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

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

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

frequencies (above 1.2 GHz) some power (i.e. Floquet waves) can propagate in non-specular directions away from the wall leading to further signal distortion. Unequal signal distortion in the delayed transmit and the receive chains will reduce the correlation (or similarity) between these signals, thereby reducing the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). A study of these eects in through-wall applications is therefore of great importance. In this paper, we begin to establish the foundation for such an analysis via simulation work. In general, the scrutiny of these problems and possible remedies to address these issues are instrumental in augmenting the performance of radar imaging. For instance, in order to achieve adequate SNRs of returns from objects behind lossy obscurement, radars must operate at high peak power or use coherent integration techniques at low peak power with a high pulse rate frequency.5 Additionally, we can possibly improve the accuracy (i.e. maximize the probability of detection and minimize the probability of false alarms) of a noise radar system. As shown in Ref. 6, the coherent random noise radar is able to detect a target with small probability of false alarm for a given probability of detection. Moreover, the author demonstrated that the probability of detection relied heavily upon the measure of correlation between the received and delayed replica of the transmitted waveform. This work investigates the measure of correlation versus the degradation in bandwidth via dierent ltering regimes. The motivation for our study is to make a connection between bandwidth degradation, correlation, and the Receiving Operating Characteristics (ROC) of noise radars that employ coherent signal processing techniques.

2. DISPERSIVE MEDIA
There are numerous considerations that must be analyzed for the application of correlation to nd a targets range. Notwithstanding the presence of multipath phenomena, input noise to the system, or overall system losses, there are scenarios in which signals must propagate through various media; and in doing so, their amplitude and phase are aected in some lter like capacity. Such cases demonstrate that propagation paths through walls are frequency dependent (i.e. the propagation velocity is a function of frequency). Moreover, for an input that propagates through a frequency-dispersive medium, the lower frequency components usually lag the higher frequency components at the output.7 Therefore, such media tend to act as low pass lters to incoming waveforms. Such degradation could severely aect the correlation of the delayed transmit and receive waveforms.

2.1 Through-wall Propagation for UWB signals

Through-wall detection faces many unique challenges in the collecting and processing of transmit and received signals. Compared to a narrow band of frequencies, ultra-wideband provides better resolution and is less susceptible to frequency-dependent losses.8 However, there are still factors that signicantly inuence the propagation of UWB signals. These determinants are a function of the environment, specically the medium of propagation. As indicated in Reference 9, any information on the electromagnetic properties of dierent construction materials in the UWB frequency range would prove to be benecial as we continue to explore the trade-os in UWB technology. Unfortunately, the availability of such information is lacking; much knowledge of the electromagnetic properties of building materials concern themselves with few materials and with relatively narrow bandwidths. Moreover, there is not much literature on the propagation of UWB noise signals in general. Although Ref. 9 examines propagation through building materials across a wide frequency range (several gigahertz), we can still appreciate some of the results that would be applicable to most UWB technology. The authors found that not only due UWB signals suer attenuation, similar to narrow band signals, as they propagate through walls, but also endure distortion due to the dispersive nature of the media. The materials tested could be divided into two groups: uniform structures (e.g. drywall, glass, wood, etc.); and non-uniform structures (e.g. concrete block, reinforced concrete pillar, oce partition). Uniform structures, on average, were shown to have their dielectric constants decrease with frequency; whereas, the dielectric constants of non-uniform structures exhibited atypical behavior. Ultimately, the researchers concluded that UWB signals undergo severe degradations for the following reasons: (1) the frequency dependent dielectric constants of the particular media, and (2) each spectral component (or band of components) of the signal suers attenuation and distortion dierently. The authors of Reference 10 performed a series of measurements to acquire the wall transfer functions of dierent materials. Similarly, in Ref. 9, the authors depict the magnitude (in dB) and phase (in radians) of the insertion transfer function for the case of a wooden wall. Experimentally, such information provides a

general wealth of knowledge about wall attenuation as function of frequency for certain materials. Should one characterize the frequency response of a wall as a transfer function, then lters with the correct coecients (that are functionally similar in frequency response to the selected media) may be designed and used in simulation on UWB signals.

2.2 Filters
Filtering is a process by which unwanted components or features in a signal are removed. In our simulations, we used the MatLAB software package. Inclusive in this coding platform are the commands for Butterworth (butter), Chebyshev Type I (cheby1), and IIR (iircomb) lters which produce the lter coecients for each distinct lter. The magnitude and phase response of the lters used in the simulations were not included in this paper. Nonetheless, we chose to use the ltlt command to perform the digital ltering on our simulated input UWB signal. The ltlt command has three interesting properties: (1) a lter order that is twice that of the lter specied by the the coecients, b and a; (2) performs zero phase distortion; and (3) a lter transfer function that is the square of the magnitude of the original lter (a result of the ltering process that occurs in both forward and reverse direction). Assuming no change in incident angle or original setup, propagation through one way of the wall ought to be the same (or similar) for propagation through the other side (owing to reciprocity); hence, the third property of the ltlt command is desirable as we are normally concerned with two-way propagation. To accurately model wall responses to radar waveforms, it is necessary to know a priori the electromagnetic properties of the building material in question.11 For the purposes of simulating what dierent walls (as lters) might do to an UWB signal, this paper examines the following basic cases (with commonly known lters): (1) attenuation that resembles a low pass lter; (2) attenuation that resembles a bandstop lter; and (3) attenuation that resembles a notch like lter. Understanding the aforementioned examples will enable us to develop and describe wall transmission responses based on mathematical combinations of these simple cases. Data collected for real walls can potentially be modeled by these contrived wall responses (created by the merging of dierent standard lter responses). 2.2.1 Butterworth Filter The butter(n, Wn) command designs lowpass, highpass, bandpass, and bandstop digital and analog Butterworth lters. The order of the lter is specied by N and it has a normalized cuto frequency Wn. The cuto frequency, which is where the magnitude of the lter equals 1 , ranges between 0 and 1, where 1 is the Nyquist frequency 2 (in radians/sample). The magnitude response for the Butterworth is maximally at in the passband and monotonically decreasing. Unfortunately, for a given lter order N, the Butterworth lter has a wider transition region than other lters. The transfer equation for the Butterworth lter (with b and a being coecients of the numerator and denominator, respectively) used by MatLAB is provided below: H(z) = 2.2.2 Chebyshev Type I Filter The cheby1(n, R, Wp) command designs lowpass, highpass, bandpass, and bandstop digital and analog Chebyshev Type I lters. Like the Butterworth, the order of the lter is specied by N. The passband edge frequency is given by Wp and the peak to peak ripple is given by R (dB). The magnitude response for the Chebyshev Type I is equiripple in the passband and monotonic in the stopband. For a given design specication, the required lter order N is less than the order for Butterworths. Unfortunately, such lters sacrice a at passband for a steeper roll o in the transition region. Furthermore, the phase response is less linear than that of the Butterworth lers. The transfer equation for the Chebyshev Type I lter used by MatLAB is identical to Equation (1). b(1) + b(2)z 1 + ... + b(n + 1)z n . 1 + a(2)z 1 + ... + a(n 1)z n (1)

2.2.3 IIR Comb Filter The iircomb(n, Bw) command designs a digital notching lter with order N and with the width of the lter notch at -3 dB set to the lter bandwidth, Bw. The transfer equation for the IIR Comb lter (with and b as positive scalars and n as the lter order) used by MatLAB is provided below: H(z) = b 1 z n . 1 z n (2)

3. NOISE AND CORRELATION

An UWB radar is not necessarily a noise radar, however the two radars due exhibit very similar characteristics. Noise radars refer to radars which transmit a random, or noisy, signal. Today, random noise radars are nding useful applications because of the unique and inherent attributes of noise and noise-like signals. Since a noise signal is aperiodic, when transmitted, there are no ambiguities in the measurement of range or velocity.1 In general, noise radars oer the following benets (list not extensive): (1) Noise waveforms are inexpensive to generate both in analog and digital formats; (2) Noise waveforms have featureless low-probability of intercept/lowprobability of detection (LPI/LPD) characteristics and are therefore covert; (3) Noise waveforms are inherently anti-jam and interference resistant; (4) Noise waveforms are spectrally very ecient and can share spectral bands without mutual interference; etc. Radars that use random noise signals normally employ coherent signal processing techniques, either by matched lter or correlation, to obtain the greatest improvement in signal-to-noise ratio. Given the random nature of noise, a matched lter approach may not be realizable. However, the correlation process allows one to measure the degree of similarity between two time signals. In receiver chain of the radar, a duplicate copy of the transmit signal (reference signal) and the returned signal are multiplied and averaged together. At the output of this correlation function, the dierent correlation peaks are indicative of signals showing high degrees of similarity and the lag values (at those peaks) correspond to the delay (or equivalently, the distance) between the transmit and received signals. In general, Reference 12 states that cross-correlation has a higher minimum detectable signal than the optimal detector and improves spatial resolution for multiple targets.

3.1 Noise
The non-deterministic behavior of noise only enables us to describe the random process (i.e. noise) in terms of its statistical properties. In literature,7 the authors note that the data representing a variety of random physical phenomena is closely approximated by the Normal (Gaussian) probability density function (pdf): 1 (x )2 p(x) = exp( ) 22 2 (3)

where p(x) is the probability of nding x (e.g. noise voltage) on some given interval and is the mean square value of x (i.e. the power of x). This paper used zero mean (i.e. = 0) white Gaussian noise simulated in MatLAB. 3.1.1 Probability of Detection and False Alarm Skolniks book13 states the probability of a false alarm is the probability that noise will cross some given threshold and be considered a target when only (unwanted) noise is present. It is denoted by Pf a and is given by the Rayleigh pdf integrated from some voltage threshold, Vt, to . The probability of detection is the probability that a signal (in this case our own noise signal) will exceed the threshold Vt and be identied as a target. The Rice probability density function (integrated over the same range as Pf a ) describes this probability and it is denoted by Pd . The two quantities are essential for characterizing the radars capabilities; and, they are often used as parameters for the ROC curve of a radar system. The false-alarm probability and the detection probability are usually specied by the system requirements. For a given probability of false alarm, one wishes to achieve a certain probability of detection in order to have

a desirable signal-to-noise ratio. In Dawoods paper,6 he showed (1) that an increase in the integration of the number of samples resulted in a higher Pd , and (2) that the correlation coecient can be related to the input SNR. Furthermore, using that relationship he obtained Fig. 1, reproduced from his paper.
1 1

0.8 Detection probability, Pd

0.8 Detection probability, Pd

=0.2,0.3,...,0.9

0.6

=0.2,0.3,...,0.9

0.6

0.4
=0.9 =0.2

0.4
=0.9

0.2

0.2
=0.2

0 2 10

10 False alarm probability, P

10

10

15

10 10 False alarm probability, P

10

10

(a) N = 1
1
=0.2,0.3,...,0.9

(b) N = 25
1
=0.8 =0.7 =0.6

0.8 Detection probability, Pd

0.8 Detection probability, Pd

0.6

=0.9

0.6
=0.5 =0.4 =0.3 =0.2

0.4

0.4

0.2
=0.2

0.2

10

15

10 10 False alarm probability, Pf

10

10

10

15

10 10 False alarm probability, Pf

10

10

(c) N = 50

(d) N = 100

Figure 1. Detection probability (Pd ) versus false alarm probability (Pf a ) for dierent number of samples N integrated. (a) N = 1, (b) N = 25, (c) N = 50 and (d) N = 100 (ref. 6)

We can infer from Figure 1 that various correlation coecient values will render dierent ROC curves. Moreover, we note the trend: the higher the value, the better the ROC curve is for the probability of detection versus the probability of false alarm. Our study investigates how certain degradations/distortions in the bandwidth of a noise signal aect its correlation, and by extension, its ROC.

3.2 Correlation
Correlation is dened as a statistical relationship characterizing the dependence of two or more random variables or two or more series of measurements. MatLAB implements an estimation of the cross correlation sequence, Rxy (m) = E[xn+m yn ] (where x and y are random processes, < n < , and E[*] is the expectation operator), with the xcorr(x, y) command. MatLAB provides, by default, the unscaled, raw cross correlation given by the following equation:
N m1 xn+m yn n=0 R (m) yx

R (m) = xy

:m0 :m<0

(4)

The auto correlation is treated as a special case of the cross correlation sequence in which the input parameter is just one variable. The paper14 by Brown substantiates the claim that given two stationary random processes, x1 (t) and x2 (t), the cross-correlation between x1 (t) and a ltered x2 (t) (by means of a non-linear device) is proportional to the cross correlation function of the original pair of random time signals; further, coupled with the fact that our

work deals with zero mean Gaussian noise signals, we are able to relate the notion of the correlation coecient to the correlation of our waveforms. In MatLAB, we obtained an eective correlation coecient by normalizing the xcorr(x, x) by xcorr(x) (where x is the original (transmit) noise signal and x is the ltered (received) noise signal).

4. SIMULATION SETUP
All simulations were programmed in MatLAB; and, each simulation, in the general sense, tried to capture what a dispersive type of media (given as a transfer function) might do to a noise or noise like signal. Moreover, the study attempted to see how the correlation between the original transmit signal and the ltered noise signal degraded. We assumed that the delayed transmit replica was undistorted; thus, we looked at the eects of distortions on the correlation caused by the inuence of ltering on the received signal alone. The underlying principles of each simulation were: (1) generate a white Gaussian noise signal (with a signal power of 10 dBm; a load impedance of 50 ohms; a length of 10000; and sampling frequency of 1 kHz); (2) obtain the transfer function coecients for dierent types of ltering regimes; (3) apply those coecients using the ltlt (b, a, x) command to lter the transmit signal; and (4) cross correlate the original signal and the ltered signal. Figure 2 shows the white Gaussian noise in the time domain generated by MatLAB.
White Gaussian Noise (Transmitted) 3 Transmitted Signal 2 Amplitude [Volts] 1 0 1 2 3

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

Figure 2. White Gaussian Noise - signal power: 10 dBm; load impedance: 50 ohms.

5. RESULTS
The following section outlines the results obtained from the dierent simulations. Figure 3 shows the correlation coecient versus bandwidth degradation for Butterworth lowpass lters of Order 1 and Order 5. We dene bandwidth degradation as dierent ltered portions of the received signal. As the percentage of bandwidth degradation increases, the correlation coecient decreases. Figure 4 illustrates (a) various bandwidth degradation percentages of the ltered (received) signal, and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective ltered signal for a Butterworth lowpass lter of Order 1. Clearly, as the bandwidth degradation increases, the ltered signal looks more and more dissimilar from the original noise signal.

Correlation Coefficient

Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation in Bandwidth (Butterworth Lowpass) 1 Order 1 Butterworth Lowpass Order 5 Butterworth Lowpass 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of Bandwidth Degradation [where 100% = full degradation]

100

Figure 3. Correlation coecient vs. bandwidth degradation for a Butterworth lowpass lter Order 1 and Order 5.

Amplitude [Volts]

5 Filtered Signal 0 5

Amplitude [Volts]

Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation

Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation 5 Filtered Signal 0 5

Amplitude [Volts]

4 2 0 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation Filtered Signal 0 2 Filtered Signal

Amplitude [Volts]

2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation

2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation Filtered Signal

2 0 2

2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation Filtered Signal

Amplitude [Volts]

Amplitude [Volts]

1 0.5 0 0.5 0 2 4 6 Time [seconds] 8 10

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

(a)
FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.02 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| 0.02 0 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0 0 100 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.02 0

|Y(f)|

0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| 0.02 0

|Y(f)|

100

200 300 Frequency [Hz]

400

500

(b) Figure 4. (a) Filtered (received) Signal - Butterworth lowpass Order 1, and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal Butterworth lowpass Order 1.

Figure 5 depicts the correlation coecient versus bandwidth degradation for Chebyshev Type I lowpass lter of Order 1 and ripple factor of 0.5 dB. In comparison to the Butterworth lowpass lter, the Chebyshev Type I ltering case appears to permit more bandwidth degradation and still maintain decent correlation coecient values, which we attribute to its unique lter. Figure 6 shows (a) various bandwidth degradation percentages of the ltered (received) signal, and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective ltered signal for the specied Chebyshev Type I lowpass lter.

Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation in Bandwidth (Cheby1 Lowpass) 1 Order 1 Cheby1 Lowpass Correlation Coefficient 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of Bandwidth Degradation [where 100% = full degradation]

100

Figure 5. Correlation coecient vs. bandwidth degradation for a Chebyshev Type I lowpass lter Order 1.

Amplitude [Volts]

5 Filtered Signal 0 5

Amplitude [Volts]

Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation

Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation 5 Filtered Signal 0 5

Amplitude [Volts]

5 Filtered Signal 0 5

Amplitude [Volts]

2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation

2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation Filtered Signal

2 0 2 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation Filtered Signal 0

4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation Filtered Signal

Amplitude [Volts]

2 0 2

Amplitude [Volts]

0.5

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

0.5

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

(a)
FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.02 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.02 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0 0 100 0 0 100 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.02 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| 0.02 0 0

|Y(f)|

|Y(f)|

|Y(f)|

|Y(f)|

|Y(f)|

100

200 300 Frequency [Hz]

400

500

(b) Figure 6. (a) Filtered (received) Signal - Chebyshev Type I lowpass Order 1, and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal Chebyshev Type I lowpass Order 1.

Figure 7 depicts the correlation coecient versus bandwidth degradation for Chebyshev Type I bandstop lter of Order 2 and ripple factor of 0.5 dB. Even with the bandstop ltering option, Figure 7 still maintains the general shape like that of Figure 5. However, note that due to the ltering stratagem, the denotation of full bandwidth degradation is dierent in this case. Figure 8 shows (a) various bandwidth degradation percentages of the ltered (received) signal, and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective ltered signal for the specied Chebyshev Type I bandstop lter. The ltering scheme for the Chebyshev Type I bandstop was to degrade from the center frequency to the extremes.

Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation in Bandwidth (Cheby1 Bandstop) 1 Order 2 Chebyshev Type I Bandstop Filter Correlation Coefficient 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Percent of Bandwidth Degradation [where 50% = full degradation]

50

Figure 7. Correlation coecient vs. bandwidth degradation for a Chebyshev Type I bandstop lter Order 2.

Filtered Signal (Received) with 2% Degradation 4 Filtered Signal Amplitude [Volts] 2 0 2 4 Amplitude [Volts] 2 1 0 1 2 0 3

Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation Filtered Signal

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

Filtered Signal (Received) with 80% Degradation 2 Filtered Signal Amplitude [Volts] 1 0 1 2 Amplitude [Volts] 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 0 1

Filtered Signal (Received) with 98% Degradation Filtered Signal

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

(a)
FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 2% Degradation 0.05 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation 0.05 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500

FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 80% Degradation 0.05 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0.03 0.02 0.01 0

FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 98% Degradation 0.04 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.03 0.02 0.01 0

100

200 300 Frequency [Hz]

400

500

(b) Figure 8. (a) Filtered (received) Signal - Chebyshev Type I bandstop Order 1, and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal - Chebyshev Type I bandstop Order 1.

Figure 9 depicts the correlation coecient versus 10 percent degradation across the bandwidth for Chebyshev Type I bandstop lter of Order 2 and ripple factor of 0.5 dB. As expected, the correlation coecient remains fairly constant. Figure 10 shows (a) a certain percentage of bandwidth degradation across the band of frequencies for ltered (received) signal, and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective ltered signal for the specied Chebyshev Type I bandstop lter. The ltering scheme for the Chebyshev Type I bandstop lter (in this case) was to remove a certain percentage of the bandwidth from dierent portions of the signal.

Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation of 10% across the Bandwidth (Cheby1 Bandstop) 1 0.8 0.6 Order 2 Chebyshev Type I Bandstop Filter 0.4 0.2 0 10

Correlation Coefficient

20

30 40 50 60 Percentage at which Lower CutOff Frequency is set

70

80

Figure 9. Correlation coecient vs 10 percent degradation across bandwidth for a Chebyshev Type I bandstop lter Order 2.

Amplitude [Volts]

0 5

Amplitude [Volts] Amplitude [Volts] Amplitude [Volts]

Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal

Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 5

Amplitude [Volts]

0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 5

0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 5

Amplitude [Volts]

0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 5

0 2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 5 Filtered Signal 0 5

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

(a)
FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 0.06 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.04 |Y(f)| 0.02 0 0 100 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0.02

|Y(f)|

0 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 0.06 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.04 0.02 0 0 100 0.02

|Y(f)|

0 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] Frequency [Hz] FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth FFT of Filtered Signal (Received) with 10% Degradation across the Bandwidth 0.06 0.06 FFT of Filtered Signal FFT of Filtered Signal 0.04 0.04 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 0.02 0 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500

(b) Figure 10. (a) Filtered (received) Signal - Chebyshev Type I bandstop Order 2, and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal - Chebyshev Type I bandstop Order 2.

Figure 11 shows the correlation coecient versus bandwidth degradation for IIR comb lter of Order 10. This graph resembles that of the Butterworth case. Figure 12 illustrates (a) various bandwidth degradation percentages of the ltered (received) signal, and (b) the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the respective ltered signal for a IIR comb lter. The ltering scheme for the IIR comb lter was to decide upon a particular frequency (or frequencies) to remove and then vary the width of the notch.

Correlation of Noise Signals versus Degradation in Bandwidth (IIR Comb Filter) 1 IIR Comb Filter Correlation Coefficient 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Percent of Bandwidth Degradation [where 100% = full degradation]

100

Figure 11. Correlation coecient vs. bandwidth degradation for an IIR comb lter.

Amplitude [Volts]

5 Filtered Signal 0 5

Amplitude [Volts]

Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation

Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 5 Filtered Signal 0 5

Amplitude [Volts]

2 Filtered Signal 0 2

Amplitude [Volts]

2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation

2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation Filtered Signal

2 0 2

2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 90% Degradation Filtered Signal

2 4 6 8 10 Time [seconds] Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation Filtered Signal

Amplitude [Volts]

1 0 1

Amplitude [Volts]

0.5 0 0.5

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

4 6 Time [seconds]

10

(a)
FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 1% Degradation 0.1 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| 0.05 0 |Y(f)| |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0 100 200 300 Frequency [Hz] 400 500 FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 25% Degradation 0.1 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.05 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 75% Degradation 0.1 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.05 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 99% Degradation 0.1 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.05 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 50% Degradation 0.1 FFT of Filtered Signal |Y(f)| |Y(f)| 0.05 0

0 100 200 300 400 500 Frequency [Hz] FFT Spectrum of Filtered Signal (Received) with 90% Degradation 0.1 FFT of Filtered Signal 0.05 0

100

200 300 Frequency [Hz]

400

500

(b) Figure 12. (a) Filtered (received) Signal - IIR comb lter, and (b) FFT of Filtered (received) Signal - IIR comb lter.

6. CONCLUSIONS
An analysis of correlation versus bandwidth degradations for noise and noise-like signals can provide yet another tool that can be used for sensitivity analysis for a noise radar system. Our simulations indicate that (1) dissimilar ltering regimes aect the correlation of noise signals in some distinct manner, and (2) a certain percentage of bandwidth loss that may result from possible environmental factors (e.g. dispersive media) corresponds to a particular correlation coecient, . Moreover, it may be possible to represent wall responses (over given frequency bands) as dierent combinations of simple known lters. Ultimately, the relationship between the degradation of bandwidth and the correlation coecient can extend even further to the concept of detection

probability, which was shown to be principally dependent on the correlation between the (delayed) received and replica of the transmitted noise waveform. For propagation through materials that have certain lter responses, noise radar engineers will be able to select a tolerance level for bandwidth degradation that is acceptable to meet a given systems requirements for SNR and probability of detection. Future work will allow us to delve more into the research area, develop models and draw further conclusions as well as collect data experimentally.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the U.S. Army ARDEC National Small Arms Center (NSAC) under Contract # W15QKN-09-C-0116. We appreciate the fruitful discussions with E. Beckel, W. Luk, J. Patel, and G. Gaeta.

REFERENCES
[1] W. Susek and B. Stec, Broadband microwave correlation of noise signals, in Metrology and Measurement Systems, 17 (2), pp. 289298, 2010. [2] J. D. Taylor, Introduction to Ultrawide-Band (UWB) Radar Systems, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1995. [3] R. J. Burkholder, R. J. Marhefka, and J. L. Volakis, Radar imaging through cinder block walls and other periodic structures, in IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium, San Diego, CA, doi: 10.1109/APS.2008.4619258, July 2008. [4] W. Honcharenko and H. L. Bertoni, Transmission and reection characteristics at concrete walls in the UHF bands proposed for future PCS, in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 42 (2), pp. 232239, February 1994. [5] G. L. Charvat, L. C. Kempel, E. J. Rothwell, C. M. Coleman, and E. L. Mokole, A through-dielectric radar imaging system, in IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 58 (8), pp. 25942603, August 2010. [6] M. Dawood and R. M. Narayanan, Receiver operation characteristics for the coherent UWB random noise radar, in IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 37 (2), pp. 586594, April 2001. [7] J. S. Bendat and A. G. Piersol, Engineering Applications of Correlation and Spectral Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, NY, 2nd ed., 1993. [8] R. Chandra, A. N. Gaikwad, D. Singh, and M. J. Nigam, An approach to remove the clutter and detect the target for ultra-wideband through-wall imaging, Journal of Geophysics and Engineering, 5 (4), pp. 412 419, December 2008. [9] A. Muqaibel, A. Safaai-Jazi, A. Bayram, A. Attiya, and S. M. Riad, Ultrawideband through-the-wall propagation, in IEE Proceedings on Microwaves, Antennas and Propagation, 152 (6), pp. 581588, December 2005. [10] N. Maaref, P. Millot, C. Pichot, and O. Picon, FMCW ultra-wideband radar for through-the-wall detection of human beings, in Proceedings of the 2009 International Radar Conference, Bordeaux, France, INSPEC AN: 11206568, October 2009. [11] N. Maaref, C. Pichot, and O. Picon, A study of UWB FM-CW radar for the detection of human beings in motion inside a building, in IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 47 (5), pp. 12971300, May 2009. [12] G. W. Johnson, D. E. Ohlms, and M. L. Hampton, Broadband correlation processing, in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 8, pp. 583586, (Boston, MA), April 1983. [13] M. I. Skolnik, Introduction to Radar Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 3rd ed., 2001. [14] J. L. Brown, Jr, On a cross-correlation property for stationary random processes, in IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 3 (1), pp. 2831, March 1957.