Rough Surface Scattering Models

Rough surface scattering models
2.
ROUGH SURFACE SCATTERING MODELS
Natural surfaces can be considered as rough, and the roughness is the dominant factor for the
scattering behaviour of an EM wave. The roughness of any scattering surfaces is not an
intrinsic property of that surface but depends on the properties of a wave being transmitted.
Both, the frequency and the local angle of incidence of the transmitted wave, determine how
rough or smooth any surface appears to be. The relation of the EM wave in terms of its
wavelength to the statistical roughness parameter s is given by ks. Thus with increasing
wavelength, the roughness term is decreasing, consequently, the indication of relative
roughness for any surfaces is depending on the wavelength as k = 2 / . Also the local
incidence angle plays an important role for defining the roughness condition of a surface. In
the near field of the propagating EM wave, the surface appears rougher than in the far field,
which can be compared with the reflection of the sunset over the sea. (BECKMANN &
SPIZZICHINO 1963).
soil matrix
Figure 1 Fresnell reflection scheme
In case of an ideal smooth surface the characteristics of the reflection can be described by the
well known Fresnel Reflectivity . The Fresnel Reflectivity, named after the French Engineer
and Physicist Augustin Jean Fresnel (1788-1827), characterises the reflection of a transmitted
wave at the interface between two dielectric media n, for example the air n1 and a
homogeneous soil n2. The Fresnel coefficient is a function of the angle of the transmitted
and reflected wave , and the dielectric constant of the scatterer.
h ( ) =
cos sin 2
cos + sin 2
v ( ) =
cos sin 2
cos + sin 2
(1)
where h and v is the horizontal and vertical polarisation of the EM wave and is always for
non-ferromagnetic media, as natural surfaces, equal to one. The response of the horizontal
polarisation increases with increasing the local incidence angle. The vertical polarisation
decreases to zero at a certain angle, the so called Brewster Angle - the angle under which the
transmitted wave is completely absorbed by the dielectric medium - and increases then
suddenly with further increase of the local incidence angle.
Considering a constant wavelength and fixed local incidence angle, the interaction of a
transmitted EM wave with a surface of different roughness conditions can be in general
I. Hajnsek, K. Papathanassiou. January 2005.
treated as the rougher the surface, the more diffuse the scattering or the smoother the surface,
the more directional the scattering. The Fresnel reflectivity, as described above, considers an
ideal smooth surface boundary. In the natural environment the surface condition varies from
medium to rough. The backscattered EM wave on a surface consists of two components, a
reflected or coherent and a scattered or incoherent one. The coherent component reacts as a
specular reflection on a smooth surface and thus in a case of a monostatic radar there is no
scatter return. The incoherent component is a diffuse scatterer and distributes the scattering
power in all directions. As the surface becomes rougher, the coherent component becomes
negligible and the incoherent component consists of only diffuse scattering.
specular
incident wave
direction
diffuse field
coherent field
reduced
coherent field
diffuse field
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 2 Insrer votre lgende. Rates of roughness components demonstrated on a (a)

smooth, (b) rough and (c) very rough surface.
Defining a surface from an electromagnetic point of view as smooth or rough, as before
mentioned, is obviously somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless two main criteria can be found to
define a smooth surface, the Rayleigh and the Frauenhofer criterion, respectively. Considering
a plane monochromatic wave transmitted at some angle onto a rough surface (see Figure 3),
it is a simple matter to calculate the phase difference between two rays scattered from
separate points on the surface:
= 2h
cos
(2)
where h is the standard deviation of the roughness height regarding to a reference height and
the local incident angle.
Figure 3 Diagram for determining the phase difference between two parallel waves scattered from
different points on a rough surface (SCHANDA 1980).
The Rayleigh criterion states that if the phase difference between two reflected waves is
less than / 2 radians, than the surface may be considered as smooth, and is defined by (3)
h<
8 cos
(3)
The usage of a more stringent criterion, which is adapted to the EM wave region, is proposed
in ULABY et al. (1982) and is called Frauenhofer criterion (4). This criterion considers a
surface as smooth, if the phase difference is < / 8
h<
2.1
32 cos
(4)
Theoretical Scattering Models
Electromagnetic (EM) wave scattering on rough dielectric surfaces has been the subject of
intensive studies for many decades. Many experimental measurements have been accumulated
and many approaches have been developed in order to predict and interpret experimental data.
Despite the large amount of research efforts the general surface scattering problem is
analytically not completely solved. The following approaches can be categorised as
approximate solutions, and hence with a more or less restricted applicability or exact but too
general to be of practical importance (BECKMANN & SPIZZICHINO 1963).
One the earliest mathematical formulations of wave scattering from rough surfaces was that of
Lord RAYLEIGH (1877). This work leads to the so-called Rayleigh criterion for determining
the degree of surface roughness. The scattering of electromagnetic waves from statistically
rough surfaces was further investigated by MANDELSHTAM (1913) with regard to the
molecular scattering of light on liquid surfaces. In the early fifties the field of rough surface
scattering began to expand, with FEINBERG (1944 - 1946) investigating the coherent
component of scattered electromagnetic waves for small surface height irregularities; RICE
(1951) applying his perturbation vector theory for the scattering of electromagnetic waves on
a two-dimensional randomly rough surfaces, with DAVIES (1954) developing a simpler theory
for scalar waves and ANTOKOLSKII (1948), BREKHOVSKIKH (1951) and ISAKOVICH (1952)
formulating the Kirchhoff tangent plane approximation. Further developments of the theory
went along the lines of the Small Perturbation Approximation (SPM) and the Kirchhoff
Approximation (KA) (SILVER 1947, SANCER 1968).
The most often quoted reference book on wave scattering from rough surfaces is that of
BECKMANN & SPIZZICHINO (1963), providing a review of wave scattering theory from rough
surfaces based on the Kirchhoff solution to the scalar wave scattering problem from periodic
and random surfaces. Even though it was written close to half a century ago, this treatise is
still concidered today as one of the most valuable text. Another review from BASS & FUKS
(1979) considers both perturbation and Kirchhoff theory including more complicated
problems such as surface self-shadowing and multiple scales of surface roughness, and
provides an excellent summary of Soviet (SSSR) Russian contributions, unknown for a long
time in the West. Further reviews on wave interactions with random media as natural rough
surfaces are included in the books of ISHIMARU (1978) and ULABY et al. (1982). A more
recent text from OGILVY (1991) provides a good numerical overview of wave scattering from
random rough surfaces, and it includes simulation results. Finally, a more updated review of
theoretical wave scattering models from random media, their extensions and applications can
be found in the treatise by FUNG (1994). Due to the large amount of studies on this subject
matter it is impossible to refer to all on what is available in the open literature. Therefore, only
these major publications have been referenced in that they provide a good overview of the
relevant literature.
As stated already before, the scattering problem of electromagnetic waves from randomly
rough surfaces, which has been an actual research topic over decades, is still not satisfactorily
solved and no exact closed-form solutions exist hitherto. However, for many practical
applications, approximate solutions are sufficient. Various approximate methods for wave
scattering at rough surfaces of a more or less general form have been developed. In the field
of radar, the most common approximate methods have been the Kirchhoff Approximation
(KA) and the Small Perturbation Model (SPM).
The KA is valid when the surface roughness dimensions are large compared to the
wavelength, and is therefore more suitable for applications with short wavelengths, as for
example at X- or C-band and for large surface correlation lengths ( kl > 6). In this case, the
scattering at a point on the surface may be considered as scattering at the tangential plane to
this point. Even with this approximation it is not possible to obtain an analytic solution, and
additional assumptions are necessary. Therefore, two modifications of the KA have been
addressed: The Geometric Optics Model (GOM) and the Physic Optics Model (POM). The
GOM represents the low frequency solution of the KA, the obtained scattering coefficients
depend mainly on the surface slope, and is valid for high surface roughness conditions (ks >
2). In contrast, the POM represents the high frequency solution of the KA, where the obtained
scattering coefficients depend on the surface roughness and the surface correlation length, and
it is valid for high surface roughness ks > 0.25.
On the other hand, the SPM assumes that the variation in surface height is small compared to
the wavelength and is therefore more appropriate for applications with long wavelengths, as at
S-, L- or P-band. Although valid only within a limited range of rough surface parameters, it is
one of the classical and most widely used solutions of the rough surface scattering. It has been
used extensively in many practical applications and the analytic conditions for its validity
have been investigated in detail in several studies (BECKMANN & SPIZZICHINO 1963, CHEN &
FUNG 1988).
2.1.1.1
Small Pertubation Model
A perfectly smooth surface has zero backscatter at oblique incidence. However, in the Bragg
scattering region, where the variation of surface height is small relative to the wavelength
(i.e., for ks values << 0.3) the presence of roughness can be seen as a perturbation of the
smooth surface scattering problem. In this case, the backscatter coefficients are obtained by
the small perturbation or Bragg scattering model which is derived directly from Maxwell's
equations (OH et al. 1992). According to this model, the random surface is decomposed into
its Fourier spectral components, each one corresponding to an idealised sinusoidal surface.
The scattering is mainly due to the spectral component of the surface which matches (i.e. is in
resonance) with the incidence wavelength and angle of incidence (AOI). The scattering matrix
[S] for a Bragg surface is of the form
[S ] =
S HH
SVH
S HV
0
RS ( , )
=
m
s
SVV
0
RP ( , )
(5)
where ms is the backscatter amplitude containing the information about the roughness
condition of the surface, and RS and RP are the Bragg scattering coefficients perpendicular and
parallel to the incidence plane, respectively. Both are functions of the complex permitivity
and the local incidence angle
2
cos sin
RS =
2
cos + sin
2
2
( 1)(sin (1 + sin ))
RP =
2 2
( cos + sin )
(6)
One of the most important statements of the SPM arrives directly from (6), the co-polarised
ratio Rs /Rp depends only on the complex permitivity and the local incidence angle, and is
independent of surface roughness. Figure 4 shows the dependency of the co-polarised ratio
on the soil moisture content according to (6), for incidence angles ranging from 25 up to 60
degrees. For dry surfaces, the co-polarised ratio is high and decreases with increasing
moisture content. A strong variation of the ratio for all incidence angles can be observed for
soil moisture values ranging from 0 < mv < 20 [vol. % ] which saturates for mv values > 20
[vol %]. This indicates that the SPM is insensitive to very wet surfaces and therefore, its
inversion yields prospectively too large uncertainties for moisture content estimates above the
saturation level. Several studies have experimentally verified the sensitivity of Rs / Rp to soil
moisture content in the case of slightly rough surfaces as well at its saturation above mv = 20
[vol %] (CHEN & FUNG 1988).
25 degrees
60 degrees
Fig. 11.7: Modelled co-polarised ratio versus soil moisture
Figure 4 Modelled co-polarised ratio versus soil moisture
However, for the most natural bare surfaces the validity range for roughness conditions of the
SPM is too strict in order to be of practical importance. To demonstrate this, the roughness
and moisture content values of all test fields from both test sites, Elbe-Auen and Weiherbach,
are shown in Figure 5. The roughness values are plotted against the corresponding moisture
values, measured in two depths of 0 - 4 cm and 4 - 8 cm. The fact that only one of the test
fields lies in the Bragg region, indicates the limited applicability of the SPM for the inversion
of surface parameters under realistic conditions in radar remote sensing.
elbe0-4
elbe4-8
weih0-4
weih4-8
0.8
ks
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
m v [vol %]
30.0
35.0
40.0
Figure 5
Validity range of the SPM, surface roughness versus soil moisture content, for two
experimental data sets, the Elbe-Auen and Weiherbach test sites
2.2
Empirical Models
Semi-empirical and/or empirical approaches are based on theoretical models, which are
extended or modified according to physical considerations or empirical observations in order
to increase the performance of the original model to interpret experimental data. In this
section, two extensions of the SPM used for the inversion of surface parameters from
polarimetric radar data will be introduced and discussed. Compared to the SPM, these models
are characterised by a wider validity range regarding surface conditions and, as it will be
demonstrated, a higher estimation accuracy.
2.2.1.1
The Oh Model
Y. OH, K. SARABANDI, and F.T. ULABY developed this semi-empirical model at the
University of Michigan, in 1992. The radar measurements used for its development were
obtained by a truck-mounted scatterometer (LCX POLARSCAT) operating at three
frequencies (1.5, 4.5 and 9.5 GHz) in a fully polarimetric mode with an incidence angle range
from 10 to 70.
On the basis of the scatterometer measurements and ground measurements, an empirically
determined function for the co- and cross-polarised backscatter ratios was proposed (OH et al.
1992)
1
2 30 ks
= 1 e

0
HH
p =
0
VV
(7)
And
q =
0
HV
0
VV
= 0.23 0 1 e ks
(8)
0
0
HV
and
where p and q indicate the co- and cross polarised backscatter ratios, HH
0
0
VV
VV
respectively; the local incidence angle, ks is the RMS height normalised to the wavelength,
and the Fresnel reflectivity coefficient at nadir (i.e., = 0) and
1
=
1+
(9)
is the relative dielectric constant. For a known angle of incidence, (7) and (8) constitute a
system of two non linear equations with two unknowns: ks and .
The main characteristics of the model are briefly summarised by the following three points:
The co-polarised ratio p is always lower than one for all local incidence angles, surface
roughness conditions and soil moisture contents, as shown in Figure 6. It increases
monotonically with increasing ks up to ks 1 and converges slowly to one, which finally
reaches for ks > 3. On the other hand, for ks < 3, p decreases with increasing local incidence
angle and/or with increasing soil moisture content. A significant sensitivity to soil moisture
and incidence angle variations can be observed.
The cross-polarised ratio q << 1, shows as compared to the co-polarised ratio - a

stronger sensitivity to ks variations and a weaker dependency to soil moisture
variations. q increases with increasing ks up to 1 and converges slowly to a value,
which depends on the soil moisture content and finally reaches it for ks > 3. A
significant sensitivity of the quotient q to surface roughness and no dependency on the
incidence angle can be observed, respectively, as shown in Figure 7.
In general, the algorithm exhibits a good agreement to the ground measurements in the
range of 0.1 < ks < 6, 2.5 < kl < 20, and 9 < mv < 31.
0
The fact that p and q are limited to ks < 3 and p = HH
< 1 makes the model more appropriate
0
VV
for applications at lower frequencies, as for example for the S-, L-, or P-band.
a)
b)
Figure 6 Co-polarised ratio versus volumetric moisture content for varying local incidence angle: a)
for a smooth surface ks = 0.1 and b) for a rough surface ks = 0.8.
a)
b)
Figure 7
Co- and cross-polarised ratio versus volumetric moisture content for varying surface
roughness (from ks=0.1 up to ks=0.8) for a local incidence angle of 45 .
2.2.1.2
The Dubois Model
The empirical model developed by P. C. DUBOIS, J. VAN ZYL, and T. ENGMAN in 1995 is a
simplification of the Oh-Model adressing only co-polarised backscatter coefficient. The data
used in the original study, were collected with the scatterometer from the University of
Michigan LCX as well as with the University of Bern scatterometer (RASAM) operating at
six frequencies between 2.5 GHz and 11 GHz. In later investigations the algorithm was
applied to SAR data (AIRSAR and SIR-C) in order to prove the robustness of the algorithm.
Using the scatterometer data and ground measurements, the empirically determined co0
0
polarised backscatter coefficients, HH
and VV
for the horizontal and vertical polarisation,
were expressed as a function of system parameters, as the local incidence angle and
frequency, and soil parameters, such as dielectric constant and surface roughness. In a first
elaborative step, the dependence of the backscattering coefficient ratio on different soil
moisture conditions and the local incidence angle was investigated. It was found that the
relationship resembles most closely to the tangent of the incidence angle. In a second step, the
deviation caused by surface roughness was accounted for by an empirically derived
expression for the roughness term log(ks sin ) . The resulting expressions are given by
cos1.5 0.028 tan
(ks sin )1.4 0.7
10
5
sin
cos3 0.046 tan
(ks sin )1.1 0.7
= 10 2.37
10
3
sin
0
HH
= 10 2.75
0
VV
(10)
(11)
where is the local incidence angle, is the real part of the dielectric constant, ks the
normalised surface roughness and the wavelength. For a known angle of incidence, (10) and
(11) constitute a system of two non-linear equations with two unknowns: ks and .
Similar to the prediction of the SPM, the backscatter coefficient of (10) and (11) decreases
with increasing local incidence angle and/or with decreasing surface roughness. On the other

0
hand, the backscatter coefficient increases with increasing soil moisture, stronger in VV
than
0
in HH . Furthermore, the sensitivity to moisture content decreases with increasing local
incidence angle.
0
0
/ VV
is roughnessThe empirically determined expressions predict that the ratio HH
dependent and increases with increasing surface roughness, due to the log(ks sin ) term. This
is different from the SPM, where the co-polarised term does not depend on roughness.
0
0
On the other hand, with increasing soil moisture content, the backscatter ratio HH
/ VV
is
steadily increasing, while its sensitivity to moisture content decreases with a decreasing local
incidence angle as shown in Figure 8.
The performance of the model may be briefly summarised by the following points (DUBOIS et
al. 1995):
The estimated validity range for the surface parameters are mv < 35 % and ks < 2.5 and
their accuracy is ranging for the soil moisture estimation by about 4.2 vol. % and for
the surface roughness by about ks of 0.4 for a bare surface (NDVI < 0.4).
For an inversion accuracy better than 4 vol. % the radar data should be calibrated to
within 2 dB absolute and 0.5 dB relative accuracy between the two co-polarised
channels.
If the cross-polarised channel is available, it can be used to exclude disturbing

vegetation impacts.
d
d
a)
b)
Figure 8 Sensitivity plots of the co-polarised ratio to the volumetric moisture content for
varying local incidence angles. a) for a smooth surface ks = 0.1; and b) for a rough surface ks
= 0.8.
Important aspects which are not considered by the model as stated in (10) and (11), are:
the influence of the tillage direction on the agricultural fields,
10
the influence of the surface correlation length on the fields,
the influence of topography on the accuracy of the estimated surface parameters.
There are several reasons why the model was developed to include only the co-polarised
channels. Co-polarised backscattering coefficients are less sensitive to system noise and cross
talk. Consequently, the calibration of the co-polarised returns is simpler to perform and more
accurate. In the early 90s, the deployment of effective polarimetric calibration algorithms
was still under development. Furthermore, they provide a robust performance to the algorithm
even in the presence of sparse vegetation. Finally, the need of only two channels allows the
application of the algorithm on data acquired using dual polarised systems instead of fully
polarised systems, which are strictly required for the application of the Oh-Model.
11

Rough Surface Scattering Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rough Surface Scattering Models

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rough Surface Scattering Models

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rough surface scattering models