Fred Daum 27 March 2012 MIMO radar: snake oil or good idea? Copyright © 2011 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved. Customer Success Is Our Mission is

Fred Daum

27 March 2012

MIMO radar: snake oil or good idea?

Copyright © 2011 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved.

Customer Success Is Our Mission is a trademark of Raytheon Company.

1

MIMO* radar vs. phased array radar (SIMO)

item MIMO radar phased array radar

1. waveforms N orthogonal waveforms transmitted simultaneously from N distinct parts of the antenna

one waveform transmitted from the radar (coherently)

2. transmit antenna pattern (array factor)

omni directional (except for element pattern or subarray pattern)

pencil beam:

θ ≈ λ/D

3. transmit antenna gain (array factor)

G/N G

4. SNR cT*/N cT

5. time on target

(T or T*)

full transmit duty cycle (limited by coherence of target & propagation)

limited by pencil beam

6. useful range-Doppler space (normalized area)

1/N 1

7. number of degrees of freedom for adaptive nulling

NM M

2*MIMO = multiple input multiple output

MIMO Radar – Virtual Array

Transmitter: M antenna elements Receiver: N antenna elements

Virtual array: NM elements

dT=NdR

ej2(ft-x/)

dR

ej2(ft-x/)

MF MF…

…

RADAR PERFORMANCE

MIMO better than boring old phased array (equal cost, apples & apples comparison)*

REFERENCES

search (thermal noise only) no (increased angle coverage is cancelled by loss of transmit antenna gain)

Friedlander (2009)

Chernyak (2008)

Rabideau (2011)

track (thermal noise only) no (no improvement in SNR & MIMO does not exploit knowledge of target to steer transmit beam) but TWS maybe

Vaidyanathan (2010)

Li, Stoica & Daum (2010)

barrage jamming no (non-responsive jammer doesn’t see waveform diversity)

Rabideau (2004)

Greenspan (2009)

DRFM mainbeam & sidelobe jamming or other responsive jamming (fast set on)

passive ranging with network of radars works (but simple multi-static competes well with MIMO also)

Rabideau (2004)

mitigation of spread Doppler clutter for OTH radar (like ROTHR using TWS)

good idea sometimes (SNR loss maybe too high & simple spatial diversity competes well with MIMO)

Frazer (2008)

Krolik (2004)

improved angle measurement accuracy (one-sigma error due to front end noise)

factor of √2 to roughly factor of 10 improvement sometimes

Tabrikian (2008)

Friedlander (2009)

adaptive suppression of sidelobes & grating lobes for sparse array

MN degrees of freedom vs. only M degrees of freedom helps

Chen’s CalTech thesis (2009)

relaxed requirement on instantaneous dynamic range against clutter

MIMO improves CNR for certain clutter & certain radars & some targets

Rabideau (2004)

suppression of sea clutter or ground clutter depends on the radar & clutter (GMTI often good but long range fast targets bad)

Rabideau (2008)

Bliss et al. (2009)

Abramovitz & Fraser (2009)

face combining for SPY-1, SPY-3, PAVE PAWS, BMEWS, UEWR, AMDR

3 dB to 9 dB better SNR at large scan angles

this is multi-static radar not real time MIMO radar (Zatman 2008)

multiple radar combining 3 dB to 9 dB better SNR for two radars & more for N radars

Coutts, Cuomo, McHarg, Robey, Weikle (2007); but not real time MIMO

*good cost models for MIMO & SIMO are crucial

4

PHASED ARRAY

spread Dopplerclutter

MIMO

target

HF OTH radar* (Krolik 2008)

*issues of sample covariance matrix estimation, SNR loss, competition from non-MIMO spatial diversity, lack of orthogonal waveforms in the real World, loss of useful range-Doppler space, etc.

5

MIMO nulls spread Doppler clutter with adaptive transmit pattern

6

GMTI is often a good niche* application of MIMO radar

short range long range

fast speed targets

loss of useful range-Doppler space too much

loss of SNR too much & loss of useful range-Doppler space too much

slow speed targets GMTI

loss of SNR

too much

*terminology due to Dan Bliss (11 February 2009) at Orlando airport7

Bliss, et al., “GMTI MIMO radar,” IEEE Waveform diversity Conference, Orlando, Feb. 2009.

(1) coherent integration time is 5 times longer for MIMO than boring old phased array.(2) surveillance mode. (3) MIMO uses 5 element sparse transmit array, whereas PA uses smaller filled transmit array.(4) both MIMO & PA use 5 element filled receive array.(5) total transmit power is the same for MIMO & PA.(6) frequency = 2 GHz.(7) simulation of textbook clutter (spatially homogeneous)

8


(1) coherent integration time is 5 times longer for MIMO than boring old phased array.

(2) surveillance mode. (3) MIMO uses 5 element

sparse transmit array, whereas PA uses filled transmit array.

(4) both MIMO & PA use 5 element filled receive array.

(5) total transmit power is the same for MIMO & PA.

(6) theoretical error bound for textbook clutter (spatially homogeneous)

9

QUIZ:

• (1) Why can’t the boring old phased array radar use a pulse-Doppler waveform to get the same 5 times longer coherent integration time as the MIMO radar?

• (2) Why is the sparse transmit array for the MIMO radar 5 times larger than the transmit array for the boring old phased array radar?

• (3) Why not compare performance & cost of the MIMO & boring old phased array radar (with 5x larger sparse transmit array or 5x larger filled transmit array) directly?

• (4) Why not make the receive array 5 times larger, rather than the transmit array?

• (5) Why not use X-Band or higher frequency rather than L-Band to get much better Doppler resolution & accuracy?

10

MIMO radar* requires much tighter coupling between design specialties than

boring old phased array radars

*also intimidating & complex & risky & 95% snake oil11

12

MIMO radar

Phased Array radar

(from Alex Haimovich, Rick Blum, et al., IEEE Trans. Sig Proc 2006 )

Pd=0.9

Pd=0.99

Correct apples & apples analysis!

13

Typical Radar Cross Section (RCS) vs. Azimuth Angle

Radar cross section of the B-26 bomber at 3 GHz as a function of azimuth angle.

From: Introduction to Radar Systems, Merrill I Skolnik, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1962

14

15

(1) Yuri Abramovich & Gordon Frazer, “Bounds on the volume and height distributions for the MIMO radar ambiguity function,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, 2008.

Generalization of Bob Price’s theorem (1965). MIMO has factor of N smaller useful range-Doppler space than boring old phased array.

(2) Benjamin Friedlander, “On the relationship between MIMO and SIMO radars,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, January 2009.

Very clear & explicit quantification of apples & apples performance comparison MIMO vs. PA

(3) Victor Chernyak, “About the “new” concept of statistical MIMO radar,” Proceedings of Radar Conference, 2008.

Statistical MIMO radar is not “new” and not as good as boring old phased arrays.

(4) Victor Chernyak, “Fundamentals of multisite radar systems,” translated from Russian, Gordon & Breach (1998). Russian edition published 1993.

Basic reference on multi-radar systems with correct apples & apples comparisons and correct physical models.

16

(5) Gordon Frazer, et al., “Recent results in MIMO OTH radar,” Proceedings of IEEE Radar Conference, Rome May 2008.

Real world system engineering viewpoint on MIMO radar for OTH applications

(6) Gordon Frazer, et al., “Spatially waveform diverse radar: perspectives for HF OTHR,” Proceedings of IEEE Radar Conference, Boston April 2007.

How to prevent MIMO radar transmitter from melting or exploding (see next chart)

(7) Dan Rabideau, “Adaptive MIMO radar waveforms,” Proceedings of IEEE Radar Conference, Rome May 2008.

Simple back-of-the-envelope formulas & good solid radar system engineering!

(8) Fred Daum, “MIMO radar: snake oil or good idea?” Proceedings of IEEE Asilomar Conference, October 2008.

Practical nuts & bolts hard boiled system engineering perspective.

17

BACKUP

18

MIT Lincoln Lab radar combining algorithm (Coutts, Cuomo, McHarg, Weikle & Robey, IEEE radar conference 2006)

19

waveform class distributed clutter

point clutter references

FDMA

(frequency)

loss of coherence loss of coherence Rabideau (2008) & Bliss, et al. (2009)

CDMA

(code)

clutter fills the usable range-Doppler space

Abramovich & Fraser (2008)

Bliss et al. (2009)

TDMA

(time)

very inefficient use of the transmitter

very inefficient use of the transmitter

Rabideau (2008) & Bliss, et al. (2009)

DDMA

(Doppler)

Russians (1980) & Krolik, et al. (2004)

space-time waveforms & hybrids of above

??? ???

Rabideau (2008) and Abramovich & Fraser (2008)

MIMO radar waveforms for GMTI

20

hot off the press MIMO radar papers:

(1) Yu, Petropulu & Poor, “MIMO radar & compressive sensing,” 2011.

(2) Chen & Vaidyanathan, “Compressed sensing in MIMO radar,” 2011.

(3) Strohmer & Friedlander, “Compressed sensing for MIMO radar,” 2011.

(4) Willett, et al., “Compressed sensing for MIMO radar,” 2011.

(5) Vaidyanathan & Pal, “MIMO radar, SIMO radar & IFIR radar,” 2011.

(6) Hassanien & Vorobyov, “Why the phased-MIMO radar outperforms the phased array and MIMO radars,” 2011.

21

six ways to understand why MIMO improves angular measurement accuracy

22


(1) Coherent integration time is 5 times longer for MIMO than boring old phased array.(2) Surveillance mode. (3) MIMO uses 5 element sparse transmit array, whereas PA uses smaller filled transmit array.(4) Both MIMO & PA use 5 element filled receive array.(5) Total transmit power is the same for MIMO & boring old PA.(6) frequency = 2 GHz.

23


(1) Coherent integration time is 5 times longer for MIMO than boring old phased array.

(2) Surveillance mode. (3) MIMO uses 5 element

sparse transmit array, whereas PA uses filled transmit array.

(4) Both MIMO & PA use 5 element filled receive array.

(5) Total transmit power is the same for MIMO & boring old PA.

24

25

Dan Rabideau (2008):

To date, the MIMO radar community has largely assumedthe use of "orthogonal" waveforms (i.e., waveforms havingzero cross-correlation). To approximate orthogonality, some practitioners have proposed waveforms that exhibit both low cross-correlation and low autocorrelation sidelobes. As we shall see, lowering auto/cross correlation levels will indeed reduce decorrelation. However, in many cases this approach still results in unsatisfactory interference rejection levels.

26

Simple back-of-the-envelope formula (Rabideau 2008):

We can use (4) - (11) to approximate the MCR at high CNR as:

MCR == 1-1/(1 + IASR + ICCR)2where IASR is the integrated autocorrelation sidelobe

powerratio, and lCCR is the integrated cross-correlation ratio.

Forpseudorandom waveforms, IASR ~ (2L - 2)/(2L) , andICCR ~ (2L -1)/(2L). Hence, (12) predicts an MCR of

only-0.5 dB. Computer simulations confirm this prediction.

27

2nd simple back-of-the-envelope formula (Rabideau 2008):

[for up/down chirps] it can be shown that:MCR ~ 1- (1 + IASR)2 /(1 + IASR + ICCR)2From (13) we expect an MCR of -1.3 dB. Direct computer simulations also confirmed this value.Note that approximations like (12) and (13) allow us to evaluate entire waveform classes using only gross auto/cross correlation characteristics.

28

Professor Chernyak on statistical MIMO radar:

There is nothing new in the “statistical MIMO radar concept”….The SIMO radar (with the same total energy) is much better than the MIMO and MISO systems….It is clear that we have a good combination of high incident energy on a target

with fluctuation smoothing on the receiving side….The target and signal model suggested by the authors of statistical MIMO radar does not

correspond to the physical nature of signal fluctuations at the input of a radar receiver.

29

item comments references

1. Loss in SNR Factor of N loss for MIMO Li & Stoica (2009)

2. Loss in useful range-Doppler space

Factor of N loss for MIMO Abramovich & Frazer (2008)

3. Cost N antennas, N sites, N² receivers, N waveform generators, calibration of N² channels, data links, complex signal & data processing, testing, etc.

Skolnik (1962)

4. Risk Complexity & novelty & tight coupling of designs Skolnik (1962)

5. Melting or explosion of transmitter

Energy radiated into imaginary space by standard MIMO design

Frazer (2007)

6. Low transmit antenna gain Jamming, radiation hazard, anti-radiation homing missiles, NTIA standards, EMC, ducting

Skolnik (1962)

7. Time & frequency agility Decorrelates RCS for phased array (PA) to enhance detection probability

Skolnik (1962)

8. Time & frequency agility Decorrelates multipath for PA Barton (1964)

9. Exploit time for tracking Sequence of high gain beams for PA Friedlander (2009)

10. Exploit time for ECCM Sequence of high gain beams to null jammers for PA Friedlander (2009)

11. Range & Doppler resolution for PA

Angle resolution is usually irrelevant for resolution of multiple targets

Skolnik (1962)

12. Mitigation of multipath for PA Wideband waveforms, adaptive nulling, optimal receive & transmit beams, nonlinear filters

Skolnik (2008)

13. Smart design of PA Smart MIMO design vs. dumb PA design Skolnik (2008)

14. Limits on coherent integration time for MIMO to increase SNR

Target coherence, propagation path (troposphere & ionosphere & multipath) & transmitter duty cycle

Skolnik (2008)

15. Data association errors with MIMO

PA is simple & robust Bar-Shalom & Blackman books

30


1. Loss in SNR Factor of N loss for MIMO Li & Stoica (2009)

2. Loss in useful range-Doppler space

Factor of N loss for MIMO Abramovich & Frazer (2008)

3. Cost N antennas, N sites, N² receivers, N waveform generators, calibration of N² channels, data links, complex signal & data processing, testing, etc.

Skolnik (1962)

4. Risk Complexity & novelty & tight coupling of designs

Skolnik (1962)

5. Melting or explosion of transmitter

Energy radiated into imaginary space by standard MIMO design

Frazer (2007)

6. Low transmit antenna gain

Jamming, radiation hazard, anti-radiation homing missiles, NTIA standards, EMC, ducting

Skolnik (1962)


Skolnik (1962)



10. Exploit time for ECCM Sequence of high gain beams to null jammers for PA

Friedlander (2009) 31

Please exploit all flavors of diversity, not just waveform diversity

time

frequency

waveformpolarization

spatial

32



Skolnik (1962)



10. Exploit time for ECCM Sequence of high gain beams to null jammers for PA

Friedlander (2009)

11. Range & Doppler resolution for PA

Angle resolution is usually irrelevant for resolution of multiple targets

Skolnik (1962)

12. Mitigation of multipath for PA

Wideband waveforms, adaptive nulling, optimal receive & transmit beams, nonlinear filters

Skolnik (2008)

13. Smart design of PA Smart MIMO design vs. dumb PA design Skolnik (2008)

14. Limits on coherent integration time for MIMO to increase SNR

Target coherence, propagation path (troposphere & ionosphere & multipath) & transmitter duty cycle

Skolnik (2008)

15. Data association errors with MIMO

PA is simple & robust Bar-Shalom & Blackman books

33

target

MIMO

“Like traditional STAP methods, the challenge of estimating the clutter covariance matrix from the received data is difficult inslow-time MIMO STAP. Further work is required to determinean appropriate set of training data from which the MIMO adaptiveweights can be calculated.”

Mecca, Ramakrishnan & Krolik (2008)

34

MIMO for Radar vs. Communication Comm Microwave

radar

HF OTH radar

1. Omni transmit OK?

yes! no!

Large loss of energy on target in track, which cannot be recovered.

yes

(track-while-scan)

2. Long time on target?

yes! no! yes (track-while-scan)

3. Long coherence time?

yes no yes (owing to long wavelength)

4. Tolerance for hiatus in music

none large some

5. Performance measure

Shannon information

SNR or SJR or SCR or detection probability or range & angle & Doppler accuracy

SNR or SJR or SCR or detection probability or range & angle & Doppler accuracy

6. Exploit frequency agility & time & bandwidth?

not generally yes generally not 35

target

MIMO

“Like traditional STAP methods, the challenge of estimating the clutter covariance matrix from the received data is difficult in slow-time MIMO STAP. Further work is required to determine an appropriate set of training data from which the MIMO adaptive weights can be calculated.”

Mecca, Ramakrishnan & Krolik (ref. 5)

Translation:

“Send more money”

36

Fig. 2. Photograph of the OTHR transmitter array used in the HILOW experiment and taken from directly in front of the array. The array comprises fourteen log periodic dipole array elements arranged as an equi-spaced linear array. The eight center elements were used in the experiment.

37

Fig. 3. Spectrogram of the output of one waveform generator and high power amplifier for the case of a staggered linear FMCW waveform set. The signal shown corresponds to one member of the waveform set and is the signal radiated from one transmit array element. dBJ

38

Fig. 4. Spectrogram of the received waveform set following two-way propagation. All members of the waveform set are shown. The substantial clutter propagation range depth typical in OTHR is apparent and shows as a “thickening” of each individual chirp. It reduces the time-frequency spacing between members of the waveform set. Such range (and while not shown here, Doppler) spread is typical in OTHR and reduces the practically realisable cardinality of any chosen waveform set.

39

Fig. 5. Doppler-delay map for the two-way signal received using a single channel radar receiver. The RD map shows earth return clutter and multi-mode radar measurements of a radar transponder located in the one-hop footprint of the radar. Of particular interest are the first and third (of five) transponder returns, at 8.47ms and 9.01ms delay at approximately 1.7Hz Doppler shift. The receiver signal was processed using multiple matched filters - one per waveform set member - and this diagram corresponds to the RD map in the direction of the peak of a transmitter beam based on maximising the 8.47ms transponder return implemented as a weighted sum of the output of the multiple matched filters. 40

Fig. 6. Transmit beampattern formed at the one-way path receive locationin the one-hop footprint of the OTHR at a location close to the transponder.The two beampatterns correspond to the 8.47ms and 1.7Hz transponder modeand the 9.01ms and 1.7Hz transponder mode identified in Fig. 5. 41

Fig. 7. Transmit beampattern formed at the two-way path OTHR receive location. The two beampatterns correspond to the 8.47ms and 1.7Hz transponder mode and the 9.01ms and 1.7Hz transponder mode identified in Fig. 5.

42

PhasedArray

MIMO

angle estimationaccuracy (IEEE Trans Signal Processing Oct 2006)

Subtle detail

Severe degradation

due to transmit beamshape loss

Explain thisintuitively

43

PhasedArray

MIMO

angle estimation accuracy (IEEE Trans Signal Processing Oct 2006)

Both plots are optimistic by two orders of magnitude!

44

MIMO

phasedarray

angle estimationaccuracy for 2 unresolvedtargets (IEEE Trans SP Oct)

45

MIMO vs. phased array for jamming

46


47


48


49


50

MIMO Radar

• MIMO communications is clearly a good idea for certain applications in theory

• Asserted advantages of MIMO radar• Apples & apples comparison of MIMO

radar vs. boring old phased array radar• New excellent references• Story about Russian visitor to Raytheon

25 years ago

51

Documents

Fred Daum 27 March 2012 MIMO radar: snake oil or good idea? Copyright © 2011 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved. Customer Success Is Our Mission is