You are on page 1of 16

Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ad Hoc Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/adhoc

Netted radar: Network communications design and optimisation
Stephen Hurley a,⇑, M. Imran Khan b
a
School of Computer Science, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom
b
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, Farnborough, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Networks of phased array radars are generally able to provide better counter stealth target
Received 24 May 2010 detection and classification. Each radar sensor (or node) generates information which
Received in revised form 18 August 2010 requires transmission to a central authority that is able to evaluate the information. This
Accepted 28 August 2010
requires a communications network to be established to allow transmission of information
Available online 6 September 2010
to and from any node. Each radar node is limited by range and degree and relies on the for-
mation of a multi-hop network to facilitate these transmissions.
Keywords:
This paper presents a model whereby the radar beam itself is used in the formation of a
Optimisation
Network design
multi-hop network. The phased array’s multi-functional nature allows rapid switching
Distributed radar between communications and radar function. A model of how the communication system
could operate is presented, and an evolutionary optimisation algorithm based upon the
concept of Pareto optimality is used for the topological design of the network. Finally, a
simulation environment is presented to show the simulated performance of the communi-
cation model and designed networks.
Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction communications ability the phased array radar becomes
a multi-functional radar (MFR), performing both the
The advantages and diversity of phased array radar ground based air defense (GBAD) and communications
have been known for decades. Fourikis [1] provides a rich functions.
overview and discusses the diverse range of applications The use of phased array radar antenna for communica-
of phased array based systems. More recent advances in tion has several advantages associated with highly direc-
phased arrays allow for inter-continental phased array tional antenna as compared to their omni-directional
communication. These radars communicate over large dis- counterparts. This results in an increased communications
tances and relay information to central operational control range which in turn allows more connections to be made.
centres. This paper uses much smaller radars to form Directive antenna also have higher gains and higher capac-
tightly controlled distributed radar networks over small ity. All these factors contribute to having high data rate,
geographical areas. low interference and well connected networks. The collec-
The phased array radar antenna has the ability to form tive use of a network of phased array antennas also has the
beams in both transmit and receive mode, effectively advantage of being more difficult to jam because they re-
allowing the radar to maximise its sensitivity in the de- quire lower power than their larger omni equivalents. They
sired direction while minimising its sensitivity in other also have lower sidelobes and the ability to form adaptive
directions [2]. This versatility and agility can be used to nulls, i.e. place nulling beams in the direction of the
good effect when trying to implement a communication jammer. These advantages are further enhanced because
function using the phased array radar itself. With this of the distributed nature of the radars - jammers are re-
quired to interfere over a larger area and in multiple direc-
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 2920 874749. tions [3,4]. It is possible to use a separate dedicated
E-mail address: steve@cs.cf.ac.uk (S. Hurley). subsystem for communications, however this leads to a

1570-8705/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2010.08.023

[14–16]. 1. Topology control in multi-hop sensor net- Forward Velocity irele al W ion works can be used to conserve energy. Fig. signal strength. to form a communications Table 1 shows a summary of the important aspects of network for the transfer of tactical information. can be considered ad-hoc [19]. and suggestions for future work. yielding efficient yet suboptimal solutions. The formation of these networks is based on a straightforward network mesh formation as the large  Operate as a radar and generate information and mes- ranges enable easy link establishment between any nodes.g. Hurley. are processed depending on whether incoming messages scribes the use of combining energy harvesting techniques in wireless sensor networks with X-band radars. however. These phased array networks are also used solely as high  Establish directional beams to facilitate communication bandwidth backbone nodes with communication a priority.power control e (energy conservation) and hierarchical topology organisa. Radar node subsystem tem of receive sensors based on an ad-hoc network where each element of a multistatic radar performs as both a radar Fig. or directly from the radar subsystem. Section 2 con- and supporting two separate subsystems. no ulator subsystems of the radar node. and formation of a radar network. [12] de. nications functions using the radar beam itself. Section 6 contains conclusions develops a set of software tools to assess netted radar sen. array networks. ute to the formation of an infrastructure-less network and Studies such as [10] consider network topology manage. node assumed in this paper. ng r Ra tion [17]. The nodes therefore per- ment and design for large phased array antennas with large form the following ad-hoc and radar functions: ranges. for a rap- idly deployable and self sustainable remote sensing of the troposphere. Target–node interaction. of the optimisation algorithm used for designing phased crease sensitivity and/or accuracy. Finally. 2. either from other radar nodes through the incoming links Other studies involve the use of networked radar for mete. In Fig. Tracking mobile targets is an important application of multi-hop sensor networks for both military and defense Target Lin k ss systems [13]. 2 shows the message processing and associated sim- receive sensor and as a communication node. Section Most of the published work on networked radars. not 3 contains details of the simulation environment used for necessarily phased arrays.2. a multi-hop network is designed. sitivity and ambiguity properties in two and three dimen- sions.1. Messages can arrive topological design of the ad-hoc network is considered. [11] briefly mentions this combination by proposing a sys. for example to serve as a network backbone. using the directional beams of the phased arrays. Hierarchical Range topology organisation generally involves some form of Coverage clustering to form a subset of nodes that have certain char- acteristics. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 737 less robust and less reliable system with more components the work presented here there is no reliance on energy and slower operation because of potentially increased de. . testing radar network topologies. and angular posi- tions. Very little both the radar and communication characteristics of each previous work exists on combining the radar and commu. sages regarding targets. the network is used to increase the size of the  Operate as a router and forward packets using the surveilled region for a given range of radar transceivers and established radar network. focus on how to combine obser. based on the proximity to a target. reduce interference ect Dir and maximise capacity. The nodes also contrib- algorithm. da Ra such as node position. The radar node the beam of phased arrays for the design of the network topology and the communication protocols of the network. Communications model tracking capability of a target from a single phased array radar network but aims to exploit the directionality of 2. contribute to potential instability of topology control algorithms based on power control [18]. conservation in the network and no clustering of nodes is lays required by crossing multiple subsystems (radar to considered. Section 4 contains details vations from different radars on the same target to in. and several algorithms have been Radar proposed e. In this paper. 1 is representative cations are obtained through the use of an evolutionary of how targets and radars interact. there may be increased costs in maintaining This paper will be organised as follows. Incoming messages orological applications. dependencies on volatile information. Giuli et al. Section 5 contains results of numerical Work presented in [9] describes the performance of netted simulations used to test network designs and the commu- radar in terms of sensitivity and ambiguity function and nications model. S. The radar node simulates the basic operations of a radar The results for the network topology design and communi. This paper does not consider the detection or 2. In general there are two approaches Node to topology control in ad-hoc networks . For example Donovan et al. However. tains a description of the communications model. Also. for example [5–8]. M. radio).

. each subsystem. M. 3. 2. 3 when node z-Coord Elevation Number of phased arrays 4 1 face 3 detects a target it sends messages to or via node 2 and onto its final destination. Power (mW) : 200 Frequency (GHz) : 15 2. message type. Xcr 3750m Radar ID 12Bit ID Each radar node is made up of four phased arrays which x-Coord OS reference each cover 90°. e.3.02 Radar range. Queueing is based on a First. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 Table 1 queueing methods such as those discussed in Tanenbaum Radar and communication characteristics of a node.g. This requires the timeslots to alternate between Radar Node System Overview Radar Scanning Subsystem Radar/Communication Subsystem Face 3 Face 0 Face 0 Links Face 0 outgoing queue Face 1 Links Queue Routing Frame Face 1 outgoing queue Processing Table building/ Face 2 Links Face 2 outgoing queue prioritising Face 2 Face 1 Face 3 Links Face 3 outgoing queue Message Analysis Fig. Hurley. Consequently. [20] and more detailed algorithms such as rate-controlled Attribute/characteristic Value/description algorithms are not considered. In Fig. tracking messages could be placed at This highlights the precise time synchronous nature of the front of the queue and surveillance messages moved the operation of the radar nodes. 3 shows how the communication mod- y-Coord OS reference el is intertwined with the radar model. to the back of the queue. has to be pointing in the correct direction and at precisely the outgoing queues can be prioritised depending on the same time during communication with node 1 face 1. time (90% here) and enters a communication mode for Messages destined for the node are analysed by a separate the remainder of the time (10% here). Radar node overview. Radar communication and operation Wavelength (m) : 0. If required. Node 2 face 3 message queue dictated by the routing table. Fig. 3 – 90 ms radar in the network are re-packed and placed on an outgoing scan followed by 10 ms of communication. Target Radar Node1 Face 3 Face 0 Face 2 Face 1 Radar Node 2 Face 3 Face 0 Node 1 radar Coverage Face 2 Face 1 Comms Node 2 radar Mode Coverage Radar Scan Communication Profile Node 1 Face 1 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 1 Second Fig. Messages that are destined for a different node 100 ms timeslot is split as shown in Fig. Other face (LPF). Radar operation 1 link per face. It is assumed that the radar performs normal radar function for the majority of the are destined for the node or another node in the network. The radars can have up to two communication links per Come-First-Serve method unless otherwise stated.738 S.

nication time is divided as shown. The velocity of the target is set initially and remains un-  Represent the physical aspects of the regional environ. S. y. The environment  Represent the physical aspects of radars. communications timings. to both nodes 2 and 3 on the same face. then the commu. Attribute/operational Description  Use suitable network level protocols including routing – state the routing of messages is carried out using routing TargetID For simulation use only tables maintained by each radar node. M. It is assumed required to monitor and identify the target. and overall message times to be analysed.g. 3.3). one or two links per face used for elevation. radar nodes – e. An event oc- action between the radar network and potential targets. If. queuing. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 739 Target Radar Node1 Face 3 Face 0 Face 2 Face 1 Radar Node 3 Face 3 Face 0 Radar Node 2 Face 2 Face 1 Face 3 Face 0 Face 2 Face 1 Comms Comms Mode Mode Communication Profile Node 1 Face 1 Radar Scan 2 links per face 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 1 Second Fig. lines-of-sight. the different nodes. 1). this aspect of the simulator is incorporated into a geo- graphical information system. 4.2. Network simulation environment The simulator generates communication messages Radar network simulation is used to simulate the inter. changed during the simulation. y and z component of velocity. As the radar nodes communication. The target 3. are highly directional. This message passing/packet routing is simulated in the As targets travel through the network. 3. as in Fig. tion the simulator is required to: Targets are given by a set x. In order to perform this func. It curs when an airborne target is detected by a radar node. This event triggers the radar node to carry out operations dar communications in the radar network. Adaptive delay Velocity x. radar node operations and links – ranges. radio propagation model – erties of a target. Surveillance that all messages generated by the radar nodes in response and tracking messages are generated and sent to the com- to targets must be sent to a commander (positioned at a mander node via an already established wireless link single radar node somewhere in the network) via the radar (wireless links are only available during designated times- network itself using the communications model above. lots. and sends the relevant messages to the commander node.1. each node at- form of a routed network to allow an evaluation of the ra. a geographic information system (GIS) to enable the accu-  Allow adaptations of the physical aspects of the rate modelling of spatial characteristics such as distance. the system. terrain and lines-of-sight. terrain. The radars are placed in a simulated environment using data rate characteristics of radars. Hurley. Radar operation 2 links per face. 4. Table 2 outlines the prop- ment. accurate lines-of-sight are critical  Provide abstract representation of the radar – the radar operation is simulated through the generation of mes- sages based on target proximity rather than true radar Table 2 operation based on the electromagnetic properties of Target attribute/operational details. is also required to simulate the interaction of radar-to-ra. based on the proximity of a target (see Fig. z components of velocity routing is used in the simulator [21]. see Section 2. Current position Current position based on simulator time  Allow quantitative and qualitative information to be Entry point Starting position of the target extracted from the various components of the system . tached to the network detects targets within their range dar network topology design. node 1 sends messages – each message is tracked to allow message delays.

3 ArcGIS solution developed includes interfaces for the inclusion of a 4 propagation model. node height. consequently This information is then used in the optimisation algo. 5 shows the full system in  Surveillance mode the form of inputs to the system and generated outputs at  Tracking mode each stage of the simulation and design optimisation. the three modes of operations and the timings involved with: sight based on three criteria – radar range. quire large amounts of computational power. The node changes to surveillance mode UK Ordnance Survey PANORAMA Digital Terrain Model. 5.com/software/arcgis for full details of ArcGIS.740 S. The datasets. The Section 3. . to calculate which radar nodes are visible to each other. Lines of sight are calculated using the and therefore lines-of-sights can be precomputed.3. 3. This section4 describes at predefined positions and the GIS calculates the lines-of. the calculations are based on predicted node movements rithm (Section 4). GIS system ArcGIS. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 Inputs Terrain OS Tile\Tiles Number of Nodes Node Positions GIS Commander Position Radar bandwidth at separation Outputs Radar Average number of hops Inputs Network Average link length All pairs ST connectivity Number of Links Per Face Design Averge number of hops to commander Average number of link colour changes to commander Inputs Number of Targets Target Entry Points Simulation Target Velocities Outputs Message related stats Average message delay to commander Total number of messages routed Total number of messages sent Full routed path analysis for each message (if required) Node related stats Total number of messages sent by each node Total number of messages routed by each node Inputs Average message delay from each node Target related stats Outputs Average message delay for each target Number of messages regarding each target First detection times Fig. Surveillance mode The framework can initially call for current lines-of-sight It is assumed that the radars gather information during for a given set of nodes or retrieve previously calculated the scan phase of the radar operation which accounts for lines-of-sight.1 The terrain datasets used are digital elevation models taken directly from the United Kingdom’s 3. Calculations of lines-of-sight on-the-fly re- 90% of the radar operating time. Hurley.1 describes the triggering event of a target radar nodes can be placed on the grid either randomly or passing within range of the radar. After a target is first detected within radar range the target is added to the ac- 1 See http://www. provide accurate models of the terrain. Traffic generation Ordnance Survey (OS).3.esri. interference/propagation. M. 2 quired target list. Developed in accordance with QinetiQ recommendations. System overview inputs and outputs.1. in NTF2 high resolution terrain format.  Engagement mode The system is given access to the GIS component at all times during both the optimisation and simulation stage.3 Fig.

Hurley. k) define the average message delay in a network k. Let AMD (i. Each (1 or 2). and the inherently tight upper and lower bounds make finding an optimal colouring less 3. messages regarding the target are sent to the As the graph colouring problem is a classically compu- commander via the network at 1 s intervals. where l is a specified time threshold. Consequently.e. dictated by the time a commander takes to make a ized as follows. After a confidence period of 2 s quired and there are two colours in the palette of the col- has elapsed. The commander. cent links on a radar node to be different colours as in tra- assumed to be at node 23. v 2 V. slot. After two detections it will enter surveil. i. the timeslots need to be sequenced since both links on a face cannot communicate using the same time-  G consists of all the nodes in GX cr . After a further tationally hard mathematical problem [23]. . elevation and terrain information to calculate which radar nodes are visible to v. the maximum distance with new target information during the interception and for any two nodes to communicate directly is Xcr. rithm where all edge information is known. regardless of which radar Target Predicted Target Path node is designated the commander position. u 2 Vvisible(v). lance mode and send messages as required.3. After a further The networks considered here do not require all adja- five detections.2. This involves updating the missile communications range of Xcr. critical in the simulator. S. order to engage the target. Addition- increased detections of the target. i. j. Engagement mode After the target has been tracked for some period of The phased array radar network design can be formal- time. 15 and 13. we use an effi- five detections/seconds the radar node changes to tracking cient randomised algorithm since fast execution time is mode. some form of data grouping could take place in the com.3. tion between two nodes. decision to counter the target. This aspect is not con. i. fire a missile to intercept z(v)} at a given point in time. Tracking mode important [24]. v) 6 Xcr. edge induced subgraphs is generated which are induced If another target is detected while in tracking mode from the adjacent links of each face of each node in turn. average delay of all messages sent to a designated com- mander node vc 2 V is minimised. if each radar The purpose of optimisation is to find a G such that the face is allowed two links then two distinct colours are re. v c . Timeslot synchronisation – graph colouring induced graph GX cr ¼ ðV. GÞ < l ð1Þ Ntargets i¼1 Fig. data grouping and data sharing in radar networking). EÞ. ally. 6. in milliseconds. for mes- sages destined for command node j generated by target i. A graph G is considered acceptable for a particular com- mand position. data distribution.5 s). on receiving tracking messages ditional edge-colouring – only links on the same face of a sends messages to nodes along the predicted path. Each node has a maximum the incoming target. 6 shows how a target enters the radar be used as either a distributed algorithm or a global algo- range of node 16. the commander issues an Each node v 2 V is specified by its coordinates {x(v). the GIS component uses po- sidered in this paper. Therefore we have an 3. The communication Our goal in performing topological control (network de- between nodes relies on each link being setup in the correct sign) is to find an undirected subgraph G of GX cr such that timeslot. The number of timeslot colours is dictated by the number of links per face. In Fig.3. when two links per face are assumed.e. Network design 3. Tracking operation. where E = {(u. vc. 4 the two links on node 1 face 1 must be different col- tracking mode once the target is detected within each ours to signify different timeslots). The Nibble method can (1 per 0. simply noise. We are given a set V of mobile radar nodes. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 741 from the default scan state. timeslot and associated colour represents a 10 ms connec-  G is connected. in these would be nodes 14. M. Therefore. sition. i. for each of its graph (which represents the connected radar network) to four faces. This requires the use of edge-colouring an undirected  each node in G has a maximum degree. a series of node’s range. 6 radar node require proper edge colouring (for example. 4. for each radar node. however this is not considered in this paper. v)jd(u.e. since execution time is the In tracking mode the number of messages sent to the critical requirement. y(v). These subgraphs require proper edge-colouring in the munications (see [22] for details of the issues involved in simulator.v 2 Vvisible(u)} where d(u. equal to the number of links allowed per face ensure that the nodes are properly synchronised. the target is tracked to ensure that it is not ouring algorithm.4. if for a number of targets Ntargets NX targets 1 AMDði. i. a highly randomised algorithm using commander is increased to two messages per second the Nibble method is used [25]. Fig.e.e. Let this set of radar nodes vis- ible to v be denoted by Vvisible(v). it enters a tracking mode. which then enter Fig. v) is the Euclidean Graph colouring is an important aspect of the simulation distance between u and v.

Nhops ðRi Þ < N hops ðRj Þ and ALlength ðRi Þ < ALlength ðRj Þ i. This involves generating a link between a pair of tion process. M. Hurley. i.0.t.742 S. G. then fore each candidate network in the population is a P e2E linklength ðeÞ binary array containing 10 elements. option but to use a multiple hop route. the number of hops and average link length. 3). If the number of vertex disjoint paths is known then the vertex connectivity between nodes For 2 links per face networks the binary encoding is u and v is known.1. a set of solu- works paths tend to be considered better as they consume tions which are pair-wise non-dominated are desirable in less network resources in total. The average number hop length or link length) without simultaneously degrad- of hops is calculated using the total number of minimum ing the quality of the other objective. v 2 V is summed Pareto set represent the best trade-off between number and then divided by the total number of node pairs. i.0. The main components of P the optimisation for radar network design is as follows: u. Optimisation metrics It is assumed that the higher the connectivity of G. (0. linklength(e) is the length potential links is 10 (20 if two links per face). there- (distance) of the link e which joins two nodes. v # V then the minimum number of vertices separating u from v in G is equal to the maximum number of vertex disjoint u ? v paths in G.4). Optimisation algorithm use the results from simulation.e. randomly selected radar nodes. R2 .1. ALlength ðGÞ ¼ the candidate network 0. 4). . RNpop g be the set of candi- sider number of hops and link length. are calculated using the shortest path. To illustrate the Average link length (bandwidth) is simply the sum of all encoding consider a network with five radar nodes link lengths divided by the total number of links. . Network designs which are in the min(p):p(u ? v) for each pair of nodes u. solutions. tÞ 5 Repair operators are methods of removing infeasible elements from a ST conn ðGÞ ¼ jVjðjVj1Þ solution by either removing them completely or using a heuristic method 2 to correct the solution. these metrics are defined Furthermore let Rnondom  R be the set of non-dominated as follows. and indirectly consider date solutions (network designs) at each generation of vertex connectivity. (1) over a range of targets and assess the number of feasible command The optimisation algorithm used in this paper is based positions (the higher the number the better the network). Minimum hop paths. the higher the reliability (robustness) of the related radar The optimisation algorithm requires performance met. For a with one link per face allowed. then there is no the set which improves the value of any objective (i. 2). For a graph. 2). on a genetic algorithm. 3). increase the number of feasible command positions (see Section 5. with each stitutes the Pareto set and any solution from the Pareto set link given a weight of 1. . links. Average number of hops is minimised during the optimisa.2V G ðs. under multiple objectives (see [28] for further details on The metrics investigated in this paper will directly con. objective optimisation used to compare different solutions works which have good performance under simulation. Let R ¼ fR1 . .0. (1. The set of all possible hops between each pair of nodes. (1. These metrics are used in an evolu.e. Let the vertex connectivity between a pair twice as long with two elements assigned to each node of nodes s and t in G where s. of hops and average link length. Repair operators5 then the average vertex connectivity of a network is P j s. network design. t).1. when optimised.2. generate net. The weight of each minimum path is called Pareto optimal. domination). be defined by jG (s. i. Eq. All-pairs ST (source–target) vertex connectivity and more generally vertex connectivity is characterized by Menger’s (1927) Theorem [26] which states that for a graph G with u. the optimisation algorithm.e. specifically the Strength Pareto However this is computationally too expensive to be used Evolutionary Algorithm (SPEA) [27] which uses the notion at each iteration of the optimisation algorithm. Fewer hops in net. one element for each potential link. Number of hops is the measure of the path cost from a Applying domination with the objectives of minimising source node s to a destination node t.1.0 would rep- jEj resent a network with communications links exist- Average link length is minimised during the optimisation ing between node pairs (0. The total number of network of V nodes and E links. non-dominated solutions from the entire search space con- min(p). pair.v 2V minðpÞ : pðu ! vÞ Nhops ðGÞ ¼ jVjðjVj1Þ 2 (1) (Initialisation) An initial population of binary encoded represented radar networks is generated. then network design Ri is said tionary algorithm based approach to produce suboptimal to dominate network design Rj if solutions that are shown to be effective under simulation. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 4.1. rics to be defined that allow differentiation between differ- ent network designs. The most appropriate measure is to 4. t. process – shorter links have higher data rate than longer and (2. When a node is not able to the sense that it is impossible to find another design in establish a direct link to the required node. 2 V. For example.e. .e. therefore of domination – a well established concept in multiple metrics are needed which.1.

1. solutions in non-dominated set to Nnondom (4) (Selection) A new population is generated by choos. Pseudo- now. There is also a clustering proce- dure used to ensure that the set does not increase Algorithm 4. Rtemp Tempory population of maximum size Npop to PjRj j¼1 store next generation of solutions j–i PDðRi .1.e. Mutation is applied to each Copy Rtemp to Rt element in each new network – if the mutation rate end for is passed then the binary element is toggled. Mutation and Repair) Pairs of the selected Ri .1 were selected for crossover.1 (Optimisation algorithm for radar networks).0.1 /* Re-Initialize population: */ and 1. to ensure to create two new networks e. This value represents the fitness of each Rt Rt + BERN non-dominated solution. For example.e.1.0.0. if the cut point was 3 feasibility we would produce new networks 0. (2) nated set and the population and making them Poplulation set fitness: use Eq. The /* Extract final non-dominated set: */ resulting solutions are repaired.0. copy to X j jRnondom SðRi Þ if PDðRi .e. Rj Þ SðRi Þ ¼ ð3Þ /* Initalisation */ Nþ1 R0nondom 0 /* Set non-dominated set to empty 0 */ Here the number of total number solutions which for i 0 to Npop solution Ri dominates is divided by the population do Generate random BERN size + one. the fitness of the dominated individuals is given by summing the strength of all the dominating indi. if necessary.1. i.0.1. Rj Þ ¼ ALlength ðRi Þ < ALlength ðRj Þ ð2Þ pc Crossover probability > : pm Mutation probability 0 otherwise Rt Set of candidate solutions in population at time t then the strength of each member of the non-domi.1. Non-dominated set fitness: use Eq. Hurley.1.0.1. i.1. for i 0 to T nated solutions Rj 2 (R  Rnondom) is given by /* Update non-dominated set: */ Find non-dominated solutions in Rt. variables (3) (Assign fitness values) This is the strength element of Npop Population size the algorithm.0. This requires encoding of the radar networks.0. Functions: (6) (Termination) If the total number of generations has BERN Random Binary Encoded Radar Network been reached then the non-dominated set represents . M. above its maximum number of solutions (see [29] for details).1. Otherwise the algorithm is the radar networks are feasible. If we define 8 Nnondom Maximum size of non-dominated set < 1 if Nhops ðRi Þ < Nhops ðRj Þ and > T Maximum number of generations PDðRi . dominated solutions in the non dominated code for the algorithm is as follows: set to be removed. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 743 are implemented at this initialisation stage to ensure that the final Pareto set. chosen links are within repeated from the Update non-dominated set phase.1.1. for i 0 to Npop vives to the next generation.0 Crossover solutions from Rtemp with probability pc and 1. Rj 2 Rt þ Rtnondom individuals then undergo simple crossover and if S(Ri) < S(Rj)Rtemp = Rtemp + Ri else Rtemp mutation based on crossover and mutations proba.0. which are radar specific. apart from the custom evaluated after each new generation. and new non-dominated solutions to be added and any. Rj Þ ¼ 0 Remove any newly dominated individuals from Rtnondom i. i.1. The SPEA algorithm used is almost identical to the ori- (2) (Update non-dominated set) The set.1. S. /* Assign population andnon-dominated set strengths: */ ing two solutions at random from the non-domi.1. the repair operators.0.0. Ri 2 Rnondom is calculated based on the time t number of solutions it dominates.1. the optimisation criteria. whichever is /* Selection: */ the strongest individual from the pair selected sur. if necessary.0.0.0.e. Rnondom is re. If jRtnondom j > N nondom reduce number of candidate viduals and adding one. Rtnondom Set of non-dominated candidate solutions at nated set. Randomly select two individuals (5) (Crossover.1. (3) compete in binary tournaments. /* Crossover and mutation: */ consider that the two networks 0. = Rtemp + Rj bilities (see [30] for specific details).0. ginal framework set out in [27]. then a random crossover with probability pm cut point between 1 and 9 would be determined and /* Repair population: */ the sub-arrays either side of the cut point juxtaposed Repair all solutions. The strength of the domi.1. available range and in line of sight.g. to Rnondom ¼ RTnondom ensure they form feasible radar networks. If Mutate each new solution obtained from the crossover probability was passed. Rj Þ ¼ 1 t SðRj Þ ¼ 1 þ ð4Þ Rnondom i¼1 0 if PDðRi .

Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 The algorithm optimises two parameters simulta. Optimised test network 1 with commander positioned at node 3. The following values are used for the hops and average link length to calculate dominance. The experiments: solution from the non-dominated set.01  Population size 40 5. output at the end of the algorithm is chosen such that it has the high-  Crossover rate 0. Optimised test network 1 with 14 target paths. 7.  Mutation rate 0.7 est value for the STconn metric. The non-dominated set and ing phased array radar networks using two links and one population sizes are as recommended in [31]. . Rnondom. Numerical simulations and results  Maximum non-dominated set size 25  Maximum number of generations 1000 In this section we present the results of using the opti- The crossover and mutation values are based on results misation algorithm and communications model for design- and recommendations of [30]. The SPEA link per face. 8. Fig. M. Experiments involve pseudo-randomly plac- ing 32 radar nodes on a 28 km by 28 km region with flat Fig. algorithm is run with two metrics – average number of neously.744 S. Hurley.

019 4 4975.000) 74 298 521.49 4662.000. Each test net.09 3.74 3.24 2. 7 on optimised test network 1.83 2.98 7364.37 3.84 3.000) 10 456 489. 329.614 23 4526. Test network (k) Average link length Average no.65 10661.55 25 4543.42 24 4342.6 3.84 Average 4740. 339.27 9632.85 2.64 3.59 SD 199.12 12 4847.81 3. 335.59 6937.000) 14 538 477. 345.13 2772 7307. a 28 km  28 km grid would have a maximum of 14 terrain. In each experiment the optimised network is work.000.09 3. y) position First detection AMD(i. 327.000) 8 461 485.20 Maximum 5068.54 7463.0 simulation runs over all 30 experiments.9 1.88 3.08 13440.08 11581. 325.25 2.3 2.78 14 4857. and the maximum number of ex- i = 14 (220.3 pected targets per 5 km  5 km area is five targets [32].84 14151.66 1.87 5660.16 Minimum 4333.76 2.73 3.33 3.405 3 4413.88 3.56 10267. Hurley.2 i = 9 (220. For the experiments carried out in this i = 12 (220.97 3.24 2 4995.000) 26 501 478.71 12017.5 consistent the targets are fired simultaneously and at equal i = 11 (220.425 29 4624.88 3082.631 21 4333.44 11207.19 14039.1 12592.65 2.000.8 5047.000. mander positioned at node 3.78 4356.58 2000. 331.4 4241.31 2.24 6305.13 2.05 2.58 12389.000) 2 593 414.53 7005.22 9 4860.9 paper the straight line speed of all targets is set at 250 m/s i = 13 (220.82 20 4884.3.000) 109 474 404.03 13630.87 10274.69 2834.01 4972.93 3.97 2.32 30 4896. Table 4 Optimisation and simulation results – 2 links per face.92 2.156 19 4518.000) 20 573 396. the average message delay calculated.15 2. in particular.75 22 4691.000.14 3 2.52 2301.02 3.39 2082.000.29 3. 337.45 27 4691.83 5011.81 3. 343.88 3. In each simula- i = 7 (220.2 power which in turn is assumed to be inversely propor- i = 2 (220. grid SH (where SH is the alphabetical grid reference system Consider the example shown in Fig. 323.94 3.08 6992.15 13 4844.2 Overall this results in a total of 960 (30  32) individual i = 6 (220.37 2.83 5537.58 3 2.56 5948. The individual message size is i = 4 (220.000.17 5173.61 2.24 10524.3 4195.09 3799.109 17 4846. 341.000) 16 629 563.06 10974.1) l.18 2.000.67 3351.76 28 4586. of the data rate available between two communicating nodes (ms) messages is proportional to log(1 + pr).588 11 4904.66 10492.68 2.439 16 4798. where pr is the received i = 1 (220. Target ID (x. each the proximity of the target to the commander position. is set at 500 ms.8 3.92 2.26 7278.000. It is assumed that Delay No.000) 4 594 392. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 745 Table 3 of the 32 possible command positions is simulated and Example target statistics and delays.41 3.56 3.63 7304.61 .23 5602. The optimised network as- works are constructed for the experiments.05 6199.7 tion targets are fired across the network as shown in i = 8 (220.77 3.04 3.23 26 4566. M. j.35 2.76 12019.76 10399.8 4.05 3.5 148 bits.24 0.000) 228 392 431.6 i = 3 (220.000.74 7 5068.94 2.e.64 5 4916.51 2796.66 3.000) 6 612 515.99 2.09 10492.2.35 8694.06 3.67 3.88 5763.90 4.5 Fig. kÞ (ms) 1 5006.000. Table 3 details the average work is optimised using the algorithm presented in delay for messages for each target as it passes over the net- Section 4.96 2. S. used to evaluate the average message delay in the (ms) numerical simulations.52 10 4755. 321.000.31 2664.2 3429.742 15 4704.76 6438.66 1590.97 3.75 2381.244 18 4573. 347. 333.7 tional to distance squared.72 9980.000) 7 584 489.04 3.60 3.2 separations of 2 km.000.76 2. In order to keep results i = 10 (220.000) 10 457 367.08 8 4889.000.33 11906.16 2.08 2.31 2. i.08 6126. The time threshold.85 11487. Average delay values tend to be better depending on evaluated for simulation performance.22 2. of hops All-pairs ST connectivity 1 P31 P14 Standard deviation AMD 3214 j¼0 i¼1 AMDði. sumes 2 links per timeslot. The geographical region used is based on the OS targets.65 1590.3 for comparison purposes.1 6522.12 6 4757. 8 with the com- used by the UK’s Ordnance Survey). Thirty such test net.61 0.27 8876. i = 5 (220.

75 ms) which is below the target threshold of position (j) 500 ms. Table 5 also shows that test network 13 28 45017.78 Table 4 shows the optimisation and simulation results 7 273. the system.57 paratively large average message delay standard devia.60 has 20 out of 32 command positions which are within the 29 485. since these nodes tend 25 543.1. 26 317. . the first message regarding this target.59 ms).15 ing opportunities.16 3 291. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 First detection times are the times taken between the Table 5 detection by a radar node and the commander receiving Message delay values for each commander position for test network 13 – 2 links per face. 10. Minimum 273.94 positioned at an boundary node. Optimised test network 13 – 2 links per face. Results – 2 links per face 4 302.600 performance levels. 1 3309.50 fluctuations in average message delay values for different 18 350.50 less than 500 ms.98 2 357. These fluctuations in message delay 19 283.48 to have fewer adjacent links and hence less capacity/rout.40 The average delay ranges of all command positions in 31 13031.10 sage delay values usually occur when the commander is 24 380. 9. 30 359.64 6 291. 15 3956. The optimisation results 8 349.63 tions (last column in Table 4) indicate the large 17 32679.68 for each of the 30 test networks. 23 16603.80 all test networks is shown in Fig.848 SD 11487.38 threshold of 500 ms.35 27 521. from which we ob.47 5. reducing tactical tempo and hence usefulness of Fig.680 serve that over 60% of command positions have acceptable Maximum 45017. i. M.46 mander position in network 13.746 S. 13Þ (ms) 363.777 However Fig.39 command positions. Hurley.80 few commander positions that are within the 500 ms 13 451. Average 6305. are within the threshold of 500 ms.24 11 12945.52 the highest connectivity value. The mean of the P14 average delay values is 459.e. 21 32499.74 Table 5 gives the message delay values for each com. 12 29 1 system. Note that the larger mes. 10 also highlights a problem area with re- spect to designing networks for GBAD radar systems that assume 2 links per face – commanders located at difficult command positions would encounter large delays in the 450 31 400 Number of Command Positions 350 2 Links per face SPEA Designed 16 11 21 17 300 23 10 250 15 30 200 28 6 150 26 22 100 9 14 7 50 5 24 2 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 3 19 0 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 0 − > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 8 Average Delay Range (ms) 4 27 13 Fig. 14 336.50 can be seen using test network 13 in Fig.20 22 307.14 threshold (the average is 4972. 10. 20 408.47 16 485.53 5 337.55 correspond to the network in the non-dominated set with 9 368. The average message delay 10 414. Average delay ranges for all commander positions over all 0 18 25 networks – 2 links per face. In addition 11 of the targets have average delays 0 18744. j. 9 as an example.50 values would seem to indicate that the networks have very 12 14781.27 ms (standard deviation Commander 1 14 i¼1 AMDði. however the com.

imum delay of 90 ms. In Table 6 the average messages de- The previous section detailed results for designed net. If node 1 detects a target and the commander is sit. All command positions now. There are. per face assumption have now become viable command uated at node 4.2. Table 6 shows the optimisation and simulation results 5. Hurley. The designed networks with 1 link per face have lay. before it can send the Fig. Specifically. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 747 5. Finally. the average delay for each command face. 32 node networks. Using 1 link per face re.56 ms). Performance analysis (1 link per face versus 2 links per for each of the 30 networks. then at time T1 node 1 sends a message to positions. to time T2. i. 11. apart from node node 2. The model then dictates that there is another min. 12 shows with higher ST-connectivity values. This indicates that there is an overall improvement 2 links per face is that it produces more robust networks in network performance under simulation. link). for example. As with Table 4 the average face) message delay values would seem to indicate that the net- works have very few commander positions that are within It is clear that using 1 link per face improves results the 500 ms threshold (the average is 2523. command positions delay of 90 ms.e. Results – 1 link per face average message delay values and low standard deviations. . 21.79 for 1 tions indicate the large fluctuations in average message de. Furthermore.05 for 2 links compared to an average of 1. networks that have acceptable connectivity values that vary between 31% and 55% low- T1 T2 Communication Profile Node 2 Face 0 Radar Scan 2 links per face 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 1 Second Target Radar Node1 Radar Node 3 Face 3 Face 0 Face 3 Face 0 Face 2 Face 1 Face 2 Face 1 Radar Node5 Radar Node 4 Face 3 Face 0 Radar Node 2 Face 3 Face 0 Face 2 Face 1 Face 3 Face 0 Face 2 Face 1 Face 2 Face 1 Comms Comms Mode Mode Communication Profile Node 1 Face 1 Radar Scan 2 links per face 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 100ms 1 Second T1 Fig. the scenario shown in that were above the 500 ms threshold using the 2 links Fig. 13 shows not only an improvement in average mes- message via the red link to node 4. 23 and 28.3. of 3. Colour changes are also Table 7 which shows that although the average number significant in message delay for networks with 2 links per of hops has increased. mand positions are simulated and results are given in up requirements such as colouring. The primary advantage with ble 4. positions with acceptable delay has risen by 20%. sage delay ranges but also the number of acceptable com- duces the effect of swapping timeslots but the connectivity mand positions. M. All com- per face assumption has increased network design and set. 11. Delay caused by 2 links per face. however. initial node configurations as those used for 2 links per face. however overall but suffers from reduced connectivity (an average as with Table 4 the comparatively large standard devia. Take. S. However the 2 links designed test network 13 with 1 link per face. are viable command positions. network 10 and 17. A single colour change results in a minimum message position has decreased. this As in Section 5. lays are all lower than the 2 links per face networks in Ta- works with 2 links per face. the number of command due to the reduction in links is also reduced. Fig.1 the optimisation algorithm is used to results in a further 137 eligible command positions taken design 30 test networks with 1 link per face from the same over all 30.

87 1.60 Minimum 3022. A question arises as to whether the performance of the networks.14 1.33 16 3439.08 10921.95 4.78 1084.58 4.11 5528.4.06 2718.25 13 4137.77 29 4294.96 4312.19 1. The average connectivity decrease from 2 links per face to 1 link per face.05 4.23 7778.60 18 4129.46 7998.50 1.38 4494.12 27 4069.15 Maximum 5287.80 4.01 1.61 8 4064.80 2145.44 30 4258. 14 shows .53 1.91 966.64 0.00 2.70 4748.67 6424. 250.23 1597.07 9 4304.36 2.92 9599.46 4. in terms of eval- uation under simulation.98 1061. is 40%.11 2.50 3.45 0.71 2.06 1.56 1.00 23 4112.65 5439. do the performance criteria used in evaluating networks via simulation improve as the opti- misation metrics improve? Results were checked at differ- ent generations of the algorithm (generation 1.04 3.83 12 4230.90 1437.56 SD 413.10 4050.79 2523.45 4215.47 17 3920.20 1. 50.94 1.30 7 4725.13 3. Optimised test network 13 – 1 link per face.46 4.08 2049.92 474.92 5899.45 19 3939.14 412. 5.63 7376.01 2.46 4 4633.04 117.47 1.76 4719.94 3772. Algorithm performance through simulation For each experiment the optimisation algorithm pro- duces up to 25 different solutions (the maximum non- dominated set size) and from these.70 1.87 er than the 2 link per face counterpart as shown in Table 8.25 1.78 1.36 28 3911.02 1.01 1.48 1640.29 10044.33 1.05 2. 500 and 1000) and the current best network design was Fig.01 4. the network chosen has the highest connectivity value.06 8951.96 24 3696.01 7620.96 302.08 2.73 3.55 4. j.40 7784.51 5723.89 15 4059.65 21 3702.65 4.52 6741.10 103.91 4.21 1.11 1.79 2326.e.27 4.56 2.63 2 4169.85 1045.72 2124.34 3938.86 25 3730.30 4.70 4.88 2659.33 4.95 26 3022. 12.78 4.63 5451.91 1.01 4.52 1.04 6.26 1883. chosen for each of the 30 test networks.02 1499.78 5076.01 1.07 103.30 7778.748 S. Hurley.84 3930.56 3616.51 4. improves as the optimisation algorithm progresses. Test network (k) Average link length Average no.33 3.61 4.30 4.40 9261.15 42.98 10 3920. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 Table 6 Optimisation and simulation results – 1 link per face.27 89.34 1.18 3.96 20 3914. The performance gain is realised by removing the routing delay associated with changing link colours.43 4.29 Average 4094.65 3924.10 12078.73 6.16 1.71 1570.24 3.54 6 5287. M.37 14 4273.51 3153.78 1. Fig.44 4.51 3276. kÞ (ms) 1 4552. of hops All-pairs ST connectivity 1 P32 P14 Standard deviation AMD 3214 j¼1 i¼1 AMDði.94 3.51 7264.09 857. i.70 775.78 8847.65 22 3833.52 12243. Higher bandwidth and more direct routes also contribute to lowering the overall delays. De- signed networks with 1 link per face allow over 80% of possible command locations to achieve adequate performance.71 4.97 3058.50 11 4321.11 4.70 3 3799.11 5 4387.

02 6.88 38.40 2. From Fig.21 Fig.20 to better performing networks.72 face face 28 26228.51 32.87 1.82 Comparison of connectivity values of optimised networks.50 against average message delay for each generation consid.50 Maximum 26228.70 network (%) 26 67.10 11 3.66 1.94 44.98 1.10 10 3.52 0.70 (average link length and number of hops) are sympathetic 29 2.69 1.70 16 3.50 27 3.93 17 150. Minimum 1.86 Test Connectivity Percentage decrease 25 97.63 36.79 35.80 37.60 31 110.92 31.87 8 2.77 150 7 65. to 45% at generation 50.28 50 11 96.95 This paper presents a model and algorithm for topol- ogy design of phased array radar networks such that com- munications between radar nodes are effective.80 Minimum 65.54 1.56 1.70 SD 5076.80 algorithm does not optimise performance directly (as used 26 2.85 networks – 1 link per face.90 Table 8 22 67.91 48. j.14 31.79 40.60 to 78% at generation 500 and finally to 81% at generation 24 2.04 45. the metrics used in the design process 28 2.30 54. Hurley. to 58% at generation 250.40 1000.17 24 70.60 of feasible command positions.49 12 136.50 less than 500 ms for each generation. 23 3.96 300 1 96. Conclusion SD 0.85 45.06 43.70 of command positions attain average message delays of 18 4.70 how the percentage of viable command positions varies 13 3.00 1 2.78 8 80.10 30.75 200 5 76.84 34.05 1.22 6 65.56 41. This suggests that even though the optimisation 25 2.99 2 76.88 1.59 1.60 9 3.78 1.30 in simulation). 19 72.40 ation 1.07 42.70 12 3. average number mance criteria.01 1.80 1.51 1.72 44.58 2.50 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 100 0 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 00 − 0 − > 14 81. a larger percentage 17 3. 21 2.23 45.77 5 2.67 1.30 1.40 that as the optimisation progresses. 13Þ (ms) 350 0 183. 14 3.65 44.08 1.04 20 75. The of hops and average link length as optimisation perfor- optimisation algorithm uses two metrics.65 2.83 1.98 30.31 1.49 1.79 250 3 74.89 2 Links per 1 Link per 27 87.50 Average 3.09 2. S. In particular.00 6 1.90 45.90 29 90. assuming 1 link per face.66 1.35 2 2.23 1.23 100 9 78.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 122.78 7 2.02 37.34 48.65 35.90 30 86.38 Average Delay Range (ms) 16 88.70 35. Average delay ranges for all commander positions over all 18 95.30 of viable command positions increases from 24% at gener.23 54.09 38.13 2.90 Maximum 4. increasing the number 30 3. Simulation is used to test the performance .51 34.63 1.70 40. 400 1 Link per face SPEA Designed P14 Number of Command Positions Commander position (j) 1 14 i¼1 AMDði.39 1. 14 we observe 15 3.e. at our 19 2.39 4 2. i.75 2.24 2.37 21 10246. 13.09 2. M.38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 15 126. 23 8821.80 target threshold of 500 ms we observe that the percentage 20 3.85 4 95.88 1.96 40.26 5.87 1.10 33. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 749 Table 7 450 Message delay values for each commander position for test network 13 – 1 link per face.70 Average 1499.22 3 2.51 10 77.80 ered.00 22 2.

IEEE Radar Conference. pp. Rahn. Sensor networks: evolution. 197.K. Interscience. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 29 (1) (1993) 186–194. 1476–1480. Hume. Principles Acknowledgments and design considerations for short range energy balanced radar networks. Alivizatos. The authors would like to thank Dr. G. Blackman. the effect of optimising communications topology on [11] D. IEEE Aerospace and creased network connectivity and hence network Electronic Systems Magazine 18 (2) (2003) 3–6. Perretta. [12] B. Diversity in radar sensor networks: theoretical information. i. K. Bonneau. Woodbridge. Netted radar sensing. D. in: 31st Applied Imagery Pattern a decentralised algorithm that only has access to local Recognition Workshop. J. van Keuk. pp.e. May 2001. in: MILCOM the number of feasible command positions. Signal in line with its with additional traffic requirements (e. Hurley. 2002. that the 1 link per face [2] NRC: National Research Council. in nature. S. of the designed networks against the objective of having assistance in the development of this work. test the effect w80749j1867772v1>. 2006. Baker. McLaughlin.-Y. This work an average message delay of less than 500 ms for mes. On phased array radar tracking and Currently the optimisation algorithm used is centralised parameter control. in: 3rd EMRS DTC Technical Conference. Pei. A. Erricolo. in: Proceedings IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium 2005. Phased Array-Based Systems and Applications. S. The metrics are shown to sympathetic to the simulation objective of increasing References the number of feasible command positions. Evaluation of netted radar work could be carried out to investigate the use of different performance. Erickson. D. through the experimental results. opportunities Dr.L. for future work it would be desirable to develop target detection and tracking. and to evaluate Proceedings. Chong. p. 2058–2061. Teng. Baker. Giuli. produces better simulation performance.e. Fourikis.com/content/ instructive to allow variable timeslots. Q. 14. it would be Information Networks. Gentili.N. Ad-hoc receive sensors aimed at enhancing multistatic radar operation for surveillance of detection and tracking performance. Lofquist. F. Kurose. in: Proceedings 2001 command positions. this comes at a cost of de. E. resilience.J. Uzunoglu.750 S.springerlink. D. N. Donovan. However. Wireless fixed timeslot of 10 ms for communications. M. Evaluation of the Multifunction Phased Array Radar Planning Process. 2005. URL <www. Petsios. National Academic Press. Int. [10] G. because of multiple targets in one area). 2007. Chandrasekar. C. Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 100 90 80 Percentage of Command Positions 70 60 50 40 30 20 Generation 1 Generation 50 10 Generation 250 Generation 500 Generation 1000 0 5 10 100 500 Average delay x100ms Fig. [5] G. Ly. It is shown. Ertan. Finally. K. J. Solving the association of increasing the communication time of any radar node problem for a multistatic range-only radar target tracker. In addition.G. [8] M. V. sages sent to a command position. Processing 88 (9) (2008) 2254–2277. Hume. Wiley node face can facilitate – either one or two. Sensor fusion for process. [4] C. Shaw. B. Kumar. pp. J. limited critical areas. additional [9] Y. 23–26. Baker. . it assumes global information in the design [6] R. J. Steve Harman and [13] C. United Kingdom. Lin. Network topology management optimisation metrics which directly or indirectly maximise for mobile ad-hoc networks with directional links. Algorithm performance. in terms of an 2008. 476–479. R. Two scenarios are tested which relate to the number of links that a radar [1] N. Liang. S. Proceedings of the IEEE 91 (8) (2003) 1247–1256. Netted radar sensing. was supported by QinetiQ.g. [7] H. Andrew Hume of QinetiQ UK for their support and and challenges. i. in: International Conference on Electromagnetics in Advanced Applications. Cuccoli. C. increase of approximately 20% in the number of viable [3] A. 1997. pp. 2002. the current model assumes a analysis and application to target detection.

Imran Khan / Ad Hoc Networks 9 (2011) 736–751 751 [14] Z. Eckart Zitzler.G. 2000. pp. 2000. J. Wang. Luna Aceves. In 1998 he [19] C. URL <http:// citeseer. [32] Qinetiq. Davis. Research Group at the University. became Head of the Mobile Communications [20] A. [23] I. D. M. Shen. P.B. URL <http://citeseer. [28] K. M. MIT Press. Rep.nj. Hain. Maltz. and Computer Science from Cardiff Univer- [27] L. optimization: The strength pareto approach. Computers Networks.nec. CH-8092 Zurich. Y. Johnson. where [18] L. URL <http://citeseer. 85–97. D. Halpern. Tech. Previously he has distributed topology control algorithm for wireless multi-hop worked for Ferranti Computer Systems. networks using transmit power adjustment.nec. Jetcheva. 129–140. A cone based he has worked since 1990.J.com/zitzler99multiobjective. Topology control of multihop wireless Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 3 (4) (1999) 257–271. X. Graduate Texts in Mathematics: Graph Theory.B. has published widely on these topics. Special ESA 95 Issue. Li. Theoretical Computer Science 203 the Defence Science and Technology Labora- (1998) 225–251. Deb. in: Mobile Computing and Networking. networks. van Nostrand Reinhold.S.edu/ 514031. D. Toft. C. Y. B. in: INFOCOM (2). Multi-objective Optimisation Using Evolutionary Algorithms. O. Prentice Hall. Bao. 2002. Jaikaeo. Y.G. [25] D.nj. United Kingdom. C. Localized algorithms for energy efficient topology in wireless ad-hoc networks.-C. [16] W. International Conference on Computer Communications and [31] L. Computer Science at Cardiff University.ist. Ramanathan. Tanenbaum. IEEE [15] R. Diestel. Frieder. Graph Coloring Problems. Topology [30] L. Thiele. Dubhashi. [29] E.. Spea2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm. Zitzler. C. Energy Authority in the UK. Tradoffs in radar networking. wireless network optimisation. Wattenhofer. Hurley. S. Rep. 103. 43. The NP-completeness of edge-colouring.-M. SIAM Journal of Comput 10 (1981) 718–720. Srisathapornphat. Eckart Zitzler. A.-Y. Topology management in ad hoc networks. L. 1995. Handbook of Genetic Algorithms. 2003.psu. Internal QinetiQ communication. Near optimal distributed edge Imran Khan is a research scientist working at colouring via the nibble method. He has [26] R. frequency [22] W. Huang. Panconesi. Perkins. control for ad hoc networks with directional antennas. pp.html>. Stephen Hurley is a Professor in the School of in: MobiHoc ’03.html>. Bahl. Wiley. J.-Z. and PhD degrees in Computer Systems Springer. Bath. John Wiley Sons Inc.-C. 1979. Hu. Switzerland.html>. 404–413. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 13 (1) (2005) Numercial Algorithms Group and the Atomic 147–159.A. [24] T.com/article/zitzler99evolutionary. His research [21] J. in: 11th New York. optimisation.T. Radar Conference (2002) assignment and spectrum management. Mobile Networks and Applications 10 (6) (2005) 911–923. An evolutionary algorithm for multiobjective sity. 1998. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a Networks ICCCN 2002. Switzerland (1998). Addison-Wesley. Grable. Tech. J. . Holyer. Ad Hoc Networking. Laumanns. Song. [17] L. 2001. 2000. Gloriastrasse 35 CH-8092 Zurich. Wang. R. 2000. pp. R. Li. Broch. 1991. tory in Farnborough. 2001. He 26–30.E. A performance interests lie in the areas of combinatorial comparison of multi-hop wireless ad hoc network routing protocols.Sc. heuristic algorithm design. comparative case study and the strength pareto approach.T. Gloriastrasse 35.