Journals / Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science / 2020 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 3

Analysis of condition number and position estimation error for multiangulation position estimation system

Pages
1503–1518
Publication Date
2020-05-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results based on Monte Carlo simulations show that both condition number and PE error distribution increase with the target range, where the higher condition number values correlate with higher PE error values appearing around 80◦ to 110◦ and 260◦ to 280◦ of both distributions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:A passive wireless positioning system could be used to detect the location of low-level airborne targets such as drones or unmanned aircraft systems from the electromagnetic emission detected at spatially deployed ground receiving stations GRSs .
📊
Key Findings & Data:The multiangulation system proposed in this paper makes use of the angle of arrival AOA of the transmitted signal from the target to estimate its position through a 2-stage process.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results based on Monte Carlo simulations show that both condition number and PE error distribution increase with the target range, where the higher condition number values correlate with higher PE error values appearing around 80◦ to 110◦ and 260◦ to 280◦ of both distributions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Angle of arrival · free-space path loss · singular-value decomposition

Abstract

A passive wireless positioning system could be used to detect the location of low-level airborne targets such as drones or unmanned aircraft systems from the electromagnetic emission detected at spatially deployed ground receiving stations GRSs . The multiangulation system proposed in this paper makes use of the angle of arrival AOA of the transmitted signal from the target to estimate its position through a 2-stage process. The AOA is the positiondependent signal parameter PDSP obtained from the target emission in the first stage, and using the PDSP and GRSs, the target location is estimated in the second stage by the angulation algorithm. Noise in the received signal results in AOA estimation error and subsequently error in the position estimation PE . This paper focuses on the angulation process, which is the second stage of the multiangulation target location estimation process. Analysis is conducted to determine the correlation between the PE error and the condition number of the coefficient matrix of a multiangulation position estimation system. The results based on Monte Carlo simulations show that both condition number and PE error distribution increase with the target range, where the higher condition number values correlate with higher PE error values appearing around 80◦ to 110◦ and 260◦ to 280◦ of both distributions.

🔖

Cite This Article

YARIMA, S. M., SHAAMERI, A. Z., YARO, A. S. (2020). Analysis of condition number and position estimation error for multiangulation position estimation system. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 3, 1503–1518. https://ajindex.com/articles/186606

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Poisel R. Electronic Warfare Target Location Methods. Boston, MA, USA: Artech House, 2012
  2. Bagheri M, Sedaaghi MH. A new approach to pulse deinterleaving based on adaptive thresholding. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 2017; 25 (5): 3827-3838. doi: 10.3906/elk-1606-415 [3] Ayazgok S, Erdem C, Ozturk MT, Orduyilmaz A, Serin M. Automatic antenna scan type classification for nextgeneration electronic warfare receivers. IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation 2018; 12 (4): 466-474. doi: 10.1049/ietrsn.2017.0354 [4] Lambert G. Electronic Warfare: Rethinking the Importance of Its Role in the Military Operations. Norfolk, VA, USA: Marine Corps, Joint Forces Staff College, National Defense University, 2016
  3. Boyacı A, Ekti AR, Yarkan S, Aydın MA. Monitoring, surveillance, and management of the electromagnetic spectrum: current issues in electromagnetic spectrum monitoring. Electrica 2018; 18 (1): 100-108. doi: 10.5152/iujeee.2018.1816 [6] ITU Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R). Handbook on National Spectrum Management, 2015
  4. Pace PE. Detecting and Classifying Low Probability of Intercept Radar. 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Artech House, 2009
  5. Poisel RA. Introduction to Communication Electronic Warfare Systems. 2nd ed. Boston, MA, USA: Artech House, 2008
  6. Sha’ameri AZ, Yaro AS, Amjad FM, Hamdi MN. Performance comparison of emitter locating system for low level airborne targets. Defence S and T Technical Bulletin 2017; 10(3): 199-217
  7. Hassanhosseini S, Taban MR, Abouei J. Indoor localization of wireless emitter using direct position determination and particle swarm optimization. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 2018; 26 (2): 655-665. doi: 10.3906/elk-1706-332 [11] Fard HT, Atashbar M, Norouzi Y, Kashani FH. Multireference TDOA-based source localization. Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences 2013; 21 (Suppl. 1): 1920-1929. doi: 10.3906/elk-1109-46 [12] International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Guidance Material on Comparison of Surveillance Technologies (GMST), 2007
  8. Norouzi Y, Kashani ES, Ajorloo A. Angle of arrival-based target localisation with low earth orbit satellite observer. IET Radar, Sonar & Navigation 2016; 10 (7): 1186-1190. doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2015.0437 [14] Series S. Comparison of Time-Difference-of-Arrival and Angle-of-Arrival Methods of Signal Geolocation, 2011
  9. Sha’ameri AZ, Shehu YA, Asuti W. Performance analysis of a minimum configurati