Accurate Doppler-factor estimation and effective Doppler compensation are essential for reliable high-data-rate mobile underwater acoustic communication. However, false correlation peaks and missed peak detections can degrade estimation accuracy or lead to estimation failure. To address the above problem, this paper proposes a coarse-to-fine Doppler-factor estimation method that combines replica correlation, periodic-spacing-based false-peak discrimination, and multi-interval refinement. First, the received signal is cross-correlated with a bank of Doppler-scaled replicas of the synchronization waveform to mitigate mismatch and obtain a coarse Doppler estimate. The Doppler-scaled synchronization-header spacing can be acquired based on the coarse estimate, enabling false correlation peaks to be identified and rejected through integer-multiple spacing-consistency tests. Exploiting the inherent integer-multiple structure of the Doppler-scaled synchronization-header spacings, the proposed method then combines the retained pairwise peak intervals using a Gauss–Markov-type weighted least-squares (WLS) estimator to obtain a refined Doppler-factor estimate in closed form. By exploiting the known multi-header timing structure and jointly incorporating multiple interval measurements, the method limits the influence of false correlation peaks and reduces sensitivity to individual peak-position errors, thereby improving the accuracy of Doppler-factor estimation. Numerical comparisons with representative existing Doppler-factor estimation methods demonstrate that the proposed method achieves favorable estimation accuracy over the investigated signal-to-noise-ratio and radial-velocity ranges. Further simulations demonstrate the robustness of the proposed method to noise-induced false correlation peaks. Comparative sea-trial results show that the proposed estimates generally remain close to the navigation-derived reference, providing further evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed method under the tested field conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: