| Literature DB >> 35808210 |
Lei Wei1, Jun Chen1, Yi Ding1, Fei Wang2, Jianjiang Zhou2.
Abstract
Since the passive sensor has the property that it does not radiate signals, the use of passive sensors for target tracking is beneficial to improve the low probability of intercept (LPI) performance of the combat platform. However, for the high-maneuvering targets, its motion mode is unknown in advance, so the passive target tracking algorithm using a fixed motion model or interactive multi-model cannot match the actual motion mode of the maneuvering target. In order to solve the problem of low tracking accuracy caused by the unknown motion model of high-maneuvering targets, this paper firstly proposes a state transition matrix update-based extended Kalman filter (STMU-EKF) passive tracking algorithm. In this algorithm, the multi-feature fusion-based trajectory clustering is proposed to estimate the target state, and the state transition matrix is updated according to the estimated value of the motion model and the observation value of multi-station passive sensors. On this basis, considering that only using passive sensors for target tracking cannot often meet the requirements of high target tracking accuracy, this paper introduces active radar for indirect radiation and proposes a multi-sensor collaborative management model based on trajectory clustering. The model performs the optimal allocation of active radar and passive sensors by judging the accumulated errors of the eigenvalue of the error covariance matrix and makes the decision to update the state transition matrix according to the magnitude of the fluctuation parameter of the error difference between the prediction value and the observation value. The simulation results verify that the proposed multi-sensor collaborative target tracking algorithm can effectively improve the high-maneuvering target tracking accuracy to satisfy the radar's LPI performance.Entities:
Keywords: high-maneuvering target; low probability of intercept; multi-feature fusion; multi-sensor management; trajectory clustering
Year: 2022 PMID: 35808210 PMCID: PMC9269250 DOI: 10.3390/s22134713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Flowchart of the STMU−EKF algorithm.
Figure 2Three station time difference positioning model.
Figure 3Multi-sensor collaborative management model based on trajectory clustering.
Figure 4Two−dimensional coordinate system trajectory diagram.
Two-dimensional coordinate system trajectory clustering results.
| Uniform Linear Motion | Coordinated Turning | Linear Motion+ Coordinated Turning | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trajectory mean | 83.3% | 83.3% | 100% |
| Trajectory length | 100% | 83.3% | 75% |
| Trajectory angle | 50% | 40% | 50% |
| Instantaneous speed | 83.3% | 100% | 75% |
| Average speed | 100% | 80% | 75% |
| Proposed multi-feature fusion-based OPTICS | 100% | 100% | 100% |
The comparison of trajectory clustering algorithms.
| Uniform Linear Motion | Coordinated Turning | Linear Motion + Coordinated Turning | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DBSCAN | 78% | 73% | 69% |
| DENCLUE | 83% | 80% | 74% |
| OPTICS | 92% | 90% | 87% |
| Proposed multi-feature fusion-based OPTICS | 98% | 94% | 92% |
Figure 5The target tracking trace of the three passive target tracking algorithms.
Figure 6The target tracking error of the three passive target tracking algorithms.
Figure 7The target tracking trace in the multi-sensor collaborative management model.
Figure 8The target tracking error in the multi-sensor collaborative management model.
Figure 9Radar radiation states of three algorithms.
Figure 10Radar radiation times of three algorithms in different motion states.
The comparison of accumulated error thresholds.
| Accumulated error threshold | 10.0 | 5.0 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.04 |
| Number of radar radiations | 5 | 8 | 13 | 18 | 27 |
| Mean estimation error/km | 1.3 | 0.83 | 0.21 | 0.073 | 0.048 |
The comparison of fluctuation parameter thresholds.
| Fluctuation parameter threshold | 7.0 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.1 |
| Number of radar radiations | 10 | 13 | 16 | 18 | 20 |
| Mean estimation error/km | 1.2 | 0.43 | 0.122 | 0.073 | 0.052 |