IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-17, NO.

4, OCTOBER 1979 113

Estimation of Spectral Moments for Weather Echoes

DUSAN S. ZRNIC', SENIOR MEMBER, IEEE

Abstract-Estimators of echo signal power, mean Doppler velocity, Pulse-repetition time or separation between two
and spectrum width are investigated. Maximum likelihood (ML) solu- pulses of a pair.
tions can improve the estimate variances by an order of magnitude over w Doppler spectrum width (Hz).
those by the autocovariance or the Fourier method. However, the re-
quired computations are excessive for routine implementations on Wb Bias due to finite time window.
weather radars. Spectrum power estimation together with two con- z Signal-pulse-noise vector.
ventional methods of mean Doppler and width estimation are reviewed. Zk Sum of noise and the Doppler shifted signal.
Several results previously not available are presented. Output single sample estimate variance.
aQ Variance of a sample mean at the output.
2
LIST OF SYMBOLS Cramer Rao bound for the variance of signal
b A number between 0 and 1 related to the time power.
constant of a recursive filter. Uv Doppler spectrum width (m * s-1).
C Covariance matrix of the signal vector s. U9f2 Cramer Rao bound for the variance of the mean
D Diagonal matrix with elements e)i(kTs frequency.
DM (f) Fourier transform of the data window. Uw2 Cramer Rao bound for the variance of Doppler
f Mean Doppler frequency shift. spectrum width.
fij Elements of the Fisher information matrix. x Radar wavelength.
I Identity matrix. Xik Elements of the inverse covariance matrix K .
K Covariance matrix of signal-plus-noise vector z. X;k Elements of the inverse of the normalized co-
K' = K/S Normalized covariance matrix of signal-plus-noise variance matrix.
vector z. p Magnitude of the correlation coefficient.
km Index of strongest Fourier coefficient. Ps Correlation coefficient at the output of a square-
L Log likelihood function. law detector.
M Number of samples. p5 Mean Doppler radian frequency shift.
MI Equivalent number of independent samples. Kronecker delta symbol 6 T-TS,O = 1, if TS = T.
N Noise power per sample. A Normalized deviation of Doppler frequency esti-
N(f) Power spectrum of the noise. mate around the mean, also angular interval
n Noise vector. over whichM samples are averaged = Ts(f- tf).
nk Noise sample (complex).
P Signal-plus-noise power. I. INTRODUCTION
Pi Signal-plus-noise power of one sample. T HE pulsed Doppler weather radar should supply the three
p Probability density function. most important spectrum moment estimates. These are 1)
Q Output of a detector related to input signal-plus- the echo power or zero moment of the Doppler spectrum (this
noise power. is an indicator of liquid water content or precipitation rate in
Q(N ) Quadratic form that minimizes the log likelihood the resolution volume), 2) the mean Doppler velocity or the
function. first moment of the spectrum normalized to the zeroth mo-
R (Ts) = R1 Autocorrelation at lag Ts. ment (this is equal to the mean motion of scatterers weighted
S Signal power per sample. by their cross sections, which for near-horizontal antenna
S(f) Power spectrum of the echo signal. orientations is essentially the air motion towards or away
S (k) Power spectrum coefficient = Sk from the radar), and 3) the spectrum width ut, the square
s Signal vector. root of the second moment about the first of the normalized
Sk Echo signal sample (complex) with zero Doppler spectrum, a measure of velocity dispersion (i.e., shear or
shift. turbulence) within the resolution volume.
T Time separation between two consecutive pairs Moment estimates utilize samples of a randomly varying sig-
of pulses. nal. In the case of whether echoes, single sample estimates
have too large a statistical uncertainty to yield meaningful
Manuscript received April 12, 1979; revised July 13, 1979.
data interpretation. Thus a large number of echo samples
The author is with the National Severe Storms Laboratory, NOAA, (acquired during a few tens of milliseconds) must be processed
Norman, OK 73069. to provide the required accuracy which depends on both radar

U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. copyright

114 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 1979
system characteristics and meteorological conditions. These
include the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the distribution of
velocities within the resolution volume, the receiver-transfer
function, and the number of samples processed. Because
samples are collected while the antenna is rotating, the de-
sired precision that determines the collection time (dwell
time) also restricts the rotation rate.
Reflectivity estimation requires only echo sample averaging
to reduce statistical fluctuations. However, mean Doppler
velocity estimation involves the Fourier transform or com-
plex covariance calculation, and requires a large amount of
data processing. Probably the long development and cost of
Doppler processors (to estimate velocities simultaneously at
all resolution volumes along the beam) were due to pursuit of
measurement of the whole Doppler spectrum, from which
the most interesting moments (mean Doppler velocity and
spectrum width) need to be extracted.
One of the first Doppler spectrum analyzers that could in-
deed, in real time, generate Doppler spectra for each con-
tiguous resolution volume is described by Chimera [8] and
this machine, called Velocity Indicating Coherent Integrator,
processed, with a single electronic circuit, the echo signals to
generate Doppler spectrum estimates simultaneously at all
resolution volumes. Another machine, called the Coherent
Memory Filter, employing the same principles, was devel-
oped [16] for weather radar observations and used by re-
searchers at the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories
(AFCRL)1. This machine produced the first real-time maps
of Doppler velocity shear fields on a plan-position indicator
(PPI) [2]. In the early seventies, Sirmans and Doviak [34]
described a phase change estimator which circumvents spectral
calculations and digitally processes echoes to estimate directly
the Doppler velocity in contiguous resolution cells.
The need to obtain the principal Doppler moments economi-
cally, with minimum uncertainty, and in digital format (to
facilitate processing and analysis with electronic computers)
has prompted use of covariance estimate techniques. Hyde
and Perry [17] reported an early version of this method, but
it was first used by ionospheric investigators at Jicamarca
[42]. Independently, and at about the same time, Rummler
[30]- [32] introduced it to the engineering community. The
advantages of covariance processing coupled with the new
technology (medium scale integrated circuits (MSI)) made pos-
sible the implementation of this signal-processing technique
on the pulsed Doppler radar [21], [25], [27], [36].
It is the very nature of the weather echo that imposes limita-
tions and tradeoffs on the Doppler radar. Weather targets are
distributed quasi-continuously over large spatial regions (tens
to hundreds of kilometers), the strength of significant weather
echoes easily spans an 80-dB power range, and the signals
themselves are semicoherent, i.e., they are not purely sinusoi-
dal [11].
In this article some proven methods of weather echo process-
ing are reviewed with emphasis on obtaining the first three
spectral moments. Several relationships, previously scattered
IPresently the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory.
throughout the literature, are brought together and some new
results are presented. To that end the Appendix section con-
tains a discussion of maximum likelihood (ML) estimators and
the associated minimum variance bounds against which more
conventional estimators can be gauged. The Appendix is self-
contained, and those readers not interested in the theory of
optimum estimators need not read it.
II. RADAR SIGNAL PROCESSING
For weather radars, where a large number (e.g., approxi-
mately 1000) of range cells needs to be examined, the op-
timum estimation algorithms (see Appendix) become imprac-
tical. Rather, simpler methods, with less calculations and
smaller memory storage, are used. We concentrate on such
simpler techniques and compare them to optimum ones.
The block diagram (Fig. 1) is that of a typical meteorological
Doppler radar receiver. Presented automatic gain control loop
(AGC) is a feed-forward type, such that previous time-series
power estimate controls the gain during acquisition of samples
for the next spectrum moment or periodogram calculations.
This gain, constant during dwell time, matches the input sig-
nal's dynamic range to the range of the A/D converter. Alter-
nate schemes where the signal instantaneously controls the
gain of the linear amplifier have been used [25].
A matched filter is either in the video or IF part of the re-
ceiver; dc offset control and gain balance circuits must be
available in the two video amplifiers. Ground clutter suppres-
sion and calculation of spectral moments are done in the last
block, which contains a real-time hard-wired processor and/or
an on-line computer. The signal power is sometimes obtained
from the output of the logarithmic amplifier.
The digitized echo is a sequence of complex video samples
Zk separated by* the pulse-repetition time Ts and consists of
a signal part Skejwk
Te and a white noise part nk, i.e.,
jwkT, +l,k=0,l,1-,M-l
Zk=Sk e (2.1)
Both nk and Sk are zero-mean Gaussian processes centered at
zero frequency, but Sk is narrow band compared to the receiver
bandwidth. It is desirable to have a second spectral moment
of Sk, narrow compared to the Nyquist interval squared Ts 2,
in order to improve estimate accuracy. However, other con-
siderations, such as unambiguous range, require compromises
so that occasionally the second moments are not small com-
pared to T2. The mean radian frequency Of Zk is co, such
that IVlI<r/Ts.
Let the true signal power be S while the magnitude of the
correlation coefficient p(wkTs) depends on sample spacing
and spectrum width w (square root of the second moment).
Thus the autocorrelation function of the process Zk iS
R(kTs) =R =E(*ziz+k) =Sp(wkTs) eikTS +N5k (2.2)
where N is defined as the white noise power per sample and
8k iS 1, for k = 0, but zero otherwise. Implicit in (2.2) is that
the power spectrum is symmetric with respect to co and that
the spectrum has finite width.
Good estimates of the three parameters: power S, frequency
f, and width w (via the correlation coefficient p (wkT,)) are re-
ZRNIC: SPECTRAL MOMENTS FOR WEATHER ECHOES 115

-LNLINEAR
1.0 P
LOGARITHMIC
.8
/4
(a.
.6
0
z e- 2 33
4 4

2 3 4 5 10 20 30 40 50 100
NUMBER OF SAMPLES Ml

Fig. 1. Block diagram of the weather Doppler radar receiver. (a)

quired for meaningful interpretation of Doppler radar data. 1.0 P

SQUARE LAW
The ML approach is a viable technique that can provide some <a..
.8
LINEAR
theoretical as well as practical answers (see Appendix). 0
z
9\ - LOGARITHMIC
0
4 .6
III. ECHO SAMPLE INTENSITY ESTIMATION
w
A. Sample Time Averaging .4
NiN. m
1.05 P/,/-1
The sample power is the weighted sum of powers returned 4t
a
z .2
from the individual scatterers, which are moving relative to 4t
U)
each other. This relative movement produces a fluctuation in _
2
I 1I
3 4 l510 20 30 4050
I I
100
echo power S. Added to it is the receiver noise powerN. To
NUMBER OF SAMPLES MI
obtain a quantitative estimate of the total power P, samples
must be averaged over a period long enough so that the un- (b)
certainty is reduced to a tolerable level. The mean and variance Fig. 2. (a) Expected value of the estimated power P from averaged
of the P population are completely described by its probability outputs of a linear and a logarithmic receiver. Number of indepen-
dent samples is MI and discrete values are connected for visual clarity.
density, which has been evaluated by Marshall and Hitschfeld (b) Power estimate standard deviations referred to the unbiased mean
[22]. P from the output of square law, a linear and a logarithmic receiver.
1) Statistical Properties of Echo Samples From Linear and Asymptotic, large MI, formulas are also indicated.
Nonlinear Receivers: The output signal Q of a radar receiver
can have one of many functional dependencies upon signal cept for square-law receiver). That is, when mean output
applied to the receiver's input. For example, common re- estimates Q
ceiver-transfer functions are 1) square law: the output is
proportional to input power Pi, i.e., Qi ccPi, 2) linear: Qi cx ^ I M-i
P.l"2, and 3) logarithmic: Qi cc log Pi. Q samples are being Q=M E Qi (3.2)
averaged and the sample mean probability density can be
are used with the receiver-transfer function [i.e., Q versus P]
derived from the probability density of Pi and the receiver-
transfer function [22]. to obtain estimates P, biases are generated and the uncertainty
In the Appendix we have derived the ML equations of op- is larger than if one averages Pk directly [35]. The output
timum echo power estimators when noise is neglected. There mean for linear and logarithmic receivers is related to P. P
it is shown that for a coherent system one needs the covari- estimate bias and standard deviation for the three receivers
ance matrix in order to approach the Cramer Rao bound, but is given on Fig. 2 when the average contains MI independent
the amount of processing is large. For meteorological inter- samples [47]. If the number of samples in the average Q is less
pretation a uniform average than about 30, the bias in power estimates P becomes depen-
dent upon the number of samples averaged (Fig. 2(a)), and the
I M-1 standard deviations of P are no longer inversely proportional
P=M E Pk(31 to the square root of the number of samples (Fig. 2(b)).
M k=0
While the uniform average in blocks (3.2) is conceptually
usually gives very good estimates. The number of samples, M simple, it does not provide a continuous update of the out-
in (3.1), is obtained at the pulse-repetition rate. put (i.e., with each new input sample). One may opt for a
Radar reflectivity, from which liquid water content and running moving average which is more complex to imple-
rainfall rate can be estimated, is proportional to P [3]. The P ment and requires considerable memory storage, or use a
values of meteorological interest may easily span a range of first-order recursive filter for which the estimate is
106, and often the choice of receiver type hinges upon the
cost to meet this large dynamic range requirement. The prob- Qi =: (I - b) Qi -1 + bQi (3.3)
lem is to estimate P from sample averages of Q. The estima- and b is a number between 0 and 1. It has been shown that
tion is complicated because Q is not linearly related to P (ex- means and variances of input power estimates obtained from
116 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 1979

(3.3) for various receivers (i.e., log, square law, etc.) are al- Square Law:
most identical to the ones obtained from a uniform average
of M samples if M = (2 - b)/b, [43]. Mi 1 = Y, L.d M-mM p,(mTsD. (3.8)
2) Number of Equivalent Independent Samples: The total -(M-1)
number of samples M obtained from the resolution volume is
determined by the PRT and dwell time. However, because The variance reduction factor for the other two receiver types
considerable correlation may exist from sample to sample, is shown by Walker et al. to be [40]
we must determine the equivalent number of independent Linear:
samples, in order to calculate the estimate variance reduction
achieved by averaging. The degree of correlation between
samples is a function of radar parameters (e.g., wavelength,
Mf' (:
Em
m=-(M-1) 4 T M' ) n=O
-'4 n 4(m Ts)
An
PRT, beamwidth, pulsewidth, etc) and the meteorological
status (e.g., degree of turbulence, shear, etc.) in the resolution (3.9)
volume. where
If the estimate Q of the true output mean Q is derived from
an average of MI uniformly weighted independent samples, the (2n - 1)!! (3.10)
output single-sample estimate variance a' is reduced by a n2n(n - 1)! (2n - 1)'
factor of 1/MI. That is Logarishmic:
2
or2U -UQ . (3.4)
-wI M7 =2m --(M-1) (nM ) L: (S).(3.11)
However, if we have M samples in which correlation exists
from sample to sample, estimate variance aQ does not vary as Correlation functions are also given for these two receiver
1/M. Instead, for a stationary process and equispaced samples, types by Walker et al. [40].
the estimate variance reduction factor for the M sample aver- The equivalent number MI of independent samples versus
age is given by [26] the product MwT, is shown in Fig. 3. This is a graph of (3.8),
(3.9), and (3.11). The logarithmic receiver decorrelates the
G~, M-1 M- Iml output samples most, and thus has the largest number of in-
aQ = MMI= p(mTO). (3.5) dependent samples
aQ -(M -1 ) MI (Fig. 3). But for equal MI the square-
law detection results in the least error among the three de-
The magnitude of the correlation coefficient can be expressed tector types (Fig. 2(b)). Having Figs. 2 and 3, we are in a
in terms of the Doppler spectrum, and the parameters of this position to compare the standard deviations of input power
spectrum (in particular spectral width) can be related to estimates from an M-sample average of correlated outputs.
atmospheric and radar system parameters. A Gaussian input Given a product MTsw, the equivalent number of independent
spectrum approximates reasonably signal spectra associated samples MI is read off Fig. 3(b) and (c) and then entered on
with precipitation echoes. To rigorously determine the auto- Fig. 2(b) to obtain the standard deviation. When done, the
correlation of the output Q, we must transform this spectrum comparison puts the square law ahead of the other two types.
by the receiver-transfer function (nonlinear for a logarithmic Specifically at large M the equivalent number MI for a
and square-law receiver). For example, a square-law receiver's square-law detector is 2MwTsVW while the log detector has
output correlation function p,(T,) for a noiseless receiver is Mir5/2wTs/3r(2.5), where t(2.5) denotes the Rieman zeta
derived as follows. function (sum of reciprocals Y1 n-2 5 t 1.34). These asymp-
Assume the input power spectrum to be Gaussian (A.24) totic formulas are valid for narrow spectral widths, for example,
with a corresponding autocorrelation function (A.25). The wTs = 0.1 corresponds to a width of 6.8 m * s-' on the National
post-detection width, i.e., the width of the amplitude fluctua- Severe Storms Doppler radars (mean spectrum width in torna-
tion spectra that determines the correlation, is v [4]. The dic storms is around 4 m * s-1). Because the standard devia-
predetection frequency spectrum width w is related to Dop- tion of the input power estimate (unbiased) from MI averaged
pler velocity spectrum width au, and to the radar wavelength output samples of the logarithmic receiver is 7T/IV 1.28
X, by the Doppler equation: times larger than for the square law, we conclude that correla-
tion decreases that value to /(2.5)t 1.16. Under similar
w2 = 4 U2V (3.6) conditions the Cramer Rao bound (A.38) is (4.5V wT5)_1
times lower than the variance corresponding to a square-law
Substituting this and accounting for the detection process, detector. Thus it appears that one can substantially reduce
we have the correlation the errors if wTs is extremely narrow. The aproximations in-
volved that MwT» >> 1, but it is not clear if the lower
p, (T,) = exp (-4r2w2T (3.7) bound isrequire
achievable. However, when samples are independent,
Combining (3.5) and (3.7), the equivalent number of in- the average from the square-law receiver is an efficient esti-
dependent samples MI is mator [47].
ZRNIC': SPECTRAL MOMENTS FOR WEATHER ECHOES 117

samples taken at different beam positions to be the correla-

tion between the two-way radiation pattem lagged by the
angular spacing. For many types of meteorological measure-
ments the antenna main lobe can be approximated adequately
by a Gaussian function. In this case the number of indepen-
z -i
dent samples available with a moving antenna can b, found
,,,, IL
a a following an analysis similar to the case for sample-tinMe aver-
o WC
aging. The MI is also given in Fig. 3 for M samples averaged
over an angular interval A, and for antenna of half-power
co

beamwidth 0 1.
B. Range-Time Averaging
Estimate variance can be reduced by averaging along range
time as well as sample time. Because the resolution volume's
range extent is usually small compared to its height and width,
/'MwT0,
e
averaging over a range interval Ar results in a more symmetric
(a) spatial resolution volume with little degradation of the spatial
resolution. Range-time averaging the output of a linear or
logarithmic receiver introduces a systematic bias of the esti-
m mate caused by reflectivity gradients, which will limit the
ZAJW
Z maximum Ar useful for averaging [29]. Nevertheless, we have
a a
a reasonable latitude available in choosing Ar.
The incremental spacing between samples multiplied by the
o
number of range samples being averaged equals Ar. The sam-
wo
pling increment is chosen by considering the autocorrelation
of the consecutive range samples of return signal plus re-
z -.. ceiver noise.
,ri MwT0, Quite often the bandwidth of the receiver may be about
we,
.t o
wz
2 to 3 times the reciprocal of the transmitter pulsewidth, and
(b)
since the noise statistics reflect this bandwidth, the noise
W
Z
samples will not be correlated as tightly as the return signal.
IL.
Noise samples become significantly correlated for a range
w
a sampling increment receiver bandwidth product less than
about 0.5 [35]. This suggests a range sample increment much
smaller than that based solely upon the correlation caused by
co
pulsewidth.
As for the case of sample-time averages, averages containing
range-correlated samples have an estimate variance that de-
pends not only on the number of samples, but also on sample
correlation [12]. The estimate variance reduction in this case
I/T MwTs , a
is given by (3.5), where T. is replaced by the range-time
(C) increment.
Fig. 3. (a) Equivalent number of independent samples for the three
receiver types. The number of samples is 10 and time or angle averag- IV. MEAN FREQUENCY ESTIMATORS
ing parameters of a Gaussian correlation are on the abscissa. (b) As with reflectivity estimators, we consider here only those
Equivalent number of independent samples for the square-law re-
ceiver. A very similar graph with slightly more independent samples methods of mean frequency extraction that have been im-
applies to a linear receiver. (c) Equivalent number of independent plemented on meteorological Doppler radars. They are
samples for the logarithmic receiver. based either on the complex autocovariance or on the dis-
crete Fourier transform of time samples.
3) Independent Samples Due to Resolution Volume Re-
plenishment: Acquisition of an ensemble sample series while A. Autocovariance Processing
the antenna is rotating results in continuous alteration in Autocovariance or pulse-pair estimator calculates the first
sample volume location. The echo samples for resolution two moments of the Doppler spectrum from estimates of the
volumes corresponding to two beam positions are correlated autocorrelation function at lag T. Assume that staggered
when the two radiation patterns overlap (we assume no sig- pairs are transmitted with interpulse spacing T. and distance
nificant decorrelation due to reshuffling of scatterers' posi- between pairs T, and let the complex envelope of the detected
tions). Walker et al. [40] have shown the correlation of echo radar echo be z (t) with Gaussian inphase and quadrature com-
118 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 1979

ponents containing white noise and a colored signal (2.1). An imaginary parts of R (T5) are Gaussian and the density of A
estimate of the autocorrelation R (Ts) is obtained from samples can be found directly [28]:
Z2i = z(iT),Z2i+1 = z (iT + Ts):
1(A -Bc
(A )/2 exp ( A2pT I)
T) i EZ2i2+
M-i * (4.1) (A - Bcos 4iA) A +B
1 =o
{1 + afea [erf(a)+l+]} (4.6)
where M is the number of pairs.
This particular choice of pulse pairs has both practical and where
theoretical significance. It has been used on some meteoro- (A -B\1/2 Sp(T8) cos2irA
logical Doppler radars to reduce range ambiguities [7]. By (4.7)
A +B/ (A -Bcos4irA)1/2
letting T vary between T, and oo, all pairs from contiguous
(tightly correlated) to independent can be conveniently A =E(IR (T)12)- E(R (TS)12
treated [44].
The mean frequency is estimated as follows: S2M- 1 2SN +N 2
M2 p2(mT) (M - ImI)+ (4.8)
I
m2-(M- O)
Z

f= argR(T). (4.2)
2irT, S2
B Ivar (R (Ts)l = m2 p2 (Ts)
M-1
: p2(mT)(M Iml)
An alternate form for f (for contiguous pairs) is obtained -(M -l)
after expressing the autocovariance estimate as the inverse 2(M-1) ~ -(-1
Fourier transform of the periodogram [31 ]: + (M ) p(2Ts) SN8T Ts,0 (4.9)
M-1 A
j1 Sk sin (2irk/M) and
f= 1 tan-' 0 (4.3)
27rT, M- 1 A erf (a)= f e-t2 dt. (4.10)
E10 Sk cos (27rk/M) o1

where By letting T, = T, i.e., (6T-TS,o = 1), the density is for con-

Sk =1|M1i 2 formula is for independent pairs; otherwise it's valid for
Sk= M E' Zm exp (-j 2irmk/M)
m =0
A simple trigonometric manipulation transforms equation
(4.3) to the following:
Z Sk sin ( -- 2rf T,) = 0
0 very similar densities; at large SNR the density for indepen-
which shows that the pulse pair derived mean frequency is
equivalent to the sinusoidally weighted mean of the periodo-
gram. When the spectrum is symmetrical, the two are equal;
otherwise pulse pair processing introduces a bias error which
for narrow spectra is insignificant [37]. A decisive advantage
of covariance processing is its ability to operate on spaced
pairs which has proven useful in alleviating the contamination
of velocity estimates with range overlaid echoes [11 ].
B. Asymptotic Probability Density of the
Mean Frequency Estimate
We consider Gaussian shaped power spectra (A.24) typical
of weather signals and determine the probability density of
the autocovariance mean frequency estimate when the num-
ber of samples is large. Since the mean frequency estimate
for symmetric spectra is unbiased, it is sufficient to calculate
the probability density p(A) of the deviation around the nor-
malized mean Tsf, i.e., A= Ts(f f ). If the number of
equivalent independent samples is large (MwTs>> 1), it
follows from the central limit theorem that both real and
tiguous pairs, T-+oo means p(mT) - O at m / O and the
spaced pairs. When pairs are independent, (4.6) agrees ex-
actly with Woodman and Hagfors' results [42]. The prob-
ability density is strongly influenced by the number of pairs
M, spectrum width wTs, and SNR; it also has a weak depen-
dence on the correlation between pairs. Fig. 4(a) and (b)
(4.5) illustrate the density. Contiguous and independent pairs have
dent pairs is narrower (Fig. 4(a)). However, contiguous pairs
produce a more concentrated density when SNR is small
since there the uncorrelated noise partially cancels out [44].
Normalized width of wTs = 0.4 broadens the probability
density function very much because the pulses within a pair
are almost uncorrelated thus resembling white noise. Dashed
curves on Fig. 4(b) are normal (Gaussian) densities with the
same variance as the corresponding calculated densities. Note
that in the tails Gaussian curves are below the calculated ones,
otherwise they are a good approximation.
Perturbation analysis was successfully used to derive the
variance of the pulse pair mean velocity [5]. However, such
analysis is not without flaws. Namely, at very narrow spec-
trum width or low SNR's, it matches experimental results
only if a very large number of samples is utilized. Briefly, the
following two conditions are necessary in order for the per-
turbation analysis to be valid [44]:
2irMwTs >> 1 (4.11)
p2 (TS)M >>(N/S + 1)2. (4.12)
ZRNIC': SPECTRAL MOMENTS FOR WEATHER ECHOES 119

NORMALIZED FREQUENCY (f-f)TS

1/12

I-

I.'
U)
z

m
4°
oCD .01
a.

NORMALIZED SPECTRUM WIDTH, wTs

Fig. 5. Standard deviations of the mean frequency estimate (autoco-
variance processing). Note a gradual increase between 0 and 0.2, and
(a) an exponential rise thereafter. The discrepancy from theory at low
NORMALIZED FREQUENCY (f )-TS
f SNR and small widths is due to a small number of samples that vio-
1/12 lated certain conditions (see text and (4.11) and (4.12)).
In . t

produced long-time records from which chunks of 64 samples

S/N =OdB were processed. Altogether 1024 chunks were averaged to
wT a.05
I-.
M a'64 estimate the mean and variance. Because the number of pro-
I-
---GAUSSIAN pdf cessed samples is much less than the total time-series length,
\ , ASYMPTOTIC pdf the method effectively introduces a rectangular window. The
ai,
simulation results at narrow widths and low SNR's deviate
.1I \X from theoretical predictions since these were only 63 sample
\\ \
z
w
a

pairs. With more samples this deviation decreases.

T,/TzI A good approximation of (4.13) for Gaussian spectra is
CONTIGUOUS PAIRS

\\\\
4

co .01
0
var (f ) a [82Mp2 (Ts)Ts1 {2r312wT/T+N2/s2
0-
\ \
\ TS/T-O
INDEPENDENT PAIRS
+ 2(N/S)[1 p(2Ts)65T-TS0]0} (4.14)

.00]' . I. The direct proportionality to p-2 means that the variance is

(b) heavily dependent on wT, (exponent of w2 T,2)! Thus the
Fig. 4. (a) Asymptotic probability density of the mean frequency esti- effect of increased width is a rapid growth of variance after
mate from the autocovariance argument. (b) Same as (a) except that
the spectrum is narrower. A Gaussian pdf with the same variance
wT, reaches (2ir)-' (Fig. 5).
At large SNR's narrow spectrum widths, and for contiguous
has lower values in the tails.
pairs, (4.14) becomes
A unique expression of the mean frequency variance for con- var (f)= w/4vWMTS. (4.15)

tiguous, spaced, and independent pairs is possible [44]: Note that this variance is about 1/48V'7T(wT,)3 times larger
var (f) = [8ir2Tp2(TS)f- {M2 [1 -
p2(T )] than the Cramer Rao bound (A.28). At low SNR's the op-
timum improvement (A.29) is ll16rr(wT,)2p2(T.). For a
M-1 typical width of wT, = 0.1 those two values are 12 and 2
, p2 (mT) (M -
Iml) + N2IMS2
times, respectively. Similar comparison, when the signal is
-(M- 1)
a sample of random sinusoids in noise with variance [18],
+ (2N/MS) [ 1 + p (2Ts)(1 M - 1)6 T- Ts, O} [44]:
(4.13) var (f) = (87r2MT )' [(21M)N/S + N2/S2 ] (4.16)
Plot (Fig. 5) of (4.13) reveals that variances for independent demonstrates that the Cramer Rao bound (A.18) is (for large
and contiguous pairs are not much different. At narrow M), M2N/12S times smaller than (4.16). This is very signifi-
widths and low SNR's contiguous pairs have a lower stan- cant at low SNR's because it suggests that there is consider-
dard deviation of estimates, but the opposite is true other- able room for improvement by using optimum estimators.
wise. Superimposed on Fig. 5 are results from simulations Incidentally, independent pairs asymptotically achieve the
[46]. Several 8192 point periodograms were generated with lower bound which is different from the one for contiguous
Gaussian shaped spectra. The inverse of such periodograms pairs [24].
120 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 1979
C. Spectral Processing
The advent of fast Fourier transform (FFT) and subsequent
decrease of the cost in circuits for the required computation
make it attractive to use direct spectral methods for mean fre-
quency calculations. Still, the complexity and cost of FFT
processors is an order of magnitude larger than their autoco-
variance counterparts. To calculate the mean frequency, one
first forms the periodogram (4.4) which is an estimate of the
aliased power spectrum. The next step is to obtain a rough
mean frequency estimate, km IMTS, where km could be the
index of the strongest Fourier coefficient. Then the straight-
forward mean frequency estimate becomes
k 1 km+M12
Mf=-TTsP
+ Y3 (k - km)S modM(k) (4.17)
Ts km-M/2
where P is the total power in the periodogram. This form
eliminates biases due to aliasing. Variations of (4.17) are
used to improve the accuracy; among the simplest ones are
thresholding spectral powers above the noise level and/or
around km. Standard error of estimates when spectra are
thresholded can be found in [37]. Berger and Groginsky [5]
have derived the variance of the mean analogous to (4.17).
In their estimate the noise spectral density is subtracted from
the periodogram, and the summation is replaced with the
integral over the Nyquist interval. The variance reads
1/2 Ts
1
var(f) m2T2s 2T f2 [S(f+f)+N(f+f)] 2 df
M2SS /2 Ts
(4.18)
and f denotes the true mean frequency while S(f) and N(f)
are the signal and noise spectral densities. If Gaussian spectra
(A.24) of narrow width (wT, << 1) are substituted in (4.18)
the variance simplifies to
var(f ) =MT2[2 +2(TS)2 SY+2(SLJ] (4.19)
We see that the first term of (4.19) is exactly equal to the cor-
responding term of the pulse pair variance. But the other two
terms make the variance (4.19) larger. Consequently at nar-
row widths (wT7 < 1/21r) the autocovariance estimator per-
forms better. This is not so at larger widths. It can be shown
analytically and from simulations that the Fourier derived
mean has a variance that increases a lot slower than the ex-
ponential increase associated with the covariance method.
Another advantage offered by spectral processing is the ease
to edit data so that anomalous targets and system malfunc-
tions can be identified and often eliminated.
V. ESTIMATORS OF SPECTRUM WIDTH
While only coherent radars can provide the mean frequency
information, the Doppler spectrum width can also be obtained
from incoherent radars [4]. One of the early devices, the "R"
meter, estimates the width from the rate the detected echo
envelope crosses a threshold [33]. Neither the R meter nor
any other method based on measurement of the envelope have
found wide use in radar meteorology. Although the spectrum
width of detected envelope is uniquely related to the Doppler
spectrum width, the envelope spectrum is broader, thus de-
grading more the width accuracy. Nevertheless, methods to
extract width used with coherent radars can also be employed
on the signal envelopes from incoherent radars [48].
A. Au tocovariance Processing
Because weather echo spectra follow closely a Gaussian
shape, it is natural to estimate spectrum width from the
estimate of the autocorrelation coefficient [30], [45]:
w =1 T Iln(S/IR11)I"2 sgn [ln (S/IR1 1)]. (5.1)
The signal power estimate is obtained from the average of mag-
nitudes squared after subtracting the known noise power:
I M-i
S =- , |Zkl4 -N. (5.2)
M 0
The sgn term in (5.1) warrants some discussion. Since S is
an estimate, it is possible, especially at narrow spectrum
widths, that the logarithm of the argument in (5.1) becomes
negative [45]. The sgn term tags these negative values and
allows recovery of data, i.e., assignment of a unique small
width to all such cases. It is worth noting that (5.1) is exactly
ML when pairs are independent and spectrum shape is Gauss-
ian. This result follows directly from the derivations of Miller
and Rochwarger [24].
A related estimator is obtained if the second derivative of
the autocovariance at zero is replaced with a finite difference
at lag Ts. The estimate becomes
1 1IRI ~~1/2
Il -
sgnsgn I(1\
A }. (5.3)
VhrTs A
Note that when spectra are narrow (5.3) is independent of
spectral shape while (5.1) requires a Gaussian shape. At
wider widths (5.3) has an asymptotic (M -oo) bias while
(5.1) does not (provided the spectrum is Gaussian). First-
order expansion of (5.1) produces (5.3).
It can be shown that the variances of (5.1) and (5.3) are
equal when spectra are Gaussian and the asymptotic bias is
removed from (5.3). Perturbation expansion yields the fol-
lowing expression for the variance [44], [45]:
var (w) 3 42M4(WT 2p2(TsT2 {2[1 -(1 + T-TS,o)
*P(Ts) + ST-T,oP4(Ts)] N/S
+ [1 + (1 + 6T-TS,o)p2(Ts)] N2/S2
M-1
+ p2(Ts) m= -(M-
E
1)
{2p2(mT)
+p2(mT) p2(Ts) + p[mT+ T(1 5 T- TS,O)]
- 4p(mT+ T,)p(mT)p-'(T,)} (1- ImliM)}-
(5.4)
ZRNIC': SPECTRAL MOMENTS FOR WEATHER ECHOES 121

Because (5.4) is obtained from expansions around the mean

autocovariance R(Ts) and the W, it is well to emphasize that
at very narrow width (wTs < 0.01) or when the SNR and the
number of pairs are small (e.g., when (4.11) or (4.12) are
violated), the results become erroneous.
Equation (5.4) is plotted for contiguous and independent
pairs (Fig. 6). There is little difference between the two, and
it can be seen that the estimators are good (the standard devia-
tion (SD) is small) as long as 0.02 < wTs < (2rr)-' and S/N >
5 dB. At larger widths, the estimate degrades exponentially
just the same as the mean frequency estimate. Simulated re-
sults (superposed on Fig. 6) agree well with the theory for a
wide range of widths and SNR's, but in regions where the con-
ditions (4.1 1) and (4.12) are violated, deviations from plotted NORMALIZED SPECTRUM WIDTH, wT5
curves occur. Fig. 6. Standard deviation of the width estimate (autocovariance pro-
Aliasing from undersampling (wTs > 1/2rr) does not bias the cessin ). Note the poor quality of the estimator at widths
(27r)I and low SNR. The left portion of the curve cannot wTs
>
estimator but only increases the variance. Sample dependent be ex-
bias is inherently present, but because it is proportional to tended towards the origin because the standard deviation there fol-
lows a M-1 /4 law [44]. Due to small M, simulation results become
M-1 it can be tolerated [44]. Probably the most serious defect unrepresentative for other than 63 samples at low SNR and narrow
of the estimator is its unadaptability to editing; i.e., it is prone widths.
to errors from spurious spectral peaks [45]. At wT. < (27r)-l,
the variances for contiguous pair are [44]
High SNR:
var (') ;32VMTw (5.5)
which is (1920\/W(wT3)5)-I times larger from the minimum
bound (A.39); at wT, = 0.1 this amounts to 30.
Low SNR:
3)
var (w)t32r4w23TMS2 (5.6)
mf

and the Cramer Rao bound (A.41) is 3/1287r912(wT5)' times

smaller, this equals 13.5, if (wT.) = 0.1.
B. Spectral Processing
The following estimate of width avoids bias due to aliasing
provided width is small compared to the Nyquist interval: NUMBER OF SAMPLES M

A^2 =pT1
w
km +M12 'k A\2 S
kmMI2 ( f Ts) (mod M(k)). (5.7)
Fig. 7. Bias of the width estimate due to the fmite time window associ-
ated with Fourier spectral processing.

All terms in (5.7) are as in (4.17). Computed width contains a

bias wb due to the finite time window effect. In general this and DM(f) represents the Fourier transform of the data win-
bias is difficult to compute exactly. One may argue that both dow. The normalized value (Fig. 7) demonstrates that uni-
the mean frequency (4.17) and the width (5.7) should be ob- formly weighted data contribute a significant bias even at
tained from integrals of the power spectrum (continuum in k M = 64 samples.
between -M/2 and M/2) rather than summations, in order to It should be emphasized that the computed width (5.7) is
account exactly for the bias introduced by the window. In biased if spectra have width comparable to the Nyquist inter-
practice this is not done because it would require an enormous val; in this aspect, the autocovariance method excels the Fourier
amount of computations and the sum in (5.7) is close to the processing. But in order to maintain accuracy, the systems
integral when spectra are broad compared to the resolution must be designed to have maximum expected spectrum widths
reasonably smaller than Ts-' so that the true and aliased spectra
1/MTs. For such cases the bias reads [23] are almost identical.
1l/2Tl 1/2Ts Next we present a formula for the variance of the width,
Wbh 1/2Ts
f D4(f)dfI DM(f) df (5.8) which assumes that the integral form of (5.7) is used and the
- /2Ts noise spectral density is subtracted [5] .
122 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 1979

11/2 T representations of digitally calculated values. Data were col-

var( ) 4MTW2S2 (2 _ w2)2 [S(f+f) lected while the antenna was stationary but elevated to 4°.
-1/2 Ts~ The number of samples for spectrum width and velocity calcu-
+N(f + f)] 2 df. (5.9) lation is 64. Fairly uniform rain created the echoes that last
in range until the beam exceeds the precipitation top (4 km at
For narrow Gaussian spectra and white noise this formula about 60 km in range). The continuity and low spread of width
becomes and velocity up to 60 km is indicative of the strong echoes.
I [3wTs N Note a uniform spread of velocities due to noise in region of
var w) =MT [32 +(WTS)2 no echoes. Because the width is computed from (5.3) and is
not noise unbiased, it shows a sharp discontinuity at 60 km
and large values at places of no echo.
+(3 202T2
+w7)jSj. (5.10) In summary, the first three spectral moments can be obtained
routinely at over 1000 continguous range locations at speeds
Unlike the autocovariance estimator, the variance here does commensurate with real-time applications (i.e., antenna rota-
not increase exponentially with width because the estimator tion rate around few r/min). The speed and convenience of
(5.7) is bounded (W~2 A l/l2T). Note that the first term of
calculating velocity and width were brought forward with the
(5.10) equals to (5.5) meaning the performance of the Fourier advent of pulse pair processor and associated digital circuitry.
method is equivalent to the pulse pair at large SNR. Not so at As those circuits become even more accessible, Fourier meth-
low SNR where the pulse pair variance (5.6) is 3.2 times lower. ods of spectral processing may find wider use in situations
It is significant that mean frequency and width estimators where signals are very weak such as mapping of motions in
have variances comprised of a signal contribution, a noise part, clear air [10] . The editing capability and, as we show in this
and a cross coupling of signal and noise. At large SNR's (20 article, the minimum variance property of all three estimates
dB or so), the signal contribution dominates and the accuracy are associated with sophisticated spectral processing. Straight-
is solely a function of spectrum width. In such a case, averag- forward spectral processing that uses the classical definition of
ing in range and azimuth decreases the errors at the expense of moments is inferior to the autocovariance method at low SNR
resolution. However, at low SNR's the variance is proportional and narrower spectrum widths. But with broader spectra the
to SNR-2 and a much more efficient method of reducing it, is estimators based on the autocovariance have an exponential
to optimize the SNR rather than average estimates in range. increase of the standard error; this is not so with the Fourier
This, for distributed targets, is accomplished by increasing the method which creates finite errors in both moment estimates
pulselength and using a matched filter such that the desired and merely develops a bias in the width estimate. Other ad-
range resolution equals the combined weighting function of vantages of the Fourier method are the absence of bias due to
the filter and transmitted pulse [12], [49] . nonsymmetric spectra and the feasibility of eliminating anom-
alous spectral powers.
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS We emphasize that an estimate of power, mean velocity, or
Illustrative examples of data scattergrams are shown on Figs. spectrum width at a single (isolated) range gate has little mete-
8 and 9. The Fourier transform derived velocity versus pluse orological meaning due to statistical uncertainty and possible
pair velocity follows a 450 straight line (Fig. 8). Data taken contamination with range overlayed echoes, anomalous targets,
are from a storm and the processing was done with a hardwired ground clutter, etc. In order to accept spectral-moment data,
pulse pair calculator. Time series from the same resolution one must check them for meteorological consistency over
volumes were simultaneously recorded and processed later on contiguous range and azimuthal locations and/or examination
a computer. The radar unambiguous velocity is +34 m * s-1. of the power spectrum should be made.
In obtaining the scattergram of widths, time series were Investigation of ML estimators shows that for optimum pro-
recorded and pulse pair (5.3) and Fourier widths were calcu- cessing one needs estimates of the autocovariance at all avail-
lated on a computer. The scatter is good in midrange and has able lags or equivalently the periodogram. To make matters
large deviations and negative bias at low widths, as predicted worse, the inverse covariance matrix is also needed and then
by the theory (see Fig. 6). On the average, pulse pair width one has to maximize a complicated log likelihood function.
is larger than the FFT width. This follows from the fact that While the improvement in the power estimate equivalent to at
a 15-dB threshold below spectral peak is set to suppress noise most 3 dB of signal power for coherent signals is not worth the
and spurious peaks in the FFT method. effort, the improvement in mean velocity estimates at low
Finally, the three moment estimates displayed on an oscil- SNR's can be significant. It can amount to an M-fold decrease
loscope along a radial demonstrate what is to be expected in standard error compared to the pulse pair and straight FFT
from meterological targets (Fig. 10). Two lower traces (d) and method.
(c) are raw and integrated logarithmic video samples. There While this is a strong impetus to prompt further research in
are 762 range gates spaced 1 ,us apart, the pulse-repetition the area of better spectral moment estimation, we emphasize
period is 768 ,s, and the recursive first-order filter (digital that the ML results are strictly correct for large number of
integrator) operates on logarithmic samples with a time con- samples. Data acquisition rates would be increased by an
stant of 24 ms for this example. order of magnitude if one could come up with as good esti-
The mean velocities (b) and spectrum widths (a) are analog mates with only 10 samples.
 ZRNIC': SPECTRAL MOMENTS FOR WEATHER ECHOES 123

ES
cr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.CM. CO.-oOC CCOCO00 0000000 000000 0000000 CcCCCCC 0000000 0.-Cf' e'c SE

.G 0000C00>CQc00000000C0000C 00 00 0 00 0 0
Z 00000000000 -..OPacl .4'4
-n .0.COO0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0"A00 0 .ccco-oc-o~)"
4. ('4- @
o' .000000000000000000000000000000EO4E3-@
.4.N(J @
M .o c o c c c c 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0-- 4 ' N ..0.
f c c c c c C c o c O cc o c O c c c c c c c cc c c c c nO - C e

MJ *00 00co00000
aCCc: 0
o,C
oc 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 00000000..000EC'CCQ
cOO C OC OD ,a .f%-.Q O-@4 OQQQ,cc et%

Jr .000oocooooo c0000 000000000000 0MM'a E' ')0000 ir

N .O OO O O OoO O O O O O O OO O O O Oc OO O O O..'4 040-000 4'

hr.
.,4>Q0 O C >cca 04 00CC aQ )caa 00aQQO,C ,CO q i 1C,94 C .

- 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 000--E-1- % -'- -o00c*

U.CJ0

Or. Eo&O~ 1

M. -4 E'9 .

1')..0000000000000000000000000000000006
CC.-44(71-C)
COOCC CO Oo c: 40 E'-0 000006
CDO D040000000 CD ('9*
4M "WI'9%.@

M4. N- 4>
Om00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.-0..0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
It LL! ,-4flJ
0n4 000000000m0000O 0000.~.4h 000000000000@
_j 01 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N-.@,
o. OOmCooooo C 0 0 00 0 0 000'0 '-00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *
('C . .-N 1,
0 4M @00000 0000000000000. Om-p-00000 00000 0000
ES. I,-.E
LA4
Ir
hr
Z~1,9
hr -00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 00 0 - 0 00 0N00 0 0 00 0 0
r N .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0--4O..00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0@

0~~~~~~~~
7 hr4M.- 0. q P
4 4N. 0-N'-..

LA0 N. mm eN
000 0
0000
*a0 C0
a cC>:r cc) cDMCCCC00
00 1,
C)C:O 4.-- C O. O000o00000000 00o0000000
c-C=C C:C C 00000:)C c 9@40
trN.-
r c) Z
~CC: hr .0 0 0 0 o 000
0 0L) r0 rZ ) o C C 0o00000000
l, :-c)::C C oooooooo0o 0oooo0ooo0 0o-- @hr: o

LU hr 4 @0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 O O O O OO o O C o oo o c o o .4
N Ip :C-O N.-or()f :()C~- c)co
O O C -O :C0COC~a() O4: c>O O -C c CC O0c)-C(-Co : c)C)o\
C! 1,9 @00C0000000000@,4 0-.04ooooooooooo0ooooo0o .,

a N.- -N 4N
C., *0000000000000004
x 0l hr
-,DC )c ) ~C )C)Cc )c ~c c )C Dc )c )c ,c CD0c000,000c00000CC0
0p-c.-4.-a00)
C0c00c00
CD CD000 .0,e
OL mmm ~ ~ ~ N
01c DC )O: .0 0 00001,I
00 0 l()L : )(0.-ES
)C 0
4P DC~C
~c 000
: : 000 000
C C00000000
:CD: 00000000
D CDD4> a C)4~c000000000c
0 C 0
CD L:
x -4u) M, 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IC-
C:J CDp.V-0 .00000 oooooo ooooo
:) -j .-.ooCooo
C c~oo ooooooo: 000000000
C ooa
o oocD
oo o ao o o
C o4
oo ooooo .p.C 4' - 0-
-. .-.1,9
\.
c tJIC4 @O 0 0 0-0000Chra0(')4
= Dc~C ( 0.-C0o0CD0o()
Da C 00 0 0 0)C 0)aC)CC
) 0o0
0 o00)40 : C DC ooaoD oooo
C 0CDCDQ @4
I-
-. -4N-\mf\

0 >- -.~~~ It M.
1, @~~~~~~ol()OOr =OO Oc ohr~-- hr4hroOooC OOOOO-
O aa)a OO O O c Oc D=OO(4)OOOOOC CCO000000000000 000000cc1, :M .-
- N .00~~~~~~~fl 00 o o r O c9' 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .
0 -. 1,~~~~~~~~~~~cc)c
,..C)C p.-c >c ~r-c-c
@- >cc~oC )c)C )C ,c cc )c ,Ccc Ccc( ,C ~C)C c ~c0 -

hr .-~~~~~~~~~1 t
.0000000-0.-.044lc~c c --C) ) D : c D D =rC 000000000000000000CD0CD00000C0oooooooooo
D c(~ CDO oo.ooo=ooc
- ...-&J
LU -.Z- ,. t
>: 0.00 0 0 0 0-.-.1 40 00 0 00 0 0a*0 00 0 000 0 000&0 000 00 00 00a00 00&0 000 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 00 000 0
al- N M- LI) %ol- 00 0,cl -41\ rw) It rlD F--CO
O' (O- (V M U),D r- CD Ok :~ -4M f ,* LI), P- 00 O cD -N -4 Lf) D 11- O Oh N fn4 V) NoP- co04(f -pN

a 0 a~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14J
Fig. 8. Scattergram of hardwired pulse pair velocity Vpp and power spectrum derived velocity Vfft for the same pulse volume. Only
velocities of echoes with SNR between 0 and 15 dB are included. The Nyquist velocity Va is 34 m - s-1.
124 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 1979
Vt 34 msC
'V
10 20
FFT WIDTH 11/S
Fig. 9. Scattergram: Pulse pair versus power spectrum (FFT) widths in
m s-1. Nyquist velocity is 34 m s-1, SNR is larger than 10 dB and
data are from a storm 100 km away. The Fourier method underesti-
mates the width because a sliding threshold below spectral peak is
used to reduce the effects of noise. The square root nonlinearity of
(5.1) at zero bunches the data into the lower and upper groups.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Fig. 10. From top to bottom are displayed: (a) Mean spectrum width,
vertical scale is 15 m s-1/cm. (b) Mean velocity, scale is 34 m s-1/
cm. (c) Mean reflectivity in log units; 40 dB/cm. (d) Raw reflectivity.
(e) One component of the Doppler channel. Horizontal scale is 11.5
km/cm.
APPENDIX
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATORS
It is characteristic of the ML method to provide estimates
with minimum variance (for large number of samples AM). Al-
though the ML estimators will turn out to be quite complex,
the motivation here is to determine the minimum variance
bound and compare it to the presently used simple algorithms.
Investigators have analyzed the properties of the Fourier
method [5], [9], [23] and of the covariance method for
spectral-moment estimation [5], [24], [44]. Miller and
Rochwarger have established the covariance estimators to be
ML when sample pairs are independent. Recently Brovko
derived the likelihood equation for the mean frequency esti-
mate when the data base consists of contiguous correlated
time samples [6]. We first treat a multiparameter estimation
and then proceed to show the minimum variance bound for
various limit cases of weather signals. Likelihood functions
can be obtained by expressing (2.1) in vector form
z = Ds + n (A.1)
where D is a diagonal matrix with elements dkk = e wk, while
s and n are M-dimensional column vectors.
The covariance matrix K of the jointly normal vector z is
K =D(C+NI)D* (A.2)
where C is the covariance matrix of the vector s and I the iden-
tity matrix. Thus the logarithm of the likelihood function
becomes
In p(zIs, W, Po, Pi,* ,PM-I) =zT*D(C + NI)-1D*z
- In (det K) + const. (A.3)
Note that the det K equals to the determinant of C + NI, which
is independent of w. In order to obtain the asymptotic (large
M) ML solutions, we shall use the following convenient artifice.
Because C + NI is a real covariance matrix, its inverse is sym-
metric and asymptotically Toeplitz with elements Xik = Xli-kl-
Rather than estimating the autocorrelation function at all
available lags, let's estimate X and the X(,_k)'s. The log likeli-
hood function is expressed as
L(w,XO,Xl, ,XM-1) =
X, ZXi-kZkeiw(ik)Ts
i, k
+ In (det K-l). (A.4)
The fact that det K = /det (K-1) was utilized to get from
(A.3) to (A.4). Now setting the partial derivatives with respect
to Xi-k and to zero, one obtains the ML estimates of those
w
quantities. The solution for Xk'S is straightforward; the ele-
ments Xk's are obtained by inverting the estimated covariance
matrix whose elements IR (k)I must satisfy
|R(k)| = M- Re[E zi+kl ikwTs] (A.5)
where the optimum W' is found from the minimum of the fol-
lowing quadratic form:
Q(W) Z7iX, kZke i s (A.6)
i,k
Because (A.5) and (A.6) are coupled, the solution for X is
complicated. Nevertheless, one is tempted to separate the two
by ignoring the exponential in (A.5) and taking a magnitude,
or to use iterative techniques between (A.5) and (A.6). In
general, minimization of Q(w) alone is not trivial, and closed-
form solutions can be obtained only in some special cases.
The difficulty of finding the minimum Q(w) is compounded
by the fact that one needs the inverse covariance matrix. Note
that the Q(w) function can be thought to represent a "fre-
quency analysis" of data products at various lags with the
weighting function Xi,k- While (A.5) is an asymptotic ML
solution for the autocovariance magnitude, (A.6) is valid for
arbitrary M, i.e., even when the inverse covariance is not
Toeplitz. For that reason the indexes on X in (A.6) are i, k,
rather than i k.-
To summarize, the optimum mean frequency estimator calls
for 1) the knowledge or estimate of the covariance matrix at
all lags, 2) inversion of the covariance matrix, and 3) minimiza-
tion of a quadratic form (A.6).
ZRNIC': SPECTRAL MOMENTS FOR WEATHER ECHOES 125

In arriving at (A.5), it was assumed that the inverse elements and the ML estimate of S becomes
Xk are independent of each other; consequently, R k's are also 2
M-i
independent. If Rk's are related, as is the case with weather E Zi e jwiTS -
MN
echoes, maximization of the likelihood function with respect A 0
to signal power S and spectrum width w, becomes very tedious. S= ~M2 (A. 15)
However, when white noise power is negligible, the optimum
signal power estimate S is found from while c25 is found by maximizing

S= ZiZkX,i k ei (i"k)Ts (A.7) M-1 z w

Zziei= Ts 2 (A. 16)
0

where xik's are elements of the normalized matrix K' = K/S. But S(X) is the magnitude squared of a discrete Fourier trans-
The correlation coefficients which determine K' are found as form (DFT). To find its maximum, one can computeM equally
spaced coefficients via the FFT, and then search for the maxi-
Pk= ARe [Z ZPi+kei-, kTs] (A.8) DFT's around
mum the candidate frequency, i.e., perform several
(M- Ikt)S ° in the immediate vicinity of the largest coefficients
obtained from the FFT. With XZ determined, the signal power
while the mean frequency is obtained from (A.6). Again itera- (A.15) can be directly calculated. Note that the estimate S is
tive procedure can be used to calculate 5 'Z Pk, but a lot of intuitively satisfying because it takes the fullest advantage of
labor is saved if Pk is estimated from the sample mean coherent processing.
I M-1 Ik
- With the help of perturbation analysis, it can be shown that
E Zi'Zi+k for large M, both estimators S and X, achieve the minimum
(M - IkI)S 0
variance bound. From the Fisher information matrix the
after which X^ and then S are obtained. If one had exact bounds are
knowledge of the covariance matrix, then the variance of the for signal power:
signal power estimate would be bound by
S2
M2 > M(MS +N)3
(MS+M2 N ::Z S 2 + 2SN/M (A.17)
M-1
SYS (A.10)
M- E (M- Ikl)pkXk for the frequency f = w/2a:
-(M-1)
But in practice only estimates Xk are available, and the mini- 6N(MS + N)
Gf2 > 47r2 T2S2M2(M2 6N (A.18)
mum variance bound is somewhat larger. - 1) 47T2 TsSM3
Exact solutions of the likelihood equations are possible The approximate equalities on the right are valid when the
when the signal process consists of sinusoids with random am- number of samples M is large. While the variance of signal
plitudes and phases whose power is S. Then the autocorrela- power estimate cannot be reduced below S2 (as expected since
tion function reduces to a simple form only one sinusoid of the lot is observed), the variance of f is
Ri,k =S+N6i,k inversely proportional to the number of samples cubed! There-
fore, when echoes are coherent, relatively small number of
where samples should suffice to provide accurate measurements of
1 if i=k the frequency and hence, radial velocity. Incidentally, our
tO,0 if i#k. 5i,k:- ~~~~~~~~~(A.lIl) result is very similar to Lank et al. who determined the mini-
mum variance bound (when the signal process is a constant
The inverse of the covariance matrix has elements [6], [41 1. amplitude but random phase sinusoid) to be [18]
6N
(A.19)
Xi,k N(N +MS) (A. 12) 47r2T2SM(M2 - 1)

and the determinant of K is expressible in closed form: Other signal processes that can be treated analytically occur
when the inverse covariance matrix is tridiagonal with equal
det K = (N + MS)NM-1. (A. 13) but negative off-diagonal terms. Suchis, for instance, a Markov
Since the essential ingredients for writing the log likelihood process in negligible white noise, for which the magnitude of
function have been determined, all that remains to be done is the correlation coefficient is a simple exponential. The spec-
find cZ and S. Thus trum width is unbounded for this process, but a ML estimate
of mean frequency is obtained from the argument of the esti-
I M-i12 S mated autocorrelation:
L(co,S) = -- EjZ + zZizk
* i e-)s-1N(MS+N) i,k M-1\
.eJiw(iJ(k)Ts_ In (N +MS)-_ (M-_ l)lInN cos = arg E: Z-I Zi.l . (A.20)

(A.14) This is precisely the autocovariance or pulse pair estimator.

126 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 1979

As a final example we summarize and apply the Toeplitz 1 12(wT,)4

form results of Grenander and Szego to the mean-frequency 2 (A.28)
'Of T>
i2M [I - 12 (WTS)2 ] -
estimator [14], [15] . Because the inverse covariance matrix is
asymptotically Toeplitz (for large number of samples M), ap- On the other hand, when noise is large but the spectrum nar-
proximate closed-form solutions for the elements Xk are readily row compared to Nyquist limits, the bound is
found:
2 1 4/(wTS)3 N2 (A.29)
f7rITs ei kTs d, Uf M2M S
T2s
Xk = 27r (A.21) We emphasize that the lower bounds for mean frequency
/<TS S(W)
estimates are not affected by the knowledge (or lack of) of the
where S(o) is the power spectrum (centered at dc) satisfying signal power or spectrum width. This can be verified by noting
the familiar Fourier relationship: that
00 E(a2L/LawaS) = E(a2L/acoaw) = 0. (A.30)
S (c) =Ts 1:[SP (kWTs) +N6k] e-jwk7j
_00
Unlike the sinusoidal case, the variance bounds on f, (A.28),
and (A.29) follow a M-1 law. This result is asymptotic, i.e.,
(A.22) valid for large M. At small values of M, there does not appear
to be a simple expression relating the minimum variance bound
(A.23) to M, spectrum width w, and SNR. In order for the estimates
I ITs of spectrum width or mean frequency to be accurate, the
Nyquist interval (Ts1) must be considerably larger than the
While this simplification is useful in establishing the minimum maximum anticipated spectrum width w [44]. If the upper
variance bound, it is really of little help in obtaining good mean
frequency estimators. As we see, one needs an estimate of the limit of product wTs is less than about 0.2, we see that one
may be able to achieve low values of 2
power spectrum (or the autocorrelation at all available lags) in
order to extremize Q(o). Our analysis agrees in principle with B. SpectralAnalysis
Lee, who advocates use of the autocovariance at several lags in The rest of this section draws heavily on Levine's analysis
order to decrease the standard deviation of velocity estimates who was the first to treat the problem by considering as ob-
[19], [38]. servable variables the estimates of the power spectrum coeffi-
For illustration, consider a Gaussian spectrum with white cients Sk [20] . If S(k; S, f, w) denotes the "true" spectrum,
noise, i.e., ML estimates of the parameters S, f, and w are obtained by
S simultaneously solving three equations of the form
S(W) = e_(Wz2/81r2w2) + NTs (A.24)
MA [S'(k;S, f, w) Sk S(k;S, f, w)
(A.31) =

and a corresponding autocorrelation magnitude: k=o LS(k;S, f, w)

-
S2(k; S, f, w)
Sp(kwTs) =Se-272(wkTs)2 +N8k. (A.25) where the prime denotes a partial derivative with respect to
The expected value of a2Q/aW2 is found to be S, f, or w. Because we are dealing with sampled time signals,
the true spectrum may be an aliased version of the weather
M-1 signal spectrum. The assumptions behind (A.3 1) are that time
[a2Q(Cj)]
F
a2 J -T
-(M-1) 2M k)kp
records are long, so that spectral coefficients are not correlated,
the signal process is stationary Gaussian, and the various first
and second partial derivatives of the power spectrum are
2T J /T S(.) [J x2(M_ IXI) bounded and continuous. Solution of the coupled equations is
not trivial. Although iteration uncouples the equations, even
cos (coT5x)p(wTsx) dx]d&j. (A.26) then closed-form expressions for S and w do not exist. This is
discouraging, but not all is lost since important special cases
After neglecting lxI and integrating once, one obtains [13] can be handled. For instance, the ML signal power when noise
in (A.24) is insignificant can be explicitly expressed in terms
E[aQ] Ts VMS of ML estimatesf and w':
Law2 j 8ir(Nff rrwTs)5 /s M-1 A k ^
2

f7lTs [4X2 (WTS)2 - (coTS)2] dcA S = L S (k) exp f 2w^2 (A.32)

TS
.

0
-rr/Ts [S/I 2';iw + NTs exp (X2/8ir2w2)] On the other hand, when noise is large, the estimate reduces to
(A.27)
The integral in (A.27) can be evaluated if the noise is zero or Z [S (k) -
NTS] exp [_ (# )2 ]
if it is large compared to the signal. Thus for N = 0 the mini- : ['(Ts ) /](A.33)
mum variance bound (the reciprocal of (A.27)) for the fre- Z: exp[ (t-- )/w2]
quency becomes
ZRNIC': SPECTRAL MOMENTS FOR WEATHER ECHOES 127

For both cases the minimum of u2 > 18O(wTS)6 /MT2. (A.39)

M-1 /k
[- 21 + -1 Different formulas are obtained when white noise is dominant
E0 S (k) LL\
S expI--
TS
- f)2w2
ij
+ NTs~ (A.34)
a2 > 3VFwTNN2/M (A.40)
with respect to f, yields the ML estimate f if the spectrum is aU2 > 4F (wTS)3N2 /MT2s2. (A.41)
narrow compared to 1 fT, Finally, a w at which the maximum
of So far derived results are not unexpected, i.e., a2 depen-
dency followsM-1 law, but the coefficients of proportionality
and in particular, the relationship with the normalized spec-
n{ exp [ -( -if)2W2] +NTs} trum spread wTs are significant. In the main body of this
paper it is shown how various algorithms fare in comparison to
the minimum variance bounds.
+0 (k){S exp -
(- f )2W2] +NT} A different type of ML estimator is described by Waldteufel
[39]. He fits composite spectral shapes (i.e., Gaussian con-
(A.35) volved with the lag window and superimposed onto white
occurs is the third equation. The problem is not reduced by noise) to FFT derived periodograms. Spectral moments ob-
forming the partial derivatives of (A.34) and (A.35) because tained from the fitted curves had better accuracy than either
nonlinear equations ensue. autocovariance or Fourier transform derived moments. Exact
In order to determine the Cramer Rao bounds, one needs the analytical expressions for the variance of such estimators are
Fisher information matrix F. For convenience, use the inte- not available.
grals instead of summations for the log likelihood functions ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(negative of (A.35)) to find the matrix elements fi1 (subscripts
1, 2, and 3 refer to partial derivatives with respect to S, f, and Encouragement and insight of Dr. R. J. Doviak concerning
w, respectively) [1], [20]: weather echo processing are greatly appreciated. He and W. D.
Rummler from Bell Laboratories provided constructive criti-
cism of the manuscript. D. Sirmans designed the signal proces-
=2rNmWT3 J-fn ( sor and furnished Fig. 8. B. Bumgarner performed the simula-
tion tests, R. Hilbert provided Fig. 9, and G. Anderson made
MS2 fn Fig. 10. The graphics were done by Jennifer Moore and
x2g-2(x) dx photography by C. Clark. Joy Walton and Connie Hall typed
22
27rw3TsN2 the manuscript. Continuing support of the Federal Aviation
-fn
Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission con-
MS3= fn (x2 1)2g-2(x)dx tributed directly to much of this paper.
REFERENCES
MS
fn [1] A. Arcese and E. W. Trombini, "Variances of spectral parameters
fi3 2rrw2T3N2 l (x2 - )g2(x)dx with a Gaussian shape," IEEE 7rans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-1 7,
-n pp. 200-201, Mar. 1971.
[2] G. M. Armstrong and R. J. Donaldson, Jr., "Plan shear indicator
and for real time Doppler radar identification of hazardous storm
winds," J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 8, pp. 376-383, 1969.
[3] L. J. Battan, Radar Observation of the Atmosphere. Chicago,
g(x) = psS + ex2/2, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1973.
2wT. [4] P. A. Bello, "On the RMS bandwidth of nonlinearly envelope
detected narrow-band Gaussian noise," IEEE Trans. Inform.
Again because f12 = f23 = 0, the information about S or w does Theory, vol. IT-il, pp. 236-239, Apr. 1965.
not affect the lower bound, f,-21 for 2f, which at large SNR is [51 T. Berger and H. L. Groginsky, "Estimation of the spectral mo-
very close to (A.28), i.e., ments of pulse trains," presented at the Int. Conf. on Inform.
Theory, Tel Aviv, Israel, 1973.
[6] 0. Brovko, "The structure of a maximum likelihood center fre-
f _
12M
12(wT)4
(A.37) quency estimator," Tech. Internal Corresp. no. 2313.00/042,
Hughes Aircraft Company, May 16, 1977.
[71 W. C. Campbell and R. C. Strauch, "Meteorological Doppler radar
At low SNR, the bound is identical to (A.29). This is en- with double pulse transmission," in Preprints, 1 7th Conf. Radar
couraging as it suggests that the asymptotic (large M) bounds Meteorol., Amer. Meteorol. Soc., Boston, MA 02108, pp. 42-44,
Oct. 1976.
on u4 and aU2, derived from the spectral analysis, should be [8] A. M. Chimera, "Meteorological radar echo study," Cornell Aero
close to the "correct" bounds that are difficult to obtain from Labs., Buffalo, New York, Final Rep. Contract AF33(616)-6352,
time-series analysis. We find at large SNR the two bounds to 1960.
be [9] J. N. Denenberg, "The estimation of spectral moments," Dept. of
Geophys. Sci., the Univ. of Chicago, and Dept. of Elect. Eng., IL.
Inst. of Technol., Rep. Lab. Atmos. Probing, 1971, pp. 82.
as2 > filf33 ~2[2.25
[2 (WT
30(wT)2 + 180 (WTS)4] [101 R. J. Doviak and C. T. Jobson, "Dual Doppler radar observations
flI
33 13 M of clear air wind perturbations in the planetary boundary layer,"
J. Geophys. Res., vol. 84, no. C2, pp. 697-702, Feb. 1979.
[11] R. J. Doviak, D. Sirmans, D. Zrnic', and G. B. Walker, "Consider-
128 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE ELECTRONICS, VOL. GE-17, NO. 4, OCTOBER 1979
ations for pulse-Doppler radar observations of severe thunder-
storms," J. Appi. Meteorol., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 189-205, 1978.
[121 R. J. Doviak and D. S. Zrnic', "Receiver bandwidth effect on re-
flectivity and Doppler velocity estimates," J. Appl. Meteorol.,
vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 69-76, Jan., 1979.
[131 I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table ofIntegrals, Series, and
Products. 4th ed. New York: Academic, 1965, pp. 19 and 939.
[14] R. M. Gray, "Toeplitz and Circulent Matrices: A Review," Stan-
ford Electronic Lab. Tech. Rep. no. 6502-1, June 1971.
[15] U. Grenander and G. Szego, Toeplitz Forms and their Applica-
tions. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1958.
[16] H. L. Groginsky, "The coherent memory filter," inElectron Prog.
(Raytheon Co.), vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 7-13, 1965.
[17] G. H. Hyde and K. E. Perry, "Doppler phase difference inte-
grator," M.I.T. Tech. Rep. p. 189, 1958.
[18] G. W. Lank, I. S. Reed, and G. E. Pollon, "A semicoherent detec-
tion and Doppler estimation statistic," IEEE Trans. Aerosp.
Electron. Syst., vol. AES-9, pp. 151-165, Mar. 1975.
[19] R. W. Lee, "Performance of the poly-pulse-pair Doppler estima-
tor," Lassen Res. Memo 78-03, Aug. 1978.
[20] M. J. Levine, "Power spectrum parameter estimation," IEEE
Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-ll, pp. 100-107, 1965.
[21] R. M. Lhermitte, "Real time processing of meteorological Dop-
pler radar signals," in Preprints, 15th Conf. Radar Meteorol.,
Amer. Meteorol. Soc., Boston, MA, pp. 364-367, 1972.
[22] J. S. Marshall and W. Hitschfeld, "Interpretation of the fluctuat-
ing echo from randomly distributed scatterers," Pt. I, Can. J.
Phys., vol. 31, pp. 962-995, 1953.
[231 K. S. Miller and M. M. Rochwarger, "On estimating spectral mo-
ments in the presence of colored noise," IEEE 7rans. Inform.
Theory, vol. IT-16, pp. 303-309, May 1970.
[241 -, "A covariance approach to spectral moment estimation,"
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-18, pp. 588-596,1972.
[251 E. A. Mueller and E. J. Silha, "Unique features of the CHILL
radar system," in Preprints, 18th Conf. Radar Meteorol., Amer.
Meteorol. Soc., Boston, MA, pp. 381-382, Mar. 1978.
[26] F. E. Nathanson, Radar Design Principles. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1969.
[27] L. R. Novick and K. M. Glover, "Spectral mean and variance esti-
mation via pulse pair processing," 16th Conf. Radar Meteorol.,
Preprints, Amer. Meteorol. Soc., Boston, MA, pp. 1-5, 1975.
[28] A. Papoulis, Probability Random Variables and Stochastic Pro-
cesses. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
[29] R. R. Rogers, "The effect of variable target reflectivity on weather
radar measurements," Quart. J. Roy. MeteoroL Soc., vol. 97, pp.
154-167, 1971.
[30] W. D. Rummler, "Accuracy of spectral width estimators using
pulse pair waveforms," Bell Telephone Labs., Whippany, N.J.,
Tech. Memo, 1968.
[31] -, "Introduction of a new estimator for velocity spectral param-
eters," Bell Telephone Labs., Whippany, N.J., Tech. Memo. MM-
68-4121-5, 1968.
[32] -, "Two pulse spectral measurements," Bell Telephone Labs.,
Whippany, N.J. Tech. Memo. MM-68-4121-15, 1968.
[33] W. Rutkowski and A. Fleisher, "R-meter: An instrument for
measuring gustiness," M.I.T. Weather Radar Res. Rep. no. 24,
1955.
[341 D. Sirmans and R. J. Doviak, "Pulsed-Doppler velocity isotach
displays of storm winds in real time," J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 12,
no. 4, pp. 694-697, 1973.
[35] -, "Meteorological radar signal intensity estimation," NOAA
Tech. Memo ERL NSSL-64, 1973.
[36] D. Sirmans and W. Bumgarner, "Estimation of spectral density
mean and variance by covariance argument techniques," in Pre-
prints, 16th Conf. Radar Meteorol., (Apr. 22-24, Houston, TX),
Amer. Meteorol. Soc., Boston MA, pp. 6-13, 1975.
[37] -, "Numerical comparison of five mean frequency estimators,"
J. Appl. Meteorol., vol. 14, pp. 991-1003, Sept. 1975.
[38] R. G. Strauch, R. A. Kropfli, W. B. Sweezy, and W. R. Moninger,
"Improved Doppler velocity estimates by the poly-pulse pair
method," Preprints, 18th Conf. Radar Meteorol., (Mar. 28-31,
Atlanta, GA), Amer. Meteorol. Soc., Boston, MA, pp. 376-380,
1977.
[391 P. Waldteufel, "An analysis of weather spectra variance in a
tornadic storm," NOAA Tech. Memo ERL NSSL-76, 1976.
[401 G. B. Walker, P. S. Ray, D. Zrnic', and R. J. Doviak, "Time angle
and range sampling with weather radar," Preprints, 16th Conf.
Radar Meteorol., (Apr. 22-24, Houston, TX), Amer. Meteorol.
Soc., Boston, MA, pp. 156-162, 1975.
[41] J. R. Westlake, A Handbook of Numerical Matrix Inversion and
Solution of Linear Equations. New York: Wiley, 1968.
[42] R. F. Woodman and T. Hagfors, "Methods for the measurements
of vertical ionospheric motions near the magnetic equator by in-
coherent scattering," J. Geophys. Res., Space Phys., vol. 75, pp.
1205-1212, Mar. 1969.
[43] D. S. Zrnic', "Mean power estimation with a recursive filter,"
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. AES-13, pp. 281-289,
May 1977.
[44] -, "Spectral moment estimates from correlated pulse pairs,"
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., vol. AES-13, pp. 344-354,
1977.
[45] -, "Spectrum width estimates for weather echoes," accepted
by the IEEE 7rans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., (1979).
[46] -, "Simulation of weatherlike Doppler spectra and signals,"
J. Appl. Meteor., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 619-620, June 1975.
[47] -, "Moments of estimated input power for finite sample aver-
ages of radar receiver outputs," IEEE Trans. Aerosp. and Elec-
tron. Syst., vol. AES-il, pp. 109-113, 1975.
[48] -, "Radar measurement of turbulence in storms," Rep. RCA
Avionics Systems, Van Nuys, CA, 1977.
[49] D. S. Zrnic' and R. J. Doviak, "Matched filter criteria and range
weighting for weather radar," IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron.
Syst., vol. AES-14, pp. 295-930, 1978.