bands) as different combinations of simple known filters.1 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0. CONCLUSIONS An analysis of correlation versus bandwidth degradations for noise and noise-like signals can provide yet another tool that can be used for sensitivity analysis for a noise radar system.5 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10 (a) FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation 0. (a) Filtered (received) Signal . and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal . dispersive media) corresponds to a particular correlation coefficient. 6. ρ.Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation in Bandwidth (IIR Comb Filter) 1 IIR Comb Filter Correlation Coefficient 0.

Volakis. and O. “On a cross-correlation property for stationary random processes. 412– 419. Attiya. Rothwell. J. McGraw-Hill. Mokole. develop models and draw further conclusions as well as collect data experimentally. noise radar engineers will be able to select a tolerance level for bandwidth degradation that is acceptable to meet a given system’s requirements for SNR and probability of detection. R. 58 (8). [6] M. 3 (1). pp.” in IRE Transactions on Information Theory. Pichot. [4] W.” in IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems. Engineering Applications of Correlation and Spectral Analysis. Beckel. Dawood and R. 37 (2). pp. Riad. Muqaibel. August 2010. 3rd ed. “Broadband correlation processing. C. 586–594. [3] R. December 2008. Antennas and Propagation. Bordeaux. W. 581–588. Burkholder. Coleman. April 2001. [5] G. G. Maaref. 42 (2). Speech. Pichot. Taylor. CRC Press. [13] M. “Radar imaging through cinder block walls and other periodic structures. doi: 10. MA). Susek and B. and O. L. and E. FL. [14] J. Maaref. “Receiver operation characteristics for the coherent UWB random noise radar. D. Army ARDEC National Small Arms Center (NSAC) under Contract # W15QKN-09-C-0116. “FMCW ultra-wideband radar for through-the-wall detection of human beings. 152 (6). 2nd ed. C. 8. “Transmission and reflection characteristics at concrete walls in the UHF bands proposed for future PCS. February 1994. Hampton. pp.. [2] J. “Broadband microwave correlation of noise signals. Chandra. E. CA. 28–31. NY. Introduction to Ultrawide-Band (UWB) Radar Systems. pp. J. [9] A. Millot. Honcharenko and H.” in Proceedings of the 2009 International Radar Conference. [7] J. Picon. 1297–1300. 583–586. Charvat.” in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. [12] G. Johnson. Ohlms. 17 (2). April 1983. 47 (5). Jr.” in IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. L. D. Stec. 1993. REFERENCES [1] W. A. I. L. December 2005. Nigam.” in IEE Proceedings on Microwaves. Marhefka. [11] N.2008. and Signal Processing. and J. “Ultrawideband through-the-wall propagation. pp. 232–239. Brown. S. Future work will allow us to delve more into the research area. C. pp. May 2009. Gaikwad. L. Narayanan.” in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. France. “A study of UWB FM-CW radar for the detection of human beings in motion inside a building.S. Gaeta. C. L. Kempel. J. pp. Introduction to Radar Systems. San Diego. M.. March 1957. Bayram. “A through-dielectric radar imaging system. and S. P. 5 (4). Patel. Bertoni. M. Piersol. . [8] R. M. Picon. We appreciate the fruitful discussions with E. 289–298. and G. Boca Raton. and M. 2001. and M. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the U. 2594–2603. N. [10] N.” in Metrology and Measurement Systems. A. John Wiley & Sons. 1995. New York. NY.4619258. L. Singh. Safaai-Jazi. “An approach to remove the clutter and detect the target for ultra-wideband through-wall imaging. pp. 2010. A. D.” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics. L.” Journal of Geophysics and Engineering. INSPEC AN: 11206568.” in IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium. For propagation through materials that have certain filter responses. W. July 2008. which was shown to be principally dependent on the correlation between the (delayed) received and replica of the transmitted noise waveform. E. Bendat and A. A. October 2009. Luk. (Boston. pp. Skolnik.probability. J.1109/APS. J.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.