Terrestrial Navigation PDF

Terrestrial Navigation
Chapter 3:
Basic principles of terrestrial navigation
Priv.-Doz. Dr.-Ing. habil. Michael Meurer

German Aerospace Center
Email: Michael.Meurer@tum.de
24.10.2012
DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

Outline and Structure
3. Basic principles of terrestrial navigation
3.1 Dead Reckoning
3.2 Proximity Systems
3.3 Distance based Navigation
3.4 Distance difference based Navigation
3.5 Distance ratio based Navigation
3.6 Angle-of-arrival based Navigation
3.7 Signature based Navigation
3.8 Cooperative navigation in radio and sensor networks

24.10.2012

2
Dead Reckoning
 Dead reckoning is the process of x m ,3

estimating one's current position based
upon a previously determined position, or
fix, and advancing that position based x m ,2
2
upon known speed, elapsed time, and
course.
1
 Measurements of speed: odometer, e.g. MS
wheelsensor or inertial sensor
(accelerometer) x2 x m ,1
 Measurement of course: compass or
inertial sensor (gyroscope) ( x3 ) x1
 Dead reckoning has been used in many  v cos  i 
applications like e.g. marine navigation, x m ,i 1  x m ,i   t  i 
v sin
 i i 
air navigation 
24.10.2012
displacement vector
3
Dead Reckoning – Principle of Inertial Navigation
Today’s application of dead reckoning: inertial navigation systems
 Initial position, velocity & heading
 Sense Rotation
 Sense Acceleration
 Dead Reckoning: Finally you have all you need

24.10.2012

4
Dead Reckoning – Inertial Sensor Platforms
 Full six-degree-of-freedom inertial sensor platform

– 3 Accelerometers
– 3 Gyroscopes
 Strapdown: Virtual alignment with attitude computer
 Gimbaled: Platform is kept aligned to navigation frame
Strapdown Gimbaled
24.10.2012

5
Dead Reckoning – Inertial Sensor Performance
 Inertial navigators are known to drift. The drift arises due to

– Initial alignment errors
– Sensor imperfections (noise, biases, scale factors errors, axis misalignment,
nonlinearities, vibration & temperature sensitivity)
– Earth model errors (Earth gravity model errors)
– Computational errors (Numerical errors, e.g. due to series truncation,
numerical integration or round off)
 Drift Errors are motion dependent and nonlinear

24.10.2012

6
Dead Reckoning – Example: NavShoe (1)
 Low-Cost MEMS-based multi-sensor

platform (Price 1.600 € in 2005)
 Size 5.7 x 4.6 x 1.1 cm
 Idea: NavShoe (Foxlin 2005)
– Mounting of INS on foot
– Classical INS computer
(Accelerometers & Gyros)
Foot mounting
– Drift compensation via step detection
& velocity zero pseudo measurement
when foot rests (ZUPT)
Foot at rest
24,8 % 20,5 % 38,0 % 16,7 %

24.10.2012
Stride Typical acceleration profile

7
Dead Reckoning – Example: NavShoe (2)
Meeting
Room
Stride Rest phase DLR IKN building TE02

24.10.2012

8
Proximity Systems
Proximity positioning systems are also

known as signpost or beacon systems,
the position estimates for an object are
determined from its proximity to fixed
detection devices
beacon
 Examples for detection devices: magnetic
sensors, radio transmitter, …
 Simplest positioning system
 Either self- or remote positioning
24.10.2012

9
Proximity Systems –
Example Cell-ID Positioning
Today’s mobile radio systems are cellular:

A cell is served by a base station (BS) which has a unique identifier (cell id)
Cells usually don’t overlap. Geographic areas served by a base station and
location of each base station are known quite accurately.
Each mobile receives broadcast messages of all base station in reach and can
identify the “strongest” (probability the closest)
Positioning of a mobile station by

 determining the closest base station and
 using the reference position of the
respective cell as position estimate.
Possible reference positions: location of

base station, center of gravity of cell,..
Problem: correct determination of closest
BS, poor accuracy due to size of cells
24.10.2012

10
Recall: Indirect Positioning
estimation geometry
of based x̂ m
M̂ geometric position
quantities estimator
Indirect Position Estimator
Examples for geometric quantities:

distances,
distance differences,
distance ratios
24.10.2012

11
estimation geometry
of based x̂ m

distances,
distance ratios
24.10.2012

12
Distance Based Positioning
1 distance ̂ 1 
ĥ
estimator distance-
based
x̂ m
position
ˆ KB  distance ˆ 
KB 
estimator
h
estimator
MS position estimator
1. distance est.: 2. distance-based position est.:

ˆ  kB   kB  ˆ 1   ˆ
KB 
h 
ˆ x̂ m
24.10.2012

13
Position Determination by Multilateration
Positions of anchor points and distances between MS and APs are known:
AP 1
Anchor point (AP)

Mobile station (MS)

Observation area 
MS
AP KB

Position of MS can uniquely be deter-
mined, if distances to at least 3 APs
AP 2 are known (in 2D)
24.10.2012

14
3D Position Determination by Multilateration
Positions of anchor points and distances between MS and APs are known:
 Anchor point (AP)


Mobile station (MS)
Possible Positions

 are known (in 3D) or additional
information can be used to exclude
one of the solutions
24.10.2012

15
Trilateration –
Simple Mathematical Approach
 xMS  x1    y MS  y 1   12
2 2
1
AP 1
 MS 2   MS 2    22
2 2
2 x  x  y  y
 MS 3   MS 3    32
2 2
 3 x  x  y  y

MS
1 - 2 2 x MS  x 2  x1   2 y MS  y 2  y 1 
AP K3
 12   22  x12  x 22  y 12  y 22

1 - 3 2 x MS  x 3  x1   2 y MS  y 3  y 1 
AP 2  12   32  x12  x 32  y 12  y 32
xMS , y MS : Unknown position MS

Position determination by solving set of
xkB , y kB : Known position AP kB linear equations and cross-checking three
 k : Known distance MS ↔ AP kB original quadratic equations
24.10.2012

16
Tri- und Multilateration
Perfect distance knowledge: Imperfect distance knowledge
AP 1 AP 1
̂1 ̂1
ˆ K B
ˆ K B
MS MS
AP K B AP K B
̂ 2 ̂ 2
AP 2 AP 2
Probabilistic geometry based approach for

positioning necessary (see next chapter 4)
24.10.2012

17
Distance Based Positioning
1 distance ̂ 1 
ĥ
estimator distance-
based
x̂ m
position
ˆ KB  distance ˆ 
KB 
estimator
h
estimator
1. distance est.: 2. distance-based position est.:

ˆ  kB   kB  ˆ 1   ˆ
KB 
h 
ˆ x̂ m
24.10.2012

18
Distance Estimation
 kB
distance ˆ
M̂
estimation
distance estimator
ˆ ˆ 1 

ˆ
M  h ,..., h
K  B
 M 0 
ˆ  ˆ 1 ,..., ˆ  KB 
0 

ˆ  gˆ 1 ,..., gˆ  K 
M B

time based path-loss phase difference
approach based approach based approach
c0
 kB     k   
ˆ kB gˆ  ˆ kB ˆ0 B ˆ kB
k  k
hˆ Tˆ B B
distance distance
t estimation estimation
Tˆ kB
24.10.2012

19
Single Trip Delay - Basic Idea
1. MS transmits a test signal at time instant
observation area  tT
AP 1
2. AP 1 receives the test signal at time instant
1
tR
MS
AP KB
1 1

 M  c0 t R  tT
ˆ 
AP 2
self and remote positioning possible !
24.10.2012

20
Single Trip Delay - Inaccurate Clocks
Clock error MS: Clock error AP:
1
nC,MS nC,AP
observation area 
AP 1
tT reported as tT  nC,MS
2. AP 1 receives the test signal at time instant
1 1 1
MS tR reported as tR  nC,AP
AP KB
1 
ˆ M 
1 
 
1 
 c 0  t R  n C(1),A P  t T  n C ,M S 
 
1  1 
 c 0  t R  t T   c 0  n C ,A P  n C ,M S 
   
          
 M1  n M1 
AP 2
clocks in MSs and in APs have to
24.10.2012
be perfectly synchronized
21
Round Trip Delay – Basic Idea
1 ()
1 1
tT considered as tT  nC,MS
observation area  2. AP 1 receives the test signal at time instant
1 1 1
AP 1 tR considered as tR  nC,AP
MS
AP KB
AP 2
24.10.2012

22
Round Trip Delay – Basic Idea
1 ()
1 1
tT considered as tT  nC,MS
observation area  2. AP 1 receives the test signal at time instant
1 1 1
AP 1 tR considered as tR  nC,AP
2
3. AP1 transmits a test signal at time
1  2  1 2
instant tT  t R   ()
known
MS 4. MS receives the test signal at time instant
AP KB  2  2
tR considered as tR  nC,MS

ˆ M
1
 c0
 2
  1
t R  nC,MS  tT  nC,MS     c0
 2,1 1
t R  tT  
AP 2 2 2
MS and APs have to transmit a test signal
24.10.2012

23
Time Based Approach –
Summary & Pros/Cons
Basic Idea of Time-Based / Time-of-Arrival (TOA) approach:
 Measurement of propagation time between APs and MS
 Knowledge of propagation speed of radio wave (speed of light in vacuum)
 Assumption of LOS to calculate distance between APs and MS
Pros:
 Quite accurate
 Moderate complexity
Cons:
 Clocks of all APs and MS have to be accurately synchronized if single trip
measurements are used
 Round trip measurements consum double the number of radio ressources
 In NLOS scenarios measured propagation time is too long and does not allow to draw
conclusions about the required geometric distance
24.10.2012

24
Distance Estimation
 kB
distance ˆ
M̂
estimation
distance estimator
ˆ ˆ 1 

ˆ
M  h ,..., h
K  B
 M 0 
ˆ  ˆ 1 ,..., ˆ  KB 
0 

ˆ  gˆ 1 ,..., gˆ  K 
M B

c0
 kB     k   
k  k
hˆ Tˆ B B
distance distance
Tˆ kB
24.10.2012

25
Path-loss based Approach – Basic Idea (1)
Determine path loss a(ρ) by measuring received power Pr(t) for known
transmitted power Pt:
ˆ 4,367m observation area 

AP 1 Pr  t 
a
 t 
MS
Pt AP K B

Pt
a   
Pr  t  self and remote positioning possible !
24.10.2012

26
Path-loss based Approach – Basic Idea (2)
Determine estimate ̂ of distance  due to relationship between distance  and a :
10log10 a    dB
Random Distribution
due to Slow Fading observation area 
AP 1 Pr  t 
a
Mean attenuation
 t 
am    dB MS
10 dB per decade Pt AP K B
 m
10 100 1000 10000
2
  c  
am    dB   g m    dB   10 log10  gt  g r      10 log10 

    4 f 

g m,0 dB  const
24.10.2012

27
Path-loss based Approach – Distance Estimation (1)
Inverse of attenuation between MS and AP k B : gain g  k B 
mathematically: Due to shadowing effect gain g  k B  is a random

variable with a specific PDF (here: Lognormal-distribution)
   g ( k B)  ( k B)  
2

10 1 1

p g ( k B) ;  ( k B)  
ln 10  2  a g (kB)
exp   2 
 2 a 
10 log10 
g ( k B)   

  m ,0  
Estimate the distance ˆ  k B , which is a parameter of the PDF,

based on N independent measurements of the gain g n k B

24.10.2012

28
Path-loss based Approach –
Distance Estimation (2)
g n kB 
Observation:
Gain (in dB) is
Gn
 kB 
 10 log 10 g n  ,  kB 
Gaussian distributed n  1 N
 kB  1 N
  kB 
G 
N
G
n 1
n
suboptimal
two-step approach
 kB    kB 
  g  kB 
m,0 10 G 10
ˆ  kB 
24.10.2012

29

Path-loss based Approach – PDF of 
50
N  1 30
40  a  8 dB
 4
30
 
p    20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
 

24.10.2012

30
Path-loss Based Approach –
Summary & Pros/Cons
Basic Idea of Path-loss Based / Signal Strength Approach:
 Measurement of received power Pr of signal exchanged between APs and MS
 Knowledge of transmitted power Pt of signal
 Calculation of instantaneous path loss / gain using Pr and Pt
 Calculation of mean path loss / gain to eliminate the influence of slow fading
k 
 Assumption of LOS and propagation model incl. its parameters  and g m,0B to
calculate distance between APs and MS
Pros:
 Low complexity
Cons:
 Sensitive to slow and fast fading as well as model errors
 Low accuracy, accuracy decreases with absolute distance to be estimated
 Averaging over fading only possible if sufficient movement of MS
k 
 Parameters  and g m ,0B of the propagation model have to be known
 Transmitted power Pt has to be known which is critical if power control is applied
 In NLOS scenarios measured path loss does not allow to draw conclusions about the
24.10.2012
required geometric distance

31
Distance Estimation
 kB
distance ˆ
M̂
estimation
distance estimator
ˆ ˆ 1 

ˆ
M  h ,..., h
K  B
 M 0 
ˆ  ˆ 1 ,..., ˆ  KB 
0 

ˆ  gˆ 1 ,..., gˆ  K 
M B

c0
 kB     k   
k  k
hˆ Tˆ B B
distance distance
Tˆ kB
24.10.2012

32
Phase Difference Based Approach – Basic Idea (1)
Transmit test signals of two different frequencies f1 and f2 simultanously and

exploit initial phase difference 0 at receiver:
   
s  t ;    A cos  2  ft    AP 1 0
   
 t 
MS
AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
33
Transmit test signals of two different frequencies f1 and f2 simultanously and

    observation area 
s  t ;    A cos  2  f1t   
  1   AP 1 0
     t 
s  t ;    A cos  2  f 2 t    MS
  2  
AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
34
Transmit test signals of two different frequencies f1 and f2 simultaneously and

  observation area 
 0,1   2 
1  AP 1 0
   0   0,1   0,2
 
 0,2   2  t 
2  MS
AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
 0
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
35

 1 1  observation area 
  0  2   
  2 1  AP 1 0
2 f
 
f 2  f1   2

 t 
c c MS
 f 1 /  res AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
 0
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
36


  0  2 AP 1 0
 res
c
 f   f 2  f1   res   t 
MS
f
AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
 0
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
37

0
ˆ   res AP 1 0
2
c
 f   f 2  f1   res   t 
MS
f
AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
 0
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
38
Phase Difference Based Approach –
Ambiguity Problem (1)
Since test signals are periodic, zero Phase difference can not be determined
absolute but only „modulo 2“:
   k0
2
ˆ   resˆ   res
0 , k AP 1 0
2 2
c
 f   f 2  f1   res   t 
f MS
AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
 0
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
39
0
ˆ   res  k  res , k AP 1 0
2
c
 f   f 2  f1   res   t 
f MS
AP K B
Tx Rx Rx
f2 >f1
 0
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t   t 
40
0
ˆ   res  k  res , k AP 1 0
2
c  t 
 f   f 2  f1   res  MS
f AP K B
Tx Rx Rx Rx‘
f2 >f1
 0
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t   t  res
41
0
ˆ   res  k  res , k AP 1 0
2
c
 f   f 2  f1   res   t 
f
MS
AP K B
Determination of unique position not possible!

Coarse position is required as starting point which can
be refined by phase difference estimation
24.10.2012

42
Imperfect Time Synchronization (1)
Clock of AP (receiver) and MS (transmitter) might be imperfectly synchronized:
Clock error MS:
    t

s  t ;    A cos  2  f1  t t    
observation area
  1   AP 1 0
   
s  t ;    A cos  2  f 2  t t      t 
  2   MS
AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
43
Clock error MS:
t
  observation area 
 0,1 2  2 f1t 
1  AP 1 0
  0  0,1 0,2

 0,2 2  2 f 2 t   t 
2  MS
AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
 0 distance
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
44
Clock error MS:
2 t
 0  f 2  f1   2  f 2  f1  t observation area 
c   AP 1 0
f
f
 2    ct   t 
c MS
1/ res AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
45
Clock error MS:
t
0
ˆ   res  c  t AP 1 0
2
c
 f   f1  f 2   res   t 
MS
f
AP K B
Tx Rx
f2 >f1
f1
24.10.2012
 t 
46
Summary & Pros/Cons
Basic Idea of Phase Difference Based Approach :
 Exchange of two-tone signal between APs and MS
 Measurement of zero-phase difference between both tones at receiver
 Time synchronization between APs and MS
 Calculation of distance based on zero-phase difference
Pros:
 High accuracy
 Medium complexity
 Robust to fluctuations in amplitude of received signal (level fading)
Cons:
 Signals of two frequencies necessary
 Ambiguity of distance estimate  coarse distance estimate necessary as input
 Sensitive to imperfect time synchronization
 In NLOS scenarios measured path length does not allow to draw conclusions about
the required geometric distance
24.10.2012

47
estimation geometry
of based x̂ m

distances,
distance ratios
24.10.2012

48
Distance Difference Based Positioning
1  ̂
 2 ,1 
ĥ distance-
difference
Distance difference based
estimator x̂ m
position
ˆ KB   ˆ
KB ,1
h estimator
 k B ,1 
    k B    1 
1. distance difference est.: 2. distance-difference based position est.:
ˆ  kB   k B ,1  ˆ
 2 ,1 
  ˆ  K B ,1
h  ˆ x̂ m
24.10.2012

49
Distance Difference Estimation
 k B,1
Distance difference  ˆ
M̂
estimation
Distance difference estimator

ˆ  hˆ 1 ,..., hˆ  K 
M
B
time based approach

c0 ̂1
ˆh kB Tˆ
k 
  
ˆ kB,1
B
ˆ kB
t
T
24.10.2012

50
Single Trip Delay Difference - Basic Idea
observation area  tT
AP 1
2. AP 1..KB receive the test signal at time
instants
tR  tR B 
1 K
MS
AP KB 
ˆ M
1 

 c0 t R  tT
1


 ˆ M
K B ,1
0 
  c t
R
KB  1 
 tR 
AP 2
self and remote positioning possible !
24.10.2012

51
Single Trip Delay Difference - Inaccurate Clocks
Clock error MS: Clock error APs:
nC,MS nC,AP
AP 1
1. MS transmits a test signal at time
2. AP 1..KB receive the test signal at times
k 
tR  tR B 
1 K
MS reported as tR B  nC,AP
AP KB
k 
ˆ M
B
 k 
 
 c 0  t R  n C ,AP  t T  n C ,M S 

B
 
k 
 c 0  t R B  t T   c 0  n C ,AP  n C ,M S 
       
       
 M k B  nM
AP 2
24.10.2012

52
Single Trip Delay Difference - Inaccurate Clocks
Clock error MS: Clock error APs:
nC,MS nC,AP
AP 1
1. MS transmits a test signal at time
2. AP 1..KB receive the test signal at times
k 
tR  tR B 
1 K
MS reported as tR B  nC,AP
AP KB
k 
 c 0  t R   t T   c 0  n C ,AP  n C ,M S 
k
ˆ M B B
 
 
 
   
   

 M k B  nM
 k B ,1 
 c 0  t R B   t R  
k 1
 ˆ M
 
AP 2
clocks in MSs and in APs do not have
24.10.2012
to be perfectly synchronized !
53
Distance Difference Based Positioning
1  ̂
 2 ,1 
ĥ distance-
difference
Distance difference based
estimator x̂ m
position
ˆ KB   ˆ
KB ,1
h estimator
 k B ,1 
    k B    1 
1. distance difference est.: 2. distance-difference based position est.:
ˆ  kB   k B ,1  ˆ
 2 ,1 
  ˆ  K B ,1
h  ˆ x̂ m
24.10.2012

54
Locations of constant distance difference
P
 k B ,1 
    k B    1 
 

AP 1 AP kB
Locations of constant distance

AP1P -APk B P    
k B ,1 difference form a hyperbola,
foci of hyperbola are APs !
24.10.2012

55
Hyperbola – Special Case of a Conic Section
Source: „conic sections“, en.wikipedia , 2008

24.10.2012

56
Position Determination by Hyperbolic Location
Positions of anchor points and distance differences between MS and APs are known:
AP 2 Anchor point (AP)
MS Mobile station (MS)
AP 1 Observation area 
AP 3

mined, if differences of distances to
AP KB
at least 4 APs are known (in 2D)
24.10.2012

57
3D Position Determination by Hyperbolic Location
Positions of anchor points and distance differences between MS and APs are known:
Anchor point (AP)
Mobile station (MS)

are known (in 3D) or additional
information can be used to exclude
one of the solutions
24.10.2012

58
Hyperbolic Positioning –
Direct Mathematical Approach
 xMS x2  yMS y2   xMS x1  yMS y1  21 2,1
2 2 2 2
AP 2
2 2 2 2
MS
2 2 2 2
AP 1
AP 3 2
a1xMS 2b1xMS yMS c1yMS
2
2d1xMS 2e1yMS f1  0
2
a2 xMS 2b2 xMS yMS c2 yMS
2
2d2 xMS 2e2 yMS f2  0
AP K B 2
a3 xMS 2b3 xMS yMS c3 yMS
2
2d3 xMS 2e3 yMS f3  0

xkB , y kB : Known position AP kB Position determination by solving
set of quadratic equations
 kB ,1 : Known distance difference
24.10.2012
MS ↔ AP kB - MS ↔ AP 1
59
Hyperbolic Positioning
Perfect distance diff. knowledge: Imperfect distance diff. knowledge
AP 2 AP 2
MS MS
AP 1 AP 1
AP 3 AP 3
AP K B AP K B

24.10.2012

60
Time Difference Based Approach
– Summary & Pros/Cons
Basic Idea of Time-Difference / Time-Diff. Of. Arrival (TDOA) approach:
 Measurement of propagation time between APs and MS
 Knowledge of propagation speed of radio wave (speed of light in vacuum)
 Assumption of LOS to calculate distance differences between APs and MS
 Clocks of MS does not have to be accurately synchronized to the clocks of APs,
single trip measurements are possible
Pros:
 Quite accurate
 Moderate complexity
Cons:
 More APs necessary than in distance based approaches
 In NLOS scenarios measured propagation time is too long and does not allow to draw
conclusions about the required geometric distance
24.10.2012

61
estimation geometry
of based x̂ m

distances,
distance ratios
24.10.2012

62
Distance Ratio Based Positioning
ĝ 1 ˆ   2 ,1 
distance-
ratio
Distance ratio based
estimator x̂ m
position
gˆ  KB  ˆ KB ,1 estimator
  kB 
   k B ,1 
 1 
1. distance ratio est.: 2. distance-ratio based position est.:
gˆ  kB  
ˆ  k B ,1 ˆ   2 ,1   ˆ 
 K B ,1 
x̂ m
24.10.2012

63
Distance Ratio Estimation
M̂ Distance ratio ˆ kB ,1

estimation
distance ratio estimator

ˆ  gˆ 1 ,..., gˆ  K 
M B

path-loss based approach
ˆ B 
k ,1
gˆ 
k
B
Distance ratio
estimation
24.10.2012

64
Path-loss based Approach – Basic Idea
Determine estimate ̂ of distance  due to relationship between distance  and a :
10log10 a    dB
Random Distribution
due to Slow Fading observation area 
AP 1 Pr  t 
a
Mean attenuation
 t 
am    dB MS
10 dB per decade Pt AP K B
 m
10 100 1000 10000
2
  c  
am    dB   g m    dB   10 log10  gt  g r      10 log10 

    4 f 

g m,0 dB  const
24.10.2012

65
Path-loss based Approach – Distance Estimation
g n kB 
Observation:
Gain (in dB) is
Gn
 kB 
 10 log 10 g n  ,  kB 
Gaussian distributed n  1 N
 kB  1 N
  kB 
G 
N
G
n 1
n
suboptimal
two-step approach
 kB    kB 
  g  kB 
m,0 10 G 10
ˆ  kB 
24.10.2012

66
Path-loss based Approach –
Estimation of Distance ratios
 kB    kB 
 kB   kB 

 G

10

g m,0 10

g m,0
10
G 
  kB   1
 G 10
1 1
  1
g m,010
 1
 G 10 g m,0
 kB 
g t g r   4 f 
1 2
g r 
1
g m,0 c
 
  4 f 
1
g r
 kB  2 kB 
g m,0 gt g r
c
Tx antenna gain, Tx power and attenuation not necessary

min. 4 BSs for 3 independent distance ratios required
24.10.2012

67
Distance Ratio Based Positioning
ĝ 1 ˆ   2 ,1 
distance-
ratio
Distance ratio based
estimator x̂ m
position
gˆ  KB  ˆ KB ,1 estimator
  kB 
   k B ,1 
 1 
1. distance ratio est.: 2. distance-ratio based position est.:
gˆ  kB  
ˆ  k B ,1 ˆ   2 ,1   ˆ   K B ,1 x̂ m
24.10.2012

68
Locations of constant distance ratio
P  kB 
 k B ,1  
 
 
 1 

AP 1 AP kB
Locations of constant distance

APk B P
  
k B ,1 ratio form a circle, the center
AP1P of the circle is NOT the APs!
24.10.2012

69
Locations of constant distance ratio - example
1  2  1
1  2  1 2 1  2  2
AP1 AP2
24.10.2012

70
Position Determination by Multilateration
Positions of anchor points and distance ratios between MS and APs are known:
AP 2 Anchor point (AP)
Mobile station (MS)

MS
AP 1 Observation area 
AP 3

mined, if distances ratios to at least 4
AP KB
APs are known (in 2D)
24.10.2012

71
Trilateration – Simple Mathematical Approach
 xMS  x2    yMS  y 2 
2 2
2 (2,1)
AP 1   
 xMS  x1    yMS  y1 
2 2 1

 xMS  x3    yMS  y 3 
2 2
 3 (3,1)
  
MS  xMS  x1    yMS  y1 
2 2 1
AP K3
  xMS  x4    yMS  y 4 
2 2
 4 (4,1)
  
 xMS  x1    yMS  y1 
2 2 1
AP 2

xkB , y kB : Known position AP kB
  k
B ,1 
: Known distance ratio
24.10.2012
MS ↔ AP kB / MS ↔ AP 1
72
Trilateration – Simple Mathematical Approach
 xMS  x2   yMS  y2    xMS  x1   yMS  y1

(2,1)2 (2,1)2
2 2 2 2
1
AP 1
 xMS  x3   yMS  y3    xMS  x1   yMS  y1
(3,1)2 (3,1)2
2 2 2 2
2
  xMS  x4   yMS  y4  (4,1)  xMS  x1 (4,1)  yMS  y1
2 2 2 2 2 2
3

MS
AP K3 1  x 22  y 22 2 x 2 xMS 2 y 2 y MS  1 ( 3 ,1)
2


- x 3
2
 y 3 2 2 x 3 xMS 2 y 3 y MS 1   ( 2 ,1) 2
 
2
 ( 2 ,1) 2
   ( 3 ,1)
2
 x 1
2
 y 12  2 x 1 x M S  2 y 1 y M S 
1 
AP 2 -
3
xMS , y MS : Unknown position MS Position determination by solving set of
xkB , y kB : Known position AP kB linear equations and cross-checking three
  k
B ,1
: Known distance ratio original quadratic equations
24.10.2012
MS ↔ AP kB / MS ↔ AP 1
73
Distance Ratio Approach – Summary & Pros/Cons
Basic Idea of Path-loss Ratio Based / Signal Strength Ratio Approach:

 Measurement of received power Pr at APs of signal exchanged between APs and MS
 Interpretation of received power as instantaneous path loss / gain
 Calculation of mean path loss / gain to eliminate the influence of slow fading
 Assumption of LOS and propagation model incl. its parameters  to calculate the
distance ratios between APs and MS
Pros:
 Low complexity
 No information about MS antenna gain and/or MS transmission power Pt are necessary if
measurement in uplink
Cons:
 Sensitive to slow and fast fading as well as model errors
 Low accuracy, accuracy decreases with absolute distance to be estimated
 Averaging over fading only possible if sufficient movement of MS
 Parameters  of the propagation model has to be known
 In NLOS scenarios measured path loss does not allow to draw conclusions about the
required geometric distance
24.10.2012

74
3.1 Dead Reckoning
3.6 Angle-of-arrival based Navigation
3.7 Signature based Navigation

24.10.2012

75
Position Determination by Angulation
Positions of APs and Angles-of-Arrival (AoAs) between MS and APs are known:
AP 1
Anchor point (AP)

Mobile station (MS)
MS
AP KB
 Position of MS can uniquely be deter-

mined, if AoA for at least 2 APs
AP 2 are known (in 2D)
24.10.2012

76
Position Determination by Angulation –
Self- and Remote Positioning
Remote Positioning: Self Positioning:


AP 1 AP 1

 MS
MS AP K B
AP K B

Anchor point (AP) AP 2
AP 2
Mobile station (MS)
24.10.2012

77
Angle of Arrival Based Positioning
1 angle of arrival ̂ 1 

ĥ
estimator AoA-
based
x̂ m
position
ˆ KB  angle of arrival ˆKB  estimator
h
estimator
1. Angle of Arrival (AoA) est.: 2. AoA-based position est.:

 kB  ˆ 1   ˆ
KB 
ˆ
h ˆ  k B  x̂ m
24.10.2012

78
Angulation – Simple Mathematical Approach

 x MS   x1   cos 1 
AP 1 1  y    y   1  sin  
 MS   1   1 
 x MS   x 2   cos  2 
2  y    y   2  sin  
 MS   2   2 
MS !
AP K B 1  2 1, 2
 Substitution of parameters 1, 2
y in 1 and/or 2
AP 2
x
Position determination by solving
xkB , y kB : Known position AP kB
set of linear equations
k : Known AoA MS ↔ AP kB
24.10.2012

79
Perfect and Imperfect Knowledge of AoA
Perfect AoA knowledge: Imperfect AoA knowledge:
AP 1 AP 1
 

MS MS
AP K B  AP
 
AP 2 AP 2

24.10.2012

80
Hybrid Distance / AoA based Approach
Positions of anchor points, distance and AoA between MS and APs are known:
Anchor point (AP)

AP 1
Mobile station (MS)
MS
 AP KB Position of MS can uniquely be deter-
 mined, if AoA and distance for at least
one AP are known (in 2D)
AP 2
Example: Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR)
24.10.2012

81
Position Determination –
Simple Mathematical Approach
AP 1
 x MS   x kB   cos  kB 
 y    y    kB  
 MS
AP K B
 MS   kB   sin  kB 

y
AP 2 Position determination by simple
x
arithmetics
x M S , y M S : Unknown position MS
x k B , y k B : Known position AP kB
 k : Known AoA MS ↔ AP kB
B
 k : Known distance MS ↔ AP kB
24.10.2012
B
82
Angle of Arrival Based Positioning
1 angle of arrival ̂ 1 

ĥ
estimator AoA-
based
x̂ m
position
ˆ KB  angle of arrival ˆKB  estimator
h
estimator
1. Angle of Arrival (AoA) est.: 2. AoA-based position est.:

 kB  ˆ 1   ˆ
KB 
ˆ
h ˆ  k B  x̂ m
24.10.2012

83
Determination of Angle of Arrival
Directive Antennas: Multi-Antennas:
RP Rx
KRx
Example: RADAR Example: Positioning in

Mobile Radio Communication
Systems
24.10.2012

84
using Multi-Antennas (1)
Wavefront  RX 
 l Rx
k  Rx 
 l Rx
k  RX 
 cos    Rx  k

 kRX  2  kRX 
 Rx   l Rx

  kRx 
a Rx  RX 
 exp j  Rx  k

 
T
1  K Rx 
a Rx  a Rx  a Rx
24.10.2012

85
using Multi-Antennas (2)
h R P  
1
h
1
  h
k RX 
   h RP   a Rx
k
RX 
  h 1   
 
RP Receiver h        a Rx h RP  
  K RX  
 h  

h
K Rx 
 
KRx
Angle of Arrival can be determined by

 l R xR X   l R xR x   c o s    R xR X 
k k k
 1) measuring h   ,
2 2) determining a Rx and
 R kx RX 
  l R xR X 
k
 3) estimating 
a R xR x   e x p
k
 j    kRX
Rx

 a    a   
T
1 K Rx
a Rx
24.10.2012
Rx Rx

86
Angle of Arrival based Approach
– Summary & Pros/Cons
Basic Idea of Angle of Arrival (AoA) based Approach:
 Measure radiated signals at either MS or APs with multi-antenna(s) or directive
antenna(s)
 Determine AoA of radiated signals at either MS or APs
 Assuming direct radio propagation along the LOS use geometrical relationship and
known position of APs and AoA to determine position of MS
Pros:
 Only 2 or even 1 (hybrid) APs necessary for positioning
 No accurate synchronization / timing necessary
 Not sensitive to slow or fast fading, no influence of fading on positioning accuracy
Cons:
 In NLOS scenarios measured AoA does not allow to draw conclusions about real
geometry
 Utilization of multi-antennas / directive antennas at APs and/or MS necessary
 Medium accuracy, accuracy decreases with absolute distance between MS and APs
24.10.2012

87
3.1 Dead Reckoning
3.6 Angle-of-arrival based navigation
3.7 Signature based navigation

24.10.2012

88
Radio propagation - Example: Urban Scenario
• multipath propagation! • no Line of Sight (NLOS) !
AP
MS
Building
Source: J. Maurer, W. Wiesbeck et al., Universität Karlsruhe (TH)

24.10.2012

89
Example for Signature:
Channel impulse response between AP and MS
1,0
h  ; x m  0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
/s
channel impulse response (CIR) is a nearly unique characteristic
M =  h  ; x m   (signature) for the location x m of an MS
24.10.2012

90
Example for Signature: Time discrete
Channel impulse response between AP and MS
1,0
hw  xm  0,9
Time discrete channel impulse resp.:
0,8
h( xm )   h1  xm hW  xm  
T
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4 Channel is
0,3 band limited !
0,2
0,1
0,0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 W
w
time discrete channel impulse response (CIR) h( xm ) is a nearly unique
characteristic M =  h  x m   (signature) for the location x m of an MS
24.10.2012

91
Signature Based MS Localization / Fingerprinting
localization domain kr
CIR measured on-line at

MS position is
compared to CIR at
reference points
 determined off-line and
stored in database
localization error :
distance between real
and estimated MS
position
observation domain
24.10.2012

92
Signature Based Localization: Principle
offline:
• store signatures for sufficiently many reference points of
the scenario in a data base
online:
• comparison of currently measured signature with entries
in data base
• „best match“ gives the most probable position of the MS
24.10.2012

93
Choice of Signature: CIR
CIR changes for small movements

in order of /2 due to fast fading
very small RP spacing required
prohibitively big database
??? how to reduce database size ???

24.10.2012

94
Better Choice for Signature
RP kr
MS
chose signature so that only the wave fronts

impinging from different directions are relevant, but
not the way they superpose
24.10.2012

95
Localization Using
Covariance Matrices (CMs)
offline comparison online

determined and for each RP kr measured
stored in database
for each RP kr
R
( kr )
E 
hl hl  H
 R MS  E 
hl hl
H

measurement
MS position l
position l
RP kr
k10
24.10.2012

96
Comparison of
Covariance Matrices (CMs)
Physical effects may change scaling

( kr )
of CMs R and R MS !
scaling invariant comparison of normalized CMs:

(k )
R r R MS
(k )
  min
R r 2
R MS 2 2
maximization of cross correlation coefficient (CCC)
 (kr ) 

vec R 
( kr ) H
vec  R MS 
vec  R ( k r )  vec  R MS 
24.10.2012
Exercise: Derivation of maximization of CCC

98
summary: localization based on
covariance matrices (CM)
1. determine and store R ( k r ) for each reference

point kr
2. determine R MS and compare to each reference

point using cross-correlation coefficient (CCC)
 (kr ) 

vec R 
( kr ) H
vec  R MS 
vec  R ( k r )  vec  R MS 
3. find “best match“: ˆ  (k r' ) 

k r  arg max 
k r' 1... K r 
 
24.10.2012

99
localization based on
CMs using several APs
multi AP scenario: CMs for each AP kB:

( k r ,k B )  kB 
AP 1 R , R MS
1
h MS,l
CCC for each AP kB:
h MS,B l
K
MS   kB 
 kr 
h MS,l
 AP K B
2
maximization of total CCC:

KB
1
  kr     kB 
 kr 
AP 2
KB k B 1
24.10.2012

100
exemplary scenario:
downtown Karlsruhe
N
W E
S
AP2
AP1 path of the MS
observation domain AP3
100m
24.10.2012

101
examplary scenario:
CCC  (kr) vs. assumed MS position
550 1.0
1.0
500 0.9
0.9
450
0.8
0.8
CCC  (kr)
400
0.7
0.7
350
0.6
0.6
x2 / m
300
0.5
0.5
250
0.4
0.4
200
0.3
0.3
buildings:
150
100 0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
true pos.:
50
0.0
0.0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
x1 / m
24.10.2012

102
results: localization error
W E
S
BS2
scenario:
• KB  3
•    dB
BS1
observation domain BS3
100m
24.10.2012

103
CCDF of localization error :
parameter number of APs 
0
10
forbidden region (E911)
scenario:
Prob{}
 = 1 • K B  1 ...3
-1
10
 = 2
•    dB
 = 3
-2
10
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
/m
24.10.2012

104
model and quality measure
ˆ  kB 
model for h , corruption by white Gaussian noise:
n  kB 
 kB 
h kB  ˆ
h
  k B   k B H  2
E n n   2 I
 
signal-to-noise-ratio:
kB  2
h
  k B  2
2
24.10.2012

105
CCDF of localization error :
parameter SNR of CIRs 
0
10
scenario:
Prob{}
 = 6 dB
-1
• KB  3
10
 = 12 dB
 =  dB
-2
10
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
/m
24.10.2012

106
multi-antennas: space-time
CIR between AP and MS
directional CIR: antenna specific CIRs:
|h(1) ()| 1.0
n antenna 1
amplitude 0.8
0.6
0.4
azimuth 0.2
60 30
90 0.0
/s
0 0 5 10 15
120
330
|h(2) ()| 1.0
antenna 2
150 n
300
0.8
180
270
210 240 0.6
delay
0.4
0.2
0.0
/s
0 5 10 15
space-time channel impulse response (CIR) is a nearly

unique characteristic (signature) for the location of an MS
24.10.2012

107
exemplary scenario:
downtown Karlsruhe
N
multi antenna
W E
S
AP2
antenna config.:
K A 1
AP1 path of the MS
l
K A 2 2
l
K A 4 2
observation domain AP3
antenna element
reference point
100m
24.10.2012

108
examplary scenario:
550 1.0
1.0
500 0.9
0.9
450
0.8
0.8
CCC  (kr)
400
0.7
0.7
350
0.6
0.6
x2 / m
300
0.5
0.5
250
0.4
0.4
200
0.3
0.3
buildings:
150
100 0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
true pos.:
50
0.0
0.0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
x1 / m KA 1
24.10.2012

109
examplary scenario:
550 1.0
1.0
500 0.9
0.9
450
0.8
0.8
CCC  (kr)
400
0.7
0.7
350
0.6
0.6
x2 / m
300
0.5
0.5
250
0.4
0.4
200
0.3
0.3
buildings:
150
100 0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
true pos.:
50
0.0
0.0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
x1 / m KA  2
24.10.2012

110
examplary scenario:
CCC k (kr) vs. assumed MS position
550 1.0
1.0
500 0.9
0.9
450
0.8
0.8
CCC  (kr)
400
0.7
0.7
350
0.6
0.6
x2 / m
300
0.5
0.5
250
0.4
0.4
200
0.3
0.3
buildings:
150
100 0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
true pos.:
50
0.0
0.0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
x1 / m KA  4
24.10.2012

111
CCDF of localization error D:
parameter number of AP antennas KA
0
10
Prob{}
perfect CMs
-1  = 1 KB = 3
10
γ = 6 dB
 = 2
 = 4
-2
10
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300
/m
24.10.2012

112
Signature based Approach – Summary & Pros/Cons
Basic Idea of Signature based Approach / Fingerprinting:
 Characterize Observation area with respect to signature (e.g. CM) and setup
database (offline step)
 Measure current signature for positioning (online step)
 Compare measured signature with database to determine position of MS
Pros:
 Well suited for scenarios with multi-path environment even if no LOS is available
 CMs are especially unique in multi-path non line-of-sight (NLOS) scenarios
 CCC is well suited for comparing CMs
 achievable localization accuracy quite promising even if considering a single BS
 robust with respect to disturbed estimates of CIRs
Cons:
 For accuracte positioning large database necessary
 Setup of large database and comparision with large database complex
 Setup of database needs accurate models or complicated measurement campaigns
 Impact of changes in the environment / weather on database has to be compensated
24.10.2012

113
3.1 Dead Reckoning
3.6 Angle-of-arrival based navigation
3.7 Signature based navigation

24.10.2012

114
Radio- and Sensor Networks
 A sensor network is a network of

several similar tiny nodes which
communicate with each.
 The communication takes place
without additional infrastructure and
is ad-hoc
Mobile Station (MS), Node in the ‚  Examples: measurement systems,

Network, Position apriori not known monitoring, military applications
Mobile Station (MS), Beacon Node in (smart dust), …
the Network, Position known
 Positions of some Nodes may be
known (Beacon Nodes, here: APs),
positions of other nodes are
24.10.2012
a priori not known

115
classic geometry
based localization (multi-lateration)
AP 1


MS
AP KB

AP 2
24.10.2012

116
multi MS scenario
AP 1
MS 3
MS 2
MS 4
MS 1
MS 5 AP KB
MS K
AP 2
24.10.2012

117
SPIDER:
Smart Position Identification Rationale
AP 1
MS 3
MS 2
MS 4
MS 1
MS 5 AP KB
MS K
AP 2
24.10.2012
Reference: M. Meurer, P. W. Baier, T. Weber, C. A. Jötten, S. Heilmann, “SPIDER: Enhanced distance based localization of mobile
radio terminals”, in Proc. IEEE 60th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC’04-Fall), Los Angeles, 2004.
118
number of observables
no. of unknowns no. of observables

per MS per MS
conv.
2 KB
2  B
1 K 1  K
novel
2
24.10.2012

119
increase of number of observables
„information gain“ 9
no. of obs. SPIDER 8
no. of obs. conventional
7
5
K B  3, 4,...,13
4
1
1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
K / KB
24.10.2012

120
joint distance-based position estimation:
SPIDER
coupled problems of MS localization
positions of the KB APs
noise joint estimate x̂ m of the

distances 
for all MSs ̂ distance- MS positions
based
position
estimator
position estimator
24.10.2012

121
scenario
3000
2. coordinate /m observation area 

AP 2
2000
mobile station (MS)

MS K (randomly placed in  )
1000
MS 1
Anchor point (AP)
0 AP 1
MS 2
-1000
MS 3
KB  3
-2000
AP KB
-3000
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
1. coordinate /m
24.10.2012

122
simulations:
performance vs. number of MSs
0 parameter:
10 forbidden region (E911)
SPIDER • perfect knowledge
• KB  3
conventional
• K  2 64
-1
10 (random positions)
• white Gaussian
noise
K =2,4,8,
16,32,64 • Rn   2 I
-2
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 •   78 m
/m • .
24.10.2012

123
centralized vs. distributed localization
For SPIDER Localization has to be done in a

central unit (CU) using all measurements !
• special CU required (drawback in sensor / Ad-hoc networks)

• signaling required to make measurement for CU available
modify SPIDER in order to allow

decentralizedSPIDER-S:
/ distributed localization
Smart Position Identification Rationale - Separated
24.10.2012

124
distributed localization with SPIDER-S
observation area  assumption:

AP 1
each MS knows the positions of the
MS 2 APs and measurements of
• distances between this MS and
other MSs and
MS 1
AP KB
a sufficient number of APs.
AP 2
24.10.2012

125
step 1:
AP 1 each MS estimates its position
using distances to APs only !
MS 2
other MSs and
MS 1
AP KB • distances between this MS and
sufficient number of BSs.
AP 2
24.10.2012

126
step 1:
AP 1 each MS estimates its position
MS 2 • using distances
distances to APs
between thisonly
MS !and
other MSs and
MS 1
• distances
roughbetween
positionthis MS and
estimate
AP KB sufficient number of MS
of each BSs.
broadcast of rough positions

AP 2 estimates to other MSs
24.10.2012

127
step 2:
AP 1 each
each MS re-estimates its
MS knows measurements ofposition
using:
MS 2 • broadcasted (rough) positions of
• distances
other MSs,between this MS and
• other MSs to
distances and
APs and to MSs
MS 1
sufficient number of BSs.
AP 2
24.10.2012

128
step 2:
AP 1 each
using:
• distances
• other MSs to
distances and
APs and to MSs
MS 1
sufficient number
improved of BSs.
position estimate
of each MS
AP 2 broadcast of improved positions

estimates to other MSs
24.10.2012

129
step :
AP 1 each
using:
• distances
• other MSs to
distances and
APs and to MSs
MS 1
sufficient number
improved of BSs.
position estimate
of each MS
AP 2 broadcast of improved positions

estimates to other MSs
24.10.2012

130
partial knowledge of
distance measurements
full
knowledge of observation area 
measure- AP 1
ments of
distance to all MS 3
MS 2
APs and all MS 4
MSs MS 1
MS 5 AP KB
MS K
AP 2
24.10.2012

131
only
distance to AP 1
APs and to
MS 3
adjacent MSs MS 2
MS 4
MS 1
MS 5 AP KB
MS K
AP 2
24.10.2012

132
only
distance to AP 1
adjacent AP
MS 3
and adjacent MS 2
MSs MS 4
MS 1
MS 5 AP KB
MS K
Is it still possible to uniquely localize the MSs ?

graph theoretical
AP 2 mathematical question !
24.10.2012

133
possibility of localization:
necessary and sufficient conditions (1)
necessary & sufficient counter example:

conditions possible localization:
(1) For each MS at least 3 distances to

other MSs or APs have to be known!
24.10.2012

134
necessary and sufficient conditions (2)
necessary & sufficient counter example:

conditions possible localization:
(2) In the graph of measured/known
distances each MSs has to be
connected directly or indirectly
to at least 3 different APs!
24.10.2012

135
example with fulfilled conditions
example with 2 MSs which can be localized:
(1) For each MS at least 3 distances to

other MSs or APs have to be known! observation area 
(2) In the graph of measured/known

distances each MSs has to be
connected directly or indirectly
to at least 3 different APs!
24.10.2012

136
modified scenario
3000
2. coordinate /m observation area 

AP 2
2000
mobile station (MS)

MS K (randomly placed in 
)
1000
MS 1
Anchor point (AP)
0 AP 1
MS 2
-1000
MS 3
KB  3
-2000
AP KB
-3000
-3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000
1. coordinate /m
new: each MS measures only distance to K B AP and to  other MSs !

24.10.2012

137
simulations:
performance vs. no. of distances 
parameter:
0
10 forbidden region (E911)
• partial knowledge
of MS-MS distances,
  K  10   0 K  1
-1 without noise • KB  3
10 no knowledge
parameter est.
• K  7
of MS-MS dist.
with noise (random positions)
parameter est.
full knowledge of all • white Gaussian
=0,78,156m
-2 MS-MS dist. noise
10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 • Rn   2 I
/m •   78 m
.
24.10.2012

138
Cooperative Positioning – Summary & Pros/Cons
Basic Idea of Cooperative Positioning:
 Use information of distances between nodes in a network to determine position of
nodes
 Use beacon node for absolute alignment and initialization
 Improve position accuracy by redundant measurements
Pros:
 High positioning accuracy in large networks
 Usable in partly connected networks
 Centralized and Decentralized positioning possible
Cons:
 Communication Ressources quite large
 In NLOS scenarios measured distances do not allow to draw conclusions about real
geometry
24.10.2012

139

Terrestrial Navigation PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Terrestrial Navigation PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Terrestrial Navigation

Priv.-Doz. Dr.-Ing. habil. Michael Meurer

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

3. Basic principles of terrestrial navigation

3.1 Dead Reckoning

3.2 Proximity Systems

3.3 Distance based Navigation

3.4 Distance difference based Navigation

3.5 Distance ratio based Navigation

3.6 Angle-of-arrival based Navigation

3.7 Signature based Navigation

3.8 Cooperative navigation in radio and sensor networks

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

 Dead reckoning is the process of x m ,3

 Initial position, velocity & heading

 Dead Reckoning: Finally you have all you need

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

 Full six-degree-of-freedom inertial sensor platform

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

 Inertial navigators are known to drift. The drift arises due to

 Drift Errors are motion dependent and nonlinear

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

 Low-Cost MEMS-based multi-sensor

24,8 % 20,5 % 38,0 % 16,7 %

Stride Typical acceleration profile

Stride Rest phase DLR IKN building TE02

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

Proximity positioning systems are also

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

Today’s mobile radio systems are cellular:

Positioning of a mobile station by

Possible reference positions: location of

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

Examples for geometric quantities:

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

Examples for geometric quantities:

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

1. distance est.: 2. distance-based position est.:

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

 Anchor point (AP)

Position of MS can uniquely be deter-

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

xMS , y MS : Unknown position MS

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

Perfect distance knowledge: Imperfect distance knowledge

Probabilistic geometry based approach for

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

1. distance est.: 2. distance-based position est.:

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

1. MS transmits a test signal at time instant

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

ˆ 4,367m observation area 

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

    4 f 

DLR und TU-München, Kommunikation und Navigation

Inverse of attenuation between MS and AP k B : gain g  k B 

mathematically: Due to shadowing effect gain g  k B  is a random