www.ietdl.

org
Published in IET Radar, Sonar and Navigation
Received on 9th July 2012
Revised on 11th November 2012
Accepted on 27th December 2012
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199

ISSN 1751-8784

Joint systematic error estimation algorithm for radar

and automatic dependent surveillance broadcasting
He You1, Zhu Hongwei1, Tang Xiaoming1
1
Institute of Electronics and Information Engineering, Naval Aeronautical and Astronautical University, Yantai 264001,
People’s Republic of China
E-mail: zhuhongwei907@163.com

Abstract: Systematic error of radar cannot be accurately determined solely with the use of an automatic dependent surveillance
broadcasting (ADS-B) device. This is largely, because of the device’s inability to obtain the exact transmitting time of ADS-B
data packets. In order to study and establish an efficient and accurate error registration algorithm for radars based on the ADS-B
system, a joint systematic error estimation model of the radar and ADS-B was built. The authors showed that when receiving time
is known, the time difference between radar measuring time and ADS-B data transmitting time is consistently biased, a feature
that can be used to calculate the systematic error of the ADS-B receiving system. Then, they established an error estimation model
based on the joint systematic error of the radar and ADS-B. The generalised least squares estimation method was adopted to solve
the model. Finally, data samples verified the accuracy and effectiveness of the error registration algorithm.

1 Introduction systematic error registration. Besada et al. [15–17] study the

Systematic error registration is a prerequisite for fusion of
information from multiple radars. Common multi-sensor
registration algorithms establish a registration model and a
corresponding solution method via measurements of the
same target in a public observation area of multiple radars.
These algorithms include the real-time quality control error
registration algorithm [1], the least squares error registration
algorithm [2–5], the generalised least squares (GLS) error
registration algorithm [6, 7], the exact maximum likelihood
error registration algorithm [8, 9], the Kalman filter-based
error registration algorithm [10–12], the neural
network-based error registration algorithm [13], and the
extended probability hypothesis density filter-based error
registration algorithm [14]. All of these algorithms
accumulate input measurements by monitoring the same
target with at least two distributed radars, and their
registration processes are accomplished in the fusion centre
when measurements reported.
The common downside with these models and algorithms
is that several radar stations must be coordinated well in
advance to accomplish the registration process, which is not
convenient for registering and evaluating the performance
of single radar in real time. The automatic dependent
surveillance broadcasting (ADS-B) system, generally
installed in civilian airliners, can get state information of
itself in real time, including exact global positioning system
(GPS) information, speed, course and other information
about flying. So, we can use ADS-B receiving equipment
to assist the single radar system in systematic error
registration. However, there is no time information in the
ADS-B data packet, and time alignment is the basis of
systematic error estimation in the ADS-B system but do not
take into account the time alignment between ADS-B data
and radar measurements. Haim [13] considers a time delay
between ADS-B data packet transmitting time and radar
measurement time in two dimensions, but it did not take
three-dimensional (3D) error registration model and
algorithm into consideration.
This paper analyses the time relationship between ADS-B
data packets and radar measurement. A universal systematic
error estimation model and algorithm was built, and its
performance was tested and verified by actual data sets.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2
analyses the problem in using ADS-B to estimate the
systematic error of radar and proves that there is a time bias
of ADS-B. Joint systematic error is also defined in this
section. In Section 3, an estimation model is built for joint
systematic error of radar and ADS-B receiving systems,
meanwhile GLS method is used to solve this estimation
model. Error analysis is provided here. Section 4 uses real
data to test the estimation model and algorithm and
analyses registration results. Finally, some conclusions and
future work are presented in Section 5.
2 Problem description
ADS-B data packets do not contain information regarding the
packet transmission time, and therefore cannot directly use
the GPS information from data packets. We have developed
an ADS-B receiving and processing system that can
produce the accurate receiving time of ADS-B data packets,
shown in Fig. 1.

IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370 361
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 1 ADS-B receiving and processing system
We can adjust the time at which ADS-B receives the
message alignment to the time at which the airliner is
detected by radar with the device shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 2
shows that when the radar and the ADS-B receiving system
are located in the same place, after the ADS-B transmitting
subsystem transmits a position message, the airliner will
still fly some time before detected by radar. This means that
there is a time lag Δt between the transmitting time of
ADS-B data packet tA and the measuring time of radar tR.
In fact, time delay occurs between the time at which the
target transmits the ADS-B information and the time at
which the avionics calculate the position. According to
industry standard, the ADS-B transmitting subsystem
attempts to provide the position data accurate to within a
specified time tolerance of the time of transmission in the
non-GPS/global navigation satellite system (GNSS) Time
Mark Coupled Case. Moreover, in the GPS/GNSS Time
Mark coupled case, the delay can be well compensated for
by advancing the position in the direction of travel. It has
been found that the ADS-B transmitting subsystem provides
position in the non-GPS/GNSS Time Mark coupled case in
Fig. 2 Time alignment between radar measurement and ADS-B data
362
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
practice. The worst case for time delay within a transmitted
position message occurs when a position update arrives
with maximum delay, that is, just under the 100 ms limit
outlined in the requirements. ADS-B airborne position
messages may implement estimation techniques such as
alpha–beta trackers or Kalman filters to satisfy the intent of
the 100 ms position requirement [18]. So we can ignore this
time delay for the sake of simplicity.
It can be proved that the time lag Δt is constant with
respect to radar measurement period and ADS-B message
transmitting period. In practice, the ADS-B messages are
not periodically transmitted, but this does not affect its use
in correct periodic radar measurement. The ADS-B message
can be easily reconstructed to transmit with any wanted
period through the smoothing and interpolation method
[19]. Owing to the high accuracy of GPS information and
the assumption of uniform rectilinear motion of airliner,
errors introduced by smoothing and interpolation method
can be ignored. So we have the following analyses.
Let the transmitting period of a ADS-B data packet be TA,
the measurement period of radar be TR, the transmitting time
of the ADS-B data packet be t1A , t2A , t3A , . . . , the measurement
time of the radar be t1R , t2R , t3R , . . . , the time lag be
Dt1 = t1R − t1A and Dt2 = t2R − t2A . Their relationship is
shown in Fig. 3.
Then we have
TA − Dt1 + Dt2 = TR (1)
When TA = TR, we have
Dt1 = Dt2 (2)
Equation (2) indicates that when the transmitting period of an
ADS-B data packet is equal to the radar measurement period,
time lag between the transmitting time of ADS-B data packet
and the radar measurement time is a constant that, in turn, can
be seen as the time bias of the ADS-B receiving system. So
the time lag Δt can be seen as the systematic error of the
ADS-B receiving system. This was combined with range
IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199
 www.ietdl.org
where TR is the rotation matrix
⎡ ⎤
−sin ls −sin Ls cos ls cos Ls cos ls
T R = ⎣ cos ls −sin Ls sin ls cos Ls sin ls ⎦ (7)
0 cos Ls sin Ls

Fig. 3 Relationship between radar measuring time and ADS-B 3.2 Model building
data receiving time
Fig. 4 shows the geometrical relationship among the ADS-B
data packet transmitting location, the radar measurement and
bias, azimuth bias and elevation bias of radar as a joint the true position of the airliner at time k. (xEA, yEA, zEA) is
systematic error to build an error registration model in this the location of the airliner when the ADS-B data packet
paper. transmitted at time k − ΔtA, which is also the airliner
location when the ADS-B receiving system received the
3 Error estimation model and its solution data packet at time k. (xETr, yETr, zETr) is the true position of
airliner at time k. (xERm, yERm, zERm) is the radar
This section will establish a joint systematic error estimation measurement at time k. ΔtA is the time bias of ADS-B
model. GPS information in the ADS-B data packet is based receiving system. The airliner is assumed to be uniform
off of geographic coordinates, whereas the radar rectilinear motion in this paper.
measurement system is based off of a radar-centred local In Fig. 4, after transmitting the ADS-B data packet, the
coordinate system. Thus, coordinate transformations are airliner will fly the duration ΔtA before it is measured by
needed first in order to produce a unified coordinate system. the radar at position (xETr, yETr, zETr). Moreover, the radar
In this paper, an Earth-centred Earth-fixed (ECEF) measurement is (xERm, yERm, zERm), which deviates from
coordinate system is used as the unified coordinate system. the true position because of systematic error and the
measurement noise of the radar. So the ECEF coordinate of
3.1 Coordinate transformation the airliner obtained by the ADS-B receiving system at
time k is
Let the accurate position of an airliner obtained by GPS in an
ADS-B system be (LA, λA, HA), where LA is the latitude, λA is ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
xETr (k) xEA (k )
the longitude and HA is the height above sea level. Its ECEF ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
coordinate (xEA, yEA, zEA) is ⎣ yETr (k) ⎦ = ⎣ yEA (k ) ⎦ + T A (k )
⎧ zETr (k) zEA (k )
⎨ xEA = (C + HA ) cos LA cos lA ⎡    ⎤
vA (k )DtA cos 1A (k) sin uA (k )
y = (C + HA ) cos LA sin lA (3) ⎢    ⎥
⎩ EA × ⎣ vA (k )DtA cos 1A (k) cos uA (k ) ⎦
zEA = [C(1 − e2 ) + HA ] sin LA  
vA (k )DtA sin 1A (k)
where C is defined as ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
xEA (k) DxA (k)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
Eq = ⎣ yEA (k) ⎦ + T A (k ) × ⎣ DyA (k) ⎦ (8)
C= 1/2 (4)
1 − e2 sin LA 2 zEA (k) DzA (k)

whereas e is the eccentricity ratio of the earth and Eq is

equatorial radius.
Let the geographic coordinate of the radar be (Ls, λs, Hs)
such that its ECEF coordinate (xERyERzER) can be obtained
by (3). Assume that radar measurement is (rR, θR, ηR),
where rR is the range, θR is the azimuth with respect to the
North, and ηR is the elevation. The local Cartesian
coordinates (xl, yl, zl ) of the target can be written as
⎧
⎨ xl = rt sin ut cos ht
y = rt cos ut cos ht (5)
⎩ l
zl = rt sin ht

In addition, the local Cartesian coordinate (xl, yl, zl ) of a target

can be transformed to the ECEF coordinate (xERm, yERm,
zERm) by
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
xERm xER xl
⎣ yERm ⎦ = ⎣ yER ⎦ + T R × ⎣ yl ⎦ (6) Fig. 4 Geometric relationship between radar measurement and
zERm zER zl ADS-B data at time k

IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370 363
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
www.ietdl.org
where (see (9)) According to (6), its ECEF coordinate is

and (LA(k), λA(k), HA(k)) are the real geographic ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ′ ⎤

xETr (k) xER xRl (k)
coordinates of the airliner, vA(k) is the velocity of airliner, ⎣ yETr (k) ⎦ = ⎣ yER ⎦ + T R × ⎣ y′Rl (k) ⎦ (12)
εA(k) is the path angle of airliner and θA(k) is the track
angle of the airliner with respect to geographical North.
zETr (k) zER z′Rl (k)
All of these pieces of information can be extracted from
the ADS-B data packet. Now time bias of the ADS-B receiving system and sensor bias
Assume (xER, yER, zER) is the ECEF coordinate of the radar, of the radar can be combined to form a joint systematic error
(rR(k), θR(k), ηR(k)) is the radar measurement of the airliner. β = [ΔrR, ΔθR, ΔηR, ΔtA]T. Since (8) and (12) represent the
(Rr(k), θr(k), ηr(k)) is the zero-mean and white measurement ECEF coordinates of the same airliner, we can obtain
T
noise of the radar, C′′k = rR′′ (k), u′′R (k), h′′R (k) represents ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ′ ⎤
the measurement including systematic error but without Dx(k ) xER xRl (k)
  ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
measurement noise. The systematic error of the radar is f C′′k , b = ⎣ Dy(k ) ⎦ = ⎣ yER ⎦ + T R × ⎣ y′Rl (k) ⎦
βR = [ΔrR, ΔθR, ΔηR]T, where ΔrR is the range bias, ΔθR is
the azimuth bias and ΔηR is the elevation bias. Dz(k ) zER z′Rl (k)
T ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ (13)
C′k = rR′ (k), u′R (k), h′R (k) is the radar measurement of xEA (k) DxA (k)
the airliner including systematic error and measurement ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
− ⎣ yEA (k) ⎦ − T A (k ) × ⎣ DyA (k) ⎦
noise at time k. Moreover, radar measurement can be
written as zEA (k) DzA (k)
 
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ The first-order Taylor expansion of (13) at C′k , b′ is
rR′ (k) rR (k) + DrR + Rr (k)
⎣ u′R (k) ⎦ = ⎣ uR (k) + DuR + ur (k) ⎦       
h′R (k) hR (k) + DhR + hr (k) f C′′k , b ≃ f C′k , b′ + ∇b f C′k , b′ b − b′
⎡ ′′ ⎤    (14)
rR (k) + Rr (k) + ∇C′′ f C′k , b′ C′′k − C′k
= ⎣ uR (k) + ur (k) ⎦
k
′′
(10)
h′′R (k) + hr (k) where β′ is the initial estimation of β and can be assumed to
be β′ = [0, 0,0, 0]T if there
 is not any priori
 information

The coordinates of the airliner in the local Cartesian available. ∇C′′ f C′k , b′ and ∇b f C′k , b′ are,
k
coordinate system of the radar can be written as respectively (see (15))

⎧ ′    and (see (16))

⎪
⎪ xRl (k) = rR′′ (k) − DrR sin u′′R (k) − DuR cos h′′R (k) − DhR
⎨   
y′Rl (k) = rR′′ (k) − DrR cos u′′R (k) − DuR cos h′′R (k) − DhR For the same airliner, suppose f (C′′k , b) = [0, 0, 0]T . Equation
⎪
⎩ z′ (k) = r′′ (k) − Dr  sin h′′ (k) − Dh 
⎪ (14) can be written as
Rl R R R R
(11) Gk b + Fk ∂Ck = Gk b′ − f (C′k , b′ ) (17)

⎡ ⎤
−sin lA (k) −sin LA (k) cos lA (k) cos LA (k) cos lA (k)
T A (k) = ⎣ cos lA (k) −sin LA (k) sin lA (k) cos LA (k) sin lA (k) ⎦ (9)
0 cos LA (k) sin LA (k)

⎡ ⎤
∂(Dx(k)) ∂(Dx(k)) ∂(Dx(k))
⎢ ∂r′′ (k) ∂u′′R (k) ∂h′′R (k) ⎥
⎢ R ⎥
 ′ ′  ⎢⎢ ∂(Dy(k)) ∂(Dy(k)) ∂(Dy(k)) ⎥ ⎥
∇C′′ f Ck , b = ⎢ ′′ ⎥ = Fk (15)
k ⎢ ∂rR (k) ∂u′′R (k) ∂h′′R (k) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ∂(Dz(k)) ∂(Dz(k)) ∂(Dz(k)) ⎦
∂rR′′ (k) ∂u′′R (k) ∂h′′R (k) C′′ =C′ ,b=b′
k k

⎡ ⎤
∂(Dx(k)) ∂(Dx(k)) ∂(Dx(k)) ∂(Dx(k))
⎢ ∂Dr ∂DuR ∂DhR ∂DtA ⎥
⎢ R ⎥
 ′ ′  ⎢⎢ ∂(Dy(k)) ∂(Dy(k)) ∂(Dy(k)) ∂(Dy(k)) ⎥
⎥
∇b f Ck , b = ⎢ ⎥ = Gk (16)
⎢ ∂DrR ∂DuR ∂DhR ∂DtA ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ∂(Dz(k)) ∂(Dz(k)) ∂(Dz(k)) ∂(Dz(k)) ⎦
∂DrR ∂DuR ∂DhR ∂DtA C′′ =C′ ,b=b′
k k

364 IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013 doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199

Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 www.ietdl.org
where ∂Ck = (C′′k − C′k ) denotes the measurement noise According to the GLS algorithm, the solution of (19) is
  −1
∂Ck = Rr (k), ur (k), hr (k) (18) −1 −1
b̂ = X S X T
XT S Y (26)
j j
Fk∂Ψk can be seen as the error caused by measurement noise,
Gkβ as error caused by systematic error, and Gkβ′ − f(Ψ′k, β′)
as pseudo-measurement. With these assumptions, the joint The estimation covariance is
systematic error estimation model can be established as  −1 −1
Xb + j = Y (19) cov(b̂) = X T S X (27)
j

where To improve computational efficiency when N is very large,

T (26) and (27) can be computed as [7]
X = G1 , G2 , . . . , GN (20)
−1 
N −1
j = [F1 ∂C1 , F2 ∂C2 , . . . , FN ∂CN ]T (21) XT S X = GTk S Gk (28)
j k
k=1
Y = G1 b′ − f (C′ 1 , b′ ), G2 b′ − f (C′2 , b′ ), . . . , GN b′
T (22) −1 
N −1 
−f (C′N , b′ ) XT S Y = GTk S Gk b′ − f (C′ k , b′ ) (29)
j k
k=1

3.3 GLS solution to the model

3.4 Error analysis
Define
      Two kinds of error are introduced in this registration
S = E jjT = Fi E (∂Ci )(∂Cj )T F′j  i, j = 1, 2, . . . , N algorithm, namely the linearisation approximation error of
j (19), and the estimation error applying the GLS estimation.
(23) In order to build the linear model between measurements
and systematic error, (14) is an approximation using the
where i, j denote measurement time, and N denotes first-order Taylor expansion of (13). So the first kind of
observation duration that is of the order of about 200 error is introduced. In (14), the omitted second-order and
samples. Since ∂Ψk is the random measurement noise high-order term is (see (30))
uncorrelated between different times, we can write
where On is the high-order remainder term, and
 
∂Ck = (C′′k − C′k ) is measurement noise.
S = E (∂Ci )(∂Cj )T
C A scenario is built to compare the first-order term with the
 second-order term numerically. An airliner has the trajectory
0, i=j
=  
diag s2Rr , s2Ru , s2Rh , i=j
(24) ⎧
⎨ x = 20 000 + 120 × k
y = 10 000 + 90 × k , k = 1, 2, . . . , 200 (31)
where σRr, σRθ and σRη are the constant range, azimuth and ⎩
z = 8000
elevation measurement accuracy of the radar, respectively.
So Σξ is a 3N × 3N block matrix {Σ1, Σ2, Σ3, ⋯, ΣN}, where Parameters of the radar are shown in Table 1.
The simulation has 100 independent Monte Carlo runs, and
Sk = Fk SC FTk (25) the comparison result of Δx in (13) is shown in Fig. 5.

⎡ ⎡ ⎤ ⎤
∂2 Dx ∂2 Dx
⎢    
⎢
⎢ ′′

′ T
 
T ⎢ ∂C′′k 2 ∂C′′k ∂b ⎥ ′′
⎥ Ck − C
′
k ⎥
⎥
⎢ Ck − Ck b − b′ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ′ ⎥
⎢ ⎣ ∂ Dx ∂2 Dx ⎦ b − b ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ∂b∂C′′ ∂b2 ⎥
⎢ ⎡ 2 k ⎤ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ∂ Dy ∂ Dy
2
⎥
⎢ ⎢ ∂C′′ 2 ′′ ⎥   ′′ ⎥
1⎢  ′′ T   T ⎢ ∂Ck ∂b ⎥ Ck − C ′ ⎥
O= ⎢
⎢ Ck − C′k b − b′ ⎢ 2 k ⎥ ′
k ⎥
⎥ + On (30)
2⎢ ⎣ ∂ Dy ∂ Dy ⎦ b − b
2
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ∂b∂C′′ ∂b 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎡ 2 k ⎤ ⎥
⎢ ∂ Dz ∂ Dz
2 ⎥
⎢     ⎥
⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎢   
T ⎢ ∂C′′k 2 ∂C′′k ∂b ⎥ ′′
⎥ Ck − C 
′
⎥
⎢ C′′k − C′k T b − b′ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ′
k
⎥
⎣ ⎣ ∂ Dz ∂2 Dz ⎦ b − b ⎦
∂b∂C′′k ∂b2 C′′ =C′k ,b=b′

IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370 365
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
www.ietdl.org
As shown in Fig. 5 the second-order term is very small
compared with the first-order term. The linearisation
approximation error has little influence of Taylor expansion
of (14), so the remainder term O of (14) can be omitted.
Based on the assumption above, estimation error (the
second kind error) is taken into consideration. According to
Bar-Shalom et al. [20], the linear model is always defined as
Y L = X L bL + jL
where ξL is the random measurement noise, which is assumed
to be independent and identically distributed zero-mean
Gaussian noise with a variance s2n I. The least squares
estimation is the minimum variance and unbiased
estimation for this linear model.
If the covariance of ξL is not in scale with s2n I (I is an
identity matrix), such as that of (21), where ξL ∼ N(0, Q),
this linear model is defined as a generalised linear model.
In this case, the least square estimation is no longer the
minimum variance and unbiased estimation [20]. In order to
obtain the minimum variance and unbiased estimation, the
measurement noise should be independent and identically
distributed zero-mean Gaussian noise. Assuming Q is a
positive definite matrix, applying Cholesky factorisation, it
can be written as
Q = DT D
Thus
  −1
E (Dj)(Dj)T = DQDT = DD−1 DT DT = I
Table 1 Parameters of radar
Parameter
measurement noise of range
measurement noise of azimuth
measurement noise of elevation
systematic error of range
systematic error of azimuth
systematic error of elevation
systematic error of time
Fig. 5 Comparison result
366
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Using the N × N matrix D, ξL can be whitened as a
normalised, independent and identically distributed noise
Dξ. So the generalised linear model can be transformed as
Y ′ = DY L = DX L bL + DjL = X ′ bL + j′ (35)
where ξ′ ∼ N(0, I). According to the least squares estimation,
the minimum variance and unbiased resolution of (35) is
(32)  −1  −1
b̂L = X ′ X ′ X ′ Y ′ = XQ−1 X XQ−1 Y
T T
(36)
and its estimation covariance is
   −1
cov b̂L = XQ−1 X (37)
So the GLS estimation (26) and (27), which have the same
form of (36) and (37), respectively, can be understood to be
the minimum variance and unbiased estimation. In addition,
the covariance of this algorithm achieves the Cramér–Rao
lower bound.
4 Real data test
In this section, real data of a 3D-phased array radar and
ADS-B will be used to test the performance of the model
(33) and algorithm. Fig. 6 shows the real data before error
registration. Data were collected during a 10 min duration
of time. It can be seen that radar measurements apparently
deviate from GPS data. In practice, not all the ADS-B
messages can be received at the same time. In the real data
(34) test, a smoothing and interpolation method was used to
make ADS-B data periodically distributed in data preparation.
Using the model and algorithm in this paper, the estimation
results are shown in Table 2.
Then estimation results can be used to register the radar
Value measurements. Fig. 7 shows the registration results. Fig. 8
shows error between radar measurement and GPS after error
50 m
0.0087 rad registration. Fig. 9 shows the standard deviation of the
0.0087 rad systematic error of the radar and ADS-B receiving system.
1800 m According to Figs. 7 and 8, radar measurements after
0.0087 rad registration are generally very similar to the GPS data, a
0.0175 rad
0.5 s
fact that can be used to verify the performance and
application of the model. Fig. 9 shows that the algorithm is
well convergent. Owing to the measurement noise, there are
still some differences between radar measurement and GPS
data, which does not obviously affect the performance of
the algorithm and can be improved during the next data
processing stage, such as the application of the Kalman filter.
In order to add more support for the algorithm, another
batch of observations using the same radar were made,
shown in Figs. 10–12.
From Figs. 10–12, we can see that the registration
algorithm is useful in making the radar measurements
align with the GPS data. However, there are some
obvious differences between them at the low-altitude
Table 2 Results of systematic error estimation
Systematic error Estimation value
range bias of radar 480 m
azimuth bias of radar −0.0013 rad
elevation bias of radar 0.0018 rad
time bias of ADS-B receiving system 0.52 s
IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199
 www.ietdl.org

Fig. 6 ADS-B data and radar measurement before error registration

Fig. 7 ADS-B data and radar measurement after error registration

Fig. 8 Error between radar measurement and GPS location after

error registration Fig. 9 Standard deviation of systematic error

IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370 367
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 10 ADS-B data and radar measurement before error registration
flying stage, which may be the reason for the poor
performance of the radar at low altitudes. In addition,
measurement noise of the radar has also affected the
registration during low-altitude flying of airliner, in which
the algorithm does not work well.
Now a performance comparison between our algorithm and
other algorithms which did not consider time bias of ADS-B
into consideration will be made. Besada et al. [15–17] did not
take the time bias of ADS-B into account, which makes the
estimation less accurate. As the algorithms in [15–17]
Fig. 11 ADS-B data and radar measurement after error registration
368
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
focused on systematic error estimation in two dimensions,
in order to make a comparison between the algorithms in
[15–17] and our algorithm, the algorithm in [3] is used as a
substitute where ‘Radar 1’ in [3] is substituted with ADS-B
(they are both assumed to be unbiased), and ‘Radar 2’ is
substituted with the real radar in this paper. Only range
bias, azimuth bias and elevation bias of the radar are
considered. The compared algorithm is denoted as
algorithm without time bias (AWTB) here. Results using
the first batch of data are shown in Figs. 13–15.
IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199
 www.ietdl.org
From Fig. 13, it can be seen that there is an obvious shift
between ADS-B data and radar measurement. Fig. 15
shows that estimation error of radar systematic error is
much higher than the algorithm presented in this paper. So
the comparison shows that the time bias of ADS-B is very
important to the registration of systematic errors of radar,
and the estimation model and algorithm in this paper is
very accurate and applicable.
In general, the algorithm presented in this paper has good
performance and practical applicability.

5 Conclusions
This paper studied the radar systematic error registration
problem using civilian airliners with the ADS-B system
Fig. 12 Error between radar measurement and GPS location after installed when the transmitting time of ADS-B data packets
error registration was not available. A joint systematic error estimation model

Fig. 13 ADS-B data and radar measurement after error registration with AWTB

Fig. 14 Error between radar measurement and GPS data after

error registration with AWTB Fig. 15 Standard deviation of systematic error with AWTB

IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370 369
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
www.ietdl.org
was built and its GLS solution was given. There are two major
positive results to be noted regarding our model.
1. The joint model presented in this paper can be accurately
calibrated using real radar data, which verifies the accuracy
and effectiveness of the estimation model. With the help of
the ADS-B system, it is a very convenient method to
monitor systematic errors of radar in real time.
2. In this paper, only two random experiments are provided.
Future work could research the possibility of fusing a large
number data and the error field analysis based on a
large number of real data. An efficient fusion method for a
large number of data sets could be developed to make
results more accurate and applicable.
6 Acknowledgment
This work was supported in part by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China under Grants 61032001 and
61102116.
7 References
1 Burke, J.J.: ‘The SAGE Real time quality control function and its
interface with BUIC II/BUIC III’. MITRE Corporation Technical
Report, No. 308, 1996
2 Leung, H., Blanchette, M.: ‘A least squares fusion of multiple radar
data’. Proc. Radar 1994, Paris, 1994, pp. 364–369
3 Stefano, F.A.F., Fulvio, G., Antonio, G., et al: ‘Least squares estimation
and Cramér–Rao type lower bounds for relative sensor registration
process’, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2011, 59, (3), pp. 1075–1087
4 Zhou, Y.F., Leung, H., Blachette, M.: ‘Sensor alignment with
earth-centered earth-fixed (ECEF) coordinate system’, IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 1999, 35, pp. 410–418
5 Zheng, Z.W., Zhu, Y.S.: ‘New least squares registration algorithm for
data fusion’, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 2004, 40, (4),
pp. 1410–1416
6 Dana, M.P.: ‘Registration: a prerequisite for multiple sensor tracking’
(Artech House Press, 1990)
370
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2013
Authorized licensed use limited to: Universidad de los Andes. Downloaded on April 02,2020 at 04:45:29 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7 Dong, Y.L., He, Y., Wang, G.H.: ‘A generalized least squares
registration algorithm with Earth-centered Earth-fixed (ECEF)
coordinate system’. Third Int. Conf. Computational Electromagnetics
and Its Applications, 2004, pp. 79–84
8 Zhou, Y.F., Leung, H.: ‘An exact maximum likelihood registration
algorithm for data fusion’, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 1997, 45, (6),
pp. 1560–1572
9 Dong, Y.L., He, Y., Wang, G.H.: ‘A modified exact maximum
likelihood registration algorithm’. Third Int. Conf. Computational
Electromagnetics and Its Applications, 2004, pp. 85–88
10 Nabaa, N., Bishop, R.H.: ‘Solution to a multisensor tracking problem
with sensor registration errors’, IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.,
1999, 35, (1), pp. 354–363
11 Besada, J.A., García, J., de Miguel, G.: ‘New approach to online optimal
estimation of multisensor biases’, IEE Proc., Radar Sonar Navig., 2004,
151, (1), pp. 31–40
12 Besada, J.A., de Miguel, G., Bernardos, A.M., Casar, J.R.: ‘Generic
multisensor multitarget bias estimation architecture’, IET Radar Sonar
Navig., 2012, 6, (5), pp. 365–378
13 Haim, K.H.T.S.: ‘Sensor registration using neural networks’, IEEE
Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., 2000, 36, (1), pp. 85–101
14 Lian, F., Han, C., Liu, W.: ‘Joint spatial registration and multi-target
tracking using an extended probability hypothesis density filter’, IET
Radar Sonar Navig., 2011, 5, (4), pp. 441–448
15 Besada, J.A., Garcia, J., De Miguel, G., Jimenez, F.J., Gavin, G., Casar,
J.R.: ‘Data fusion algorithms based on radar and ADS measurements for
ATC application’. Record IEEE 2000 Int. Radar Conf., 2000,
pp. 98–103
16 Besada, J.A., Garcia, J., De Miguel, G., Casar, J.R., Gavin, G.: ‘ADS
bias cancellation based on data fusion with radar measurements’. Proc.
Third Int. Conf. Information Fusion, 2000, vol. 2, pp. WEC5/
23–WEC5/30
17 Besada, J.A., Garcia, J., De Miguel, G.: ‘Radar bias correction based on
GPS measurements for ATC applications’, IEE Proc., Radar Sonar
Navig., 2002, 149, (3), pp. 137–144
18 RTCA, Inc.: ‘Minimum Operational Performance Standards for 1090
MHz Extended Squitter Automatic Dependent Surveillance –
Broadcast (ADS-B) and Traffic Information Services – Broadcast
(TIS-B)’, 2009
19 Atkinson, K.: ‘An introduction to numerical analysis’ (Wiley,
New York, 1989, 2nd edn.)
20 Bar-Shalom, Y., Li, X.R., Kirubarajan, T.: ‘Estimation with applications
to tracking and navigation: theory algorithms and software’ (John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 2001)
IET Radar Sonar Navig., 2013, Vol. 7, Iss. 4, pp. 361–370
doi: 10.1049/iet-rsn.2012.0199