U.S. patent application number 11/478026 was filed with the patent office on 2009-03-05 for methods and apparatus for detecting threats using radar.
Invention is credited to Lester Kosowsky, Arthur C. Levitan.
Application Number | 20090058710 11/478026 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 40349325 |
Filed Date | 2009-03-05 |
United States Patent
Application |
20090058710 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Levitan; Arthur C. ; et
al. |
March 5, 2009 |
METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR DETECTING THREATS USING RADAR
Abstract
Methods and apparatus for early detection and identification of
a threat such as individuals carrying hidden explosive materials,
land mines on roads, etc. are disclosed. One method comprises
illuminating a target with radiation at a first polarization,
collecting first radiation reflected from the target which has the
same polarization as the first polarization, illuminating a target
with radiation at a second polarization, and collecting second
radiation reflected from the target which has the same polarization
as the second polarization. A threat determination is then made
based on the difference between the energy values of the first and
second collected radiations. In other embodiments, the difference
between energy values is used in conjunction with an evaluation of
the returned energy in comparison with returned energy from other
targets in order to additionally assess whether the primary target
is a threat.
Inventors: |
Levitan; Arthur C.; (Wilton,
CT) ; Kosowsky; Lester; (Stamford, CT) |
Correspondence
Address: |
STRAUB & POKOTYLO
788 Shrewsbury Avenue
TINTON FALLS
NJ
07724
US
|
Family ID: |
40349325 |
Appl. No.: |
11/478026 |
Filed: |
June 29, 2006 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
60798885 |
May 9, 2006 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
342/22 |
Current CPC
Class: |
G01S 13/87 20130101;
G01S 13/887 20130101; G01S 7/024 20130101; G01S 13/34 20130101;
G01S 7/411 20130101; G01S 13/10 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
342/22 |
International
Class: |
G01S 13/00 20060101
G01S013/00 |
Claims
1-29. (canceled)
30. A method of detecting a threat, the method comprising:
operating a multi-channel frequency modulated continuous wave radar
module to transmit and receive both horizontally and vertically
polarized waveforms; operating a multi-channel pulse Doppler
channel radar to transmit and receive both horizontally and
vertically polarized waveforms; making a first independent threat
assessment based on received multi-channel frequency modulated
continuous wave signals; making a second independent threat
assessment based on received Doppler channel radar signals; and
based on the first and second independent threat assessments making
a threat determination.
31. The method of claim 30, where making a first independent threat
assessment includes making a threat assessment using a frequency
modulated continuous wave population independent decision
process.
32. The method of claim 31, where making a second independent
threat assessment includes making a threat assessment using a pulse
Doppler population independent decision process.
33. The method of claim 32 further comprising: making a third
threat assessment, the third threat assessment being a population
dependent assessment based on the received multi-channel frequency
modulated continuous wave signals; and wherein said step of making
a threat determination is further based on said third threat
assessment.
34. The method of claim 33, further comprising: making a fourth
threat assessment, the fourth threat assessment being a population
dependent assessment based on the received Doppler channel radar
signals; and wherein said step of making a threat determination is
further based on said fourth threat assessment.
35. The method of claim 30, wherein said Doppler radar signals and
said continuous wave radar signals are transmitted
simultaneously.
36. The method of claim 32, wherein said first independent threat
determination is a function of a frequency modulated continuous
waveform transmitted using a vertical polarization and received on
a horizontal polarization.
37. The method of claim 36, wherein said second independent threat
determination is a function of a pulse Doppler waveform transmitted
using a vertical polarization and received on a horizontal
polarization.
38. The method of claim 36 wherein multi-channel frequency
modulated continuous wave radar module supports both horizontal and
vertical radar channels.
39. The method of claim 38 wherein multi-channel pulse Doppler
radar module supports both horizontal and vertical radar
channels.
40. A threat detection system, comprising: a multi-channel
frequency modulated continuous wave radar module configured to
transmit and receive both horizontally and vertically polarized
waveforms; a multi-channel pulse Doppler channel radar configured
to transmit and receive both horizontally and vertically polarized
waveforms; a first threat assessment module configured to make a
first independent threat assessment based on received multi-channel
frequency modulated continuous wave signals; a second threat
assessment module configured to make a second independent threat
assessment based on received Doppler channel radar signals; and a
threat declaration module configured to make a threat determination
based on the first and second independent threat assessments.
41. The threat detection system of claim 40, wherein said first
threat assessment module is configured to make a threat assessment
using a frequency modulated continuous wave population independent
decision process.
42. The threat detection system of claim 41, wherein said second
threat assessment module is configured to make a second independent
threat assessment using a pulse Doppler population independent
decision process.
43. The threat detection system of claim 42 further comprising: a
third threat assessment module configured to make a population
dependent threat assessment based on the received multi-channel
frequency modulated continuous wave signals; and wherein said
threat determination is configured to use said third threat
assessment in making said threat determination.
44. The threat detection system of claim 43, further comprising: a
fourth threat assessment module configured to make a population
dependent assessment based on the received pulse Doppler wave
signals; and wherein said threat determination module is configured
to use said fourth threat assessment in making said threat
determination.
45. The threat detection system of claim 40, wherein a
multi-channel frequency modulated continuous wave radar module and
said multi-channel pulse Doppler channel radar are configured to
transmit signals simultaneously.
Description
RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] The present application claims the benefit of U.S.
Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/798,885, filed on May 9,
2006, titled "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR THE DETECTION OF CARRIED AND
"LEFT BEHIND" IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES", which is hereby
expressly incorporated by reference.
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0002] The invention relates generally to the field of threat
detection and, more specifically, to a system and method for
identifying potential threats and displaying information indicating
the position of the potential threats both indoors and
outdoors.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0003] The suicide or homicide bomber has been identified as the
one threat that is virtually unstoppable. The thinking of the
bomber defies all societal norms. With that being said, the logical
solution to the problem would be the development of a means for
detecting the bomber at a safe distance from a potential target. To
date, there are no known concealed weapons or explosive detection
systems available that purport to detect a concealed weapon (or
weapons) or explosive devices from a distance of more than 20
yards. Reference is made to an article in the July 2002 Discover
Magazine entitled "Beyond X-ray Vision" by Ivan Amato for a recent
survey of the current state of the technology. Attention is also
called to an article in the fall 1998 The Bridge published by the
National Academy of Sciences entitled "Preventing Aircraft
Bombings" by Lyle Malotky and Sandra Hyland for additional
background information on the problem to be solved.
[0004] Almost every known detection system is electromagnetic-based
and requires an individual to pass through a fixed passageway. When
metallic objects pass through the passageway, a warning signal is
activated because a change in magnetic flux is detected. This type
of system either detects or does not detect a metal object and
makes no determination relative to the amount of metal present.
Keys, jewelry, watches, and metal-framed eyeglasses may all trigger
such a system.
[0005] U.S. Pat. No. 6,359,582 describes a weapons detector and
method utilizing Radar in conjunction with stored spectral
signatures. The system is said to be capable of measuring the
self-resonant frequencies of weaponry. It is claimed that
accuracies of greater than 98% can be obtained at distances,
preferably between 4-15 yards. It is also claimed to be capable of
detecting metal and non-metal weapons on a human body, in purses,
briefcases and under clothing and discerning from objects such as
belt buckles, coins, keys, calculators and cellular phones. This
system has the disadvantage of relying on the presence of unique
spectral signatures, which must be pre-stored or learned by a
computer employing artificial intelligence techniques.
[0006] Another patent, U.S. Pat. No. 6,243,036, titled Signal
Processing for Object Detection System describes another concealed
weapon detection system. The patent describes detecting concealed
weapons by transmitting a horizontally polarized signal, and
receiving the reflected signal in two different polarizations
(horizontal and vertical), and calculating the difference between
levels of the different polarized reflected energy in the time
domain, and by using signal processing methods and apparatus to
improve the reliability of the detection process.
[0007] Information at
http://www.nlectc.orv/virlib/InfoDetail.asp?intinfoID=201 and
http://www.rl.af.mil/div/IFB/tefchtrans/datasheets/CWD-LPR.html,
indicates that Lockheed Martin, under contract to the Air Force
Research Laboratories and the National Institute of Justice, is in
the process of developing a dual-mode (millimeter wave/infrared)
camera to detect weapons concealed on an individual. The
information indicates that the system will operate at a range of 10
to 40 feet, without the control or cooperation of the individual
under surveillance. The described system develops images from the
returned Radar energy. The image information is processed using
algorithms to automatically detect and recognize concealed weapons.
The detection and position information from the Radar sensor would
be linked to a second sensor IR or visual camera to display the
subject to authorities.
[0008] In addition to the above described detection systems, there
are several new initiatives being pursued under the auspices of the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program in the Concealed
Weapons Detection arena. The DARPA SBIR, Topic SB022-033 entitled
Personnel and Vehicular Monitoring and Tracking at a Distance seeks
to "develop 3D biometric technologies as part of a multi-modal
system to detect, track and recognize humans . . . at a distance to
support early warning, force protection, and operations against
terrorist, criminal and other human based threats." The particular
focus of this work is 3D imaging. The Army Research Office (ARO)
SBIR Topic A02-061, Terahertz Interferometric Imaging Systems
(TIIS) for Detection of Weapons and Explosives seeks to "develop
and demonstrate a terahertz-frequency imaging array with sufficient
spatial and spectral resolution to enable the rapid and effective
detection of concealed weapons and explosives. The envisioned
sensing system will provide real-time imaging with adequate
sensitivity for the short-range remote interrogation of objects and
persons that might be concealing either "weapons or explosives"
with a parallel focus on collecting "signature information for a
set of expected targets and concealment materials." The Army
Research Lab (ARL) SBIR, Topic A02-037, Explosive Detection System,
is focused on chemical signatures of explosives. Such development
programs further highlight the need for improved concealed weapon
detection systems. The Air Force SBIR, Topic AF03-123 entitled
Hidden Threat Detection Techniques seeks to "capitalize on emerging
non-contact nondestructive evaluation detection techniques as well
as revolutionary concepts for sensors and detectors and tailor them
to specific applications for personnel protection."
[0009] Current fielded concealed weapons and/or explosive detection
devices operate at close range, typically less than 0.5 meter in
portal, hand-wand or hand-held applications. The detection of
concealed explosives or metallic and non-metallic weapons carried
on persons under clothing in controlled environments, such as
building entry (schools, government buildings) or transportation
terminals, and uncontrolled environments, such as shopping malls or
sporting events, at safe distances, typically in excess of 50
meters would be desirable.
[0010] Side-attack mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs)
that attack vehicles and personnel from the side as the target
passes by are numerous and are a growing threat. An ability to
detect devices that are concealed by camouflage or foliage at
distances up to 200 meters with a high probability of detection,
high clutter discrimination, and low false alarm rate at convoy
rates of advance are desirable.
[0011] What is needed is the ability to: [0012] Detect individuals
wearing a modest quantity of hidden metal material in the form of
pipes configured like an explosive device [0013] Detect individuals
carrying a hidden rifle [0014] Distinguish armed individuals from
the general population in less than one second [0015] Detect IEDs
in camouflage [0016] Routinely make this assessment at ranges in
the open on the order of 30 meters or more from the sensor [0017]
Implement a low cost system concept from existing commercially
available subsystems
[0018] In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that there
is a need for new or improved systems and methods for rapidly
evaluating the threat potential of an individual amongst other
individuals at a relatively long distance both indoors and
outdoors, and the presence of roadside bombs. It is also desirable
that the methods and/or apparatus provide an integrated,
threat-driven solution to the threat detection problems discussed
above.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0019] The above needs are met by the present invention. The
present invention is directed to concealed weapon/explosive
detection including improvised explosive devices (IEDS) and, more
specifically, to the data processing for a system and method that
isolates and identifies potential concealed weapon carriers and
IEDs with sufficient warning, both in time and distance, to permit
successful defensive action to limit the loss of life and
destruction of property. The invention is appropriate for use both
indoors and out, is benign to people and property in the
interrogated area, and has the potential to be portable.
[0020] An exemplary embodiment of a system consistent with the
present invention uses two transmitted Radar signals at orthogonal
polarizations to simultaneously pan an environment for potential
targets, measures the difference between the Radar signal levels
returned or reflected and exploits the difference between normal
background areas and threat areas resulting from, e.g., the
presence of weapons or other hardware, to present to an operator a
visual representation of the examined area with potential threats
highlighted using visual markers such as distinctive coloring,
particular shapes, or other visual indicia of information, e.g., a
potential threat, associated with the different areas which are
examined.
[0021] The method and apparatus of the present invention can be
mounted on mobile devices or positioned at fixed locations. The
mobile mounted embodiments can be used by trucks and/or other
vehicles to identify possible roadside threats or threats which may
exist in the vehicle's direction of travel. Such threats include,
e.g., above ground mines, improvised explosive devices and/or other
types of weapons.
[0022] In cases where hidden weapons on individuals is the primary
concern, the display may limit the visual display of information to
areas, e.g., cells of a scanned region, where a human presence is
detected, e.g., through the use of thermal or other information.
Such an embodiment reduces clutter on the display and helps a user
focus on potential threats.
[0023] One embodiment of the present invention focuses on active
millimeter wave (MMW) Radar to detect explosives and weapons
because Radars at this frequency have several advantages. First,
some of the components found in hidden explosives have dimensions
comparable to the wavelength of the Radar. In theory, this fact
indicates that any conductive components will be significant
reflectors of electromagnetic (EM) energy. Second, the explosive
component has a significant dielectric constant that will alter the
EM field making it more likely to be detectable by this Radar.
Other wavelengths of Radar could also provide valuable algorithm
inputs.
[0024] One embodiment of the present invention uses a Frequency
Modulation/Continuous Wave (FM/CW) waveform alone. However, another
embodiment recognized by those skilled in the art, would be the
utilization of other waveforms, such as Pulse Doppler or Frequency
Shift Keying (FSK). Second, another embodiment could utilize
several waveforms transmitted simultaneously or near simultaneously
that would take advantage of the differences in the way the
waveform interacts with the target to provide additional
independent assessments of the threat potential of a given detected
target.
[0025] One embodiment of the active millimeter multiple
polarization threat detection system consistent with the present
invention transmits and receives Radar signals of both horizontal
and vertical polarizations. [0026] The population dependent
relationship between the two independent data sets gathered on each
target and the corresponding data sets on the average of all
targets (or historic values of such targets) yields a threat
assessment that only requires a small number of innocent targets to
establish the initial thresholds for the deployment and no other
calibration was previously disclosed in the prior art for a single
polarization. In this embodiment we examine two orthogonal
polarizations, VV and HH with the same objective. Each such ratio
of the individual being examined relative to the average values of
the population being examined provides an assessment. For example,
the VV value of a target with a vertical cylindrical weapon would
be higher than the VV value for the average of all persons with no
such weapon. If the orientation of the weapon were horizontal the
HH value of the target with the weapon would be higher than the HH
value for the average of all persons with no such weapon. Since it
is not possible, a priori, to know the orientation of a concealed
weapon, both relationships are evaluated and provide input to the
total threat assessment algorithm. [0027] The population
independent relationship between the two independent polarization
specific data sets (horizontal polarization on transmit and receive
(HH), and vertical polarization on transmit and receive (VV))
gathered on each target yield a threat assessment indicator that
does not rely on data about other targets nor system calibration.
This threat assessment takes the form of a band, below which there
is a high probability that the target is not a threat, and above
which there is a high probability that the target is a threat.
Since it is not possible, a priori, to know the orientation of a
concealed weapon, we examine the absolute values of the ratios
|VV/HH| plus |HH/VV|. Ideally, one would measure this ratio in the
field, to determine what the sum of the ratios would be for the
specific conditions at that time for "normal" (non-threat) targets.
This would establish a baseline sum (2, 3, 4, etc.) If there is no
concealed explosive or weapon, or the orientation of the explosives
is random, i.e., neither more vertical nor more horizontal, the
ratio summation of |VV/HH| plus |HH/VV| will approximate the
baseline. If there is a concealed explosive or weapon that has a
dominant orientation of vertical or horizontal, the ratio summation
of |VV/HH| plus |HH/VV| will be greater than the baseline amount.
It is also possible that a target with some amount of horizontally
disposed weaponry could result in a ratio sum between 2 and the
established "normal" baseline, which also might be indicative of a
threat.
[0028] As a vehicle for threat declaration, the "population
independent" (orthogonal polarization) approach can be utilized
independently for threat detection. However, the combination of
these two families of assessments (target independent and target
dependent) provides a higher probability of threat detection and a
lower probability of false alarm than either one by itself
[0029] The algorithms that are crucial to rapidly evaluating the
threat potential of an individual amongst other individuals at a
relatively long distance and the existence of above surface IEDs
rely on the availability of orthogonally polarized target
information and/or a multiplicity of Radar waveforms and/or a
multiplicity of radar wavelengths. The systems or methods are
capable of being implemented without the need for complex signal
processing, thereby reducing implementation costs relative to many
of the known systems. The methods and/or apparatus provide an
integrated, threat-driven solution to the threat detection problems
discussed above.
[0030] Based upon the dual polarized Radar, the present invention
can distinguish a homicide bomber outfitted with an explosive vest
from an average innocent individual, can distinguish an individual
carrying a hidden weapon from an average innocent individual, and
can distinguish IEDs from the background environment. From a
straight detection standpoint, the noise-like returns from objects,
like foliage, add incoherently to each other from scan to scan,
whereas the return from man-made objects or hard targets add
coherently. The summation of the scans is the integration process
whereby returns from the individual will separate from the
background at the same range. In one embodiment that addresses both
the homicide bomber detection problem and the IED detection
problem, a multi-stage method can be employed, which advantageously
utilizes the relationship between the peak returns per scan over
the target or the peak returns from a dwelling on a target and the
summation of all returns per scan over the target or the summation
of all returns from a dwelling on a target, obtained from the
transmission and reception of different polarizations as one "vote"
(population independent) and the relationship between the returns
from the individual or object in question and the average of
returns from other individuals or objects and/or background
interrogated during that deployment session provides another "vote"
(population dependent). The measured data that contributes to each
vote passes a threshold test in order to make a threat
declaration.
[0031] Utilization of both multiple polarizations and multiple
waveforms, where economically feasible, will further enhance the
performance of the system. The simultaneous or near simultaneous
raw data at multiple polarizations transmitted simultaneously or
from pulse to pulse and multiple waveforms produce a time driven,
multi-dimensional processing chain of events leading to a threat
declaration that has a high probability of detection and a low
probability of false alarm.
[0032] The implementation of multiple, near simultaneous waveforms
illuminating the same target will also enhance the probability of
detection, decrease the probability of false alarms, and reduce the
incidence of being unable to make a determination. Different
waveforms provide a basis for improved signal to noise ratio
depending on the motion of the target, the environment in which the
threat is located and the configuration of the weapons/explosives.
In one embodiment, simultaneous or near simultaneous FMCW and Pulse
Doppler waveforms are transmitted. Those skilled in the art
understand that other waveform combinations could be selected
without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
[0033] Numerous additional features, embodiments and benefits of
the methods and apparatus of the present invention are discussed
below in the detailed description which follows.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0034] FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system and various signals
passed between the system components in accordance with the present
invention.
[0035] FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary system and various signals
passed between the system components in accordance with the present
invention.
[0036] FIG. 3 illustrates a data file used to implement an
embodiment of the present invention.
[0037] FIG. 4 illustrates a flowchart of operations consistent with
the present invention.
[0038] FIG. 5 illustrates the appearance of the image display on
the monitor during the target acquisition process including
superimposing reflected signal strength, which above a certain
identified threshold level identifies a target to be evaluated
further to identify if the target is a threat.
[0039] FIG. 6 illustrates a table of received reflected signals of
varying polarity which are utilized to determine whether the target
is a threat.
[0040] FIG. 7 illustrates a table of received reflected signals of
varying polarity which are utilized to determine whether the target
is a threat.
[0041] FIG. 8 illustrates a table of received reflected signals of
varying polarity which are utilized to determine whether the target
is a threat.
[0042] FIG. 9 illustrates actual data representative of targets
which are threats and non-threats, with their associated detected
reflected energy levels.
[0043] FIG. 10 illustrates raw signal return plots indicative of a
threat and a non-threat.
[0044] FIG. 11 illustrates a flowchart of operations consistent
with the present invention.
[0045] FIG. 12 illustrates the modeled geometry of a typical target
that is a threat.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0046] In one embodiment of the present invention, a family of
threat declaration methods and systems identifies targets which are
threats, independent of analyses of other targets, dependent on
analysis of other targets and/or both in concert. It accomplishes
this by addressing the relationship between two independent data
sets gathered and analyzed individually on each target. The two
independent data sets consist of data obtained by transmission of a
Radar signal on a vertical polarization and receiving reflected
returns on a vertical polarization (VV) and the simultaneous
transmission of a Radar signal on a horizontal polarization and
receiving a portion of the reflected horizontally polarized return
(HH).
[0047] Combining the data from several scans over the target will
increase the probability of detection while reducing the
probability of false alarm. For conventional Radar systems,
criteria have been developed to evaluate system performance
depending on signal to noise ratio. These criteria ensure the
detection of the target but do not provide its threat status. In a
threat detection system, an evaluation must be made as to whether
or not the detected target constitutes a threat. This is
advantageously accomplished by setting the threat detection
threshold dynamically in the field during each deployment based on
measured target polarization returns (integrating the values over
time) of all observed targets, most of whom are without explosives.
The longer the integration time, the better the performance that
can be achieved.
[0048] It is the relationship of the levels in all the target
associated cells (each individual Radar return making up the sum
total of returns associated with that particular target) to the
average level of all other target associated cell returns that
determines the presence of a threat on the one hand (target
dependent) and the |VV/HH| and |HH/VV| ratios, which are
independent of other targets in the scene, on the other. The
summations and averaging discussed above in relation to the
"dependent" family of threat declaration methods and systems are
extensions of the basic methods and systems disclosed in the prior
referenced patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,720,905 B2 and 6,856,272 B2
incorporated herein by reference), which generally concentrate
purely on relative levels of the peak values.
[0049] The dual polarization of transmitted signals using vertical
polarization on transmit and vertical polarization on receive and
using horizontal polarization on transmit and horizontal
polarization on receive (and in some cases using vertical
transmission and horizontal reception and/or horizontal
transmission and vertical reception) is constructed in real time in
order to create a database which is used in both the "independent"
and "dependent" families of threat declaration methodologies and
systems described generally above, and in detail below.
[0050] While a sensor operated at 76.5 GHz, transmitting and
receiving on both horizontal and vertical polarization and using
FM-CW modulation is advantageous, those skilled in the art will
recognize that the operating frequency could be replaced by other
frequencies, the polarization could be right and left circular or
any combination of orthogonal polarization senses and the waveform
could be FM-CW modulation, pulse Doppler, FSK or other waveforms,
either alone or in concert.
[0051] The determination of whether an individual is a threat or
not can be accomplished in a typical instance of a person (target)
wearing a bomber vest (threat) by recognizing the following. The
bomber vest is typically composed primarily of cylinders consisting
of metallic pipes and/or high dielectric material shaped in the
form of cylinders. While these cylinders are generally placed
vertically around the torso of the suicide bomber, the application
of the multi vote process eliminates the orientation of the
explosives as a factor in the final assessment.
[0052] By way of example, this arrangement of vertical cylinders,
yields larger returns (Radar signal reflections), in this instance
VV, than the other co-polarization pair, in this instance HH. In
this instance, the ratio of |VV/HH| for the target with a bomber
vest will be significantly larger than the ratio for a target who
is not a threat (not carrying a hidden weapon). This difference in
|VV/HH| ratios is then utilized to identify a target who is a
threat. It should be noted that this ratio is independent of the
returns from other targets and non-targets within the Radar
scanning area (scene).
[0053] Other threats hidden on a human body, such as a rifle, will
also yield a similar larger ratio of |VV/HH| or |HH/VV| depending
on the orientation of the threat, than for a target who is not a
threat. Also, since IED's are typically made of cylindrical
components, simultaneous Radar signals of orthogonally opposed
polarizations will yield a significantly greater ratio of returns
from one polarization over returns of another polarization than the
ratios of similar returns from objects which are not IED's. Threats
that do not have longitudinal symmetry (randomly aligned materials
vs. cylinders and rectangular solids) are addressed by the
"dependent" threat test.
[0054] For a different bomb surrogate configuration, HH could be
larger than VV. Thus, it should be recognized that differences
between the returns corresponding to different transmitted signal
polarizations, e.g., horizontal and vertical, could be used in
detecting a threat.
[0055] In some embodiments of the present invention, threat
detection can therefore be based on the ratio of returns
corresponding to different polarizations, using, e.g.,
R=(VV/HH)|+|(HH/VV)|
[0056] where a threat may be declared present when R exceeds a
first threshold (experimentally determined to be some amount above
2) indicating a significant difference between vertical and
horizontal signal components. The threshold may be predetermined or
dynamically determined. The values input to the R calculation are
obtained from the target peak signal return and summation of
returns within the azimuth and range expanse of the target as a
function of polarization of each target. Thus, several calculations
of the ratio are made, e.g.:
R.sub.peak=|(VV.sub.peak/HH.sub.peak)|+|(HH.sub.peak/VV.sub.peak)|
and
R.sub.summation=(VV.sub.summation/HH.sub.summation)|+|(HH.sub.summation/-
VV.sub.summation)|
per dwell or scan over the target as well as
R.sub.cumulative summation=|(VV.sub.cumulative
summation/HH.sub.cumulative summation)|+|(HH.sub.cumulative
summation/VV.sub.cumulative summation)|
and each provides a vote as to the threat status of the detected
target. R.sub.peak is constantly replaced by subsequent measures if
that measure is greater and R.sub.summation is constantly updated
and becomes R.sub.cumulative summation after the initial scan over
or the dwell on the target.
[0057] Additionally, certain threats may have unique attributes of
changing the polarization of a reflected signal from the
transmitted signal. In such a case, these threats may be detected
in whole or in part by factoring into the detection process the
relative amount of horizontal returns from a vertically polarized
transmitted signal, and/or the vertically polarized returns
reflected back by a target which has been illuminated by a
horizontally polarized signal.
[0058] Advantageously, a threshold band can be defined above R=X
(where X is 2 or some baseline value above 2) and below R=Y (where
Y is a value above X). Below this band there is a high probability
that the target is not a threat, and above this band there is a
high probability that the target is a threat. Results within this
band may indicate a possible threat. The values of X and Y may
advantageously be determined empirically by evaluation of
experimental or "on-scene" results.
[0059] In another embodiment of the present invention, the
above-described family of threat declaration systems which are
independent of other targets' returns can and should be augmented
by additionally performing threat declaration methods which are
dependent on the returns (either real-time, historic, or both) of
other targets in the Radar scanned scene to deal with random
orientations of explosive materials. Applying both families of
threat declaration methods or systems to gathered data will yield a
higher probability of threat detection and a lower probability of
false alarm than for either family implemented individually.
[0060] This second family of dependent threat detection
methodologies comprises the broader set of conclusions relative to
the expected returns from someone wearing concealed explosives
and/or carrying a concealed weapon versus the rest of the
population at or before the time of current measurement. For this
set of methodologies, one can [0061] Compare the target peak signal
return and summation of returns within the azimuth and range
expanse of the target as a function of polarization of each target
to the corresponding range attenuation adjusted value for the
average of all targets in the scanned scene, and [0062] Compare
each target's determined values to its corresponding threshold
(based on average returns from targets within the scene, or to
average targets historically) to maximize probability of detection
while minimizing false alarms.
[0063] In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, two antennas 106, 107 are
mounted one above the other and connected to independent receivers
in the two channel Radar transmitter/receiver (transceiver) 110.
Transceiver 110 is a homodyne type in which a linearized sweep of
the transmitter oscillator is sampled, sent to signal processor 109
over VV link 102 and HH link 101, and mixed with the target return
to generate an IF frequency representing twice the range to the
target in signal processor 109. The two IF analog frequencies are
digitized, processed in FFT, and used by the operating code to
generate target information. Data from multiple scans or dwells on
a target for each polarization pair and waveform is fused into a
set of features about each detected target.
[0064] Data from the scans is transferred to population dependent
decision algorithms 105 and population independent decision
algorithms 104. For example, VV data could be sent to population
dependent decision algorithms 105 to be compared with a threshold
signal strength for threats (based on average or typical returns
from non-threat targets). This would result in a "vote" for the
target to either be declared a threat or not, and the vote
forwarded to threat declaration 108. Simultaneously, VV and HH data
may be sent to population independent decision algorithms 104,
where the ratio of |VV/HH| and |HH/VV| is computed for the returns
from a particular target. If this ratio yields a result above a
pre-determined threshold indicative of a threat, a "threat vote" is
declared and forwarded to threat declaration 108. Threat
declaration 108 would combine the two votes, and declare a threat
if, for instance, both votes indicated a threat. Alternatively, a
threat could be declared if either vote indicated a threat. Another
possibility would be to declare a "possible threat" if the votes
are not the same.
[0065] It is possible that particular threats could manifest
themselves by reflecting a polarization orthogonal to the
transmitted polarization. In such a case, VH (transmitted with
vertical polarization and received with horizontal polarization)
data 103 could be sent from a receive only Radar receiver 110 to
signal processor 109, and this additional data could be processed
in population independent decision algorithms 104 to either modify
its "threat" vote, or to provide an additional vote, to threat
declaration 108.
[0066] Further, it may be advantageous for signal processor 109 to
identify the average detected signals at each polarization, and the
peak detected signals at each polarization, and additional threat
assessments could be made based on these inputs. For example, while
the cumulative |VV/HH| plus |HH/VV| might not be indicative of a
threat, the peak of these ratios for a given Radar sweep of the
target might result in an indication of a threat.
[0067] FIG. 2 illustrates an alternative embodiment of the present
invention. In this case, there are two transceivers, each
transmitting and receiving on vertical and horizontal polarizations
(using antennas 211). FMCW Two Channel Radar Transmitter/Receiver
205 utilizes FMCW signals, and Pulse Doppler Two Channel Radar
Transmitter/Receiver 202 utilizes Pulse Doppler Radar signals. The
resultant vertical and horizontal reflected signals 201 are passed
to signal processor 210. Data from these scans is transferred from
signal processor 210 to Pulse Doppler Population Dependent
Algorithms 206, Pulse Doppler Population Independent Decision
Algorithms 208, FMCW Population Dependent Decision Algorithms 207,
and FMCW Population Independent Decision Algorithms 209. These
algorithm processors 204 transmit their threat "votes" to Threat
Declaration 203, which processes the various threat determinations
(votes) into an overall threat assessment (i.e., Threat, No Threat,
or Ambiguous or Uncertain).
[0068] By utilizing two different Radar transmission systems (FMCW
and Pulse Doppler), threats which may have been missed by either
system individually (due to the complexities in the way a
particular waveform is reflected by a target, for example), may be
advantageously identified by the combination system of FIG. 2.
[0069] FIG. 3 illustrates a data file of Radar returns consistent
with the present invention. The Radar systems feed FFT sampled data
for each polarization/waveform pair for subsequent analysis by the
threat determination/declaration algorithms. The raw data is in the
form of a tabulated list consisting of polarization pair (e.g.,
vertical/vertical and vertical/horizontal) 301, scan number (time)
302, and {range, azimuth, elevation, velocity and signal amplitude}
303. This data is compiled for each target within the Radar scanned
scene. This data file is then used to perform the Population
Independent and Population Dependent threat determination
evaluations.
[0070] FIG. 4 illustrates an advantageous process for performing
threat determination evaluations consistent with some embodiments
of the present invention. This process involves receiving inputs
from transceivers of orthogonal polarizations (such as horizontal
and vertical) illuminating the same target scene. The received
inputs are used to compute a "vote" regarding the determination of
a threat using Population Independent evaluations, such as by
taking the ratio of vertical polarized returns over horizontal
polarized returns, and voting for the existence of a threat based
on this ratio. Simultaneously, using the same inputs, a second
"vote" regarding the determination of a threat using Population
Dependent evaluations, such as by comparing the target's returns
(or the average target returns, or the peak target returns, or the
cumulative target returns, for example) with the returns for other
targets in the scanned scene, or with historic "non-threat" target
returns. These "votes" are then utilized to calculate an overall
threat assessment (discussed in relation to FIG. 8).
[0071] In order to effectively accomplish the threat declaration,
target extent and target centroid processing schemes need to be
determined. This is accomplished in the Data Pre-Processing 401
stage, which receives signal data from Signal Processor 420. The
total, target caused Radar return is made up of a plurality of
range-azimuth cell Radar returns 402 resulting from a multiplicity
of transmitted pulses. A sliding window in range 403 and angle 404
allows the accumulation of all the amplitudes in all the
range-azimuth cells associated with each target. The range-azimuth
cell Radar returns must be pre-processed to prepare them for the
data assessment algorithm 413. Since the system utilizes multiple
polarizations, the data from both channels needs to be associated
with each target and conclusions drawn from the differences. Scan
by scan data needs to be associated for each target, also, to deal
with issues of target track continuity, masking and unmasking, and
orientation.
[0072] In one embodiment of the present invention, both the
scene-averaging algorithm (target dependent) 405 and the
polarization ratios algorithm (target independent) 406 are
implemented. This is accomplished by measurement of the level of
all the pulses transmitted and received in all the populated cells
associated with each target for each scan over the scene by each
independent Radar at its corresponding polarization. This
advantageously yields a dynamic determination of the range adjusted
407 peak 408 and summation of levels returned from all the
target-associated cells 409 in the scene at both polarizations. The
average level 412 is also computed. All detected returns within the
target expanse are tagged with a time stamp, polarization and
waveform along with its range, range rate, azimuth angle and
elevation angle 410. Once the peak level, average level and sum of
levels are obtained, this information is added to the tag for each
target 411.
[0073] FIG. 5 shows the returns that would be identified as
relating to a specific target 503. When the nominal range to a
target is measured to be 120 feet at range 507, the amplitude of
all the returns from the range expanse of the target that occur
from both small errors in the range measurement and because of the
finite range expanse of the target and the amplitude of the return
(scanning from left to right) reaches a predetermined threshold
indicative of the beginning of a target (the leftmost edge of
target 503), such as the return signal 502 reaching threshold 505,
subsequent scan returns are marked as being from target 503, until
the signal level 502 drops below threshold 505 on the rightmost
edge of target 503, signifying the final return from target 503 for
that Radar scan. Returning to FIG. 4, this is operation 402, to
determine target expanse in range and azimuth.
[0074] As described above, operation 407 adjusts all amplitudes by
a normalization factor, such as for signal attenuation due to the
range (distance) from the transmitter to the target (here, 120
feet). In this way, amplitude figures for the target can be
compared with amplitude figures for other targets (in the present
scene or from historic data) at varying distances from the
transmitter.
[0075] FIG. 5 depicts a scanned scene as it would appear on a
visual-monitor 501, with the returns 502 of a specific target 503
(and also shown individually as an inset 506 on monitor 501), with
the range 507 superimposed on the monitor, as well as threshold
505, which would indicate a signal amplitude indicative of a
target, and threshold 504, which may be indicative of the amplitude
of a threat, for reference in a target dependent threat
analysis.
[0076] FIGS. 6, 7, and 8 show hypothetical examples of vertical and
horizontal polarized signal return data for a selected target,
along with an indication of the threat determination based on a
target independent threat analysis. Each scan (from right to left)
of each transmitter (one for each polarization) in each example
takes 100 msecs. The "resolution bin width" for each example is 10
msecs. For the first scan (scan 1), for the first 10 msecs., the
transmitter angle is "1", as seen in columns 601 and 602, row 611
of FIG. 6, and in columns 701, 702, 801, 802, and rows 711 and 811
of FIGS. 7 and 8, respectively. The amplitude 603 of the vertically
polarized return is 1,200, and the horizontal return amplitude 604
is 1,000. Assuming that a target would have a return amplitude of
at least 6,000, the determination 605 is that there is no target in
this portion of the Radar scanned scene.
[0077] At angle 2 of scan 1 (column 601, row 612), the vertical
return 603 is 32,300 and the horizontal return 604 is 8,800. Since
both are above the threshold of a target (6,000), determination 605
is that this portion of the scene contains a target. The horizontal
and vertical polarized returns are then accumulated in columns 607
and 606, respectively. A cumulative |VV/HH|+|HH/VV| 608 factor is
computed at 3.94 for the target at this point in time. Assuming a
historical determination that a |VV/HH| ratio of less than 4.5 is
not a threat, and a |VV/HH| ratio of more than 7.0 is a threat,
threat determination 609 is set at "N" for "no threat.
[0078] At angles 3 and 4 of scan 1 the returns are still indicative
of a target, so these values are accumulated in columns 606 and
607, and the cumulative |VV/HH| calculations of column 608 are
still below 4.5, so threat determination 609 continues to indicate
"no threat".
[0079] At angle 5 of scan 1 (row 613), the VV and HH values drop
below the target threshold of 6,000, and therefore target
determination 605 indicates that this portion of the scanned scene
does not include a target. Therefore, the associated returns for
this area are not accumulated in columns 606 and 607 for the
identified target.
[0080] For angle 1 of the second sweep (scan) of the scene (row
614), the return levels 603 and 604 are below the threshold of a
target (6,000), and therefore these returns are not accumulated in
columns 606 and 607. The same is true for angle 2 of scan 2 (the
target has moved out of the angle 2 portion of the scanned scene
since the first scan).
[0081] At angle 3 of scan 2 (row 615), both vertical 603 and
horizontal 604 returns (36,200 and 9,200 respectively) exceed the
historic threshold for a target return (6,000), and therefore
target indicator 605 indicates a "Y" for the existence of a target,
the vertical polarized return of 36,200 is added to the accumulated
return of vertical polarized returns for this target in the first
"sweep" of 97,600, yielding a new cumulative magnitude of 133,800
(column 606). The new horizontal polarized return cumulative value
is 36,100 (column 607), and the newly computed cumulative |VV/HH|
is 3.98, which is still below the lower end of the predetermined
threat band of 4.5 to 7.0, and therefore threat determination 609
continues to indicate "no threat".
[0082] The target is still present at angles 4 and 5 of scan 2, and
these signal return amplitudes (columns 603 and 604) are added to
the cumulative totals of columns 606 and 607. The resultant
cumulative |VV/HH| ratios are 4.03 and 4.06, respectively, and
therefore threat determination 609 continues to be "no threat". At
angle 6 of scan 2 (row 616), the target is no longer present, as
indicated by the values in columns 603 and 604.
[0083] FIG. 7 is a data file similar to that of FIG. 6, except that
the VV returns 703 and VV cum 706 are larger when a target is
present (rows 712 and 715) but similar to FIG. 6 when there is no
target present (rows 713, 714, and 716). The HH returns 704 and HH
cum 707, and target determination 705 are the same as FIG. 6. This
results in larger cumulative |VV/HH|+|HH/VV| ratios 708. Since the
ratios are greater than 4.5, but less than 7.0, they are within the
"band" of predetermined possible threats (ratios in this range were
judged to possibly indicate a weapon or explosive on a target).
Threat determinations 709 are therefore "A" for "ambiguous". These
targets would require additional time on target, inspection or
analysis to determine if they were indeed threats.
[0084] FIG. 8 is a data file similar to that of FIGS. 6 and 7,
except that the VV returns (column 803 and rows 812 and 815) and VV
cum 806 returns are higher than for either FIG. 6 or FIG. 7, but
similar to FIGS. 6 and 7 when there is no target present (rows 813,
814, and 816). The HH returns 804 and HH cum 807, and target
determination 805 are the same as FIGS. 6 and 7. These returns
result in cumulative |VV/HH|+|HH/VV| ratios 808 in excess of 8.0.
Since these ratios are above the upper limit of the 4.5 to 7.0
threat band, threat determination 809 classifies these returns as
threats ("Y"). This would result in a "yes" vote for the target
independent family of threat determinations for this target.
[0085] Alternatively, as described previously, an additional threat
"vote" could be based on a |VV/HH+HH/VV| ratio of the peak VV value
(for instance, the 75,200 amplitude of row 815, column 803 is made
up of 100's of individual amplitudes, each attributable to a
transmitted pulse during the individual time period 802 wherein an
exemplary peak amplitude could be 1,400) to the peak HH value
within that scan sweep (scan 2), (in this instance, for the
summation of the individual amplitudes 9,200 of row 815, column 804
an exemplary peak amplitude could be 120.) In some instances, this
ratio might indicate a threat, whereas the cumulative
|VV/HH|+|HH/VV| ratio might not indicate a threat.
[0086] Turning to the target dependent family of threat
determinations, the same data of FIGS. 6, 7, and 8 can be utilized.
For example, in FIG. 8, the VV levels of column 803 can be compared
to the average VV levels over the entire scene (normalized for
range distances). These latter targets are likely non-threatening,
and would illustratively average about 35,000 per "resolution bin
width". As the present target's VV values from FIG. 8 are
approximately double the average value of the other targets in the
scene (or of historical target values from the scene in previous
scans), the "vote" from this analysis would also be "Yes",
indicating a threat.
[0087] The "Yes" indication from the target independent
determination, combined with the "Yes" vote from the target
dependent determination would strongly indicate that the target was
a threat, and the combined threat determination would be "Yes".
[0088] Alternatively, if one of the votes was "Yes" and one "No",
the overall threat assessment would be "ambiguous", indicating a
possible threat. If both votes were "No", the combined threat
determination would be a strong "No". In any event, a final threat
determination of "Yes" or "No" would be more reliable than either
target independent or target dependent determinations
individually.
[0089] Generally, since the data are generated over time, for a
selectable (variable) range-(variable) azimuth bin, the time
ordered summation of the data for each scan and each direction is
generated. The process adds to the summation over tune, keeping
track of the value at each time interval and the summed value at
each time value. Every time the scan and direction state changes
(for purposes of discussion, every 100 msec), the sum is computed
for that condition. This summed data is averaged over time and
number of data points to feed into the threat declaration algorithm
sequence. The number of contributors to each summation and the
average level is computed and also feeds the threat declaration
algorithm.
[0090] As an example of a threat determination process, based on
the data shown in FIG. 9, returns from "threat" individuals (Bob
Vest 910 and Sharie Rifle 920) and "non-threat" individuals (Bob No
Vest 930 and Sharie No Vest 940) are plotted as a function of
integration time. Probability of Correct Designation, P.sub.cd, and
Probability of False Designation, P.sub.fd, are derived. The
rationale for declaring accomplishment of a P.sub.cd and P.sub.fd
is explained by this example data. At each integration time
increment and at a specific threshold setting, e.g., a threshold
which may be predetermined, derived experimentally, or dynamically
determined depending on the embodiment, a determination is made as
to which Radar returns exceed the threshold setting. In this
exemplary analysis a determination was made as to how long it would
take for all threat individuals to exceed the threshold and no
non-threat individuals to exceed the threshold setting. At that
point, the probability of correct designation is 100 percent.
Similarly, analysis determined how long it would take for a
non-threat individual to exceed the threshold. The integration time
has to be set shorter than that time for the probability of false
designation to be zero. For this exemplary evaluation, for targets
at 30 meters and for an empirical threshold setting of 12,000,000
and an integration time of 0.6 seconds, P.sub.cd approaches 100
percent with no P.sub.fd.
[0091] FIG. 10 shows a typical plot of a Radar return. The x-axis
1010 is a measurement of the distance from the Radar. The y-axis
1020 is a power measurement for each pulse in normalized units.
Similar plots can be generated for each channel, for single and
multiple individuals, and polarization choices. In this case 4
seconds of data is shown. The peak signal achieved is determined by
examining the returns in each 100 msec interval. The Peak Sum is
the summation of all signals in the dominant 100 msec interval.
[0092] Clutter, which is defined as any returns that are not a
result of the targets of interest, can play an important role in
the ultimate system. Known objects are both clutter and valuable
reference points. In particular, fixed objects (buildings, cars,
poles, etc.) which will be detected by the Radar can serve as
reference points and markers to allow for hand-off to other systems
or personnel that are charged with the mission. As clutter, they
have to be suppressed so that they do not desensitize the target
detection process because of their size (buildings, cars,
mailboxes, etc.) relative to a person. As valuable reference
points, they provide range and azimuth clues that can keep the
system design as simple as possible. They also have, in the case of
fixed, stationary objects, fixed GPS coordinates that can be
exploited for threat suppression. They define the "detection zone"
and provide scene references. Creating a "detection zone" allows
for clutter suppression by simple post-processing rather than
complex Radar implementation techniques.
[0093] FIG. 11 addresses what is done once the data starts coming
in from the deployment. The process of threat declaration takes the
human operator out of the loop as much as possible and presents no
extraneous information that has to be interpreted.
[0094] The essence of the concept is that it is recognized that the
way Radar interacts with complex targets is not well known or
quantifiable. The final Radar signal processing will calibrate
itself continuously, based on the average of the reflected energy
at the time of measurement for the target dependent algorithms and
by establishing the thresholds for the target independent
algorithms at the time of the deployment on any given day. Both
numbers improve as more targets are examined. The operations of
FIG. 11 are applicable to both the target independent and target
dependent threat detection systems.
[0095] In operation 1110, the region to be protected is scanned.
Next, in automatic operation 1120, all azimuths in the "detection
zone" which detect a target are identified, and the associated
amplitude and range data is gathered for that target. Next, in 130,
a 1 meter (an exemplary range resolution cell) window slides in 0.1
meter increments over the range data to establish the amplitude vs.
angle data to automatically populate the associated data (file)
table.
[0096] In operation 1140, the amplitudes are automatically adjusted
by the range attenuation calibration curve (algorithm). In
automatic operation 1150, the actual amplitude vs. angle data is
compared to the expected antenna gain pattern to establish the
validity of the detection.
[0097] For each window in which there is a validated detection, the
summation of all Radar returns is automatically stored in 160. In
170, the amplitudes obtained on each scan for up to 1 second are
automatically summed. In 1180, for each validated detection, the
sum of the amplitudes (up to 1 second worth) is automatically
compared with the threat declaration threshold.
[0098] In operation 1190, if the threat declaration-threshold is
exceeded, a threat is automatically declared, and the operator's
display is automatically annotated with the range and azimuth of
the threat target. In 1195, the video display and the Radar are
automatically fused, and marked as a threat. In operation 1199, an
alert is signaled (such as an aural alarm or visual alert
symbol).
[0099] The technology incorporated in some embodiments described
herein utilize the intensity and polarization characteristics of
the Radar return from a potential threat together with system
algorithms to remotely detect modest amounts of metal/dielectric
that could indicate the presence of explosives or other concealed
weapons. These embodiments, which would be capable of screening
potential threats at ranges in excess of 50 meters, demonstrate a
low-cost COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) design which satisfies the
requirements of civil law enforcement, force protection, military,
and public safety in buildings and schools. While the invention has
been particularly shown and described with reference to the
preferred embodiments thereof, it will be understood by those
skilled in the art that various changes in form and detail,
including tradeoffs of Radar design parameter selection, may be
made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the
invention.
[0100] The selection of a Radar system at frequency 77 GHz has
several performance and cost advantages. From a performance
standpoint, some of the components found in an explosive vest have
dimensions comparable to the wavelength of the Radar. This fact
indicates that any conductive components will be significant
reflectors of electromagnetic (EM) energy. Second, the explosive
component has a significant dielectric constant that will alter the
EM field making it more likely to be detectable by this Radar.
[0101] The Radar return from a suicide vest is made up of
reflections from all the components of the vest, which include
wires and cylinders found in the vest, rifle barrels, weapons
components, and the individual. The theoretical contribution of
each of these components to the Radar backscatter can be derived
from the Radar and Radar-Cross-Section equations. However, modeling
is complicated by the orientation of the components and the complex
interactions between the person wearing the vest and the vest
components. An incomplete understanding of these interactions
compounds modeling these complex interactions. In addition, at this
frequency, the interactions change with small movements of the
target.
[0102] The calculation of the signal strength and the signal
strength dependencies as set forth below describe how the design
parameters determine the performance of the system and how some of
the design parameters are determined from the proposed system
requirements. The energy reflected from a target competes with
background noise from many sources. The Radar Range Equation
rearranged to calculate Signal to Noise Ratio
S N R = P T G 2 .lamda. 2 .sigma. ( 4 .pi. ) 3 R 4 KT 0 BN F L T
##EQU00001##
explains the ability of the Radar to detect a target. The signal to
noise ratio is directly proportional to the Transmitted Power, PT,
the square of the Antenna Gain, G, the square of the Wavelength,
.lamda., and the Radar Cross Section of the target, .sigma., and
inversely proportional to the fourth power of the distance to the
target, R, the Bandwidth of the Receiver, B, the Noise Figure, NF,
and miscellaneous Losses, L.sub.T. K is the Boltzmann constant, and
T is the receiver temperature in degrees Kelvin.
[0103] For an individual target threat, the elevation beamwidth at
a distance to the target should encompass the height of the
individual. Assuming an individual to be on the order of 2 meters,
the calculation determines the resultant angle or beamwidth to be
1.15 degrees, for a proposed distance to the furthest target of 50
meters. The beamwidth determines the diameter of the antenna at the
proposed frequency of 77 GHz. The Diameter, D, equals a constant
factor, typically 1.22, times the speed of light, c, and divided by
the product of the beamwidth and the frequency, f, and equals 0.12
meters. The Diameter, D, is represented as
D = 1.22 ( c ) ( f ) ( Beamwidth ) ##EQU00002##
[0104] The calculation of the Signal to Noise Ratio for an
embodiment of the proposed solution is 2.8 dB or nearly twice the
noise present in the system for a miniscule 0.1 square meter
target. This suggests that even for the very modest transmitted
power levels and conservative design parameters described herein,
sufficient detectable signal will be available for the system to
differentiate target backscatter from the noise background.
[0105] The unique visual characteristics of explosives vests
consist of their size, shape, explosive charge, and fuse mechanism.
Similarly the vest possesses unique Radar characteristics,
including its reflectivity, polarization, resonance effects, and
interference patterns.
[0106] A finite difference frequency domain (FDFD) calculation of a
realistic body-worn explosive geometry was conducted. Three
infinitely long (into the page) 3 inch diameter perfectly
conducting cylinders held in place against a planar half-space of
human tissue by means of a sheet of polyester material 1 mm thick
was used as the model (no clothing separating the cylinders from
the body). The nearfield computational space was discretized into
237 by 749 square cells (FIG. 12), as seen looking down on the
human with sides h=0.24 mm.
[0107] Assuming a 77 GHz uniform plane wave incident from the left
with unity amplitude, polarized vertically to the ground, the
scattered field due to the presence of the cylinders 1220 and the
strapping 1210 (FIG. 12) was calculated. For the alternate
polarization (with E-field parallel to both the ground and the
body), the magnetic field, H_z was computed. It was observed that
there is less scattering from the sides of the cylinders, but more
in front (toward the left).
[0108] To compare the effects of the scattered signals from a human
(represented by "body tissue" 1230 and surrounding air 1240), with
and without the three circular metal cylinders 1250, the computed
two-dimensional farfield distribution was approximately extended to
three dimensions to account for the finite heights of the human and
the cylinders. Approximating the human torso as a rectangle with
height 100 cm and width 35 cm (about 3 feet by 14 inches), and the
height of the cylinders being 25 cm (about 10 inches), it is
reasonable to scale the 2D farfield signals by the heights of each
target respectively. This follows from the fact that the farfield
radiation pattern of an electrically large aperture is proportional
to its illuminated area, and the target area is already being
accounted for in the 2D computation. In each polarization case, the
intensities are normalized to that of the rectangle of human tissue
medium 1230 without the cylinders.
[0109] As would be expected, the sidelobes are higher when the
human rectangle scatterer has the metal cylinders attached. The
main beam signal for both human and cylinders is 92.5% (7.5% below)
that of the human rectangle alone for horizontal polarization. For
vertical polarization the cylinders add 7.7% signal level to 107.7%
of the human alone. This is due to the strong scattering of the
vertically oriented cylinders 1250 reflecting all of the vertically
polarized electric field.
[0110] It was concluded from the simulation that while the
predicted differences are small, there are distinct differences in
the scattering of a torso with and without an array of metal
cylinder explosives, depending on polarization and observation
angle. Actual measurements corroborated that the differences exist
and are exploitable. The effects of the much smaller cylinder array
relative to the human torso would not be expected to be great, but
the details of the variations may indeed be observable. In
particular, illumination of the human target from directions other
than normal to the skin-so that the main beam of the field
scattered by the torso is away from the backscatter direction--may
lead to enhanced relative scattering in the backscatter direction
by the cylinders. Also, examining the cross-polarized waves, say
when illuminating at +45 degrees (both vertical and horizontal
illumination), and observing at -45 degrees, will be much greater
for the torso with straight vertical cylinders than without.
[0111] While the invention has been particularly shown and
described with reference to the preferred embodiments thereof, it
will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes
in form and detail, including tradeoffs of Radar design parameter
selection, may be made therein without departing from the spirit
and scope of the invention.
* * * * *
References