active sonar echo analysis(poster)

1
Active Sonar Echo Analysis: Monostatic vs. Bistatic Misbah Dhuca, Westlake High School, Austin Tx Supervisor: Jerry Mitchell, Signal and Information Sciences Laboratory, Applied Research Laboratories Objective: Determine the differences between echoes created by monostatic sonar and bistatic sonar. Approach: Monostatic & bistatic active sonar detecting a 688i attack submarine were simulated in Matlab. A set of highlights represented the target Source and receiver locations, and aspect of the target were chosen. Levels were randomly assigned. TOA of each echo was calculated. Using an HFM signal as our transmit signal, we emulated receive processing by cross correlating the transmit signal against itself. Plotted the cross correlation on a colormap. Results: Differences are in the submarine’s relative orientation to the source and receiver. Monostatic plot has hour Results Highlights were defined relative to the center. Highlights of a 688i submarine: bow; forward hydropane; conning tower; and rudders. Submarine aspect was 0˚. Monostatic active sonar places the source and receiver in the same position while bistatic sonar places them in different locations. Source angle: 45˚ Receiver angle: 45˚ Distance from source & receiver to center of submarine: 350 Source angle: 30˚ Receiver angle: 120˚ Distance from source & receiver to center of submarine: 350 Monostatic Bistatic Time of arrivals vs. levels Each color represents a different level . Numbers indicate highlight and colors indicate level. Cross Correlation Numbers indicate highlight. Monostatic Bistatic

Upload: misbah-dhuca

Post on 13-Apr-2017

98 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Active Sonar Echo Analysis(Poster)

Active Sonar Echo Analysis: Monostatic vs. BistaticMisbah Dhuca, Westlake High School, Austin Tx

Supervisor: Jerry Mitchell, Signal and Information Sciences Laboratory, Applied Research Laboratories

Objective: Determine the differences between echoes created by monostatic sonar and bistatic sonar.

Approach: • Monostatic & bistatic active sonar

detecting a 688i attack submarine were simulated in Matlab.

• A set of highlights represented the target• Source and receiver locations, and aspect

of the target were chosen.• Levels were randomly assigned. • TOA of each echo was calculated.• Using an HFM signal as our transmit

signal, we emulated receive processing by cross correlating the transmit signal against itself.

• Plotted the cross correlation on a colormap.

Results: • Differences are in the submarine’s relative

orientation to the source and receiver.• Monostatic plot has hour glass shape • The graphs are identical at 30˚. • Direct blast masking would occur between

150˚ and 210˚ in the bistatic plot• Monostatic highlights approximately time

coincident at 90˚ and 270˚. • Bistatic highlights approximately time

coincident at 150˚ and 210˚.

Results

Highlights were defined relative to the center. Highlights of a 688i submarine: bow; forward hydropane; conning tower; and rudders. Submarine aspect was 0˚.

Monostatic active sonar places the source and receiver in the same position while bistatic sonar places them in different locations.

Source angle: 45˚ Receiver angle: 45˚Distance from source & receiver to center of submarine: 350 meters

Source angle: 30˚ Receiver angle: 120˚Distance from source & receiver to center of submarine: 350 meters

Monostatic BistaticTime of arrivals vs. levels

Each color represents a different level .

Numbers indicate highlight and colors indicate level.

Cross Correlation

Numbers indicate highlight.

Monostatic Bistatic