2015
DOI: 10.1109/jsen.2015.2445931
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysis of the Effect of Interference on InSAR

Abstract: Various jamming techniques have been developed to prevent interferometric synthetic aperture radar from effective detection and observation. In this paper, a thorough analysis of the jamming effects on correlation and interferometric phase is provided. To derive the jamming result, a general signal model for the interference is first presented and the corresponding imaging results are produced through the range-Doppler algorithm. Then, the impacts of the interference on correlation are analyzed. The non-center… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(19 reference statements)
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…So a DM of 804 pc cm −3 can give a redshift, z ≈ 0.67 The observed contribution of DM from Milky Way is less than 100 pc cm −3 for Galactic latitudes greater than 10 degree (Yang & Zhang 2016). The total observed DM is the sum of the contribution from the host galaxy intergalactic medium and that of the Milky Way (Xu & Han 2015). After removing the contribution from the Milky Way a DM of 700 pc cm −3 gives redshift, z ≈ 0.58.…”
Section: Burst Locationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…So a DM of 804 pc cm −3 can give a redshift, z ≈ 0.67 The observed contribution of DM from Milky Way is less than 100 pc cm −3 for Galactic latitudes greater than 10 degree (Yang & Zhang 2016). The total observed DM is the sum of the contribution from the host galaxy intergalactic medium and that of the Milky Way (Xu & Han 2015). After removing the contribution from the Milky Way a DM of 700 pc cm −3 gives redshift, z ≈ 0.58.…”
Section: Burst Locationmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Intuitively, strong interference would generate haze-like image artifacts or bright lines superimposed on the illuminated area, which lead to inaccurate spatial and radiometric measurements. What is worse, the resulting phase distortion would de-correlate the data, producing inaccurate post-products such as polarimetric descriptor [5], coherence [9], and retrieved biological or physical parameters [10]. Consequently, the RFI hinders the subsequent image interpretation process like target detection, classification, etc.…”
Section: Image Interpretation Processmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the existing many traditional SAR interfering techniques such as noisy barrage jamming, shift-frequency jamming, intermittent sampling repeater jamming and scattered-wave jamming are hardly used to jam InSAR [10][11][12][13][14]. That is because the phase of the imaging output from the jamming signals is a constant related to the transponder's position, causing the jamming signals easy to be eliminated [15][16][17]. Therefore, many researchers proposed new InSAR interfering techniques.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%