Cargando…

Comparison and Analysis of Geometric Correction Models of Spaceborne SAR

Following the development of synthetic aperture radar (SAR), SAR images have become increasingly common. Many researchers have conducted large studies on geolocation models, but little work has been conducted on the available models for the geometric correction of SAR images of different terrain. To...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Weihao, Yu, Anxi, Dong, Zhen, Wang, Qingsong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4970025/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27347973
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s16070973
_version_ 1782445895023853568
author Jiang, Weihao
Yu, Anxi
Dong, Zhen
Wang, Qingsong
author_facet Jiang, Weihao
Yu, Anxi
Dong, Zhen
Wang, Qingsong
author_sort Jiang, Weihao
collection PubMed
description Following the development of synthetic aperture radar (SAR), SAR images have become increasingly common. Many researchers have conducted large studies on geolocation models, but little work has been conducted on the available models for the geometric correction of SAR images of different terrain. To address the terrain issue, four different models were compared and are described in this paper: a rigorous range-doppler (RD) model, a rational polynomial coefficients (RPC) model, a revised polynomial (PM) model and an elevation derivation (EDM) model. The results of comparisons of the geolocation capabilities of the models show that a proper model for a SAR image of a specific terrain can be determined. A solution table was obtained to recommend a suitable model for users. Three TerraSAR-X images, two ALOS-PALSAR images and one Envisat-ASAR image were used for the experiment, including flat terrain and mountain terrain SAR images as well as two large area images. Geolocation accuracies of the models for different terrain SAR images were computed and analyzed. The comparisons of the models show that the RD model was accurate but was the least efficient; therefore, it is not the ideal model for real-time implementations. The RPC model is sufficiently accurate and efficient for the geometric correction of SAR images of flat terrain, whose precision is below 0.001 pixels. The EDM model is suitable for the geolocation of SAR images of mountainous terrain, and its precision can reach 0.007 pixels. Although the PM model does not produce results as precise as the other models, its efficiency is excellent and its potential should not be underestimated. With respect to the geometric correction of SAR images over large areas, the EDM model has higher accuracy under one pixel, whereas the RPC model consumes one third of the time of the EDM model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4970025
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49700252016-08-04 Comparison and Analysis of Geometric Correction Models of Spaceborne SAR Jiang, Weihao Yu, Anxi Dong, Zhen Wang, Qingsong Sensors (Basel) Article Following the development of synthetic aperture radar (SAR), SAR images have become increasingly common. Many researchers have conducted large studies on geolocation models, but little work has been conducted on the available models for the geometric correction of SAR images of different terrain. To address the terrain issue, four different models were compared and are described in this paper: a rigorous range-doppler (RD) model, a rational polynomial coefficients (RPC) model, a revised polynomial (PM) model and an elevation derivation (EDM) model. The results of comparisons of the geolocation capabilities of the models show that a proper model for a SAR image of a specific terrain can be determined. A solution table was obtained to recommend a suitable model for users. Three TerraSAR-X images, two ALOS-PALSAR images and one Envisat-ASAR image were used for the experiment, including flat terrain and mountain terrain SAR images as well as two large area images. Geolocation accuracies of the models for different terrain SAR images were computed and analyzed. The comparisons of the models show that the RD model was accurate but was the least efficient; therefore, it is not the ideal model for real-time implementations. The RPC model is sufficiently accurate and efficient for the geometric correction of SAR images of flat terrain, whose precision is below 0.001 pixels. The EDM model is suitable for the geolocation of SAR images of mountainous terrain, and its precision can reach 0.007 pixels. Although the PM model does not produce results as precise as the other models, its efficiency is excellent and its potential should not be underestimated. With respect to the geometric correction of SAR images over large areas, the EDM model has higher accuracy under one pixel, whereas the RPC model consumes one third of the time of the EDM model. MDPI 2016-06-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4970025/ /pubmed/27347973 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s16070973 Text en © 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Jiang, Weihao
Yu, Anxi
Dong, Zhen
Wang, Qingsong
Comparison and Analysis of Geometric Correction Models of Spaceborne SAR
title Comparison and Analysis of Geometric Correction Models of Spaceborne SAR
title_full Comparison and Analysis of Geometric Correction Models of Spaceborne SAR
title_fullStr Comparison and Analysis of Geometric Correction Models of Spaceborne SAR
title_full_unstemmed Comparison and Analysis of Geometric Correction Models of Spaceborne SAR
title_short Comparison and Analysis of Geometric Correction Models of Spaceborne SAR
title_sort comparison and analysis of geometric correction models of spaceborne sar
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4970025/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27347973
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s16070973
work_keys_str_mv AT jiangweihao comparisonandanalysisofgeometriccorrectionmodelsofspacebornesar
AT yuanxi comparisonandanalysisofgeometriccorrectionmodelsofspacebornesar
AT dongzhen comparisonandanalysisofgeometriccorrectionmodelsofspacebornesar
AT wangqingsong comparisonandanalysisofgeometriccorrectionmodelsofspacebornesar