sensors

Article
Robust Time-Difference-of-Arrival (TDOA)
Localization Using Weighted Least Squares with
Cone Tangent Plane Constraint
Bonan Jin, Xiaosu Xu * ID
and Tao Zhang ID

Key Laboratory of Micro-Inertial Instrument and Advanced Navigation Technology, Ministry of Education,
School of Instrument Science and Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210096, China;
jinbonan@seu.edu.cn (B.J.); 101011356@seu.edu.cn (T.Z.)
* Correspondence: xxs@seu.edu.cn

Received: 17 January 2018; Accepted: 2 March 2018; Published: 4 March 2018

Abstract: Finding the position of a radiative source based on time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA)

measurements from spatially separated receivers has been widely applied in sonar, radar, mobile
communications and sensor networks. For the nonlinear model in the process of positioning,
Taylor series and other novel methods are proposed. The idea of cone constraint provides a new
way of solving this problem. However, these approaches do not always perform well and are
away from the Cramer-Rao-Lower-Bound (CRLB) in the situations when the source is set at the
array edge, the noise in measurement is loud, or the initial position is biased. This paper presents
a weighted-least-squares (WLS) algorithm with the cone tangent plane constraint for hyperbolic
positioning. The method adds the range between the source and the reference sensor as a dimension.
So, the space-range frame is established. Different from other cone theories, this paper sets the
reference sensor as the apex and finds the optimal source estimation on the cone. WLS is used for the
optimal result from the measurement plane equations, a vertical constraint and a cone constraint.
The cone constraint equation is linearized by a tangent plane. This method iterates through loops
and updates the tangent plane, which approximates the truth-value on the cone. The proposed
algorithm was simulated and verified under various conditions of different source positions and
noises. Besides, some state-of-the-art algorithms were compared in these simulations. The results
show that this algorithm is accurate and robust under poor external environment.

Keywords: cone; positioning; robust; Taylor; TDOA; WLS

1. Introduction
Location technology based on time of arrival is an important branch of passive location and
crucial in radar searching, underwater positioning, indoor positioning and other similar applications.
As an object-detection system, radar determines the range, angle, or velocity of objects by radio
waves. Radio waves (pulsed or continuous) from the transmitter reflect off the object and return
to the receiver, give information about the object’s location and speed [1]. It thus can be used to
detect aircraft, ships, spacecraft, guided missiles, motor vehicles, weather formations and terrain.
When an autonomous-underwater-vehicle (AUV) is executing a task in deep sea without GPS or
other radio signals, Long-base-line (LBL) acoustic positioning system is effective in AUV navigation.
LBL gathers distance information between the underwater objective and the seabed array element to
solve the target position. It can provide accurate positioning of an underwater vehicle within a local
area [2]. Indoor positioning also needs the support of this technology. Reference [3] presents an
ultrasonic-based indoor positioning (ICKON) system for indoor environments. It uses only ultrasonic
signals and calculates the position of the mobile platform at centimeter-level accuracy. Reference [4]

Sensors 2018, 18, 778; doi:10.3390/s18030778 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2018, 18, 778 2 of 16

considers the use of seismic sensors for footstep localization in indoor environments based on TDOA.
The position estimation error is only some tens of centimeters. In addition, the strategies of smartphone
localization and speaker localization are analogous to indoor positioning [5,6]. The technology is also
widely applied in radio navigation, such as the famous LORAN system and Gee system. When the
earthquake occurs, earthquake waves inside of radio signal and provides the TDOA measurements in
seismic source finding.
TDOA is one of the means of passive location. Two basic sensors (BSs) serves as the focus.
The difference between the distances of the two BSs to a source serves as the focal length, which makes
up a hyperbola. The intersection of two hyperbolas provides the source position. Compared to
time-of-arrival (TOA), TDOA localization does not need synchronization between the source and
receivers and are easy to implement [7,8]. It eliminates system errors to a certain extent, improves
location precision and performs with high accuracy in non-line-of-sight (NLOS) environments [9].
Solving nonlinear equations is a Gordian knot in TDOA localization due to a sum of squares of
coordinates and the range. Numerous methods have been introduced, validated and published in the
literature. The most used TDOA-based source-localization algorithms when LOS between receivers
and sources exist are summarized in [10].
Common closed-form solution includes Fang, SI, SX and Chan [11–13]. Fang uses an elimination
method to multivariate nonlinear equation into a quadratic equation and then solves unknowns one
by one. However, there may be no root or multiple roots in the quadratic equation. The problems of
computation and root are more serious in 3-D. In addition, the number of equations must equal to
the number of unknowns. Therefore, precision cannot be improving by comprehensively analyzing
the redundant information from more BSs. SI assumes the source’s coordinates x, y and the range r0
between the source and the reference sensor are independent of each other and then eliminates r0 .
It does not consider the geometrical relationship of the source coordinates and range. So, SI performs
well in distant but dissatisfactory in close. SX assumes known r0 and solves x, y in terms of r0 . And then
it uses r0 to find x, y. Since r0 is assumed constant in the first step, the degree of freedom to minimize
the second norm of ϕ is reduced. The solution obtained is, therefore, non-optimum [14]. Chan is
widely used with two features. One assumes x, y and r0 are independent and obtains the optimal
estimate by WLS. The other is a correction with increment square. However, there are some flaws
in the process. The first feature will lead to a contradiction among x, y and r0 especially in distant,
which affects the other relative values later. The second feature gets multi results after being square
rooted. The correction is uncorrelated with geometric equations, so it is hard to find a balance between
the result of correction and geometric solution. In addition, Chan proposes two approaches to solve
the problem in the different range. Nevertheless, the critical point is not specific.
The iterative method tends to be more accurate than the closed-form solution. It requires an initial
value to begin the process. The result is challenged by the initial value quality and the final convergence
effect. The Taylor estimator is such an effective method [15] but it suffers from local convergence [16].
Reference [17] offers a new and unifying perspective that includes the adoption of a multidimensional
reference frame obtained by adding the range difference coordinate to the spatial coordinates of the
source. Reference [18] proposed a localization approach through the fitting of propagation cones
(FoPC). It also constructed a space-range reference frame with range as the third axis. All of the
sensors in the array correspond to the points on the cone in this frame. The apex of the cone is the
source position. It transforms the hyperbolic localization into finding the optimal cone based on the
sensors for the source position. The optimal cone is from iterative updating using maximum likelihood
estimation. Reference [19] has done more research based on this idea.
Inspired by these perspectives, this study adds the range as a new coordinate to construct
a multidimensional reference frame, which consequently facilitates linearization of the surface problem
from the perspective of spatial geometry. Unlike [18], the reference sensor is set to be the cone’s apex
in this method. So, the apex and the cone are fixed, the source to be known is on the cone surface.
We use WLS to find the optimal source position. WLS is an optimal estimation of linear problems.
Sensors 2018, 18, 778 3 of 16

In this paper, besides the measurement planes in the basic mathematical model, WLS includes
a vertical plane constraint and a cone tangent plane constraint. The cone tangent plane constraints the
range-coordinates relationship instead of the cone in local approximation. The vertical constraint and
the cone tangent constraint are derived from the initial value and updated again after each iteration.
The result is close to the optimal solution on the cone by multiple WLS.
In the following sections, we will introduce the algorithm in detail and compared with Taylor
algorithm and FoPC proposed in [18] under different conditions. In some locations, Taylor and FoPC
may be divergent. The simulations section shows the characteristics comparisons of these methods.
It illustrates that the approach in this paper performs better than the state-of-the-art algorithms do.

2. Algorithm and Process

2.1. Problem Description

The source sends the signal X(t), N + 1 BSs receive N + 1 signals Yi (t), where i = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , N is
the number of BS, No. 0 BS is the reference. Usually, cross-correlating BS signal Yi (t) (i = 1, 2, 3 . . . N)
with BS0 signal Y0 (t) can get N cross-correlation functions Ri0 (τ) (i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N). After detecting
peaks on Ri0 (τ) and eliminating the interference from ambiguous peaks with prior information [20],
the signal time difference of arrival measurements τ i0 (i = 1, 2, 3 . . . N) between BSi to BS0 is found.
Set the source position as p = [x, y]T and No. i BS position is set as si = [xi , yi ]T (i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N).
The distance relationship (range ri and position p) between the source and BSi is

ri2 = ( x − xi )2 + (y − yi )2 , i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N. (1)

Especially, when i = 0, r0 is the range between the source and the reference sensor BS0

r02 = ( x − x0 )2 + (y − y0 )2 . (2)

In the LOS environment, we assume signal velocity constant c. Denote {*}ij = {*}i − {*}j , the range
difference ri0 is obtained,
ri0 = cτi0 = ri − r0 , i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N. (3)

The solution of each equation in Equation (3) is on the hyperbola of which si and s0 are the focal
points and ri0 is the focal length. The intersection of N hyperbola equations exists for p. The solution
of every two equations is the intersection of two hyperbolas (Figure 1). We need two equations for two
unknowns in the condition without errors. Fang gave an exact solution when the number of TDOA
measurements is equal to the number of unknowns. However, the hyperbolas may not always cross at
the true position because of errors in time difference measurements. The other intersections will bring
ambiguous results (Figure 1a). Thus, more than four BSs are needed to construct over three equations.
Though the multiple intersections do not coincide in the same place under error conditions, we can
get the optimal position with appropriate estimation (Figure 1b). Consequently, if in 3D hyperboloid
localization, the number of measurements is more than four according to five BSs or more.
From the equations above, ri 2 = (ri0 + r0 )2 , i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N. Equation (1) is rewritten as

ksi k2 + kpk2 − 2si T p = ri0 2 + 2ri0 r0 + r0 2 , i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , N, (4)

when i = 0, ri0 = 0. Thus

ks0 k2 + kpk2 − 2s0T p = r02 (5)

Subtract Equation (4) by (5), the hyperboloid equation is obtained

ksi k2 − ks0 k2 − 2si0 T p = ri0 2 + 2ri0 r0 , i = 1, 2, 3, . . . , N. (6)

Sensors 2018, 18, 778 4 of 16
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

Consideringthe
Considering thenoise
noiseinin real
real situations,
situations, τ i0τi0= =τ i0τ0i00++ϕϕi , i,ττ
00 is the
i0i0 is theTDOA
TDOAtruthtruthvalue,
value,φiφis
i is the
the
measurement
measurement error.
error. WeWe adjust
adjust Equation
Equation (6)(6)
andand write
write it in
it in a matrix
a matrix form
form as as follows:
follows:

x x
 
 
Ga  yGa 
 y=   hhaa +Φ (7)
(7)
 
a a

r0 r0 

where
where

s10 T r10s10 r10  K10 − rK 1010  r10  r1 ϕ1r11   rr11 00 · · · 0 0

T
    2    
2
      
 s20
 T r20s20 r20  ,  K201− rK
T
 
2020 r20  ,
2  2
 r2 ϕr22
 
2   00 rr22 · · · 0 0 
 ..Ga  .. , h a = 2 ha  2 ..
1 , Φ a =   c .  cB  , Ba 

Ga =  
  −ac
  = −cBaaσ, Ba =

 .. .. .. ..  (8)
(8)
 . .  .
 .
.  . . . . 

     


  
s N0 T rN0
sN 0T rN 0  K N0 − K N 0  rN 0  r N ϕrNN  N 
2
r N0 2
 00 00 · · · rNr N

ΦaΦa isis the

the error
error ignored
ignored higher-order
higher-order term term andand σσis isthetheTDOATDOA measurement
measurement error; and
error;
K i0 = Ki - K 0 , K i = ‖s i ‖ 2 = xi2 2+ yi2, 2i = 0, 21, 2, 3, …, N.
and Ki0 = Ki − K0 , Ki = ksi k = xi + yi , i = 0, 1, 2, 3, . . . , N.
The
The equations
equations are are linear
linear under
under thethe assumption
assumption that
that p and
p and r0 rare
0 are independent
independent ofof each
each other
other [13]
[13]
but the truth is not as such due to Equation (2). The Chan algorithm
but the truth is not as such due to Equation (2). The Chan algorithm calculates p and r0 with three calculates p and r 0 with three
independent
independent unknowns
unknowns andand corrects
corrects themthem with
with Equation
Equation (2).
(2). Thus,
Thus, anan inevitable
inevitable discrepancy
discrepancy exists
exists
between
between p and
p and r0 r. 0If
. Ifthis
thisdiscrepancy
discrepancyisiscorrected
correctedsimply
simplywithout
withoutpartiality,
partiality, then
then the
the result
result mustmustbebeinin
accord with Equation (2) but diverges away
accord with Equation (2) but diverges away from the optimal solution. from the optimal solution.

no error
with error

s2 p̂ s2
p0
r2 r2
r1
s3
r0 ambiguous r0
r1 s0 r1
p̂ result s0
s1 s1

(a) (b)
Figure 1. 2D hyperbolic localization (each color represents a couple of hyperbolas);
Figure 1. 2D hyperbolic localization (each color represents a couple of hyperbolas); (a) difference
(a) difference between ideal condition and reality; (b) multiple hyperbolas for the optimal position.
between ideal condition and reality; (b) multiple hyperbolas for the optimal position.

2.2.
2.2. Space-Range
Space-Range Frame
Frame
Reference [18] assumes that the z-axis represents the source-to-sensor range ri and the source
Reference [18] assumes that the z-axis represents the source-to-sensor range ri and the source
position is set as (xs, ys, 0) in the space-range frame. However, the range ri is unobtainable from
position is set as (xs , ys , 0) in the space-range frame. However, the range ri is unobtainable from TDOA
TDOA measurements because of non-synchronization, the coordinates of the sensors are hard to
measurements because of non-synchronization, the coordinates of the sensors are hard to define in this
define in this space. We suggested the reference sensor coordinates as (x0, y0, 0) and the z-axis as the
space. We suggested the reference sensor coordinates as (x0 , y0 , 0) and the z-axis as the TDOA vector.
TDOA vector. In this definition, the set of points that correspond to a given range lie on a circle that
In this definition, the set of points that correspond to a given range lie on a circle that expands as the
expands as the range increases, forming a cone whose apex is the actual location of the sourced, as
range increases, forming a cone whose apex is the actual location of the sourced, as Figure 2. Besides,
Figure 2. Besides, from Equation (1) we can see the cone’s angular aperture is 45° and all the
from Equation (1) we can see the cone’s angular aperture is 45◦ and all the corresponding points of
corresponding points of the sensors are located on this cone ideally. In fact, due to the errors, the
the sensors are located on this cone ideally. In fact, due to the errors, the sensors coordinated in the
sensors coordinated in the frame scatter near the real cone. Based on the TDOA measurements and
frame scatter near the real cone. Based on the TDOA measurements and the location of the sensors,
the location of the sensors, the FoPC uses maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE) to get the best cone,
the FoPC uses maximum-likelihood estimator (MLE) to get the best cone, thus obtaining the apex,
thus obtaining the apex, which is the source.
which is the source.
Instead of [18], we construct a frame and a cone according to Equation (2), where the z-axis
Instead of [18], we construct a frame and a cone according to Equation (2), where the z-axis
represents the source-to-reference-sensor range r0 and the apex of the cone is set as the reference
represents the source-to-reference-sensor range r0 and the apex of the cone is set as the reference
sensor (x0, y0, 0), as Figure 3. The source is thus located on this cone and marked z = (pT, r0)T. If the
location parameter of reference sensor is accurate, the domain (cone) where the source may be on is
 Sensors
Sensors 18,xx18,
2018,2018, FOR778PEER REVIEW 5 of 165 of 16
Sensors 2018, 18, FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

uniqueand
unique and independentof ofsystem
systemerror.
error.Equation
Equation(6) (6)isisalso
alsorepresented
representedas asaacluster
cluster of planesin in
sensor (xindependent
0 , y0 , 0), as Figure 3. The source is thus located on this cone and marked z = (p , r0 ) . If the
T of
T planes
the frame.
the frame. Ideally,
locationIdeally,
parameter there
there isis only
only one
of reference one intersection
sensorintersection
is accurate, onon these
the these planes,
domain planes, whichthe
which
(cone) where isis source
the source.
the source.
may be However,
However,
on is
taking
taking into
into and
unique account
account the measurement
the measurement
independent of system error. error,
error, the
the (6)
Equation planes
planes intersections
is alsointersections
represented as areare more than
moreof than
a cluster one,
planesone, only
in theonly
enveloping
enveloping aaspace
space
frame. Ideally, with
there
with thehighest
is only
the highest
one probability
intersection ofthe
on these
probability of thesource
planes,source
which position. According
is the source.
position. However,
According totaking
to theseinto
these planes,
planes,
the enveloped
account the space and
measurement the statistical
error, the characteristics
planes intersections of
arethe measurement
more than one,
the enveloped space and the statistical characteristics of the measurement error, there is a certain only error, there
enveloping is
a a certain
space
probability
probability distribution
with thedistribution
highest probabilityofof source
source locations
of the locations
source in the
position.
in the frame. Each
According
frame. Each
to these point
planes,
point onthe
on the cone also
enveloped
the cone also
space has aa
has
and the
possibilityof statistical
ofbeing
beingthe characteristics
thesource
sourceand of
andthe the measurement
thepoints
pointswhere error,
whereare there
arecloser is
closertoa certain
tothe probability
theenvelope
envelopeare distribution
aremore
morelikely of
likelythe
the
possibility
source
source. In locations
this idea, inwetheattempt
frame. Each to point
find onpoint
the the cone
on also
the has
conea possibility
surface of being
which may thebe
source
the and the with
source
source. In this idea, we attempt to find the point on the cone surface which may be the source with
points where
themaximum
maximum are closer to the envelope are more likely the source. In this idea, we attempt to find the
probability.
the probability.
point on the cone surface which may be the source with the maximum probability.

rri 0i 0

r20
pp r20
r30
r30 yy
r40
r10r10 r40 BS2
BS 2

  x0 0, y, y0 0,0,0 
T
BS1
BS BS0 x
BS
T
BS3
1
45 0 BS
xx
3
45
BS4
BS 4

Figure2.2.Localization
Figure
Figure Localization diagram
2. Localization diagram
diagram ofof
of FoPC algorithm
FoPCalgorithm
FoPC usingthe
algorithm using
using thespace-range
the space-range
space-range frame,
frame, as[18].
as in
frame, as in[18].
in [18].

rr00

f f r40
r40 
 f r
f  r3030 
zz
f f r20
r20 


45 yy f f r10r10 
45

BS0 x x0, y, y0,0,0T

T
BS 0  0 0 
xx

Figure
Figure A differentlocalization
3. different localization description
description with
withthe space-range frame.
Figure 3.3.AAdifferent localization description with the
the space-range
space-range frame.
frame.

2.3. Cone
2.3.Cone
Cone Tangent
Tangent Plane
Plane Constraint
Constraint
2.3. Tangent Plane Constraint
We
Wehope
hope hope
thatthat
thetheconeconeconstraint
constraintapplies applies toto WLS WLSas as
asthe
thecluster
clusterof of
planes
planesbutbut
it is not the case
We that the cone constraint applies to WLS the cluster of planes but ititisisnot
notthethecase
case
because the cone is nonlinear. Approximating the cone surface a plane locally, we can use WLS on the
becausethe
because the coneisisnonlinear.
nonlinear.Approximating
Approximatingthe thecone conesurface
surfaceaaplane planelocally,
locally,wewecan canuseuseWLSWLSon on
tangent cone
plane instead of the cone constraint in a region.
the tangent
the tangent plane instead of the cone constraint in a region.
Forplane instead
a given initialof the cone
position constraint
of source (xs , yin Ta region.
s )T , it is always on the cone and the tangent plane is
For
For a given
a giventhere. initial
initial position
positionwith of source
of source (xs, ys)
, ,ititisisalways
(xs, ys) equations, alwayson onthe
thecone
coneand andthe
the tangentplane plane is
of N +tangent
1 planes and is
T
determined Combined measurement there will be a cluster
determined
determined there.Combined
the new there.
position Combined
corrected can with
with measurement
measurement
be obtained by WLS. equations,
equations,
If the tangent there
there will
will
plane beaacluster
be
matches cluster
the trueof of NN++or11the
plane planes
planes
andthe
and thenew
gap new position
position
is small, correctediscan
corrected
the estimation can be
optimal. beobtained
obtained
Otherwise,bybyWLS. WLS.
the IfIfthe
result the tangentplane
is tangent
suboptimal plane matches
but matches
the gap isthethe trueplane
true
shrunken. plane
or the gap
or theRepeat
gap is is small,
thesmall,
operation the estimation
theseveral
estimation times this is optimal. Otherwise,
way, the estimation
is optimal. Otherwise, will the result
be result
the is
close toisthe suboptimal but
true locationbut
suboptimal the gap isis
the
eventually.gap
shrunken. Repeat
shrunken. Repeat the the operation
operation several several times times this this way,way, the the estimation
estimation will will be
be close
close toto the
the true
true
locationeventually.
location eventually.
For theinitial
For the initialposition
position(x (xs,s,yys,s,rrs)s)TTcontaining
containingthe therangerangeinformation,
information,such suchas asthe
theWLS
WLSanswer,
answer,itit
maydeviate
may deviatefrom fromthe thecone
conesurface
surfacedue dueto toerrors.
errors.See Seein inFigure
Figure4,4,the thetangent
tangentplaneplaneisisobtained
obtainedfrom from
the point
the point z’z’ located
locatedatat (x (xs,s,yys)s)T or
T or z’’
z’’ where
where isis closest
closestto tothe
the initial
initial point
point on onthe
the cone.
cone.Anyway,
Anyway,the the
 Sensors 2018, 18, 778 6 of 16
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

TheFor
tangent plane,
the initial whose
position , ys , rs )Tvector
(xsnormal passing
containing through
the range z and thesuch
information, r0 axis,
as theisWLS
identified
answer,as the
it may deviate from the cone surface due to errors. See in Figure 4, the tangent plane
local approximation of the cone [14] and viewed as the nearest place to z. As shown in Figure 4, the is obtained from
the point
normal vector z’ located at (xs , ys )T or z” where is closest to the initial point on the cone. Anyway, the result
az is available
is equivalent.
The tangent plane, whose 
az  normal  
 x0 , y0passing
xs , ys , rs vector  
, ps  s0 through
 rs  psTzand 
s0T , theps r0 saxis,
0
. is identified as the local (9)
approximation of the cone [14] and viewed as the nearest place to z. As shown in Figure 4, the normal
The tangent
vector plane is
az is available

az = ( xs , ys , rs ) − ( x0 , y0 , kps − s0 k + rs ) x= x0ps T − s0 T , −kps − s0 k .

 
(9)
 psT  s0T  ps  s0    y  y0   0 . (10)
The tangent plane is  
 r0 
 
h i x − x0
The intersection of the tangent
ps T − splane
0
T −kand
ps −the
s0 kcone
·  surface,

y − y0 line

= 0.L, is the area with the(10)highest
linear approximation. The position away from L on the tangent r0 plane is no longer suitable for the
cone equivalent. We set up a vertical plane through r0 axis and z, which intersects the tangent plane
The 5a.
at L, Figure intersection
It is alsooftaken
the tangent plane and
into account whenthedoing
cone surface, line L, constrains
WLS, which is the area with the highest from
the estimation
linear approximation. The position away from L
deviating from L. Without this plane, the estimation may fall into a singular point and for
on the tangent plane is no longer suitable thefail to
thus
cone equivalent. We set up a vertical plane through r0 axis and z, which intersects the tangent plane
converge. The vertical plane is
at L, Figure 5a. It is also taken into account when doing WLS, which constrains the estimation from
deviating from L. Without this plane, the estimation may x  fall into a singular point and thus fail to
converge. The vertical plane is  
 ys xs 0   y   
0. (11)
x
r  
h i
ys − xs 0 ·  0 y  = 0. (11)
r0
Figure 5b is the final plane cluster for WLS, z1 is the initial value and z2 is the result of one
Figure
correction. 5b is the with
Compared final plane
z1, z2 cluster for to
is closer the zcone
WLS, 1 is the initial
and its value
sum ofand z2 is square
mean the result of oneto the
errors
correction. Compared with z1 , z2 is closer to the cone and its sum of mean square errors to the cluster
cluster of measurement planes is modest.
of measurement planes is modest.

r0

ps  s0 +rs
a

z

rs z z  xs , ys , rs 
45

S0  x0 , y0 ,0  ps  s0

Normal vector
Figure4.4.Normal
Figure vectorlongitudinal
longitudinalsection.
section.
Sensors 2018, 18, 778 7 of 16
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

r0 r0
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

L
r0 r0 z2

L
z1 z1
z2
s0 y s0 y
z1 z1
x s0 y x s0 y
(a) (b)
Figurex5. Cone tangent plane constraint localization. (a)xThe cone tangent plane and vertical plane,
Figure 5. Cone tangent plane constraint localization. (a) The cone tangent plane and vertical plane,
(a)
(b) the correction with WLS. (b)
(b) the correction with WLS.
Figure 5. Cone tangent plane constraint localization. (a) The cone tangent plane and vertical plane,
2.4. The Weight of the Constraints
(b) the correction with WLS.
2.4. The Weight of the Constraints
The WLS method requires the exact weight of each linear equation to obtain the best estimate.
2.4.
TheThe
WLS Weight of the requires
method Constraintsthe exact weight of each linear equation to obtain the best estimate.
The weighted matrix of measurement plane clusters is obtained from Equation (8) [13].
The weighted
The WLS matrix of measurement
method requires the exact plane clusters
weight is obtained
of each from Equation
linear equation to obtain (8)
the [13].
best estimate.
The weighted matrix of measurement  measureplane
E a  a
T
clusters
  c 
2
Bis
a
 
obtained
Q B a
, Q  
fromT
, Equation (8) [13]. (12)
ψmeasure = E Φ a Φ a T T =2 c2 Ba · Q · Ba , TQ = σσ T , (12)
 measure  E  a a   c Ba  Q  Ba , Q   , (12)
where Ba is calculated by the initial position.
where Ba WLS
The
where isBcalculated
solutionbyisthe initial of
a point position.
a is calculated by the initial position.
weighted least distances to planes. The tangent and vertical
The The
weighted WLS WLSsolution
distances solutionis a
φvertical point
isand ofofare
φcone
a point weighted
defined
weighted least distances
shown intoto
as distances
least planes.
Figure
planes. 6. The
TheIn the tangent
tangent and and
range of ±θ,vertical
vertical it is
weighted
considered distances
weighted that the tangent
distancesφvertical and
φverticalplane
andφφand
cone
cone are
the defined
cone
defined as
surface
as shown
shownare in Figure
equivalent.
in Figure 6. 6.
In In
the the
rangerange
of of
±θ, ±
it is
θ, it is
considered that the tangent plane and the cone surface are equivalent.
considered that the tangent plane and the cone surface are equivalent.

Tangent plane
Tangent plane
Cone surface
Cone surface z2
z2 z1
z1

 vertical
 vertical
Vertical
Verticalplane
plane

 rr00
cone
 cone

Figure 6. The weight distance diagram of the constraints.

Figure
Figure The weight
6. The
6. weight distance
distance diagram
diagram of
of the
the constraints.
constraints.

φvertical and φcone are easily resolved

φvertical and
φvertical andφφcone are
cone areeasily
easilyresolved
resolved
vertical  r0 sin ,
vertical =
ϕvertical ,
 r0rsinsin
0 2 θ, (13)
1  cos  sin2  (13)
cone  r0 (1  cos )  r0  r20 θ 2 sin2 θ (13)
= r0 (1 − cos θ ) =1 r0cos 1+cos θ sin
2≈ r0 2
1−2 cos
ϕcone cos
cone  r0 (1  cos )  r0  r0
1  cos 2
whenwhen θ is small,
θ is small, the approximation
the approximation equation
equation is established.
is established. If θ is Iftooθ small,
is too itsmall,
affectsit the
affects the
convergence
convergence rate. If θ is too large, the equivalence of the cone and the tangent is poor. sinθ = 0.045
rate. If θ
when θ isistoo large,the
small, the equivalence
approximationof the cone andisthe
equation tangent is poor.
established. If θ sinθ = 0.045
is too is setitinaffects
small, this paper.
the
is set in
convergence
this paper.
rate. If θ is too large, the equivalence of the cone and the tangent is poor. sinθ = 0.045
is set in
this paper.
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16
Sensors 2018, 18, 778 8 of 16

Assumed the tangent plane and vertical plane independent each other and they are
independent with
Assumed themeasurement
tangent planeplanes. Thus,plane
and vertical the final covariance
independent matrix
each is and they are independent
other
with measurement planes. Thus, the final covariance matrix is
 measure 0 0 
 
ψmeasure
 0  cone0
2
0  0.
 
(14)
ψ=
  0 0 ϕ02 cone vertical  0
2
.

(14)
0 0 ϕ2 vertical

2.5.
2.5.Iteration
Iterationand
andFinal
FinalResult
Result
All
All the planes andweights
the planes and weightsare
areready
readyand
andthe
thefinal
finalweight
weight is
is now
now available.
available.
  x 
x 
G y  h  
Gb  b y  =b hb b+, Φb , (15)
(15)
r0r0 

where
where

s10 T  s10   K10  r10 2  2 

T
r10 r10
 
   K10 − r10
 s20 T  s20
T
r20 r20

  K20 Kr20 2 − r 2 
20 20
 a 
 
 
 
.. ..   Φ
 
.
 
a
..
 ,   , Φb .= 

.  .  , hhb =1 1 
 
GTb 
 
Gb =   ϕcone . (16)(16)
  
s T
s N0  N 0 r N0 rN 0  , b

2 2  N 0 K N0
K r 2
N 0 − r N0
 cone 
 b
 2
 T   
 
T   ϕ

h (ps − s0 ) ip −k s  ps −ps0ks
vertical
 2  ps2(sp0 s − s0 s0 ) s0 vertical 

T T
 s 0 0 
  
s
 
ys − xs  y  x  0 0   0
 s s   0 
Theoptimal
The optimalestimation
estimationisis

( x, y, r0x),Ty , =  
r0  GGb TbTψ−1G1bGb GbT G
T
 1  −1
1 T −1
hbb . ψ hb . (17)
(17)

The
Theoptimal
optimal point these planes
point of these planesisisobtained
obtainedbybyWLS WLS easily.
easily. TheThe result
result is closer
is closer to theto cone
the cone
after
after the correction
the correction several
several times.times. The position
The position resultresult
after after the correction
the correction is more
is more accurate
accurate thanofthat
than that the
of theestimation.
first first estimation.
It is ableItto is able toa construct
construct a more
more accurate coneaccurate
constraint.cone constraint.
Therefore, Therefore,canthe
the correction be
correction can be operated
operated repeatedly using the repeatedly using
result in the lastthe
stepresult in thetolast
according step according
the need. As Figure to 7, zthe
1 is need.
the As
initial
Figure
position.7, zz1 2isisthe
theinitial position.
estimation z2 the
after is the estimation
correction firstafter
timethe correction
and set as thefirst time
start for and set ascorrection.
the next the start
for the
z3 is thenext correction.
position z3 is twice
result after the position result
correction. Theafter twiceprocess
iterative correction. The iterative
will continue process
until the will
increment
continue until the increment from
from the correction is less than the threshold. the correction is less than the threshold.

z1

Cone constraint z2
first time
z2
second time
BS0 z3 z3
z(s) z(s)

Figure
Figure7.7.The
Theposition
positionchange
changeafter
aftertwice
twiceCone
Coneconstraint
constraintcorrection.
correction.

3. Performance Analysis
Sensors 2018, 18, 778 9 of 16
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16

In this section,
3. Performance some simulations were run for the performance of the cone constraint algorithm.
Analysis
Notice that the huge performance advantage of the iterative approaches over the closed-form
In this section, some simulations were run for the performance of the cone constraint algorithm.
algorithms such as Chan and SI. Therefore, the proposed algorithm is compared with Taylor and
Notice that the huge performance advantage of the iterative approaches over the closed-form
FoPC. In the FoPC, two methods, Jεa and Jεe, are proposed based on different cost functions [18].
algorithms such as Chan and SI. Therefore, the proposed algorithm is compared with Taylor and
Their differences are defined in Equations (18) to (21).
FoPC. In the FoPC, two methods, Jεa and Jεe, are proposed based on different cost functions [18].
Their differences are defined in Equations min to
Xˆ  arg(18)   arg min  T ,
J (21). k  k k  (18)
 
where X̂ = argmin( Jεk ) = argmin εk T εk , (18)
T
where  =  
h k  k ,0 k ,1
 k ,N  , i (19)
T
εk = ε k,0 ε k,1 · · · ε k,N , (19)
and the subscript k is replaced by a or e according to which error definition is adopted.
and the subscript k is replaced by a or e according to which error definition is adopted.
 e ,i   xi  x    yi  y    ri  r  ,
2 2 2
(20)
2 2 2
ε e,i = ( xi − x ) + (yi − y) − (ri − r ) , (20)
     
2 2
 a ,i  xi  x  yi  y  ri  r .
q (21)
ε a,i = ( xi − x )2 + (yi − y)2 − (ri − r ). (21)
We start introducing the metrics adopted for accuracy evaluation and then we describe the
We start
simulation introducing
setup. the metrics
The comparison adopted forisaccuracy
of robustness analyzedevaluation and then
in the second we Some
section. describeof the
the
simulation
factors, setup.affect
which The comparison
positioning ofperformance,
robustness is analyzed in the second
were simulated then. section.
The firstSome of the
is the factors,
accuracy
which affect
analysis when positioning
the sourceperformance, were simulated
at different locations. Another then. The first
is TDOA is the we
errors, accuracy
tested analysis when
the impact of
the source at different locations. Another
different degrees of noise on TDOA localization. is TDOA errors, we tested the impact of different degrees of
noise on TDOA localization.
3.1. Setup and Evaluation Metrics
3.1. Setup and Evaluation Metrics
As Figure 8, the setup used for simulations and experiments is as same as that of the single
As Figure 8, the setup used for simulations and experiments is as same as that of the single array
array simulation in [18]. The filled circles denote BSs, while crosses mark possible positions of the
simulation in [18]. The filled circles denote BSs, while crosses mark possible positions of the source.
source. In particular, the area covered by BSs in the simulations is a square of 4 m × 4 m. We assume
In particular, the area covered by BSs in the simulations is a square of 4 m × 4 m. We assume that BS
that BS locations are calibrated, i.e. their positions are not affected by errors.
locations are calibrated, i.e. their positions are not affected by errors.

BS3 x[m] BS0

2

0 y[m]

-2 BS1
BS2 -2 0 2

Figure 8. Setup of the source and BSs.

Figure 8. Setup of the source and BSs.

The time difference was simulated as truth added with Gaussian white noise. Considering that
a single
singletest
testis is
contingent,
contingent,the the
Monte CarloCarlo
Monte method was performed
method with various
was performed with inputs.
variousThe statistical
inputs. The
results of 200
statistical resultstestsofin200
each input
tests in condition
each input(location or (location
condition noise) were
or illustrated
noise) weretheillustrated
performance.the
performance. The accuracy of the localization algorithm is evaluated using the following metrics, they
are also used in [18] and we improve some definitions.
Sensors 2018, 18, 778 10 of 16

The accuracy
Sensors ofx the
2018, 18, FORlocalization
PEER REVIEW algorithm is evaluated using the following metrics, they are also used
10 of 16
in [18] and we improve some definitions.
Average
Average bias
bias ofof the
the localized
localized source
source is is
n n

   
1 1n 11 n
bxb2+ bbxy 2,bby x ,=bx ∑ ( x x− x̂xˆ ii ), bbyy = ∑ y (yyˆ −, ŷ ),
q
2 2
b= (22)
(22)
n i=n1i 1 n ni 1i=1 i i
where
where n isnthe
is number
the number of noisy
of noisy measurements
measurements tested
tested for each for each
source sourcex location,
location, x and
and y are the y are the
coordinates
ofcoordinates
the source, of x̂i the
andsource, xˆ i and
ŷi are their yˆ i are their
estimations basedestimations based on the
on the ith realization. ith is
This realization. This
the measure ofisthe
the
measure
average of the average
coordinates coordinates
distance betweendistance between
the estimated the estimated
source source
and the real one. and the real one.
Root-mean-square-error
Root-mean-square-error (RMSE)
(RMSE) onon the
the distance
distance is is

n
s
=RMSE ∑ ( x̂ix− i x) +
 x 2  yˆ (i ŷiy−

1 n1 h  ˆ 2 2
y)2

i
R (23)

R RMSE (23)
n i=n1 i 1 

where
where nn is is the
the number
number ofof noisy
noisy measurements
measurements tested
tested forfor each
each source
source location.
location.
All the geometries in Figure 8 are symmetrical. The reference
All the geometries in Figure 8 are symmetrical. The reference sensor sensor is located at (2,at2).(2,CRLB
is located 2).
provides
CRLB the theoretical
provides lower lower
the theoretical boundbound
on the on
variance of any unbiased
the variance estimator
of any unbiased [21]. It is[21].
estimator alsoItused
is
in the comparisons.
also used in the comparisons.

3.2.The
3.2. TheRobustness
Robustness
Thedrawback
The drawbackofofiterative
iterativealgorithm
algorithmisisthat thatthe
theresult
resultmay
maynot notconverge
convergeororfall fallinto
intothe
thelocal
local
minima.The
minima. Themain
mainfactor
factorisisthe
thepoor
poorquality
quality of of the
the noisy
noisy measurements. In In the
the following
followingsections,
sections,it
it will
will be
be found
found that in some cases cases the
the Jεa-based-FoPC
Jεa-based-FoPC and andTaylor
Tayloralgorithms
algorithmsconverge
convergeincorrectly,
incorrectly,
which
which affects
affects thethe statistical
statistical results
results ofof
thethe test.
test.
Figure
Figure 9 is
9 is thethe divergence
divergence times
times distribution
distribution of theof four
the four algorithms.
algorithms. The divergence
The divergence of Taylor
of Taylor and
and Jεa-based-FoPC
Jεa-based-FoPC were concurrent,
were concurrent, while thewhile the Jεe-based-FoPC
Jεe-based-FoPC and thisand this algorithm
algorithm both converged
both converged well in
allwell
the in all the
tests. tests.
Notice thatNotice
most that
of themost of the divergence
divergence occurs nearoccurs near the in
the crosshairs crosshairs
the array,inasthe array,
Figure 9a.as
OneFigure 9a. TDOA
of the One of measurements
the TDOA measurements
on these placeson these places
is close tois0,close
which to 0,
is which is more sensitive
more sensitive to errorsto
anderrors andsome
makes makes some singular.
matrix matrix singular. So, be
So, it may it may be related
related to the dissatisfactory
to the dissatisfactory robustness
robustness of the of
twothe
two algorithms.
algorithms. When the When the measurement
measurement error becomes
error becomes larger, as larger,
shown in as Figure
shown9b, in the
Figure 9b, the
divergence
divergence
becomes morebecomes
serious.more serious.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. The divergence times distribution of Taylor and Jεa-based-FoPC. (a) σ = 0.03 m, (b) σ = 0.1 m.
Figure 9. The divergence times distribution of Taylor and Jεa-based-FoPC. (a) σ = 0.03 m, (b) σ = 0.1 m.

The input conditions were recorded when the wrong convergence happened and we take a
partThe inputanomalies
of these conditionsto
were recorded
observe when
in this the wrong
section, convergence
as Table 1. happened and we take a part
of these anomalies to observe in this section, as Table 1.
Sensors 2018, 18, 778 11 of 16

Table 1. The condition records when the localization is the wrong convergent. Unit: m.

σ TDOA Measurements p Taylor 1 Jεa 1 Jεe 1 Proposed 1

−1.964 −1.964
−0.043 −2.49 −2.433 (−2, 0) divergent
−0.038 −0.032
(−0.2, −59.604 −34639 −0.216 −0.211
−0.576 −0.876 −0.307
−0.4) −102.87 −55.464 −0.408 −0.405
0.03 0.046 0.031
2.498 2.559 0.048 (0, 2) divergent
2.037 2.037
−2.701 70.879 0.609 0.606
0.312 1.155 0.857 (0.6, 0.2)
−2.343 53.347 0.218 0.21
1.974 1.974
0.012 2.46 2.449 (2, 0) divergent
0.009 0.007
σ TDOA Measurements p Taylor 1 Jεa 1 Jεe 1 Proposed 1
−25.682 −25.682 −1.201 −1.111
1.263 −0.226 −1.712 (−1, 1)
21.969 21.969 1.025 0.925
(0.2, 0.267 0.261
−0.63 −0.26 0.382 divergent
−0.4) −0.451 −0.449
15.973 15.931 1.092 0.998
0.1 −1.745 −0.115 −1.296 (1, −1)
−17.308 17.295 −1.183 −1.093
(−0.8, −0.704 −0.639
−1.194 −2.127 −0.972 divergent
−0.8) −0.867 −0.812
13.457 7.969 1.224 1.007
1.762 3.035 1.671 (1, 1.2)
14.409 9.726 1.304 1.082
1 Note: listed below are biases (bx by ) T , bx = x − x̂, by = y − ŷ.

Under the input condition of the first line in Table 1, the iteration experience of these algorithms
is shown in Figure 10a. The proposed approach and Jεe-based-FoPC have converged and stopped
correcting after three times. While Taylor and Jεa-based-FoPC were of divergence from the correction
beginning, the former was out of control and the latter was correcting in a wrong way.
Sensors 2018, 18, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

(a)

Figure 10. Cont.

Sensors 2018, 18, 778 12 of 16

(a)

(b)
Figure 10. The10.
Figure biases to thetotrue
The biases value
the true andand
value thethe
increment
incrementtotothe
the initial valueafter
initial value after
eacheach correction
correction in in the
the convergence process. (a) R = -0.043 m, R = −2.490 m, R = −2.433 m, p = (−2, 0) T, σ = 0.03Tm, (b)
convergence process. (a) R10 = −0.043 m, R20 = −2.490 m, R30 = −2.433 m, p = (−2, 0) , σ = 0.03 m,
10 20 30

R101.263
= 1.263
m,m,RR20 = −0.226 m, R30 = −1.712 m, p = (−1, 1)T, σ = 0.1 m.T
(b) R10 = 20 = −0.226 m, R30 = −1.712 m, p = (−1, 1) , σ = 0.1 m.

3.3. The Impact of the Source Position on Localization Accuracy

Under the input condition of the sixth line in Table 1, the iteration experience of these algorithms is
As above, the accuracy of TDOA localization is different when the localized source is in
shown in Figureplaces
different 10b. The proposed
inside the array.approach finished
If we exclude the correction
these singular results inafter threethe
statistics, betterJεe-based-FoPC
times, features
cost two times.andTaylor
of Taylor and Jεa-based-FoPC
Jεa-based-FoPC arise, as shown inseem to be converged, however, they failed into
Table 2.
wrong results.

3.3. The Impact of the Source Position on Localization Accuracy

As above, the accuracy of TDOA localization is different when the localized source is in different
places inside the array. If we exclude these singular results in statistics, the better features of Taylor
and Jεa-based-FoPC arise, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Average b and Rrmse for the four algorithms. Unit: m.

σ = 0.03 σ = 0.1
Algorithm
b Rrmse b Rrmse
Taylor 0.0025 0.0340 0.0103 0.1151
Jεa 0.0028 0.0355 0.0119 0.1191
Jεe 0.0031 0.0467 0.0120 0.1536
Proposed 0.0025 0.0359 0.0090 0.1189

In general, the localization accuracy is higher near the center of the array while it rapidly decreases
near the BSs, which is illustrated in the CRLB distribution and the simulation results consistently.
See in Figure 11.
 Jεa 0.0028 0.0355 0.0119 0.1191
Jεe 0.0031 0.0467 0.0120 0.1536
Proposed 0.0025 0.0359 0.0090 0.1189

In general, the localization accuracy is higher near the center of the array while it rapidly
Sensors 2018, 18, 778
decreases near the BSs, which is illustrated in the CRLB distribution and the simulation results13 of 16
consistently. See in Figure 11.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

FigureFigure 11. RMSE

11. RMSE distribution,σ σ==0.1
distribution, 0.1 m.
m. (a)
(a)CRLB,
CRLB,(b)
(b)Taylor,
Taylor,(c)(c)
Jεa-based-FoPC, (d) Jεe-based-FoPC,
Jεa-based-FoPC, (d) Jεe-based-FoPC,
(e) the proposed algorithm.
(e) the proposed algorithm.

Three trajectory lines are drawn through the array along y = 0, y = −0.8, y = −1.8 and the source
Three trajectory
localization lines are on
performance drawn through
these the array
lines are y = 0,the
alongusing
analyzed −0.8,algorithms.
y = four y = −1.8 and Atthe source
the
localization performance on these lines are analyzed using the four algorithms.
corresponding positions in Figure 9, the phenomenon of multiple divergences was expectedly At the corresponding
positions in Figure
presented and those9, thelocations
phenomenon of multiple
are marked divergences
with gray was
areas below. Theexpectedly presented
statistical results and those
excluding
the singular
locations value are
are marked shown
with grayinareas
Figure 12. The statistical results excluding the singular value are
below.
shown inIfFigure
converge
Sensors completely,
12.18,
2018, Taylor approximates to CRLB. The Jεa-based-FoPC is similar14toofTaylor
x FOR PEER REVIEW 16
ideally. In Figure 12, some local minimum convergences have not been completely eliminated in
statistics, whichBS3 affected the x[m]results on some
BS0 locations. The Jεe-based-FoPC and our method are
robust and 2correctly converged inside the array. However, the Jεe-based-FoPC accuracy somewhat
less than the others. In addition to robustness, the proposed algorithm is also close to CRLB as
Taylor on accuracy.

(b) y[m]
0

(c)

(d)
-2 BS1
BS2 -2 0 2

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 12. Figure

Profile 12.analysis,
Profile analysis, σ = 0.03
σ = 0.03 m, m,
thethenumber
number of
of simulations
simulationsis 2000. (a) Top(a)
is 2000. view,
Top(b)view,
y = 0, (b) y = 0,
(c) y = −0.8, (d) y = −1.8.
(c) y = −0.8, (d) y = −1.8.
3.4. The Impact of Measurement Noise on Localization Accuracy
Measurement noise are the other factors of the precision effect in TDOA localization. We
conducted 2000 statistical tests at location (0, 0) with TDOA errors, ranging from 0.002 m to 0.4 m.
The performance at location (0, 0) is best inside the array. The results are listed in Table 3. The
RMSE of these algorithms are almost at the same and is proportional to σ. Notice that the statistical
divergence times of Taylor and Jεa-based-FoPC also increase with TDOA errors, while the
 Sensors 2018, 18, 778 14 of 16

If converge completely, Taylor approximates to CRLB. The Jεa-based-FoPC is similar to Taylor

ideally. In Figure 12, some local minimum convergences have not been completely eliminated in
statistics, which affected the results on some locations. The Jεe-based-FoPC and our method are
robust and correctly converged inside the array. However, the Jεe-based-FoPC accuracy somewhat
less than the others. In addition to robustness, the proposed algorithm is also close to CRLB as Taylor
on accuracy.

3.4. The Impact of Measurement Noise on Localization Accuracy

Measurement noise are the other factors of the precision effect in TDOA localization.
We conducted 2000 statistical tests at location (0, 0) with TDOA errors, ranging from 0.002 m to
0.4 m. The performance at location (0, 0) is best inside the array. The results are listed in Table 3.
The RMSE of these algorithms are almost at the same and is proportional to σ. Notice that the statistical
divergence times of Taylor and Jεa-based-FoPC also increase with TDOA errors, while the divergence
never happens on Jεe-based-FoPC and the proposed algorithm at all.

Table 3. RMSE and the divergence times along the error changing, p = (0, 0)T .

σ (m) 0.002 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.3 0.4
RMSE (m) 0.002 0.010 0.020 0.040 0.070 0.109 0.160 0.221 0.299 0.392
Taylor 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 3 3 8
Jεa 0 0 0 0 2 1 4 3 4 9
Jεe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
proposed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 13 shows the simulation results under the same conditions at location (1.2, 0.8). Although
it can be concluded from Figure 9 that the convergence at location (1.2, 0.8) is better than others nearby,
the divergence
Sensors ofPEER
2018, 18, x FOR Taylor and Jεa-based-FoPC is up to 380 times at most. Moreover, the differences
REVIEW 15 of 16in
the anti-noise characteristics of the algorithms are evident in these cases. As we can see in Figure 13,
the algorithm
proposedwe proposed 0 is always
0 close0 to CRLB
0 without
0 divergence,
0 0it is robust
0 distinctly.
0 0

Figure
Figure13.
13.RMSE
RMSEand
andthe
thedivergence
divergencetimes
timesalong
alongthe
theerror
errorchanging,
changing,p p= =(1.2,
(1.2,0.8)
0.8). T .
T

4.4.
Conclusions
Conclusions
InInthis
this paper, we have
paper, we haveproposed
proposeda weighted
a weighted least
least squares
squares method
method solving
solving the hyperbolic
the hyperbolic passive
passive localization under the space-range frame. Unlike currently available cone-related
localization under the space-range frame. Unlike currently available cone-related ideas, this ideas, this
method
method uses cone tangent plane instead of cone surface locally and converts the nonlinear model
uses cone tangent plane instead of cone surface locally and converts the nonlinear model into a linear
into a linear
model. In model. In the
this way, this optimal
way, thesolution
optimal can
solution can be obtained
be obtained by WLS.by InWLS.
orderIntoorder to be robust,
be robust, we add
we add a vertical plane to constrain the estimations on the tangent without deviating from the cone.
As same as some state-of-the-art algorithms, the correction process may be repeated until
convergence to an optimal result. In theory, we resolve the weight value expressions of the two
constrained planes, which effectively controls the convergence as we expect. The problem with the
existing iterative algorithms is that they cannot achieve both precision and robustness at the same
Sensors 2018, 18, 778 15 of 16

a vertical plane to constrain the estimations on the tangent without deviating from the cone. As same
as some state-of-the-art algorithms, the correction process may be repeated until convergence to
an optimal result. In theory, we resolve the weight value expressions of the two constrained planes,
which effectively controls the convergence as we expect. The problem with the existing iterative
algorithms is that they cannot achieve both precision and robustness at the same time. The cone
tangent plane constraint algorithm provided a solution to this trouble in the paper.
We tested the performance of this algorithm and other analogs with a series of experiments.
In the experiment, we found that classical Taylor algorithm and Jεa-based-FoPC algorithm often
fail to converge under some conditions. High accuracy of these algorithms was observed through
the data post-processing, which masked the real performance of the algorithms. These defects do
not exist in this algorithm. Two cost functions proposed in FoPC have quite different properties.
Jεa-based-FoPC is accurate but poor robustness, while Jεe-based-FoPC is the opposite. Tests in different
locations illustrated the regional distribution of TDOA positioning accuracy; with the highest accuracy
at the center while the poorer accuracy at the corners. Finally, in the noise increasing simulations,
we observed the impact on positioning when the measurement error was great. Under these conditions,
Taylor and Jεa-based-FoPC might converge abnormally even in the center. This impact is evident
elsewhere and the differences in the performance of the algorithms are highlighted under loud noises.
Notice that the proposed algorithm is always close to CRLB. In these experiments, the proposed
algorithm has no risk of divergence and always guarantees the convergence and accuracy. It is also the
significance of the newly designed algorithm with cone tangent plane constraint.

Acknowledgments: This study is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 51375088, No. 61473085, No. 51775110).
Author Contributions: Bonan Jin: Design of the algorithm, conduct of the simulation and writing of the paper.
Xiaosu Xu: investigating and writing, reviewing and editing the manuscript. Tao Zhang: Scientific advising
and writing.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Zhou, L.J.; Zhu, W.Q.; Luo, J.Q. Direct positioning maximum likelihood estimator using TDOA and FDOA
for coherent short-pulse radar. IET Radar Sonar Navig. 2017, 11, 1505–1511. [CrossRef]
2. Zhang, T.; Chen, L.P.; Li, Y. AUV Underwater Positioning Algorithm Based on Interactive Assistance of SINS
and LBL. Sensors 2016, 16, 42. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Yayan, U.; Yucel, H.; Yazici, A. A Low Cost Ultrasonic Based Positioning System for the Indoor Navigation
of Mobile Robots. J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 2015, 78, 541–552. [CrossRef]
4. Bahroun, R.; Michel, O.; Frassati, F.; Carmona, M.; Lacoume, J.L. New algorithm for footstep localization
using seismic sensors in an indoor environment. J. Sound Vib. 2014, 333, 1046–1066. [CrossRef]
5. Filonenko, V.; Cullen, C.; Carswell, J.D. Indoor Positioning for Smartphones Using Asynchronous Ultrasound
Trilateration. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2013, 2, 598–620. [CrossRef]
6. Visalakshi1, R.; Dhanalakshmi1, P.; Palanivel1, S. Performance of speaker localization using microphone
array. Int. J. Speech Technol. 2016, 19, 467–483. [CrossRef]
7. Liang, Q.L.; Zhang, B.J.; Zhao, C.L. TDoA for Passive Localization: Underwater versus Terrestrial
Environment. IEEE Trans. Parallel Distrib. Syst. 2013, 24, 2100–2108. [CrossRef]
8. Eswara, C.D.; Sasibhushana, R.G. Unknown radio source localization based on a modified closed form
solution using TDOA measurement technique. In Proceedings of the the 4th ICRTCSE, Chennai, India,
29–30 April 2016.
9. Mauro, B.; Guido, D.A.; Paolo, V. TDOA positioning in NLOS scenarios by particle filtering. Wirel. Netw.
2012, 18, 579–589.
10. Li, X.; Deng, Z.D.; Rauchenstein, L.T.; Carlson, T.J. Contributed Review: Source-localization algorithms and
applications using time of arrival and time difference of arrival measurements. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 2016, 87,
921–960. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sensors 2018, 18, 778 16 of 16

11. Chan, Y.T.; Yau, H.; Hang, C.; Ching, P. Exact and Approximate Maximum Likelihood Localization
Algorithms. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2006, 55, 10–16. [CrossRef]
12. Wang, Z.J.; Yu, H.Y.; Hu, Y.P. Improved Chan algorithm based on maximum likelihood criterion.
Comput. Appl. Softw. 2014, 31, 240–243.
13. Chan, Y.T.; Ho, K.C. A simple and efficient estimator for hyperbolic location. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 1994,
42, 1905–1915. [CrossRef]
14. Ho, K.C. Bias reduction for an explicit solution of source localisation using TDOA. IEEE Trans. Signal Process.
2012, 60, 2101–2114. [CrossRef]
15. Fang, Z.; Ni, Y.D.; Liu, Y. New method of hybrid location based on least square and Taylor series expansion.
Comput. Eng. 2015, 41, 316–321.
16. Xu, B.; Qi, W.D.; Wei, L.; Liu, P. Turbo-TSWLS: Enhanced two-step weighted least squares estimator for
TDOA-based localization. Electron. Lett. 2012, 48, 1597–1598. [CrossRef]
17. Bestagini, P.; Compagnoni, M.; Antonacci, F.; Sarti, A.; Tubaro, S. TDOA-based acoustic source localization
in the space–range reference frame. Multidimens. Syst. Signal Process. 2014, 25, 337–359. [CrossRef]
18. Compagnoni, M.; Bestagini, P.; Antonacci, F.; Sarti, A.; Tubaro, S. Localization of Acoustic Sources through
the Fitting of Propagation Cones Using Multiple Independent Arrays. IEEE Trans. Audio Speech Lang. Process.
2012, 20, 1964–1975. [CrossRef]
19. Compagnoni, M.; Notari, R.; Antonacci, F.; Sarti, A. A comprehensive analysis of the geometry of TDOA
maps in localization problems. Inverse Probl. 2014, 30, 035004. [CrossRef]
20. Shi, H.L.; Zhang, H.; Wang, X.Q. A TDOA Technique with Super-Resolution Based on the Volume
Cross-Correlation Function. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 2016, 64, 5682–5695. [CrossRef]
21. Vankayalapati, N.; Kay, S.; Ding, Q. TDOA Based Direct Positioning Maximum Likelihood Estimator and
the Cramer-Rao Bound. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2014, 50, 1616–1635. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).