Multi-node TOA-DOA cooperative LOS-NLOS localization : enabling high accuracy and reliability

This dissertation investigates high performance cooperative localization in wireless environments based on multi-node time-of-arrival (TOA) and direction-of-arrival (DOA) estimations in line-of-sight (LOS) and non-LOS (NLOS) scenarios. Here, two categories of nodes are assumed: base nodes (BNs) and target nodes (TNs). BNs are equipped with antenna arrays and capable of estimating TOA (range) and DOA (angle). TNs are equipped with Omni-directional antennas and communicate with BNs to allow BNs to localize TNs; thus, the proposed localization is maintained by BNs and TNs cooperation. First, a LOS localization method is proposed, which is based on semi-distributed multi-node TOA-DOA fusion. The proposed technique is applicable to mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs). We assume LOS is available between BNs and TNs. One BN is selected as the reference BN, and other nodes are localized in the coordinates of the reference BN. Each BN can localize TNs located in its coverage area independently. In addition, a TN might be localized by multiple BNs. High performance localization is attainable via multi-node TOA-DOA fusion. The complexity of the semi-distributed multi-node TOA-DOA fusion is low because the total computational load is distributed across all BNs. To evaluate the localization accuracy of the proposed method, we compare the proposed method with global positioning system (GPS) aided TOA (DOA) fusion, which are applicable to MANETs. The comparison criterion is the localization circular error probability (CEP). The results confirm that the proposed method is suitable for moderate scale MANETs, while GPS-aided TOA fusion is suitable for large scale MANETs. Usually, TOA and DOA of TNs are periodically estimated by BNs. Thus, Kalman filter (KF) is integrated with multi-node TOA-DOA fusion to further improve its performance. The integration of KF and multi-node TOA-DOA fusion is compared with extended-KF (EKF) when it is applied to multiple TOA-DOA estimations made by multiple BNs. The comparison depicts that it is stable (no divergence takes place) and its accuracy is slightly lower than that of the EKF, if the EKF converges. However, the EKF may diverge while the integration of KF and multi-node TOA-DOA fusion does not; thus, the reliability of the proposed method is higher. In addition, the computational complexity of the integration of KF and multi-node TOA-DOA fusion is much lower than that of EKF. In wireless environments, LOS might be obstructed. This degrades the localization reliability. Antenna arrays installed at each BN is incorporated to allow each BN to identify NLOS scenarios independently. Here, a single BN measures the phase difference across two antenna elements using a synchronized bi-receiver system, and maps it into wireless channel’s K-factor. The larger K is, the more likely the channel would be a LOS one. Next, the K-factor is incorporated to identify NLOS scenarios. The performance of this system is characterized in terms of probability of LOS and NLOS identification. The latency of the method is small. Finally, a multi-node NLOS identification and localization method is proposed to improve localization reliability. In this case, multiple BNs engage in the process of NLOS identification, shared reflectors determination and localization, and NLOS TN localization. In NLOS scenarios, when there are three or more shared reflectors, those reflectors are localized via DOA fusion, and then a TN is localized via TOA fusion based on the localization of shared reflectors.

Tracking a non-cooperative target using a Doppler radar wireless sensor network

Tracking or target localization is used in a wide range of important tasks from knowing when your flight will arrive to ensuring your mail is received on time. Tracking provides the location of resources enabling solutions to complex logistical problems. Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN) create new opportunities when applied to tracking, such as more flexible deployment and real-time information. When radar is used as the sensing element in a tracking WSN better results can be obtained; because radar has a comparatively larger range both in distance and angle to other sensors commonly used in WSNs. This allows for less nodes deployed covering larger areas, saving money. In this report I implement a tracking WSN platform similar to what was developed by Lim, Wang, and Terzis. This consists of several sensor nodes each with a radar, a sink node connected to a host PC, and a Matlab© program to fuse sensor data. I have re-implemented their experiment with my WSN platform for tracking a non-cooperative target to verify their results and also run simulations to compare. The results of these tests are discussed and some future improvements are proposed.

Comparison of the effects of inquiry-based cooperative learning and demonstrations in science education

The reported research project involved studying how teaching science using demonstrations, inquiry-based cooperative learning groups, or a combination of the two methods affected sixth grade students’ understanding of air pressure and density. Three different groups of students were each taught the two units using different teaching methods. Group one learned about the topics through both demonstrations and inquirybased cooperative learning, whereas group two only viewed demonstrations, and group three only participated in inquiry-based learning in cooperative learning groups. The study was designed to answer the following two questions: 1. Which teaching strategy works best for supporting student understanding of air pressure and density: demonstrations, inquirybased labs in cooperative learning groups, or a combination of the two? 2. And what effect does the time spent engaging in a particular learning experience (demonstrations or labs) have on student learning? Overall, the data did not provide sufficient evidence that one method of learning was more effective than the others. The results also suggested that spending more time on a unit does not necessarily equate to a better understanding of the concepts by the students. Implications for science instruction are discussed.