中红外大气强吸收波段地气杂波全球空间分布研究

doi:10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)12-3504-09

摘要
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (31547 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要：中红外大气强吸收波段(2.7和4.3 μm附近)具有抑制背景杂波信号的特点，常被用于红外探测卫星载荷上，实现目标的稳定探测与跟踪。背景杂波起伏水平对红外目标探测具有重要影响，研究中红外2.7和4.3 μm波段附近的地气杂波空域起伏具有重要意义。首先，利用MODTRAN辐射传输模型迭代求解6种标准大气模式下水汽和CO₂的光学厚度(OD)，根据OD>1的准则筛选强吸收波段，并对各种大气模式下的波段计算结果取交集，最终确定的强吸收波段为：2.52～2.83和4.18～4.47 μm。然后，根据遥感卫星数据产品、数据同化资料生产出背景地表和大气的全球月均产品。其中，结合MODIS短波红外和中红外4个波段(2.13、3.75、3.96和4.05 μm)的月均地表反射率/发射率产品(MYD09A1/MOD11C3)，采用非负矩阵分解(NMF)的方法重建出强吸收波段处的全球地表反射率产品；根据ERA5再分析数据生产全球地表温度月均产品；水汽和云光学厚度(COT)全球月均产品分别由MODIS大气产品(MOD05_L2和MOD06_L2)拼接融合得到；CO₂全球月均产品来自OCO-2卫星的数据同化产品；为了各类数据产品的空间匹配和节约计算资源，将全球产品限制在南北纬60°区间范围内并重采样至1°×1°的空间分辨率；接着，在有云和无云情况下，分别逐像元仿真计算两个强吸收波段的背景杂波强度，分析杂波的空间分布规律。最后，利用11×11方窗邻域统计法，对仿真结果进行杂波空域起伏的计算，换算95%概率下的杂波起伏，并进行直方图统计，从杂波抑制的角度，给出两个吸收波段的红外目标探测性能对比。研究结果表明：有云情形下，2.52～2.83 μm波段背景杂波起伏水平具有“点状峰值、区域增强、整体低值”的特征；4.18～4.47 μm波段杂波起伏水平呈现“区域高值、片状增强、高纬低值”的特征。无云情形下，2.52～2.83 μm波段背景杂波起伏水平在水汽含量低值区，有较大增幅；4.18～4.47 μm波段杂波起伏水平总体较低，大部分控制在2×10^-4 W/m²/sr/μm以内。在全球尺度上，有云时，2.52～2.83 μm波段的红外目标探测性能较优，无云时，4.18～4.47 μm波段的红外目标探测性能较优；研究结果能够为探测红外目标提供空域规律和谱段优选的参考依据，对增强目标的可探测性具有重要价值。

关键词：中红外强吸收波段；杂波空域起伏；辐射传输；红外目标探测

Abstract：The mid-infrared(MIR) atmospheric strong absorption wavelength bands(near 2.7 and 4.3 μm) have the characteristics of suppressing background clutter signals, which are often used on the payload of infrared early warning satellites to achieve stable detection and tracking of targets. The background clutter fluctuation level has an important impact on MIR target detection, and it is of great significance to study the spatial domain fluctuation of surface-atmosphere clutter near the 2.7 and 4.3 μm bands. First, the MODTRAN radiative transfer model is used to iteratively simulate the optical depth (OD) of water vapor and CO₂ under six standard atmospheric models, screen the strong absorption bands according to the criterion of OD>1, and intersect the band calculation results under various atmospheric models. The final strong absorption bands were 2.52～2.83 and 4.18～4.47 μm. Then, global monthly averaged surface and atmosphere background products are produced based on remote sensing satellite data products and data assimilation information. Among them, combined with the monthly average surface reflectance/emissivity products (MYD09A1/ MOD11C3) of MODIS shortwave infrared and mid-infrared bands (2.13, 3.75, 3.96 and 4.05 μm), the non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) method was used to reconstruct global surface reflectance/emissivity products at strongly absorbing bands; Produce monthly-averaged global surface temperature products based on ERA5 reanalysis data; The global monthly average products of water vapor and cloud optical thickness (COT) are obtained by splicing and fusing MODIS atmospheric products (MOD05_L2 and MOD06_L2) respectively; The CO₂ global monthly average product comes from the data assimilation product of the OCO-2 satellite; In order to spatially match various data products and save computing resources, global products are limited to the 60° north and south latitude range and resampled to a spatial resolution of 1°×1°; Next, under cloudy and cloud-free conditions, the background clutter intensity of two strong absorption bands was simulated and calculated pixel by pixel, and the spatial distribution pattern of clutter was analyzed. Finally, the 11×11 square window neighborhood statistics method was used to calculate the clutter spatial domain fluctuation in the simulation results, convert the clutter fluctuation under 95% probability, and conduct histogram statistics. From the perspective of clutter suppression, a comparison of infrared target detection performance in two absorption bands is given. Study results show that under cloud conditions, the fluctuation level of background clutter in the 2.52～2.83 μm band has the characteristics of “a point-like peak, regional enhancement, and overall low values”. In contrast, the clutter fluctuation level in the 4.18～4.47 μm band shows the characteristics of “regional high values, patchy enhancement, and low values at high latitudes”. Under cloud-free conditions, the background clutter fluctuation level in the 2.52～2.83 μm band increases significantly in the low water vapor content area. In contrast, the clutter fluctuation level in the 4.18～4.47 μm band is generally low, and most of them are controlled within 2×10^-4 W/m²/sr/μm. On the global scale, the infrared target detection performance is better in the 2.52～2.83 μm band when there are clouds and in the 4.18～4.47 μm band when there are no clouds. The results of this study can provide a reference basis for detecting infrared targets in terms of spatial domain law and spectral band optimization, which is of great value for enhancing the detectability of targets.

Key words：Mid-infrared strong absorption band; Clutter spatial domain fluctuation; Radiative transfer; Infrared target detection

收稿日期: 2023-10-24 修订日期: 2024-03-15

中图分类号:

TP79

基金资助: 国家自然科学基金国家杰出青年科学基金项目(41925019)，中国空间技术研究院CAST基金项目(YGB-1-2022-0102)，云南省李正强专家工作站(202205AF150031)资助

通讯作者: 王思恒 E-mail: rswangsiheng@163.com

作者简介: 姚前，1998年生，中国科学院空天信息创新研究院博士研究生 e-mail: yaoqian21@mails.ucas.ac.cn

引用本文:

姚前，李正强，樊程，许华，王思恒，陈震霆. 中红外大气强吸收波段地气杂波全球空间分布研究[J]. 光谱学与光谱分析, 2024, 44(12): 3504-3512.
YAO Qian, LI Zheng-qiang, FAN Cheng, XU Hua, WANG Si-heng, CHEN Zhen-ting. Study on Global Spatial Distribution of Surface-Atmosphere Clutter in Mid-Infrared Atmospheric Strong Absorption Band. SPECTROSCOPY AND SPECTRAL ANALYSIS, 2024, 44(12): 3504-3512.

链接本文:

https://www.gpxygpfx.com/CN/10.3964/j.issn.1000-0593(2024)12-3504-09 或 https://www.gpxygpfx.com/CN/Y2024/V44/I12/3504

[1] Liu Y, Zhang W J, Zhang B. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2016, 54(1): 452.
[2] LIU Yao, ZHANG Wen-juan, ZHANG Bing, et al(刘瑶, 张文娟, 张兵, 等). Remote Sensing for Land & Resources(国土资源遥感), 2017, 29(3): 98.
[3] Deng H, Sun X P, Zhou X. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, 2019, 49(5): 1694.
[4] HU Rui-jie, CHE Dou(胡睿杰, 车逗). Computer and Modernization(计算机与现代化), 2023, (8): 79.
[5] Bai X Z, Bi Y G. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2018, 56(4): 2452.
[6] Qin Y, Li B. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2016, 13(12): 1890.
[7] Han J H, Liang K, Zhou B, et al. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2018, 15(4): 612.
[8] Wang Y H, Xu X P, Yue N N, et al. International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems, 2017, 14(6): 1729881417744822.
[9] Bae T W. Infrared Physics & Technology, 2014, 63: 42.
[10] Yu J G, Xia G S, Deng J J, et al. Infrared Physics & Technology, 2015, 73: 175.
[11] Hou W Z, Li Z Q, Dong X G, et al. Hyperspectral Surface Reflectance Reconstruction Based on Non-Negative Matrix Factorization and Multispectral Results. Proceedings of the AOPC 2021: Optical Spectroscopy and Imaging, 2021.
[12] LI Yin-na, LI Zheng-qiang, ZHENG Yang, et al(李殷娜, 李正强, 郑杨, 等). Spectroscopy and Spectral Analysis(光谱学与光谱分析), 2024, 44(2): 563.
[13] Hou W Z, Wang J, Xu X G, et al. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 2016, 178: 400.
[14] Hou W Z, Wang J, Xu X G, et al. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 2017, 192: 14.
[15] Hou W Z, Wang J, Xu X G, et al. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 2020, 253: 107161.
[16] Zeng H, Ren H Z, Nie J, et al. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 2021, 14: 7724.
[17] Zhao E Y, Qian Y G, Gao C X, et al. Remote Sensing, 2014, 6(12): 12667.
[18] Li Z L, Tang B H, Wu H, et al. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2013, 131: 14.