Sensor placement in active multistatic sonar networks

Craparo, Emily M.; Karataş, Mümtaz; Kühn, Tobias

doi:10.1002/nav.21746

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although we have only considered randomly-deployed multistatic networks in this paper, there also exist algorithms for optimally placing multistatic sensors, neglecting the blind zone (Craparo and Karatas 2015, Kuhn 2014, Hof 2015. One area for further research is on modification of these algorithms to account for the blind zone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Receivers and sources are denoted by ... and ., respectively. From Craparo and Karatas (2015). Under a definite range ("cookie cutter") sensor model, a target is detected if it lies within the detection region (Cassini oval) for some source and receiver, and otherwise it is not detected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various recent studies consider multistatic sonar network performance in the context of a definite range ("cookie cutter") sensor model in which a target is detected if it lies within the detection region for some source and receiver, and otherwise it is not detected (Craparo andKaratas 2015, Washburn and. These works consider targets and sensors that ex ist in the same 2-dimensional plane, although most results generalize to three dimensions with little difficulty.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluating the direct blast effect in multistatic sonar networks using Monte Carlo simulation

Karataş¹,

Craparo²

2015

2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multistatic sonar networks generalize traditional sonar networks by allowing sources and receivers to occupy different physical locations. Although there are many advantages to a multistatic approach, there are also additional analytic challenges. One such challenge involves the direct blast effect, which can cause targets to go undetected even if they are within the nominal detection range of a sonar network.Previous work has considered the problem of optimally provisioning and deploying a multi static sonar network while neglecting to consider the blind zone. In this paper, we conduct Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate the impact of the direct blast effect on the performance of such a network. We find that for large pulse lengths, the direct blast effect can significantly decrease the performance of a multistatic network. Moreover, the optimal deployment policy can differ substantially when the direct blast effect is taken into account.978-1-4673-9743-8/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the direct blast effect in multistatic sonar networks using Monte Carlo simulation

Karataş¹,

Craparo²

2015

2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of works in literature study the performance of bistatic and multistatic systems by using different techniques and approaches. Craparo et al (, ) and Craparo and Karatas () review several papers which address multistatic sonar localization, scheduling, and performance measurement problems. Among these studies, Washburn (), Karatas, Craparo, and Washburn () and Washburn and Karatas () consider a field of randomly deployed multistatic sensors and derive analytic formulas for approximating the coverage performance and cost effectiveness of the sonar network.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multistatic sonar networks also allow multiplatform operations such as an airplane that deploys passive sonobuoys while a surface ship or a dipping helicopter deploys active sonar. The main disadvantage of multistatic sonar/sonobuoy systems is the increased system complexity and unusual sensing zones arising from the transmission losses (Craparo, Fügenschuh, Hof, & Karatas, ; Craparo & Karatas, ; Craparo, Karatas, & Kuhn, ; Karatas & Craparo, ; Karatas, Gunal, & Craparo, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bistatic sonobuoy deployment strategies for detecting stationary and mobile underwater targets

Karataş

Craparo

Akman

2018

Naval Research Logistics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The problem of determining effective allocation schemes of underwater sensors for surveillance, search, detection, and tracking purposes is a fundamental research area in military operations research. Among the various sensor types, multistatic sonobuoy systems are a promising development in submerged target detection systems. These systems consist of sources (active sensors) and receivers (passive sensors), which need not be collocated. A multistatic sonobuoy system consisting of a single source and receiver is called a bistatic system. The sensing zone of this fundamental system is defined by Cassini ovals. The unique properties and unusual geometrical profile of these ovals distinguish the bistatic sensor allocation problem from conventional sonar placement problems. This study is aimed at supporting decision makers in making the best use of bistatic sonobuoys to detect stationary and mobile targets transiting through an area of interest. We use integral geometry and geometric probability concepts to derive analytic expressions for the optimal source and receiver separation distances to maximize the detection probability of a submerged target. We corroborate our analytic results using Monte Carlo simulation. Our approach constitutes a valuable "back of the envelope" method for the important and difficult problem of analyzing bistatic sonar performance.

show abstract

Rendezvous search with markers that can be dropped at chosen times

Leone

Alpern

2018

Naval Research Logistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Rendezvous search problem asks how two noncomunnicating players, who move at unit‐speed after a random placement in the search region (in this article, the line), can minimize their expected meeting time. Baston and Gal () solved a version where each player leaves a marker at his starting point, for example parachutes left after jumping into the search region. Here we consider that one or both players have markers which they can drop at chosen times. When the players are placed facing random directions at a distance D on the line the optimal expected meeting times R are known to be as follows: With no markers, R = 13D/8; with one each dropped at the start, R = 3D/2. Here we show that when only one player has a marker, but it can be dropped at any time, we still have R = 3D/2, obtained by dropping the marker at time D/4. Having both players drop markers at chosen times does not further reduce R. We adopt a new algorithmic approach which first fixes the dropping times and then reduces the resulting problem to a finite one. We also consider evanescent markers, which are detectable for a specified time T after being dropped, modeling pheromone scent markers used by some species in mate search or stain dropped by sailors. From a less theoretical and more practical point of view, we can see our problem as that faced by two hikers who get separated when they are walking not too far from a coast. A reasonable Rendezvous strategy is for each of them to head in the general direction of the coastline. On reaching the sea, they can calculate (based on their speed and time taken to reach to coast) the maximum distance along the coastline where the other one arrives. Then they can use our solution, taking that distance as our parameter D. Of course if it turns out that they reached the sea at points closer than D, their Rendezvous time will only be shorter. So our solution can be interpreted as a worst case expected meeting time. The marker might be a note scribbled on the sand, or a pile of rocks. Perhaps before getting separated they would have decided which roles (I or II) each would take up, being careful and cautious hikers. So in particular the hiker taking the role of the marker placer would put down a marker of some sort when he had walked along the coast one quarter the maximum distance to his partner. If the other finds it, he would know for sure the direction of the hiker who dropped it. Another thing to take away from this article is our result that says “two markers are not better than one.” This observation has some significance in the mate search context, where males and females use pheromone deposits to help find each other. In most species, it is only the females who can make such deposits, and the males can detect it. Giving both species the depositing facility would be more costly in terms of energy and, given our negative result, might not significantly reduce Rendezvous times. So in a speculative sense, our result has some explanatory value in this context.

show abstract

Sensor placement in active multistatic sonar networks

Cited by 30 publications

References 30 publications

Evaluating the direct blast effect in multistatic sonar networks using Monte Carlo simulation

Evaluating the direct blast effect in multistatic sonar networks using Monte Carlo simulation

Bistatic sonobuoy deployment strategies for detecting stationary and mobile underwater targets

Rendezvous search with markers that can be dropped at chosen times

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About