arX

iv:p

hysi

cs/0

3110

52v1

[ph

ysic

s.ao

-ph]

12

Nov

200

3

PARFAIT: GNSS-R coastal altimetry

M. Caparrini, L. Ruffini, G. RuffiniStarlab, C. de l’Observatori Fabra s/n, 08035 Barcelona, Spain, http://starlab.es.

Abstract

GNSS-R signals contain a coherent and an incoherent component. A new algorithm forcoherent phase altimetry over rough ocean surfaces, called PARFAIT, has been developed andimplemented in Starlab’s STARLIGHT1 GNSS-R software package. In this paper we reportour extraction and analysis of the coherent component of L1 GPS-R signals collected duringthe ESTEC Bridge 2 experimental campaign using this technique. The altimetric results havebeen compared with a GPS-buoy calibrated tide model with a resulting precision of the order1 cm.

Keywords: Passive radar, GNSS, GPS, Galileo, GNSS-R, GPS-R, altimetry, PARIS, PIP,PARFAIT, coastal applications.

1. Introduction

Specular reflections dominate medium toshort wavelength electromagnetic forwardscattering on the ocean, examples of which in-clude GNSS and solar reflections. As reportedin [23], during the last decade many GPS-R (Global Positioning System Reflections) ex-perimental campaigns have now been success-fully carried out. A partial and surely incom-plete list is provided in Table 1. In this paperwe focus on the potential of GNSS-R (GlobalNavigation Satellite System Reflections) for al-timetric coastal applications. The techniquesdeveloped, however, can also be implementedin other scenarios (airborne, spaceborne).

The specularly scattered field is composedof a coherent component and a random, Hoyt-distributed component [2]. When the surfaceis very rough, the latter becomes incoherentand the former becomes very small. In fact, ifthe surface height distribution is normal withdeviation σζ , then

〈r2〉 ∼ n2e−(4πσζ cos θ/λ)2+ (1)

n(1− e−(4πσζ cos θ/λ)2),

where 〈r2〉 is the power average, n is the num-ber of scatterers, λ the EM wavelenght and θthe local incidence angle [23, 24].

GNSS-R signals thus contain a coherentand an incoherent component. In companionpapers we discuss the analysis of the incoher-ent component for sea state monitoring [15, 25]

and for code altimetry [27]. Here we present anew approach for the extraction and analysisof the coherent component of GNSS reflectedsignals to perform phase altimetry.

The data discussed here was collected byESA/ESTEC during the Bridge-2 experiment.The experiment aimed at gathering direct andreflected GPS signals from antennas locatedabout 18 m above the mean sea level of anEstuary in the North sea of Holland. Formore information on the experimental setup,the reader is directed to [21].

This paper is structured as follows:

• Discussion on coherence properties of re-flected signals and their use for phase al-timetry.

• Analysis of the direct and reflected sig-nals and EM field extraction.

• Implementation of PARFAIT altimetry.

• Comparison with other data and discus-sion of the altimetric results.

2. The complex field

The importance of retrieving the coher-ent part of the EM field backscattered by thesea surface stems from its altimetric content.Measuring the phase of the coherent compo-nent allows for accurately estimating the delayof the reflected signal with respect to the thedirect one, i.e., for estimation of the temporal

c©2003 Starlab Barcelona SL1STARLab Interferometric Gnss Toolkit.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 2

MainAuthor

Inst. Date Notes

Garrison [11] JPL 1996 A normal GPS receiver was used. Demon-strated reception/tracking of reflected signalsover relatively calm waters. Concluded thatmore complex receiver is needed.

Martin-NeiraCaparrini

[18, 3] ESA 1997 GNSS-R PARIS altimetric experiment from aZeeland bridge. C/A code used for correla-tion leading to an altimetric accuracy in theorder of 3 meters after 1 second (1% of thechip length).

Garrison [13] JPL 1997 Widening of correlation function in rough seasdemonstrated. Application for sea state fromair.

Komjathy [16] CCAR 1998 Aircraft experiments, 3-5 km altitude.LaBrecque [17] NASA 1998 The first spaceborne observation of GPS sig-

nals reflected from the ocean surface.CardellachRuffiniGarrison

[9, 12] IEEC 1999 Balloon experiment. Successful detection ofreflected signals at 38 km of height with lowgain antenna. Sea surface winds retrievedwith ∼2 m/s error.

CardellachRuffini

[5] IEEC 1999 First ESA aircraft experiment. Some sig-nals detected, DDM produced, but experi-ment failed due to hardware problems.

Armatys [1] CCAR 2000 Wind speed and directions obtained from re-flected GPS signals are compared to the Sea-Winds scatterometer on-board QuikSCAT.

Garrison [10] JPL 2000 With GPS-R airborne data, retrieval of thewind speed with a bias of less than 0.1 m/sand with a standard deviation of 1.3 m/s.

Zavorotny [28] CCAR 2000 Fundamental theoretical work. Comparison ofexperimental and theoretical waveforms.

Zuffada [29] JPL 2000 Lakeside experiment, with an almost flat sur-face (no roughness). Centimetric phase al-timetry.

Martin-Neira,Ruffini,Serra,Col-menarejo

[26] ESA 2000 The pond experiment was designed to testsome key issues in the PARIS Interferomet-ric Processor (PIP) concept. The PIP con-cept is based on the use of dual-frequency car-rier measurements to exploit the correlationsin the scattered signals at similar frequencies.

RuffiniCaparrini

[4] Star-labIEEC

2001 GPS-R L1 data collected from the Casablancadrilling platform by IEEC has been analysedat Starlab.

Martin-Neira [20] ESA 2001 The experimental campaign which is the ob-ject of this work.

CardellachStarlabTeam

[8, 7, 6, 14] IEEC/Star-lab

2001 GPS-R data collection from airborne plat-form. Campaign performed within theESA/ESTEC project “PARIS Alpha”. Dataprocessed under ESA/ESTEC projects“PARIS Alpha” and “OPPSCAT 2”.

StarlabTeam

[15, 27] Starlab 2002 GPS-R data collection from airborne plat-form. Retrieval of altimetric profile matchingJason-1. (ESA/ESTEC “PARIS Gamma”)

StarlabTeam

[25] Starlab 2003 GPS-R data collection from Barcelona Har-bour (HOPE campaign, Starlab Oceanpalproject).

Table 1: Representative GNSS-R experiments and milestones (1996-2003).

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 3

lapse. This is the essential measurement foraltimetry [26].

In order to collect the complex EM field,the complex signal is generated from thereal one. Although this operation is oftenperformed by the receiver front-end, in theBridge-2 experiment only the in-phase com-ponent of the signal was sampled at highfrequency and stored on digital tape. Thequadrature component was generated after-wards. The process is illustrated in Figure (1).We can then represent the direct signal re-ceived at the antenna input2 as

Sd(t) = Ad ·C(t) ·D(t) · ei(ωL1+ωd)t + ηd, (2)

where Ad is the direct signal amplitude, C(t)represents the C/A code, D(t) the naviga-tion code, ωL1 the L1 carrier frequency, ωd

the Doppler frequency offset, and ηd (thermal)noise. The reflected signal at low altitudes canbe modelled by

Sr(t) = C(t) ·D(t) · ei(ωL1+ωd)t· (3)

(

Ar · e2πiL/λ +O(t)

)

+ ηr,

where Ar is the reflected signal mean ampli-tude, O(t) represents the perturbation due toocean motion and L the reflected signal extrapath length. In coastal applications O(t) isa relatively slowly varying quantity with zeromean, while L, which contains the geophysicaltide signal, can be considered effectively frozenduring correlation processing.

After modulation with a local oscillator offrequency ωL1−ωIF and low-pass filtering, thesignal will have a residual carrier at ωd +ωIF .This signal is mixed with a phasor at fre-quency ωIF + ω̃d, where ω̃d is an estimate ofthe Doppler frequency for the satellite underinvestigation, and finally low-pass filtered.

With the assumption that the navigationbit is constant during the integration time(which is correct if the correlation is bit-aligned and the coherent integration time TE

is less than 20 ms), and considering that dur-ing an integration time interval the value of∆ωd is constant, the complex p-th sample ofthe correlation coefficient for the direct signal

writes

Cp ∼1

2Ad Dk Rp e

−i∆ωdpTE(p−1) ·

· e−i∆ωdpTs2

sin(

∆ωdp

2 TE

)

sin(

∆ωdp

2 Ts

) , (4)

where Ts is the sampling interval and Rp thecorresponding correlation coefficient function.For the reflected signal we can write an equiva-lent expression, modulated by the slowly vary-ing phasor Ar ·exp(2πiL/λ)+O(t). For coastalapplications we can assume there will be littlefiltering of this quantity by the coherent in-tegration process, as the ocean moves slowlycompared to coherent integration times (a fewms).

In the case of the direct signal, we can eas-ily track the carrier phase. To this end, thedelta-phases obtainable from equation (4) canbe accumulated using

φp+1 − φp =

= Im

(

logCp+1

Cp

)

= −∆ωdpTE. (5)

This equation holds while ∆ωdp+1≈ ∆ωdp

.This is a good approximation, since the timeduring which this variation is measured is thecoherent integration time.

The main advantage of using this algo-rithm for phase tracking is that, due to its dif-ferencing nature, it allows for easy detectionof the navigation bit π radians phase change.

Figures 2 to 8, which illustrate these con-cepts, refer to the processing of another set ofGPS-R data—collected during the Casablancaoil platform Experiment. This Repsol owneddrilling platform is about 40 km off the coastof Tarragona, Spain (40o43′4′′N , 1o21′34′′E).The measurement campaign took place onMarch 14th, 2000.

In Figure 2, the histogram of the delta-phases is shown. The x-axis represents cyclesand the y-axis is in arbitrary units. Most δ-phase values are clearly concentrated aroundzero. Other values gather just before ±π.These values represent in fact small values towhich ±π radians have been added on occur-rence of a navigation bit transition.

In Figure 3, the direct signal phase withand without navigation bit correction is plot-ted. In Figure 4, the phase for the (navi-

2This contains only the C/A code part. The P code component can be neglected thanks to the subsequentcorrelation of the signal with replicas of the C/A code—the two codes are orthogonal.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 4

gation bit corrected) direct and reflected sig-nals is shown. The effect of the reflection onthe sea surface is clearly visible in the largevariations present in Figure 4(b) with respectto Figure 4(a). In Figure 5 and 6, the am-plitude magnitude and the complex vector ofthe direct and reflected fields, respectively, areshown. In Figure 8, a simulation of the L1GPS complex field phasor dustball after reflec-tion, akin to the one in Figure 6(b), is shown.The simulation parameters have been chosento match the Casablanca experiment sea state.Those were reported as a “quite calm sea witha gentle breeze”, with SWH of about 0.7 m asmeasured by a nearby buoy.

3. The PARFAIT approach

In general, the altimetric information con-tent in the PARIS interferometric field phasewill be very difficult to use. This is due tothe impact of the incoherent component in thereflected signals. The incoherent componentcauses fading and winding.

On the one hand, at a practical level, fad-ing events will prevent stable phase tracking ofthe complex field. Even if as in in the Bridge-2experiment the sea surface is relatively smoothand fading events are not so frequent, a singleevent can severly complicate the use of phaseinformation if countermeasures are not taken.In general, however, the reflected field will fadevery often. As discussed in [21], it is possibleto inject in the system (during a fading event)a model-based phase to “glue” the phase his-tory, but this approach will in general necessi-tate the input of too much model informationinto the data in rough sea conditions.

More importantly, as explained in the pre-vious section, the reflected field incoherentcomponent will cause arbitrary winding of thefield phasor. This means that the reflectedunwrapped phase, unlike the direct one, can-not be directly used for ranging. Indeed, as wehave shown in previous work [26], the reflectedfield accumulated phase will generally wanderaround the complex plane, travelling to dif-ferent winding number kingdoms, even in theabsence of fadings (see Figure 7). That is tosay, even if a very high SNR system is devisedto get around the problem of field fadings, theinterferometric unwrapped phase will not bedirectly usable for ranging. Unlike the prob-

lem of fadings, this is a fundamental issue, nota practical one.

An approach discussed in [26, 19], PIP3,involves the use of multiple frequencies for thesynthesis of a longer wavelength which will bemore immune to fadings. Here we discuss an-other approach, PARFAIT4, which is in factcomplementary to PIP.

In the PARFAIT approach, we begin bynoting that although the reflected field un-wrapped phase carries no ranging informa-tion, this need not be a fundamental prob-lem. What is needed is the coherent geophys-ical field component in the signals, which isnear zero frequency in comparison with theothers—a sort of average field. This averagefield is just the coherent component in thereflected signals after downconversion. Withthis in mind, PARFAIT consists of the threesteps described next.

The first practical step to extract the co-herent part is to work with the interferometricfield, the ratio for reflected versus direct com-plex field. This has the advantadge of errorcancellation, e.g., in Doppler matching of theincoming signals, and of depending only on thelapse.

The second step is to “counter-rotate” theinterferometric field using an a-priori model ofthe reflection process.

The third step is filtering the resultingcounter-rotated interometric complex field tofinally extract the coherent phase for esti-mation of the carrier lapse phase. Counter-rotation allows for longer filtering times.These are fundamental to extract the coherentcomponent, which decays exponentially withthe square of sea surface standard deviation(sea state) over effective wavelenght (the wave-length divided by the sine of satellite eleva-tion).

Finally, the phase lapse information ob-tained from the couter-rotated, averaged, com-plex interfereometric field is used for altimetry.

This new approach to PARIS altimetry isdescribed in more detail in the following sec-tions. As we discuss, it has proven to be avery robust and precise processing method.

3PARIS Interferometric Processor.4PARFAIT stands for PARis Filtered-field AltImetric Tracking.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 5

4. PARFAIT processing of the

Bridge 2 dataset

At low altitudes, simple geometrical con-siderations lead to the following equation re-lating the height of the receiver over the re-flecting surface (considering the same heightfor the upward looking antenna and for thedownward looking antenna) with the lapse—the measured delay measured between the di-rect and reflected GNSS signals:

LP (t) = c∆τP (t) = 2h(t)·sin (ǫP (t))+b, (6)

where LP (t) is the lapse in meters at time t,c is the speed of light, ∆τP (t) is the tempo-ral lapse in seconds, h(t) is the height of thebridge, ǫP (t) is the elevation of the GPS satel-lite with a specific PRN number P , and b isthe hardware-induced delay bias, consideredto be a common constant in time. A first esti-mation of the height of the receiver can easilybe performed through a linear fit of the lapsewith respect to the sine of the elevation angleof each satellite.

In phase processing, the lapse is measuredonly up to an integer number of cycles N .Equation (6) must be rewritten as follows

LcP (t) = 2h(t) · sin (ǫp (t)) + b+Npλ, (7)

with Lcp (t) is the carrier lapse in meters and λ

is the carrier (L1) wavelength. In other words,the equation for each satellite contains an ad-ditional unknown parameter, NP . In order touse all the satellites for one height estimation,it becomes necessary to estimate also NP , i.e.to solve the ambiguity problem.

In order to solve the estimation problem, aminimization search is carried out for all theseparemeters: h and b (as real constants) andNP (as integers).

However, as discussed, the interferometricfield should be first filtered to extract its co-herent component. Filtering should be longenough to extract the coherent component butshort enough to keep the geophysical signals ofinterest pass through.

This means that the geophysical coherentcomponent we are after should not change formore than a small fraction of a cycle duringthe time duration of the filter. The maxi-mal allowable time thus depends on the ele-vation angle and rate of change of elevationof the satellite and, just slightly, on the tidemotion. In the case of interest, it turns outthe maximum filtering time should be around

10 seconds. In other words, in 10 seconds, atleast for one satellite, the coherent interfero-metric phase changes by more than π

2 radians.With this filter length it is not possible to sep-arate coherent and incoherent components ofthe field, and fading events are not completelyeliminated. However, a realistic estimation ofthe bridge height (and bias) does become pos-sible.

As mentioned, to extract the coherent com-ponent a longer averaging period should beused. To this end, we first counter-rotate theinterferometric field using a first guess of thebridge height, as we now explain in more de-tail.

After downconversion and despreading, wecan express the reflected complex field as asum of the coherent and incoherent compo-nents,

E(t) = Ar eiL(t)/λ +O(t). (8)

Now consider that we have a first guess for theheight and bias parameters, i.e., a model forthe lapse Lm. This model is used to counter-rotate the field:

Ecc(t) = E(t)/Em(t) (9)

= Ar e2 i δh(t) sin(ǫp(t))+iδb +O′(t).

Clearly, the phase of the coherent field inequation (9) will now vary much slower thanthe phase of the original reflected field as afunction of the elevation (and therefore time).This allows for a longer filtering time, and theexraction of the coherent component of the sig-nal (recall that O(t) has zero mean).

The equation which relates the countero-tated phase lapse between direct and reflectedsignal, the satellite elevations and the δh (i.e.the error between the first guess of the bridgeheight and the real value) is

LcP (t) = 2 δh (t)·sin (ǫP (t))+δNPλ+δb. (10)

This is the new equation to be used to fit thelapse versus sine of elevation straight line andinfer the height offset of the bridge and bias(with respect to the first guess used to counter-rotate the field).

In order to solve the ambiguity problem,a search is performed in the space of the in-teger n-tuples and the one that produces thelinear fit with smallest residue is selected. Itis important to point out that the n-tuplesearch space is drastically reduced by the prior

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 6

field counter-rotation. For example, if theguess is within ± half meter, the n-tuple sub-space to be scanned can be limited to thosen-tuples whose components belong to the in-terval [−3, 3], centered on the first guess of then-tuple, as obtained from a real (as opposed tointeger) ambiguity resolution.

Another way to reduce the cardinality ofthe subspace of the n-tuples to check is to con-sider that satellites with similar elevation an-gles cannot have very different integer ambi-guities.

5. Results and comparison

The PARFAIT algorithm described in theprevious section, has been used to analyze thefirst 10 minutes of the Bridge-2 data, Part A1and to the first 10 minutes of Part A2. The fol-lowing steps have been performed accordinglyin batches of 2 minutes:

• The EM fields, direct and reflected, havebeen computed through the usual corre-lation process.

• The complex interferometric field hasbeen counter-rotated (Equation (9)).

• The counter-rotated field has been fil-tered using a 30 s window.

• The phase of the interferometric,counter-rotated and filtered field hasbeen unwrapped.

• For every possible set of values of theambiguities NP , a straight line has beeninterpolated to the phase histories (onefor each visible satellite) against the el-evation angle (Equation (10)). The bestfit has been identified.

The analysis has been carried out for al-most5 all visible satellites (see Table 2 and Fig-ure 10). The phase histories are shown in Fig-ure 11(a). A straight line has been fit throughthese phase histories, against the sine of thesatellite elevation angle (Figure 11(b)).

This fitted line gives an estimation of thebridge height of 18.61 m, a hardware bias of-0.81 m and, as first guess for the n-tuplethat solves the ambiguity problem, the val-ues [0 0 1 1 2 3]. Now, a search in a subset ofI6 is carried out to minimise the residuals ofthe fit in the space of the n-tuples of integers.

The subspace considered is the one spannedby all the combination of integers between ±3around the first guess. The result is the n-tuple [0 0 2 2 4 5] which gives a bridge heightestimation of 18.82 m and an instrumental biasof −0.45 m.

This procedure has been implemented withdata from the first 10 minutes of Part A1 andA2 of the Bridge-2 experiment. The resultsare reported in Table 3 and in Figure 12 forPart A1 and in Table 4 and in Figure 13 forPart A2.

Fitting both parts to the tide curve, i.e.choosing the bias that minimizes the stan-dard deviation of the data to the availabletide “ground truth”, leads to an altimetrybias of 40 cm and a standard deviation of lessthan 1 cm. This bias could have an origin inthe ground “truth”, due either to an error inthe determination of the absolute value of theheight of the bridge performed using the GPSbuoy available data (only a few seconds, whichmay have caused ambiguity resolution prob-lems) or, partially, to some anomalies in thewater mass flow in the vicinity of the bridgestructures.

Moreover, considering also that the tidedynamics measured below the bridge may bedelayed with respect to the place were the tidewas measured, the best fit (over both bias anddelay) is obtained with a delay of 1 minutesand 37 seconds with respect to the time of thetide data collection and with a bias of 40 cm.The standard deviation of the fitted data withrespect to the tide curve is in this case of 0.3cm.

To summarize, the proposed approachto PARIS altimetry, the parfait technique,leads a very precise estimation of the tide,

• without the need to insert any kind ofmodel for the phase of the reflected sig-nal during fadings,

• without rejecting too many visible satel-lites because of their poor SNR and/orfrequent fadings.

Finally, we note that this technique is di-rectly applicable for PARIS phase processingfrom air and spaceborne applications, as longas a suitable model for the lapse phase can beconstructed. This will be the subject of futurework.

5Satellites outside the Zeeland Mask [20, 21] are not considered (see also the caption in Figure 10).

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 7

PRN elevationmean SNR(direct)

mean SNR(reflected)

14 17o 29.4 dB 25.0 dB25 17o 32.0 dB 25.8 dB1 30o 31.2 dB 24.6 dB7 38o 33.2 dB 29.4 dB11 62o 34.0 dB 29.4 dB20 78o 30.4 dB 26.6 dB

Table 2: Visible satellites, their elevation in degrees, the 10 ms coherent integration mean SNRdBw

(20 log10[peak-grass/grass correlation coefficient]) for the direct and the reflected signal.

time(minutes

from start)

instrumentalbias [cm]

bridge heightestimation [m]

assumedground truth

[m]

difference[cm]

1 -0.45 18.83 18.44 39.713 -0.45 18.82 18.42 39.635 -0.46 18.81 18.41 40.197 -0.45 18.79 18.39 40.219 -0.26 18.78 18.38 39.83

Table 3: Results of the bridge height estimation during the first 10 minutes of the Part A1 data.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Manuel Martin-Neira (Technical Manager of the ESA/ESTECContract No. 14285/85/nl/pb under whichthis work was carried out) and Maria Bel-monte (ESA/ESTEC) for useful discussionsand real collaboration. We also thank theother partners in the project, especially GMVfor the GPS buoy data analysis.

All Starlab authors have contributed signif-icantly; the Starlab author list has been orderedrandomly.

References

[1] M. Armatys, A. Komjathy, P. Axelrad,and S. Katzberg. A comparion of GPSand scatterometr sensing of ocean windspeed and direction. In Proc. IEEEIGARSS, Honolulu, HA, 2000.

[2] P. Beckmann and A. Spizzichino. Thescattering of electromagnetic waves fromrough surfaces. 1963.

[3] M. Caparrini. Using reflected GNSS sig-nals to estimate surface features over wideocean areas. Technical Report EWP2003, ESA report, December 1998.

[4] M. Caparrini and G.Ruffini. Casablancadata processing. Starlab ”KnowledgeNugget” kn-0111-001, 2001.

[5] E. Cardellach, J.M. Aparicio, A. Rius,J.S., and J. Torrobella. Application ofthe PARIS concept to transoceanic air-craft remote sensing. Technical report,2001. PARIS Alpha WP5200 - ESA Con-tract 14285/85/NL/PB.

[6] E. Cardellach and A. Rius. Comparisonof PAFEX estimates with ground truth.Technical report, IEEC, 2002. WP210of OPPSCAT 2 Project - ESA ContractRFQ/3-10120/01/NL/SF.

[7] E. Cardellach and A. Rius. Inversion ofPAFEX data with elfouhaily’s technique.Technical report, IEEC, 2002. WP205of OPPSCAT 2 Project - ESA ContractRFQ/3-10120/01/NL/SF.

[8] E. Cardellach and A. Rius. Preprocessingof PAFEX data. Technical report, IEEC,2002. WP120 of OPPSCAT 2 Project -ESA Contract RFQ/3-10120/01/NL/SF.

[9] E. Cardellach, G. Ruffini, D. Pino,A. Rius, A. Komjathy, and J. Garrison.Mediterranean balloon experiment: GPSreflection for wind speed retrieval from

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 8

time(minutes

from start)

instrumentalbias [cm]

bridge heightestimation [m]

assumedground truth

[m]

difference[cm]

1 -0.27 17.54 17.11 42.343 -0.28 17.52 17.08 42.365 -0.26 17.47 17.04 42.527 -0.08 17.44 17.02 41.959 -0.08 17.41 16.98 42.71

Table 4: Results of the bridge height estimation during the first 10 minutes of the Part A2 data.

the stratosphere. To appear in RemoteSensing of Environment, 2003.

[10] J.L. Garrison, S. Katzberg, V. Zavorotny,and D. Masters. Comparison of sea sur-face wind speed estimates from reflectedGPS signals with buoy measurements.In Proc. IEEE IGARSS, Honolulu, HA,2000.

[11] J.L. Garrison, S.J. Katzberg, and C.T.Howell. Detection of ocean reflected GPSsignals: theory and experiment. In IEEESoutheaston ’97. IEEE, April 1997.

[12] J.L. Garrison, G. Ruffini, A. Rius,E. Cardellach, D. Masters, M. Armatys,and V.U. Zavorotny. Preliminary re-sults from the GPSR mediterranean bal-loon experiment (GPSR-MEBEX). InProceedings of ERIM 2000, Charleston,South Carolina, USA, May 2000.

[13] L. Garrison, S. Katzberg, and M. Hill. Ef-fect of sea roughness on bistatically scat-tered range coded signals from the GPS.Geophysical Research Letters, 25:2257–2260, 1998.

[14] O. Germain and G. Ruffini. Least squareinversion of PAFEX data. Technical re-port, Starlab, 2002. WP200 of OPP-SCAT 2 Project - ESA Contract RFQ/3-10120/01/NL/SF.

[15] O. Germain, G. Ruffini, F. Soulat, M. Ca-parrini, B. Chapron, and P. Silvestrin.The GNSS-R Eddy Experiment II: L-band and optical speculometry for direc-tional sea-roughness retrieval from low al-titude aircraft. In Proceedings of the 2003Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS-R. Starlab, July 2003.

[16] A. Komjathy. GPS surface reflection us-ing aircraft data: analysis and results. In

Proceedings of the GPS surface reflectionworkshop. Goddard Space Flight Center,July 1998.

[17] J. LaBrecque, S.T. Lowe, L.E. Young,E.R. Caro, L.J. Romans, and S.C. Wu.The first spaceborne observation of GPSsignals reflected from the ocean surface.In Proceedings IDS workshop. JPL, De-cember 1998.

[18] M. Mart́ın-Neira, M. Caparrini, J. Font-Rossello, S. Lannelongue, and C. Serra.The PARIS concept: An experimentaldemonstration of sea surface altimetry us-ing GPS reflected signals. IEEE Transac-tions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing,39:142–150, 2001.

[19] M. Mart́ın-Neira, P. Colmenarejo, andG. Ruffini. Ocean altimetry interferomet-ric method and device using gnss signals,April 2003. U.S. Patent No. 6,559,165 B2.

[20] M. Belmonte Rivas and M. Mart́ın-Neira.GNSS reflections: First altimetry prod-ucts from bridge-2 field campaign. In Pro-ceedings of NAVITEc, 1st ESA Workshopon Satellite Navigation User EquipmentTechnology, pages 465–479. ESA, 2001.

[21] M. Belmonte Rivas and M. Mart́ın-Neira.GPS coherent reflections from a smoothmarine surface. In Proceedings of the 2003Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS-R. ESA, July 2003.

[22] G. Ruffini, M. Caparrini, andB. Chapron. Improved ocean andem models for in-silico spaceborneGNSS-R. Technical report, PARIS BetaWP3200 - ESA ESTEC Contract No.15083/01/NL/MM, 2001.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 9

[23] G. Ruffini, M. Caparrini, O. Germain,F. Soulat, and J. Lutsko. Remote sens-ing of the ocean by bistatic radar observa-tions: a review. Technical report, PARISBeta WP1000 - ESA ESTEC ContractNo. 15083/01/NL/MM, 2001. Availableonline at http://starlab.es.

[24] G. Ruffini, E.Cardellach, A.Rius, andJ.M.Aparicio. Remote sensing ofthe ocean by bistatic observations:a review. Technical report, OPP-SCAT WP1000 - ESA ESTEC Contract13461/99/NL/GD, 1999. Available onlineat http://starlab.es.

[25] G. Ruffini, O. Germain, F. Soulat,M. Taani, and M. Caparrini. GNSS-R:Operational applications. In Proceedingsof the 2003 Workshop on Oceanographywith GNSS-R. Starlab, July 2003.

[26] G. Ruffini and F. Soulat. PARISinterferometric processor anal-ysis and experiment results,

http://arxiv.org/physics/0011027. Tech-nical report, IEEC and GMV - ESAContract 14071/99/NL/MM, 2000.

[27] G. Ruffini, F. Soulat, M. Caparrini, andO. Germain. The GNSS-R Eddy Ex-periment I: altimetry from low altitudeaircraft. In Proceedings of the 2003Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS-R. Starlab, July 2003.

[28] V. Zavorotny and A. Voronovich. Scatter-ing of GPS signals from the ocean withwind remote sensing application. IEEETrans. Geoscience and Remote Sensing,38(2):951–964, 2000.

[29] C. Zuffada, R. Treuhaft, S. Lowe, G. Haij,M. Lough, L. Young, Wu S, andM. Smith. Altimetry with reflected GPSsignals: results from a lakeside exper-iment. In Proceedings IGARSS 2000,2000.

✍✌✎☞

✍✌✎☞

✍✌✎☞

✲❄

✲

✲

✲❄

✲

✻

✻

✲

✻

✲✲

✻

✲ωL1

− ωIF

LPF

cos[(ω̃d − ωd)t]LPF

sin[(ωIF + ω̃d)t]

sin[(ω̃d − ωd)t]

ωL1+ ωIF

cos[(ωIF + ω̃d)t]

LPF

ωd + ωIF

Figure 1: Starting from the in-phase component of the sampled signal, with a carrier frequency equal to the sumof the IF of the receiver and the Doppler frequency, a complex downconversion is performed. After low-passfiltering, the two obtained signals bring information about the amplitude of the backscattered EM field for boththe in-phase and in-quadrature components—the spread, complex field.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 10

−0.5 0 0.50

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 2: The histogram of the carrier phase variation, measured on an integration time interval (in this case 1ms). The x-axis represents cycles, while on the y-axis there are arbitrary units. The accumulation of δ-phasevalues around zero can be seen, as well as in the vicinity of ± half a cycle.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000−0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Figure 3: The directy signal carrier phase obtained accumulating the δ-phase according to Equation (5). Thestepped plot represents the accumulated phase as it is , i.e. without compensating for the navigation bit half-cycle variation, which is clearly visible. The lower curve represents the same phase after removal of this effect(navigation bit correction). The units on the x-axis are milliseconds, and on the y-axis thgy are cycles.

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

−6

−4

−2

0

2

4

6

8

ms

cycl

es

(a) Direct field.

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

−6

−4

−2

0

2

4

6

8

ms

cycl

es

(b) Reflected field.

Figure 4: Example of the tracked phase, without the Doppler contribution. The units are milliseconds on thex-axis and cycles on the y axis. The integration time is 20 ms.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 11

0 50 100 150 200 250−24

−23

−22

−21

−20

−19

−18

−17

−16

−15

−14

ms

dB

(a) Direct field.

0 50 100 150 200 250−24

−23

−22

−21

−20

−19

−18

−17

−16

−15

−14

ms

(b) Reflected field.

Figure 5: Example of field amplitude time series (phasor dustball, Casablanca Experiment). The units aremilliseconds on the x-axis and correlation coefficient units in dB on the y axis. The integration time is 20 ms.

−0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03−0.03

−0.02

−0.01

0

0.01

0.02

(a) Direct field.

−0.02 −0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03−0.03

−0.02

−0.01

0

0.01

0.02

(b) Reflected field.

Figure 6: Example of complex field time series (phasor dusball, Casablanca Experiment). The units arecorrelation coefficient units on both axis. The coherent integration time is 20 ms.

Figure 7: Histogram of the phase for a noiseless simulated field. It can be observed that the unwrapped phasewanders around multiple winding number kingdoms, while tending to spend more time around an averagecomplex field point. This illustrates the fact that the unwrapped phase cannot be used directly for altimetry,even in the absense of noise.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 12

Figure 8: The simulated EM field at L1 frequency (phasor dustball), after reflection on the sea surface. Thesimulation has been performed with the GRADAS software [22] developed by Starlab. This simulation is for awind speed of U10 = 3 m/s.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

−8

−6

−4

−2

0

2

cycl

es

time [minutes from start part A2]

Figure 9: The blue curve is the phase of the interferometric field for PRN number 7, from minute 0 to minute8 of Part A2 of the Bridge 2 experiment. The occurrence of a fadings and of isolated cycle slips can be seen.These phenomena disappear in the phase of the filtered interferometric field (red line).

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 13

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

1

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

4

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

7

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

11

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

13

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

14

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

19

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

20 90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

24

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

25 90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

29

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

90 60 30 0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

0

Figure 10: Each colored arc represents the position of a GPS satellite from the start of the Part A1 of theexperiment to the beginning of Part A2 plus 10 minutes. The green mask represent the area where the GPSsignal reflections are supposed to be free of shadowing phenomena due to the bridge structure, and thereforeonly the satellite within this mask can be taken into consideration for PARIS processing. The bold parts of thelines represent the first and the second 10 minutes periods.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 14

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

−0.08

−0.06

−0.04

−0.02

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

sin (elevation angle)

m

(a) In this figure, the reflected-minus-direct phase delayfor each PRN is plotted with NP = 0.

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

sin (elevation angle)

m

(b) In this figure, the reflected-minus-direct phase delayfor each PRN is plotted with NP = {001123}.

Figure 11: Each colored spot represents the reflected-minus-direct phase delay versus satellite-elevation for adifferent satellite (PRN number).

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 918.35

18.4

18.45

18.5

18.55

18.6

18.65

18.7

18.75

18.8

18.85

minutes from start part A1

Bridge height

met

ers

(a) The upper line is the bridge height over the water lineestimated using PARFAIT. The bottom line is the bridgealtitude according to the available tide measurements andthe calibration of the absolute height using a GPS buoy[20].

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 918.37

18.38

18.39

18.4

18.41

18.42

18.43

18.44

18.45

minutes from start part A1

Bridge height

met

ers

(b) In this plot, the estimates of the height (red *) andthe actual height (line) are shown, after adding to theactual height the mean of the values of the last columnof Table 3.

Figure 12: The bridge height estimate during the first 10 minutes of the Part A1 of the data.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 916.8

16.9

17

17.1

17.2

17.3

17.4

17.5

17.6

minutes from start part A2

Bridge height

met

ers

(a) The upper line is the bridge height estimated usingPARFAIT. The bottom line is the bridge height accordingto the available tide measurements and the GPS buoymeasurement [20].

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 916.98

17

17.02

17.04

17.06

17.08

17.1

17.12

17.14

17.16

minutes from start part A2

Bridge height

met

ers

(b) In this plot, the estimates of the height (red *) andthe actual height (line) are shown, after adding to theactual height the mean of the values of the last columnof Table 4.

Figure 13: The bridge height estimation during the first 10 minutes of the Part A2 of the data.

2003 Workshop on Oceanography with GNSS Reflections 17

4.8 4.9 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6

x 104

17

17.2

17.4

17.6

17.8

18

18.2

18.4

sec of the day

brid

ge h

eigh

t

Figure 14: The solid line is the distance between the up-looking antenna and the sea surface, according to theavailable tide measurements and the GPS buoy measurement [20]. The green dots are the estimated values,after removing the vertical bias.