804 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 15

Doppler Velocity Measurements Using a Single Pulse

R. G. STRAUCH AND R. FREHLICH Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 8 April 1997 and 10 September 1997

ABSTRACT Simulations of weather radar echoes were used to determine whether single-pulse estimates of velocity could be made with suf®cient accuracy to measure the velocity aliasing that is inherent with pulse Doppler weather radars. The results indicated that this type of velocity measurement can be made, but such a large number of single-pulse estimates need to be averaged to determine the velocity aliasing that the concept is not compatible with the spatial and temporal resolution requirements of the WSR-88D (NEXRAD).

1. Introduction weather signals is evaluated numerically by Frehlich Unlike pulse laser or pulse acoustic Doppler systems (1993), but a sense of single-pulse measurement accu- ( or sodar) that measure the radial velocity of at- racy is obtained from the simple expression for the Cra- mospheric scatterers by measuring the Doppler shift of mer±Rao lower bound for the rms frequency error for the backscattered radiation, pulse Doppler radars esti- a sinusoidal pulse in white noise (corresponding to a 1/2 mate the radial velocity by measuring the pulse-to-pulse point target) given by 1/[2␲t0(2E/N0) ] (Swerling 1/2 change in the phase and amplitude of the backscattered 1970), where t0 ϭ ␶/(12) , ␶ is the pulse duration, E radiation. Because pulse Doppler radars are sampling is the pulse energy, and N0 is the noise spectral density. systems, the pulse-to-pulse measurements have a max- For a radar with a matched ®lter receiver 2E/N0 is the imum radial velocity that can be measured without am- peak point target signal-to-noise power ratio (SNR) (Na- biguity given by ␭/(4T ), where ␭ is the radar wave- thanson 1969, 279). For a 1-␮s pulse duration and a 40- I dB SNR, the estimate uncertainty exceeds 5 kHz or 250 length and TI is the interpulse period. The unambiguous velocity is often less than the maximum velocity of the msϪ1 for a 10-cm-wavelength radar. For a weather sig- scatterers, so ambiguities arise that are sometimes dif- nal in white noise the Cramer±Rao lower bound is even ®cult to resolve, particularly in real time. Lidar and greater because the correlation time of the single-pulse sodar Doppler systems do not have this ambiguity prob- weather signal is less. Unlike usual Doppler weather lem; they derive the velocity estimate from the Doppler radar, where signal sampling occurs after an approxi- shift of the signal backscattered from a single pulse. mate matched ®lter and the signal for a particular range The coherence time of the scattered atmospheric sig- cell is sampled once after each transmitted pulse (with nal is given by ␭/[2␴(2␲)1/2] (Nathanson 1969, 90), the same time delay following each transmitted pulse), where ␴ is the width of the Doppler velocity spectrum single-pulse estimation uses a broadband receiver (as in (assumed Gaussian shaped). This time exceeds the time lidar), and typically eight or more signal samples spaced between pulses for the typical Doppler radar but not for much less than ␶ are acquired for each range cell. Each lidar or sodar. This is the fundamental reason that the successive sample of single-pulse data is therefore from latter must obtain velocity estimates from a single pulse, a collection of scatterers centered at a longer range; while radar uses pulse-to-pulse information. signal samples separated by ␶ are from entirely different One can attempt to measure radial velocity with a scatterers, so they will be independent. The correlation single radar pulse, as proposed by Fetter (1975); how- time of a single-pulse weather signal (approximately ever, the uncertainty of the measurement is so large that ␶/2) will therefore be less than the correlation time of the result is meaningless. This can be seen from the a single-pulse point target signal (␶), leading to larger Cramer±Rao lower bound for the rms error of the fre- errors in the estimate of velocity. quency estimate. The Cramer±Rao lower bound for In this note we use simulations to answer the question of whether single-pulse velocity estimates with a weath- er radar (such as the WSR-88D) can be used to deter- Corresponding author address: Dr. Richard G. Strauch, NOAA/ mine the velocity with suf®cient accuracy to resolve the ERL/ETL, R/E/ET4, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80303. measurement ambiguity inherent with the more accurate E-mail: [email protected] pulse-to-pulse measurements. (Single-pulse estimation

᭧ 1998 American Meteorological Society

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/30/21 12:08 PM UTC JUNE 1998 NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE 805 would require modi®cations to the radar receiver and an unknown parameter. The spectrum width is known signal processor.) This requires a measurement uncer- (determined by the transmitted pulse because all other tainty of order 25 m sϪ1, so that averaging independent spectral broadening effects are negligible), and the SNR estimates of velocity over space and time will be re- is assumed known for the simulations. (For actual data quired. If this were possible, the weather radar could with high SNR, the SNR can be estimated with suf®cient operate in a surveillance mode and simultaneously mea- accuracy from the data prior to velocity estimation.) The sure re¯ectivity and velocity aliasing and then use the ML estimate is the velocity that produces a maximum usual pulse Doppler mode to measure velocity. of the likelihood function (Zrnic 1979; Chornoboy 1993; Frehlich and Yadlowsky 1994, 1995). When the velocity is the only unknown, the ML estimate can be 2. Simulation of the single-pulse radar signal ef®ciently produced from estimates of the covariance Simulation of weather radar signals usually follows matrix and fast Fourier transforms. the procedure described by Zrnic (1975); however, be- When the SNR is low, the random fades in the signal cause the radar resolution volume increases in range as produce poor estimates that are characterized as random the signal is sampled, we use a modi®cation of this outliers. The probability density function of the velocity method that is used for lidar (Frehlich and Yadlowsky estimates is then described as a localized Gaussian dis- 1994, 1995). Here, we start with the correlation function tribution of good estimates centered on the true mean (which is solely determined by the transmitted pulse velocity and a uniform distribution of random outliers. because, as with lidar, a wideband receiver is used, and The performance of the velocity estimator is described we assume uniform re¯ectivity and velocity), calculate by the velocity error or standard deviation of the good the power spectrum, add noise, randomize the power estimates, the bias of the good estimates, and the fraction spectral density as given by Zrnic, generate complex of random outliers. These statistical parameters are ex- Fourier coef®cients with random phase, and inverse tracted from the velocity estimates using robust algo- Fourier transform to obtain complex time series data rithms (Frehlich 1997). Data from multiple pulses are that have the desired correlation function. The pulse used to improve the velocity estimates by accumulating shape, pulse duration, SNR, record length, and number the statistics from N statistically independent pulses and of samples are selectable. With single-pulse radar the then estimating the velocity (Rye and Hardesty 1993a,b; signal spectrum is centered near zero Doppler, and the Frehlich and Yadlowsky 1994, 1995; Frehlich 1996). velocity estimates are independent of ␴ because the For the ML estimator, the average covariance matrix of width of the signal spectrum is determined by the trans- all the data is produced and then the maximum of the mitted spectrum, which is very much broader than the likelihood function is determined. For all the results width of the velocity distribution of the scatterers. The presented here, 105 ML velocity estimates were gen- receiver bandwidth for single-pulse radar would be of erated for each case. The bias of the estimates was neg- order 3/␶ so that the signal spectrum near zero velocity ligible for all cases. has a white noise background. Note that if the single- pulse radar used a matched ®lter, the noise spectrum 4. Single-pulse simulations would be almost the same as a signal spectrum, which would bias the velocity estimates. As has been shown The radar pulse shape was assumed Gaussian (pulse for lidar and is veri®ed in our simulations, at high SNR duration is de®ned as the full width at half power) to the accuracy of the velocity estimates is not degraded avoid high-frequency sidelobes associated with sharp if the receiver bandwidth is greater than the signal spec- pulses. These sidelobes degrade estimate accuracy for trum width. single-pulse estimates by broadening the signal spec- Because the SNR depends on the bandwidth, we ref- trum, a consideration not associated with usual weather erence the SNR to that of a weather radar with a ®lter Doppler radars where the receiver approximates a bandwidth of 200 kHz (similar to the long-pulse mode matched ®lter. We simulated data for three cases: the of the WSR-88D). The SNR therefore corresponds to WSR-88D transmitting ``short'' (1.57 ␮s) and ``long'' familiar weather radar measurements, and all simula- (4.71 ␮s) pulses and a hypothetical radar transmitting tions with the same SNR have the same signal statistics. 8-␮s pulses. For each case we varied the number of samples (M) from 8 to 64 in a total record length (T) of8or16␮s. The dependence of the results on M was 3. Calculation of velocity estimates and their negligible for M Ͼ 16; that is, the velocity error is uncertainty independent of the noise bandwidth (Frehlich and Yad- A stationary complex time series is generated for the lowsky 1994, 1995). Figure 1 shows the simulation re- given parameters, and M data points are used for each sults for the WSR-88D transmitting short pulses and 16 velocity estimate. The maximum likelihood (ML) es- samples taken in an 8-␮s observation time; the velocity timate for radial velocity has been shown to have the error is very large, as expected. Note that the errors are best performance for high SNR conditions when the about four times greater than the Cramer±Rao lower covariance function of the data has only the velocity as bound for a sinusoidal pulse because of the limited cor-

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/30/21 12:08 PM UTC 806 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 15

FIG. 1. Velocity errors for single pulse (N ϭ 1) estimation for 1.57- FIG. 2. Same as Fig. 1 for WSR-88D ``long'' pulses (4.57 ␮s) with ␮s pulses with M ϭ 16 samples and T ϭ 8-␮s observation timeÐ 16-␮s observation. WSR-88D ``short'' pulses.

approximately N ϭ 10 pulses of data for a velocity relation of the weather signal. The error decreases by estimate and then averaging as many statistically in- 1/2 approximately 2 when the observation time is in- dependent estimates as possible. The high SNR case of creased from 8 to 16 ␮s, but the corresponding range Fig. 6 shows a velocity error of 25 m sϪ1 with 100 resolution increase to 2.4 km is larger than the range- statistically independent radar pulses. The number of averaging usually used for re¯ectivity and may be mar- statistically independent pulses depends on the scan ge- ginal for resolving velocity ambiguities. It is apparent ometry and the correlation of the radar data from pulse that a large number of independent estimates must be to pulse. averaged to produce a useful result. Figure 2 shows the Statistically independent noise samples are obtained simulation results for the WSR-88D with long pulses with each radar pulse. Independent signal samples are and a 16-␮s observation time. Several hundred inde- obtained from different radar resolution cells (change pendent estimates would have to be averaged to reduce in range or antenna pointing) by using the signal from the error to obtain a useful result. Figure 3 shows the simulation results for a radar with 8-␮s pulses and an observation time of 16 ␮s. Although such a long pulse means that re¯ectivity estimates cannot be averaged in range to reduce the error of this measurement, inde- pendent re¯ectivity estimates could be made with this hypothetical radar by pulse-to-pulse frequency changes since the radar would be operating in a surveillance rather than a Doppler mode. The hypothetical radar with 8-␮s pulses still has large velocity errors for single-pulse measurements, but the number of independent estimates needed to obtain a useful averaged answer becomes more realistic.

5. Multiple-pulse estimates The performances of ML velocity estimates using N pulses of statistically independent data are shown in Fig. 4(␶ ϭ 1.57 ␮s, T ϭ 8.0 ␮s), Fig. 5 (␶ ϭ 4.71 ␮s, T ϭ 16.0 ␮s), and Fig. 6 (␶ ϭ 8.0 ␮s, T ϭ 16.0 ␮s). For large N the velocity error scales as the expected N Ϫ1/2, but for small N the velocity error scales approximately as N Ϫ0.6. The best performance is produced by using FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 1 for 8-␮s pulses with 16-␮s observation.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/30/21 12:08 PM UTC JUNE 1998 NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE 807

FIG. 4. Velocity errors for multiple-pulse estimationÐWSR-88D FIG. 5. Velocity errors for multiple-pulse estimationÐWSR-88D ``short'' pulse. ``long'' pulse. consecutive pulses for a time that exceeds the correlation mode. The time needed to obtain this many independent time or by changing the frequency of the radar by about samples is not compatible with the scanning used to 1/␶ between pulses. We have incorporated all of the achieve the desired spatial and temporal resolution. A allowable range averaging into our simulations with the special slow-scan mode with pulse-to-pulse frequency 8- or 16-␮s observation time used in individual velocity changes to obtain independent sampling would be re- estimates. Averaging for longer than the signal coher- quired; the slow scan could be employed in selected ence time is also limited because the antenna is scanned azimuth sectors where aliasing of conventional Doppler in azimuth at a constant elevation angle for surveillance data is found. purposes, so the desired cross-beam resolution limits the number of pulses that can be averaged. Thus, while Acknowledgments. This work was supported by the it is possible to average a very large number of pulses, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in practice the number is limited by the desired temporal through the Operational Support Facility under a joint and spatial resolution. The WSR-88D uses a pulse rep- etition frequency of 325 pulses per second in the sur- veillance mode (unambiguous range ϭ 460 km) and an antenna scan rate of 15Њ per second. If range-averaging of 2.4 km is acceptable, then an angular resolution of about 2Њ would give an equivalent linear cross-beam resolution at 60-km range. The total number of radar pulses available for averaging would be about 43. Only a small fraction of them would be independent unless pulse-to-pulse frequency stepping is used. Thus, our simulation results indicate that single-pulse velocity es- timation will not yield useful velocity information for the WSR-88D without some special mode of operation.

6. Conclusions As expected, the errors in single-pulse velocity es- timation for weather radars are very large. The number of independent pulses that must be averaged to reduce the errors so that they could be used to resolve velocity ambiguities associated with conventional Doppler pro- cessing is several hundred for the long-pulse mode of the WSR-88D and more than 1000 for the short-pulse FIG. 6. Velocity errors for multiple-pulse estimationÐ8-␮s pulse.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/30/21 12:08 PM UTC 808 JOURNAL OF ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 15 program to study NEXRAD Range-Velocity Unfolding , 1996: Simulation of coherent Doppler lidar performance in the weak signal regime. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 13, 646±658. Problems and Selected Mitigation Techniques directed , 1997: Effects of turbulence on coherent Doppler lidar by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Par- performance. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 14, 54±75. tial support was also provided by the National Science , and M. J. Yadlowsky, 1994: Performance of mean frequency Foundation, the Army Research Of®ce, and NASA. The estimators for Doppler radar and lidar. J. Atmos. Oceanic Tech- nol., 11, 1217±1230. authors thank Richard J. Doviak for his careful review , and , 1995: Corrigenda. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 12, and constructive suggestions. 445±446. Nathanson, F. E., 1980: Radar Design Principles. McGraw-Hill, 626 pp. Rye, B. J., and R. M. Hardesty, 1993a: Discrete spectral peak esti- REFERENCES mation in incoherent backscatter heterodyne lidar. I. Spectral accumulation and the Cramer-Rao lower bound. IEEE Trans. Chornoboy, E. S., 1993: Optimal mean velocity estimation for Dopp- Geosci. Remote Sens., 31, 16±27. ler weather radars. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 31, 575± , and , 1993b: Discrete spectral peak estimation in inco- herent backscatter heterodyne lidar. II. Correlogram accumula- 586. tion. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 31, 28±35. Fetter, R. W., 1975: Real time analog Doppler processing (RANDOP). Swerling, P., 1970: Radar measurement accuracy. Radar Handbook, Preprints, 16th Conf. on Radar , Boston, MA, Amer. M. I. Skolnik, Ed., McGraw-Hill, 4±7. Meteor. Soc., 153±155. Zrnic, D. S., 1975: Simulation of weatherlike Doppler spectra and Frehlich, R., 1993: Cramer±Rao bound for Gaussian random pro- signals. J. Appl. Meteor., 14, 619±620. cesses and applications to radar processing of atmospheric sig- , 1979: Estimation of spectral moments of weather echoes. IEEE nals. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens., 31, 1123±1131. Trans. Geosci. Elect., GE-17, 113±128.

Unauthenticated | Downloaded 09/30/21 12:08 PM UTC