2014 11th European Radar Conference 2014
DOI: 10.1109/eurad.2014.6991241
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Precipitation signature on side-looking aperture radar imaging: Sensitivity analysis to surface effects at C, X and Ku band

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the sea backscattering coefficient increases as the frequency increases, the three responses have the same trends [37]. For moderate wind speeds, the backscattering coefficients of the C-band, X-band, and Ku-band are similar [38].…”
Section: Analyses Of the Sea Surface Current Velocity Estimationmentioning
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the sea backscattering coefficient increases as the frequency increases, the three responses have the same trends [37]. For moderate wind speeds, the backscattering coefficients of the C-band, X-band, and Ku-band are similar [38].…”
Section: Analyses Of the Sea Surface Current Velocity Estimationmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…In addition, for the two-scale model, the sea backscattering coefficient is related to the radar frequency, incidence angle, wind speed, etc. Although the sea backscattering coefficient increases as the frequency increases, the three responses have the same trends [37]. For moderate wind speeds, The spatial averaging processing is carried out to remove the orbital velocity of the long waves, but the choice of spatial scale will affect the estimation precision.…”
Section: Analyses Of the Sea Surface Current Velocity Estimationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This methods (image thresholding) sets as flooded all the pixels with a radar backscatter lower than a certain threshold value (Mason et al, 2012a(Mason et al, , 2012bPulvirenti et al, 2012;Schumann et al, 2010;Townsend, 2002), is computationally not demanding, provides reliable results and is ideal for rapid mapping. However, it is affected by sources of error typical of SAR flood mapping: 1) Atmospheric disturbances (Atlas and Moore, 1987;Danklmayer andChandra, 2009a, 2009b;Jameson et al, 1997;Polverari et al, 2014); 2) Bragg resonance in presence of wind (Bragg, 1913;Schaber et al, 1997); 3) Double bounce due to emerging vegetation or buildings from the inundated area (Franceschetti et al, 2002;Hong and Wdowinski, 2014;van Zyl et al, 1987;Hajnsek et al, 2009); 4) Dry and smooth bare soil exhibiting backscatter similar to that of water surfaces (O'Grady et al, 2011); 5) Vegetation masking part of the flood; 6) Soil moisture content increasing radar backscattering and limiting flood detection in mixed pixel (Jackson et al, 1996;Paloscia et al, 2013;Quesney et al, 2000;Shoshany et al, 2000;Wagner et al, 1999); and 7) User-dependence of the parameters chosen to produce the map (Martinis et al, 2009).…”
Section: Problem Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%