| Literature DB >> 22319373 |
Abstract
In order to enhance accuracy and reliability of wireless location in the mixed line-of-sight (LOS) and non-line-of-sight (NLOS) environments, a robust mobile location algorithm is presented to track the position of a mobile node (MN). An extended Kalman filter (EKF) modified in the updating phase is utilized to reduce the NLOS error in rough wireless environments, in which the NLOS bias contained in each measurement range is estimated directly by the constrained optimization method. To identify the change of channel situation between NLOS and LOS, a low complexity identification method based on innovation vectors is proposed. Numerical results illustrate that the location errors of the proposed algorithm are all significantly smaller than those of the iterated NLOS EKF algorithm and the conventional EKF algorithm in different LOS/NLOS conditions. Moreover, this location method does not require any statistical distribution knowledge of the NLOS error. In addition, complexity experiments suggest that this algorithm supports real-time applications.Entities:
Keywords: LOS; NLOS; extended Kalman filter (EKF); identification; mobile location
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22319373 PMCID: PMC3274025 DOI: 10.3390/s110201641
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Flow chart of the proposed algorithm with NLOS correction.
Performance comparisons among three algorithms under the different NLOS conditions.
| Error (m) | 67% | 95% | 67% | 95% | 67% | 95% |
| 3LOS, 0NLOS | 17.17 | 30.07 | 34.58 | 73.35 | 9.83 | 38.39 |
| 2LOS, 1NLOS | 32.76 | 63.96 | 105.8 | 221.1 | 309.2 | 375.1 |
| 1LOS, 2NLOS | 35.99 | 69.52 | 238.5 | 280.1 | 789.9 | 859.5 |
| 0LOS, 3NLOS | 37.37 | 76.58 | 301.9 | 315.9 | 828.5 | 916.3 |
Figure 2.Comparison of the RMSE when the three FNs are all in NLOS conditions.
Figure 3.Zoom of the range estimation by three algorithms during 60 seconds.
Figure 4.The estimated trajectories of the MN by three algorithms from a single realization.
Figure 5.The identification results of the LOS/NLOS hypothesis testing.
Computer running time of the three methods.
| Average Time(s) | 0.352 | 0.216 | 0.191 |
| Standard deviation(s) | 0.011 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
Figure 6.Impact of the number of NLOS FNs on the location accuracy in the good node geometry.
Figure 7.Impact of the number of NLOS FNs on the location accuracy in the bad node geometry.