1

Multipath-dominant, pulsed doppler analysis of
rotating blades

arXiv:1204.4366v1 [] 19 Apr 2012

Michael Robinson(1)

Abstract—We present a novel angular fingerprinting algorithm
for detecting changes in the direction of rotation of a target with a
monostatic, stationary sonar platform. Unlike other approaches,
we assume that the target’s centroid is stationary, and exploit
doppler multipath signals to resolve the otherwise unavoidable
ambiguities that arise. Since the algorithm is based on an
underlying differential topological theory, it is highly robust to
distortions in the collected data. We demonstrate performance
of this algorithm experimentally, by exhibiting a pulsed doppler
sonar collection system that runs on a smartphone. The performance of this system is sufficiently good to both detect changes
in target rotation direction using angular fingerprints, and also
to form high-resolution inverse synthetic aperature images of the
target.
Index Terms—pulsed doppler sonar, multipath, rotating targets, angular fingerprint

I. I NTRODUCTION

T

HE doppler structure of rotating targets is of considerable recent interest. Most of this effort has focused
on detection and classification, often with an eye toward
filtering and removal. For instance, the proliferation of wind
turbines presents challenging doppler clutter [1] for air traffic
control radars. Many methods exploit micro-doppler structure;
specifically those portions of a target’s echo that are localized
in range and doppler near the target echo’s centroid. In
favorable settings, micro-doppler structure contains sufficient
information to form an inverse synthetic aperture image of
a target. However, if the sensor platform is monostatic and
the target’s centroid is fixed, there remains an unavoidable
ambiguity: the direction of rotation cannot be determined.
This ambiguity is resolved if one extends treatment to
echos outside the immediate vicinity of the target’s range
and doppler, and considers multipath signals. Unfortunately,
methods for processing these signals are lacking, and usually
require intricate knowledge of the environment. For instance
the algorithms presented in [2] require the construction of a
detailed ray-tracing model of the environment. We present
a methodology for processing doppler multipath of rotating
targets that makes only limited assumptions about the environment, since it is based on the theory of differential
topology. We rely on the framework introduced in [3], which
presented a unified method for detection and localization under
general settings. We validate this topological methodology in
simulation and with a controlled set of experiments using
indoor sonar returns of a rotating target.
(1) Department of Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, 209 S. 33rd
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA e-mail: robim@math.upenn.edu

We present a novel angular fingerprinting algorithm, which
allows changes in direction of rotation to be detected. Since
the algorithm is based on the inherent topological robustness
of multipath doppler signatures, it is unnecessary to use a
separate detection process to identify which portions of the
signal constitute multipath echos. As a convenient aside, our
algorithm can be demonstrated easily with low-quality equipment. We therefore also present a feasibility study for sonar
imaging and acoustic multipath measurement using consumergrade audio equipment. We focus on the common ceiling fan
as our target, using it as a proxy for more complicated rotating
targets.
II. H ISTORICAL TREATMENT
With the growth of the wind power industry, there has been
increasing concern about the doppler clutter they present to
tracking radar systems. Perhaps the earliest detailed account
of the effects of wind farms on radar systems was given in
[1]. In that report, both modeling and controlled observations
of typical wind turbines were described. They concluded that
there is substantial structure in the echos in the immediate
vicinity of a wind turbine (microdoppler) as well as multipath
structure that extends farther away from the turbine’s range.
In the following years, various ad hoc techniques have been
devised (such as [4]) to exise these effects from radar data.
In an effort to be more systematic, [5] performed highfidelity measurements of wind turbines to characterize their
microdoppler structure.
With the availability of high-resolution inverse synthetic
aperature systems, microdoppler structure has become a valuable source of information about moving targets, including
wind turbines. Chen and his colleagues [6], [7] have performed
detailed simulations to classify microdoppler effects. Thayaparan and his colleagues [8], [9] further showed that rotating
portions of targets can be extracted from time-frequency and
wavelet analysis of their microdoppler structure. In particular,
this enables one to separate rotating, static, and linear trajectories from each other. Assuming that the target centroid
is in motion, one has nonzero crossrange resolution and can
then solve for the direction of rotation. Multistatic systems
[10] can provide an instantaneous rotation vector, if there is
relative motion of centroids. In contrast with this approach, we
show that changes in rotation direction can be detected with
a monostatic system even if there is no crossrange resolution
by using multipath signals instead.
Multipath has long been known to contain potentially valuable, if difficult to extract, information for target localization.

2

For instance, Sherman [11] showed that multipath echos
collected from a single pulse could be used to provide a localization solution of a moving target. Extracting these responses
from the background can be complicated; the interested reader
can find a systematic treatment in [12]. However, since this
kind of systematic treatment is often more complicated than
is desirable for real-time systems, the simpler method of
multipath fingerprinting has become extremely common. (The
interested reader should consult [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], or
[2] for representative treatments.) Fingerprinting methods rely
on the fact that the received multipath structure is uniquely
determined by the location of a receiver in an environment
illuminated by a collection of transmitters whose locations
may be unknown. In order to provide useful results, fingerprinting methods require the collection of a reference dataset,
in which known locations are associated with the multipath
response at that location. Multipath fingerprints are often
obtained opportunistically, using an existing communication
infrastructure as a network of illuminators.
The setup of multipath fingerprinting generalizes considerably as shown in [3], and can be used to localize targets
or changes in the environment. In this article, we apply a
simplified fingerprint approach that differs from the usual ones.
Like the usual approaches, we require a reference collection
to be acquired. However, instead of using a passive approach,
we actively sense the environment by introducing a waveform
with fine range resolution and doppler sensitivity. Because
of this, we implicitly include doppler information in the
resulting fingerprints. Usual multipath fingerprinting requires
a sophisticated fingerprint matching algorithm because the
resulting data is high-dimensional. In contrast, our space of
locations to be sensed is one-dimensional, and therefore only
a few multipath signals are necessary. Further, because our
rotating target has substantial angular momentum, we can limit
the complexity of the matching algorithm to a simple Kalman
filter.
Since it is our desire to work with simple algorithms and
equipment, we demonstrate performance of our angular fingerprint algorithm on a system built from consumer-grade equipment. Surprisingly few other researchers have made use of
such hardware; we want to advocate for its cost-effectiveness
for rapid prototyping. Perhaps the best tour de force in this area
is Charvat’s synthetic aperature radar, powered by a garage
door sensor. [18] Like the sonar measurements we take, sonar
measurements have been demonstrated by others using a PC
sound card [19], an iPhone [20], or an Android smartphone
[21]. Indeed, [19] successfully demonstrated low-resolution
synthetic aperature image formation. However, we believe our
article to be the first use of a smartphone’s sound card to form
an inverse synthetic aperature image of a moving target.
III. T HEORETICAL DISCUSSION
Consider a propagation environment with a single rotating, reflective target. For concreteness, the simulation and
experiment presented in this article focuses on a potentially
complicated room with a fan spinning at a fixed, known
location. Formally, the entire configuration of the environment
and target is parametrized by a single circle-valued coordinate.

Suppose a sensor has been placed in the environment that
instantaneously takes a collection of N real-valued measurements (which might be signal levels at a particular time, times
of arrival, or other similar measurements). In this case, we
have a function S 1 → RN taking the angular coordinate
of the target to the recieved measurements. Notice that this
function implicitly encodes sensor location(s), sensor modality, and many processing considerations. In this article, the
measurements will be either the times of arrival of the first N
echos or the signal levels at a collection of N time samples
within each pulse interval.
We can generalize this slightly to permit measurements to
fail, which can happen if an echo is shadowed. In this case, we
permit measurements to take the value ⊥ to indicate a non-R
value. In this case, we expand our function to be P : S 1 →
(R t ⊥)N . Following [3], we call such a function P a signal
profile when certain regularity conditions are met. Specifically,
if there exists a cover U = {U1 , ..., UM } of S 1 so that
1) each Ui is a compact, 1-dimensional set,
2) every point in the image P (Ui ) has the same set of non⊥ coordinates, (we write Ni for the number of non-⊥
coordinates in P (Ui )) and
3) the projection Pi : Ui → RNi to the non-⊥ coordinates
of the restriction P |Ui : Ui → (R t ⊥)N is a smooth
function.
The principal result about signal profiles is the following
Theorem 1. (Immediate consequence of [3], Theorem 3,
the Signals Embedding theorem) The signal profile P :
S 1 → (R t ⊥)N arising from a generic set of maps Pi ∈
C ∞ (Ui , RNi ), is injective when the minimal Ni is greater
than 3.
Intuitively, this means that signal profiles in practice will
usually be injective if enough measurements are taken at each
configuration, and (by the inverse function theorem) will have
locally-defined smooth inverses.
In the case of a single rotating target, this means that the
angular position of a rotating target is completely determined
if there are always at least three independent measurements
available for each angle. This is robust to multipath: often
particular reflections will only be visible for a particular range
of angles before being shadowed.
Ambiguities can arise if too few measurements are made.
For instance, if the sensor measures only the shortest path distance to a reflection point on the target, there is an unavoidable
symmetry: all points that have the same off-boresight angle
are indistinguishable. In essence, Theorem 1 suggests that by
collecting multipath signals, this ambiguity is removed.
Of course there does remain a particular ambiguity in the
case of a rotating fan; if there are K > 1 blades, the image
of the signal profile will be more highly periodic, namely
P (θ + 2π/K) = P (θ). Indeed, a truly generic perturbation of
P would destroy this periodicity and destroy the ambiguity,
possibly by changing the effective lengths of the blades.
However, we will not proceed in this direction in this article
as this is unrealistic.
This ansatz suggests a methodology (see Section IV-B for
details) for the measurement of rotation direction and relative

3

Fan is centered in room

Platform
Fan
2.5 m

1.4 m

Fan
2.21 m

multipath echos

Platform
Top View

Fig. 1.

Side View

Experimental floorplan

speed: first acquire one rotation of the target, storing the
measurements taken. Later acquisitions can be compared to
these previous measurements to recover the angular position
of the target by simply finding the nearest match using a metric
on (R t ⊥)N .
IV. E XPERIMENT DESIGN AND DATA PROCESSING
Theorem 1 makes a strong statement about the ability to
detect changes in the direction of rotation of targets and to
measure their rotation rate. However, its reliance on multipath
signals means that it may be difficult to exploit in practice
due to limitations imposed by noise and clutter. Additionally,
it is possible that hidden symmetries imposed by sampling
or experimental structure could prevent the typical experiment
from having sufficiently many independent signals. Therefore,
we conducted experiments both in simulation and with simple
acoustic equipment to verify that direction and rate of rotation
are detectible in practice. In so doing, we also demonstrate the
power of consumer-grade acoustic hardware for the purpose
of synthetic aperture imaging.
Specifically, the experiments aim to verify the following
properties of the signal profile:
1) Repeatability: if the system returns to the same physical
state (angle of rotating target), how similar are the
associated multipath signals?
2) Injectivity: are there any distant pairs of angles of the
target that result in the same or similar multipath?
A. Experimental setup: simulation and physical
We conducted two kinds of experiments, in simulation and
physically. The simulation provides relatively pristine, easy
to interpret results. On the other hand, conclusive success of
the physical experiments demonstrates the robustness of our
approach.
We conducted our experiments in a relatively simple geometry, as shown in Figure 1. The rotating target was a ceiling
fan (see Figure 2) mounted on the ceiling of a small room with
four walls. The fan had four 58 cm blades, which are inclined
at an angle of 15 degrees with respect to the horizontal. To
minimize acoustic noise from the motor, the fan was spun by
giving it a push by hand before collecting data.
A simple ray tracing approach was used to produce the
simulation dataset, with not more than one specular wall

Fig. 2.

The fan used in the physical experiments
TABLE I
S UMMARY OF P HYSICAL C OLLECTIONS

Collection

Direction

A
B
C
D
E
F

Static
Static
CCW
CCW
CCW
CW

Fan rate
(visual)
0 Hz
0 Hz
1/2 Hz
1/3 Hz
1/2 Hz
1/2 Hz

Doppler frequency
of vertical band
N/A
N/A
3.39 Hz
1.56 Hz
2.34 Hz
2.145 Hz

1/4 Doppler
frequency
N/A
N/A
0.85 Hz
0.39 Hz
0.58 Hz
0.54 Hz

bounce permitted. The blades were simulated as perfectly
reflective line segments, which were static for the duration of
each pulse. Reflections off the simulated blades were permitted
under the condition that the angles made by the incident and
reflected rays and the line segment were equal. After each
pulse, the position of each of the blades was updated according
to the rotation speeds observed in the physical experiment
(a rotation rate of approximately 0.5 - 3 Hz). No noise or
systematic errors were included in the simulation, and the
reflection coefficients for the walls were artificially large (0.5),
simply because the primary output of the simulation was
timing information and not signal levels.
The physical experiment was conducted in a room of the
same dimensions as shown in Figure 1. Each of the walls
and the ceiling was composed of residential drywall, and
the floor was composed of wood. There were numerous
obstacles of various acoustic properties present in the scene.
Although these obstacles were uncontrolled, they were static
and therefore of relatively little importance.
Six physical collections were performed, as summarized in
Table I. The collection system was a monostatic sonar platform
running in software on a Nokia n900 smartphone. Two threads
of execution were used:
1) A transmit process, which played the desired waveform
stored as a WAV file over the speakers, and
2) A receive process, which recorded the transmitted signal
and subsequent echos.
Subsequent analysis of the collected data was performed using

4

TABLE II
S ONAR COLLECTION PARAMTERS
Parameter
Pulse type
Pulse repetition frequency
Receive sampling rate
Pulses collected

Value
Narrow impulse
34 Hz
44.1 kHz
175

Pulses

Range samples

Fig. 3.

Layout of the data before processing

custom-made scripts in GNU Octave [22].
B. Processing methodology
Both the simulation and the physical experiments used the
same sonar waveform, so as to ensure comparable results.
These waveform parameters are summarized in Table II.
In both the simulation and the physical experiment, the
collected data is in the form of a single contiguous collection
of time samples. These were grouped into pulses by acquiring
the leading edge of the first pulse and using the known pulse
interval. The resulting data was formed into a matrix (see
Figure 3), whose columns correspond to the pulses and whose
rows correspond to samples within each pulse.
The data was processed using three different methods:
range-doppler processing, inverse synthetic aperture processing, and a novel angular fingerprinting approach.
The range-doppler processing used was quite simple: the
data matrix was discrete Fourier transformed in the column
(pulse) direction, and then centered at the zero doppler frequency. No further filtering or weighting was applied, as highresolution range-doppler results were not desired.
We also applied an inverse synthetic aperture process to
the data in order to validate the quality of the direct path
(transmitter-target-receiver) data in both experiments. We used
a time-domain backprojection image formation technique [23],
projecting the data to a reference frame rotating with the target.
This is easy in simulation; the center of the fan and its rotation
rate are known precisely. However, to avoid blurring effects,
this required careful measurement of the fan’s rotation rate
(not its direction) for the physical experiment. Of course, using
only the direct path signal for this image formation process
means that no multipath effects are included. Therefore, since
the center of the fan remains fixed, there is an unavoidable
ambiguity in its rotation. For this reason, the formation of the
image is insensitive to rotation direction. (Realize that in the

usual case of inverse synthetic aperture processing, the target
centroid is also in motion; this destroys the ambiguity.)
Finally, we applied a novel angular fingerprinting process
to detect changes in rotation direction and rate. Schematically,
this process relies on two collections: a reference collection,
and a second collection of interest. The resulting output
indicates whether the two collections had the same or different
rotation directions, and how the relative rotation rate varied
over the second collection.
Crucially, our fingerprinting algorithm relies on the injectivity of the signal profile, which is a consequence of Theorem 1.
This implies that each angular position corresponds to a unique
collection of multipath signals. We use the multipath signals
acquired from the reference collection and the assumption that
the speed of rotation is constant to set up a correspondence
between the multipath signals acquired in the second collection
and the angular position of the rotating target in the reference
collection.
Precisely, the position of the fan is a smooth function of
time
Pi : R → S 1 ,
where i = 1 for the reference collection and i = 2 for
the second collection. The position of the fan gives rise to
particular multipath signals, described by the signal profile
T : S 1 → (R t ⊥)N . (Notice that this profile is the same
for both collections.) So in particular, the measured data is a
discretization of the function Mi = T ◦ Pi : R → (R t ⊥)N .
If N > 3, Theorem 1 argues that T will generically be injective, so that T −1 is a well-defined function on the image of T .
Thus, we define the angular fingerprint to be the composition
of functions F : T −1 ◦ T ◦ P2 : R → S 1 , which computes
the angular position of the fan from the measurements of
the second collection. Our angular fingerprinting algorithm
approximates this composition in a two step process:
1) Measurement of the period of rotation in the reference
collection. Under the assumption of constant speed of
rotation, this results in an explicit linear regression
formula for P1 .
2) Approximation of T −1 ◦ T . Specifically, we use T =
T ◦ Pi ◦ Pi−1 = Mi ◦ Pi−1 , where of course Pi−1 is
well-defined over a single period by the constant rotation
speed assumption.
Operationally, the process consists of the following steps:
1) Acquisition of the reference collection.
2) Measurement of the rotation period. We used a rangedoppler filter to identify the target’s signature, from
which the rotation period can be deduced as the largest
doppler component at the target’s range. Note that due
to the fact that the fan had 4 blades, the measured period
corresponds to an angular traversal of π/2.
3) Range gating. Since the target’s range is known, all
range bins before this range are removed. This is important since there were substantial range and doppler
sidelobes present in the waveform. (These are largely
due to receiver desense and overload effects as no time
sensitivity control was applied to the receiver.)

5

Ranges to specular points; PRF 88.2 Hz
4

Range (meters)

3.5

3

2.5

0

5

10

15

20

25
Pulse

30

35

40

45

50

Fig. 4. Range timeseries of the simulated datasets showing only the multipath
components. Solid lines correspond to fan rotating counterclockwise; dashed
lines represent clockwise rotation.

4) Storage of a contiguous block of pulses that correspond
to precisely one period. Assuming the fan is rotating at
a constant speed, the pulse number corresponds linearly
with the angular coordinate of the fan’s rotation.
5) Acquisition of the second collection.
6) Application of the same range gate filtering as applied
to the reference collection.
7) For each pulse of the second collection, the nearest pulse
(in the energy norm) of the first collection is computed.
This sets up a function from the pulses of the second
collection to the angular coordinate of the first.
8) Since this function is subject to noise, we Kalman
filter it, resulting in an approximation of the angular
fingerprint function F is the output of the procedure.
By examining the slope of the angular fingerprint, changes
in rotation direction speed can be deduced. If the slope is
negative, then the rotation directions in the first and second
collections differ; if positive, then the rotation directions agree.

Fig. 5. Simulated range doppler plot; the direct path echo is at 219 cm,
multipath echos occur in the vicinity of ranges of 250 cm - 400 cm

Fig. 6. Typical experimental range doppler plot (collection C); note vertical
banding effect. The marked region is shown in Figure 7.

V. A NALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS
The multipath components of the simulated data is shown in
Figure 4, which shows the range to specular reflection points
as a function of pulse number. Both directions of rotation are
shown. Since the plots of the two directions differ even after
ignoring horizontal translations, it is clear that the direction of
rotation is visible when multipath is considered.
A. Range-doppler analysis
The resulting range-doppler plot (obtained by discrete
Fourier transforming along the pulses direction) arising from
the simulated data is shown in Figure 5. In contrast, Figure 6
shows a collected physical experimental in which the fan was
spinning. Most of the small-range response is actually due to

imperfections in the waveform, as is immediately clear from
the Figure 8, in which nothing in the scene was moving.
The simulated data is quite helpful in locating the direct
path and multipath responses in the physical experiments. In
particular, the direct path response is present at a range of
219 cm, and multipath responses are visible between 260300 cm and 340-380 cm. For instance, some multipath echos
and microdoppler structure in the vicinity of the direct path
response can be seen in Figure 7.
One striking difference between the simulated and physical experiments’ range-doppler images is a vertical banding
effect. (This effect is also sometimes seen in windfarm timefrequency plots [5].) The physical experiment (Figure 6) shows
bright bands covering all ranges at specific doppler values,

6

Fig. 9. Comparison between simulated (left) and experimental (right) inverse
synthetic aperature images. Note the presence of four blades (marked with
arrows)

the simulation. However, it is likely that some multi-bounce
path could be nearly specular. Such a path could therefore
return acoustic energy to the platform with substantial delays,
which would then result in considerable range smearing.
Fig. 7. Detail of experimental range doppler plots (collection C), showing
micro-doppler structure of fan and multipath

B. Inverse synthetic aperature analysis
Range-doppler analysis is not a precise way to analyze the
quality of the direct path echos. The formation of an inverse
synthetic aperature image is considerably more demanding of
timing stability and location accuracy. Both the simulation
and physical experiments indeed have sufficient resolution to
correctly resolve the blades of the fan, as can be seen in Figure
9. There is also a bright circular response around the outside
of the fan in the physical experiment’s image. This could be
a delayed re-radiation due to vibrational resonance in the fan
assembly, but this is not conclusive.
Of course as described elsewhere in this article, direction of
rotation cannot be discerned from direct path measurements.
Switching the rotation direction of the image plane results
in nearly identical images (after accounting for a random
rotation).
C. Angular fingerprinting

Fig. 8.

Range-doppler plot of static experiment (collection A)

while the simulation shows no such effect. Surprisingly, as
Table I shows, the bands are representative of the fan tip
speed, even though the collection geometry is not favorable
for making this measurement. Indeed, the direct path is nearly
parallel to the fan’s axis of rotation, so the direct-path doppler
is quite low. Thus, it is quite likely an effect of multipath signals, for which the expected doppler can be higher. Indeed, the
simulated result (Figure 5) shows stronger, doppler-localized
responses within the ranges associated to multipath.
The fact that the banding effect covers all ranges indicates
that it is in fact an effect that extends in time longer than a
pulse interval, and is not divisible by a pulse interval. This
suggests that it is not an effect of the propagating ray paths
and their single-bounce path lengths; these are all captured by

The angular fingerprinting algorithm was applied to each
pair of physical experiments. Because of the strong doppler
sidelobes present in the waveform, the responses from the
first 250 samples were ignored, which corresponds to a range
of 194 cm. Since the range to the target was 216 cm, this
preserved the direct path response. After a preliminary angular
fingerprint function was computed, we smoothed the data with
a simple Kalman filter with a maximum slew rate of 4 pulses
per pulse.
Sample results of the angular fingerprinting process are
shown in Figures 10-16. In Figure 10, the best case scenario
is shown; the reference and second collections are identical,
so there should be a perfect match between each pulse and its
copies at subsequent periods. Indeed, the periodic structure is
quite prominent.
More interesting are the results shown in Figures 11-13.
These compare several different collections, in which rotation
speed and direction have changed. When the direction of
rotation has changed, the slope of the diagonal stripes has

7

Fig. 10.

Pairwise matching distance between pulses of collection D

Fig. 11. Pairwise pulse-to-pulse matching distance of two experiments with
the same rotation direction (collections D and E)

changed sign. When the speed is different, the magnitude of
the slope differs from unity. These results agree quite well
with the collection truth data in Table I.
The distance plots in Figures 11-13 are an intermediate step
in the angular fingerprint process. The final output fingerprint
functions (after Kalman filtering) are displayed in Figures 1416. Again, the slope of these functions match up quite closely
with the truth.
VI. C ONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The experiments presented in this article show that doppler
multipath is a valuable source of signal for making observations that would be impossible otherwise. While exploitation
of multipath has been difficult using methods that require substantial knowledge of the environment, a topological approach

Fig. 12. Pairwise pulse-to-pulse matching distance of two experiments with
different rotation directions and speeds (collections D and F)

Fig. 13. Pairwise pulse-to-pulse matching distance of two experiments with
different rotation directions but similar speed (collections E and F)

reveals that one can sometimes remove this requirement entirely.
With more substantial knowledge of the environment, it is
possible that this approach can be improved. Indeed, if we
take the ideas of [2] seriously, then we may be able to use
a simulated reference collection instead of taking physical
measurements. This requires a very detailed multipath model,
with a close correspondence between the geometry of the
simulation and the physical experiment. The simple multipath
model presented in this article is insufficiently detailed for the
purpose of supplying such a reference collection. Our attempts
in this direction have been unsuccessful, however this appears
to be an interesting direction for future efforts.

8

Pulse−to−pulse correspondence
120

100

100

Pulse from Collection F: Rotating clockwise, 1/2 Hz

Pulse from Collection E: Rotating counterclockwise, 1/2 Hz

Pulse−to−pulse correspondence
120

80

60

40

20

0

80

60

40

20

0

20

40
60
80
100
120
140
Pulse from Collection D: Rotating counterclockwise, 1/3 Hz

160

180

Fig. 14. Angular fingerprint of two experiments with the same rotation
direction (collections D and E)

0

0

20

40
60
80
100
120
140
Pulse from Collection E: Rotating counterclockwise, 1/2 Hz

160

180

Fig. 16.
Angular fingerprint of two experiments with different rotation
directions but similar speed (collections E and F)

Pulse−to−pulse correspondence
70

Pulse from Collection F: Rotating clockwise, 1/2 Hz

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0

20

40
60
80
100
120
140
Pulse from Collection D: Rotating counterclockwise, 1/3 Hz

160

180

Fig. 15.
Angular fingerprint of two experiments with different rotation
directions and speeds (collections D and F)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by AFOSR FA9550-09-1-0643.
R EFERENCES
[1] G. Poupart, “Wind farms impact on radar aviation interests,” Qinetiq,
Tech. Rep. DTI PUB URN 03/1294, 2003.
[2] A. Tayebi, J. Gomez, F. S. de Adana, and O. Gutierrez, “The application
of ray-tracing to mobile localization using the direction of arrival and
received signal strength in multipath indoor environments,” Progress in
Electromagnetics Research, vol. PIER 91, pp. 1–15, 2009.
[3] R. Ghrist and M. Robinson, “Topological localization via signals of
opportunity,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc, 2012.
[4] J. Perry and A. Biss, “Wind farm clutter mitigation in air surveillence
radar,” IEEE Aerospace and Electronics Magazine, vol. 22, no. 7, July
2007.

[5] B. M. Isom, R. D. Palmer, G. S. Secrest, R. D. Rhoton, D. Saxion, T. L.
Allmon, J. Reed, T. Crum, and R. Vogt, “Detailed observations of wind
turbine clutter with scanning weather radars,” Journal of Atmospheric
and Oceanic Technology, vol. 26, May 2009.
[6] V. C. Chen and W. J. Miceli, “Simulation of ISAR imaging of moving
targets,” Radar, Sonar, & Navigation, IET, vol. 148, no. 3, pp. 160–166,
June 2001.
[7] V. Chen, F. Li, S.-S. Ho, and H. Weschler, “Micro-doppler effect in
radar: phenomenon, model, and simulation study,” IEEE Transactions
on aerospace and electronic systems, vol. 42, no. 1, January 2006.
[8] T. Thayaparan, “Separation of target rigid body and microdoppler effects
in ISAR/SAR imaging,” DRDC Ottawa, Tech. Rep. TM 2006-187,
September 2006.
[9] T. Thayaparan, S. Abrol, E.Riseborough, L. Stankovic, D. Lamothe, and
G. Duff, “Analysis of radar micro-doppler signatures from experimental
helicopter and human data,” Radar, Sonar, & Navigation, IET, vol. 1,
no. 4, August 2007.
[10] K. Suwa, T. Wakayama, and M. Iwamoto, “Estimation of target motion
and 3d target geometry using multistatic ISAR movies,” in IGARSS, July
2009.
[11] S. M. Sherman, “Complex indicated angles applied to unresolved targets
and multipath,” IEEE Trans. Aerospace Electron Syst., vol. AES-7, no. 1,
January 1971.
[12] M. D. Hahm, Z. I. Mitrovski, and E. L. Titlebaum, “Deconvolution in
the presence of doppler with application to specular multipath parameter
estimation,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., vol. 45, no. 9, September 1997.
[13] I. Kelly, H. Deng, and H. Ling, “On the feasibility of the multipath
fingerprint method for location finding in urban environments,” Applied
Computational Electromagnetics Society Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, pp.
232–247, November 2000.
[14] P. Prasithsangaree and P. Krishnamurthy, “On indoor position location
with wireless LANs,” in The 13th IEEE Int. Conf. on Personal, Indoor,
and Mobile Radio Communications, 2002.
[15] C. Nerguizian, C. Despins, and S. Affès, “Geolocation in mines with an
impulse response fingerprinting technique and neural networks,” IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 5, no. 3, March 2006.
[16] A. Roxin, J. Gaber, M. Wack, and A. Nait-Sidi-Moh, “Survey of wireless
geolocation techniques,” in IEEE Globecom Workshops, 2007.
[17] S.-H. Fang, T.-N. Lin, and K.-C. Lee, “A novel algorithm for multipath
fingerprinting in indoor WLAN environments,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Communications, vol. 7, no. 9, September 2008.
[18] G. Charvat, “Low-cost, high-resolution laboratory radar system for
synthetic aperature radar applications,” in AMTA, October 2006.
[19] E.
Matejowsky,
“Home
made
sonar,
http://eddiem.com/projects/chirp/chirp.htm.”
[20] L. Labs, “Sonar ruler iPhone app,” 2009.
[21] DiCon, “Sonar android app,” January 2012.

9

[22] J. W. Eaton, D. Bateman, and S. Hauberg, GNU Octave Manual Version
3. Network Theory Limited, 2008.
[23] C. Jakowatz, D. Wahl, P. Eichel, and P. Thompson, Spotlight mode
synthetic aperature radar: a signal processing approach. Springer,
1996.

Michael Robinson is a postdoctoral fellow in the
Department of Mathematics at the University of
Pennsylvania and a research engineer at SRC, inc.
His 2008 Ph.D. in Applied Mathematics [Cornell
University] and recent work in topological signal
processing is complemented by a background in
Electrical Engineering and current work in radar
systems analysis.

