Numerical and Experimental Radar Cross Section Analysis of the Quadrocopter DJI Phantom 2

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Numerical and Experimental Radar Cross Section Analysis of the Quadrocopter DJI Phantom 2"

Mercy Beasley
5 years ago
Views:

Numerical and Experimental Radar Cross Section Analysis of the Quadrocopter DJI Phantom 2 Arne Schröder 1, Matthias Renker 2, Uwe Aulenbacher 3, Axel Murk 1, Urs Böniger 2, Roland Oechslin 2, and

1 Numerical and Experimental Radar Cross Section Analysis of the Quadrocopter DJI Phantom 2 Arne Schröder 1, Matthias Renker 2, Uwe Aulenbacher 3, Axel Murk 1, Urs Böniger 2, Roland Oechslin 2, and Peter Wellig 2 1 Institute of Applied Physics, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 2 armasuisse, Science and Technology, Thun, Switzerland 3 Ingenieurbüro für Sensorik und Signalverarbeitung, Bexbach, Germany 2015 IEEE Radar Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa, October

3 RCS Modelling of a Consumer Drone?

4 Quadrocopter DJI Phantom 2 Diagonal length 350 mm Weight 1000 g Maximum flight speed 15 m/s

5 1 RCS Simulations 2 RCS Measurements 3 Comparison of Simulations and Measurements 4 Conclusion and Outlook

6 1 RCS Simulations 2 RCS Measurements 3 Comparison of Simulations and Measurements 4 Conclusion and Outlook

7 Numerical Model for 8 12 GHz Hybrid FEM-MoM solver of HFSS Hull modeled as thin dielectric layer Simplified interior structure

8 Numerical Analysis - Aims Impact on RCS Dielectric material modeling? Different quadrocopter models? Influence of model misalignment? Modeling of antenna excitation?

9 Dielectric Material Modeling Bistatic RCS (VV), 10 GHz 0-10 RCS [db(m 2 )] ɛ r = 2.50 ɛ r = 2.75 ɛ r = Angle [ ] Excitation 1 Hull material: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), ɛ r =

10 Dielectric Material Modeling Monostatic RCS (VV), 10 GHz 0-10 RCS [db(m 2 )] ɛ r = 2.50 ɛ r = Angle [ ] Excitation 1 Hull material: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), ɛ r =

11 Different Quadrocopter Models Bistatic RCS (VV), 10 GHz 0-10 RCS [db(m 2 )] Empty Battery Battery + Cables PEC Angle [ ] Excitation 1

12 Influence of Model Misalignment Bistatic RCS (VV), 10 GHz 0-10 RCS [db(m 2 )] ± Angle [ ]

13 Modeling of Antenna Excitation Incoming electric field Field Amplitude Observation Path Plane Wave Gaussian Beam E-Field [V/m] Observation Path 1 Direction of Incidence Observation Path 1 [mm]

Modeling of Antenna Excitation Incoming electric field Observation Path 2 Phase 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.

14 Modeling of Antenna Excitation Incoming electric field Observation Path 2 Phase Plane Wave Gaussian Beam Phase [rad] Observation Path 1 Direction of Incidence Observation Path 2 [mm]

15 Modeling of Antenna Excitation Bistatic RCS (VV), 10 GHz 0-10 RCS [db(m 2 )] Excitation Plane Wave Gaussian Beam Angle [ ] Horn antenna 80 mm 60 mm approximated with Gaussian beam, w 0 = 25 mm

16 Numerical Analysis - Results Dielectric material modeling Modeling of antenna excitation Different quadrocopter models Influence of model misalignment Impact on RCS no low high

17 Numerical Analysis - Results Dielectric material modeling Modeling of antenna excitation Different quadrocopter models Influence of model misalignment Computational Effort (on 4 CPUs, 3.5 GHz) Impact on RCS no low high Time (hh:mm:ss) Memory (GB) Bistatic Full model 1 07:23: GB Bistatic PEC model 2 00:03: GB 1 FEM-MoM: elements, 2 MoM: elements

18 1 RCS Simulations 2 RCS Measurements 3 Comparison of Simulations and Measurements 4 Conclusion and Outlook

19 RCS Measurement Setup Frequency range: 8-12 GHz Object in far field of transmitting and receiving antenna In bistatic configuration no plane wave excitation Transmitting Antenna DUT 7.06m DUT 2.0m 90 Receiving Antenna H/V Styrofoam Transmitting Antenna V Turntable

20 RCS Measurement Validation Different generic, metallic objects Circular plate with two cylinders

21 RCS Measurement Validation Different generic, metallic objects Circular plate with two cylinders 0-10 RCS [db(m 2 )] Simulation Measurements Angle [ ] Good agreement between simulations and measurements

22 1 RCS Simulations 2 RCS Measurements 3 Comparison of Simulations and Measurements 4 Conclusion and Outlook

23 Full Numerical Model Bistatic RCS (VV), 10 GHz 0-10 RCS [db(m 2 )] Excitation Simulation Measurements Angle [ ] 2 mm hull, ɛ r = 3.0 Plane wave excitation

24 Full Numerical Model Bistatic RCS (VV), 10 GHz 0-10 RCS [db(m 2 )] Simulation Measurements Angle [ ] Excitation 1 2 mm hull, ɛ r = 3.0 Plane wave excitation

25 Different Numerical Models Bistatic RCS (VV), 10 GHz 0-10 RCS [db(m 2 )] Sim. PEC Sim. PEC Parts Measurements Angle [ ] Excitation 1 PEC: full geometry assumed as PEC PEC parts: engines, battery, simplified cables

26 Different Numerical Models Cumulative Distribution Function Sim. - Full Body Sim. - Full PEC Body Sim. - Only PEC Parts Measurements RCS [db(m 2 )]

27 Different Numerical Models Cumulative Distribution Function Sim. - Full Body Sim. - Full PEC Body Sim. - Only PEC Parts Measurements RCS [db(m 2 )] Good agreement for full body

28 Different Numerical Models Cumulative Distribution Function Sim. - Full Body Sim. - Full PEC Body Sim. - Only PEC Parts Measurements RCS [db(m 2 )] Good agreement for full body Overestimated RCS for full PEC body

29 Different Numerical Models Cumulative Distribution Function Sim. - Full Body Sim. - Full PEC Body Sim. - Only PEC Parts Measurements RCS [db(m 2 )] Good agreement for full body Overestimated RCS for full PEC body Slightly underestimated RCS for simplified model

30 1 RCS Simulations 2 RCS Measurements 3 Comparison of Simulations and Measurements 4 Conclusion and Outlook

31 Conclusion and Outlook Conclusion Full numerical modeling of a quadrocopter Good agreement of simulations and measurements Max. RCS between -20 dbsm and -10 dbsm Challenging modeling due to several degrees of freedom, uncertainties, and complex geometry

32 Numerical

33 Interior

34 Conclusion and Outlook Conclusion Full numerical modeling of a quadrocopter Good agreement of simulations and measurements Max. RCS between -20 dbsm and -10 dbsm Challenging modeling due to several degrees of freedom, uncertainties, and complex geometry Outlook Investigation of quadrocopter without PCBs etc. Modeling of interior structure, simplification? More efficient numerical approach? HRR profiles Comparison with other types of UAVs

35 Thank you for your attention!

Identifiability of 3D Attributed. Sparse Nonlinear Apertures. Julie Jackson Randy Moses

Identifiability of 3D Attributed Scattering Center Features from Sparse Nonlinear Apertures Julie Jackson Randy Moses Research Overview Goal: Study identifiability of 3D canonical features from complex