Advanced Radar Coverage Simulations

Using WRAP in Altair Feko

Naveed Mufti Ulrich Jakobus C. J. Reddy
Altair Engineering AB Altair Engineering GmbH Altair Engineering Inc.
Linköping, Sweden Böblingen, Germany Virginia, USA
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract— Radar Coverage Calculations can range from basic

Line-of-Sight (LoS) Visibility to more complex calculations, under
different propagation conditions. The parameters of interest are
Radio Optical LoS, heights at which targets of certain Radar Cross 50 km
Section (RCS) can be detected with certain probability, RCS size
at which targets at specified heights can be detected with certain
probability, and impact of jammers and obstructions on radar
coverage. In this paper, a case study is presented using the WRAP
module of Altair Feko with multiple, relevant propagation models,
to inform user of the relevant capabilities of WRAP, which are
used by commercial organizations to make informed decisions. a. Using topographical data of 1 arc- b. Using topographical data of 3 arc-
second resolution seconds resolution
Figure 1. Radio Optical Visibility for a target 300m above ground level.
I. INTRODUCTION
For many decades now, radars have been part of various Fig. 1 shows the radio optical visibility results for a target
applications such as defense, air-traffic control, navigation, flying at 300m AGL. Yellow indicates areas with clearance of
remote sensing etc. A key aspect of radar functionality is to the first Fresnel zone (FZ), while red shows areas with half of
detect the target reliably, which is dependent on the height of the the first Fresnel zone clear. Comparison indicates that the
target above the ground level (AGL), and its RCS. Radar’s resolution of geodata can have a significant impact on results.
antenna pattern, receiver threshold and frequency are also B. Height of Target Detection (for specific RCS and Pd)
critical. Jammers and windmills in the vicinity of radars as well
The maximum range of the radar for targets of 1m2 and
as clutter will deteriorate radar’s ability to detect the target.
0.1m2 RCS, with 80% Pd, is shown in Fig. 2. The black circle
It is essential to conduct simulations of radar coverage using indicates maximum range of the radar assuming a steady state
relevant propagation models to ascertain the functionality of the target, while the colors indicate radar coverage for target heights
radar. WRAP [1], part of Altair Feko suite [2], incorporates with free-space conditions (100% FZ clearance), using basic
many propagation models that can simulate performance of the form of radar equation.
radar. Propagation models in WRAP include Longley-Rice,
Two-Ray, Okumura – Hata, COST 231 models, as well as many C. Detection of Targets of different RCS (for specific height
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) models that are AGL and Pd)
useful for accurate predictions of radar coverage [3]. The minimum RCS of the target at 300m AGL to be visible
to the radar with 80% Pd, is shown in Fig. 3, for different
In this paper, a case study of radar propagation simulation is propagation models.
presented. The results include Radio Optical LoS, heights at
which targets of certain RCS can be detected with certain The results from ITU-R models indicate effects of
probability (Pd), RCS size at which targets at specified heights intervening terrain features. In contrast, the concentric circles in
can be detected with certain Pd, and impact of jammers, Fig. 3 (c) indicate independence of model from terrain features.
obstructions, and clutter on radar coverage. Extended 2-ray model considers terrain and also includes effects
of reflections, which are more pronounced from reflective
II. RADAR COVERAGE SIMULATIONS: A CASE STUDY surfaces (like water bodies).
In this work, coverage simulations of 10 GHz Radar located
near Linköping Airport, Sweden, with a directional antenna, and
utilizing digital maps of different resolutions, are presented.
A. Radio Optical Visibility
Most radar calculations can be performed by just considering
the radio-optical visibility and the free-space transmission loss.
The maximum radar range is, in this case, limited by the terrain
mask that shadows the radar visibility. a. 1m2 RCS (circle radius=37km) b. 0.1m2 RCS (circle radius=21km)
Figure 2. Free Space Coverage calculations (for target at 150m/300m AGL).

978-1-7335096-7-1© 2024 ACES

Authorized licensed use limited to: POSTECH Library. Downloaded on July 15,2024 at 01:50:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 a. ITU-R P.2001 b. ITU-R P.526

69 km a. Method 1 Result for WM1 (8.43 km) b. Method 2 Target detection areas
Figure 5. Impact of windmills on radar operation.

E. Impact of Windmills
With the increase in windmills as alternate energy sources,
national authorities, wind power entrepreneurs as well as radar
operators may want to determine if the windmills near the radar
c. Longley Rice d. Extended 2-ray Model
Figure 3. Radar Coverage predictions for targets of different RCS, with different
sites affect the radar coverage.
propagation models (for 80% Pd of target at 300m AGL). The ObsMan Tool inside WRAP can help users analyze the
D. Impact of Jammers and Clutter impact of wind turbines, masts or new buildings on different
types of radars and radio link hops. A calculation is possible with
In a situation where jammers must be considered, there is a
two methods; Method 1 is based on the ratio between the wanted
need to use suitable propagation models to calculate the two- signal (Radar-Target-Radar) and the unwanted signal (sum of
way radar loss and the one-way jammer-to-radar loss. three signal paths) powers, compared against the defined Signal-
Two locations for jammers have been identified, using the to-Interference Ratio (SIR) of Radar. Method 2 calculates the
Cost and Coverage Optimizer tool inside WRAP, for maximum received signal power of the radar echo (coherent sum of direct
jamming of the existing radar. The effect of two jammers, field and field spread by obstacle) and compares that level with
located at approximately 24km from the radar, is simulated and the defined sensitivity of the radar receiver. It requires height
shown in Fig. 4 (b), while the impact of clutter (Beaufort wind and RCS of the target, unlike Method 1.
scale 4 and rainfall rate 10mm/hr) is shown in Fig. 4 (c). Fig. 4 In this case study, two windmills placed at optimal wind
(d) represents the combined effect of jammers and clutter. potential locations (at approx. 8.4km and 4.5km from radar)
The significant impact of jamming and/or clutter can be have been analyzed, both having three rotor blades, and tower
clearly observed. There is a large reduction in radar range in the heights of nearly 70m.
directions towards the jammers, whose effect is severe (since Fig. 5 (a) shows the result from Method 1 for one windmill,
the jammers only suffer a one-way transmission loss while the indicating ‘Not Ok’, since the wanted/unwanted signal ratio is
radar is subject to two-way transmission loss). less than required SIR. Fig. 5 (b) shows the result from Method
2 (for target of RCS 1m2 at 300m AGL, with 80% Pd), indicating
areas where the target is detected, not detected or where there is
risk of ghost target detection.
III. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND OTHER CAPABILITIES
Other than radar and target characteristics, radar coverage
predictions should be able to consider propagation conditions
and obstructions. There may also be a need for determining
a. Reference coverage (without jammers b. Coverage with impact of jammers impact of new buildings on radars, impact of windmills on
and clutter) (Swedish) weather radars or on radio link hops, composite
coverage of multiple radars, 3D/volume coverage, radar
coverage on flight paths/trajectories and/or under different
refractive conditions etc. All such calculations are possible with
WRAP, which can also perform multiple types of interference,
coverage, optimization, and spectrum management functions,
making use of relevant propagation, interference and system
design models, as well as high-resolution digital maps [3].
c. Coverage with impact of clutter d. Coverage with impact of jammers
(Beaufort scale 4, Rain 10mm/hr) and clutter REFERENCES
Figure 4. Radar Coverage predictions with jammers and clutter (for 80% Pd of [1] Spectrum Management, Radio Coverage and Radar Planning, Altair
target at 300m AGL, using P.2001). Engineering Inc., https://altair.com/wrap-applications
[2] Altair Feko, Altair Engineering, Inc., https://altair.com/feko
[3] WRAP 2023 User Guide, Altair Engineering, Inc. 2023.

Authorized licensed use limited to: POSTECH Library. Downloaded on July 15,2024 at 01:50:50 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.