2022
DOI: 10.3390/mi13112018
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Robust Tracking Method for Multiple Moving Targets Based on Equivalent Magnetic Force

Abstract: A ferromagnetic vehicle, such as a submarine, magnetized by the Earth’s magnetic field produces a magnetic anomaly field, and the tracking of moving targets can be realized through real-time analysis of magnetic data. At present, there are few tracking methods based on magnetic field vectors and their gradient tensor. In this paper, the magnetic field vector and its gradient tensor are used to calculate equivalent magnetic force. It shows the direction of the vector between the detector and the tracking target… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The relative error of CGLS-IDP algorithm and CGLS-MCS algorithm is less than 0.02%, and the relative error of magnetic field extrapolation is less than 0.02%. (2) In the case of strong noise interference, the relative error of magnetic field fitting and magnetic field extrapolation of the CGLS-IDP algorithm and the CGLS-MCS algorithm is slightly larger than that of the Tikhonov algorithm (the difference is within 1.3%), which is significantly smaller than that of the stepwise regression method (the difference is more than 1.4%). The relative error of CGLS-IDP algorithm and CGLS-MCS algorithm in magnetic field fitting is less than 14%, and the relative error of magnetic field extrapolation is less than 10.5%.…”
Section: Comparative Analysis Of Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The relative error of CGLS-IDP algorithm and CGLS-MCS algorithm is less than 0.02%, and the relative error of magnetic field extrapolation is less than 0.02%. (2) In the case of strong noise interference, the relative error of magnetic field fitting and magnetic field extrapolation of the CGLS-IDP algorithm and the CGLS-MCS algorithm is slightly larger than that of the Tikhonov algorithm (the difference is within 1.3%), which is significantly smaller than that of the stepwise regression method (the difference is more than 1.4%). The relative error of CGLS-IDP algorithm and CGLS-MCS algorithm in magnetic field fitting is less than 14%, and the relative error of magnetic field extrapolation is less than 10.5%.…”
Section: Comparative Analysis Of Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…The relative error of magnetic field fitting and magnetic field extrapolation of CGLS-MCS algorithm are the same as that of CGLS-IDP algorithm. (2) The noise level is {10 −2 , 10 −1 , 2 × 10 −1 , 3 × 10 −1 , 5 × 10 −1 }, the relative error of the magnetic field fitting of CGLS-IDP algorithm and CGLS-MCS algorithm is the same, and the difference is within 0.2%.…”
Section: Comparative Analysis Of Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Therefore, the magnetic signatures of complex ferromagnetic objects can be obtained analytically, thus greatly simplifying the calculation process [5,6] . The equivalent source models used to model the magnetic field of ships include the single magnetic dipole model [7][8][9][10] , the magnetic monopole model [6] , the magnetic dipole array model [11] , the monoellipsoid model [4,12] , the ellipsoid array model, and the hybrid model of the ellipsoid and magnetic dipole array [13] . The single magnetic dipole model has few unknown parameters and small amount of calculation, which is suitable for far-field conditions, but it cannot accurately simulate the target magnetic field in the near field.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%