Sensors 2013, 13, 6636-6650; doi:10.

3390/s130506636
OPEN ACCESS

sensors
ISSN 1424-8220
www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors
Article

Radar Tracking with an Interacting Multiple Model and

Probabilistic Data Association Filter for Civil
Aviation Applications
Shau-Shiun Jan * and Yu-Chun Kao

Institute of Civil Aviation, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan;
E-Mail: [email protected]

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];

Tel.: +886-6-275-7575 (ext. 63629); Fax: +886-6-238-9940.

Received: 22 March 2013; in revised form: 14 May 2013 / Accepted: 15 May 2013 /
Published: 17 May 2013

Abstract: The current trend of the civil aviation technology is to modernize the legacy air
traffic control (ATC) system that is mainly supported by many ground based navigation
aids to be the new air traffic management (ATM) system that is enabled by global
positioning system (GPS) technology. Due to the low receiving power of GPS signal, it is a
major concern to aviation authorities that the operation of the ATM system might
experience service interruption when the GPS signal is jammed by either intentional or
unintentional radio-frequency interference. To maintain the normal operation of the ATM
system during the period of GPS outage, the use of the current radar system is proposed in
this paper. However, the tracking performance of the current radar system could not meet
the required performance of the ATM system, and an enhanced tracking algorithm, the
interacting multiple model and probabilistic data association filter (IMMPDAF), is
therefore developed to support the navigation and surveillance services of the ATM
system. The conventional radar tracking algorithm, the nearest neighbor Kalman filter
(NNKF), is used as the baseline to evaluate the proposed radar tracking algorithm, and the
real flight data is used to validate the IMMPDAF algorithm. As shown in the results, the
proposed IMMPDAF algorithm could enhance the tracking performance of the current
aviation radar system and meets the required performance of the new ATM system. Thus,
the current radar system with the IMMPDAF algorithm could be used as an alternative
system to continue aviation navigation and surveillance services of the ATM system during
GPS outage periods.
Sensors 2013, 13 6637

Keywords: radar; Kalman filter; interacting multiple model; probabilistic data association
filter; air traffic management

1. Introduction

According to the International Civil Aviation Organization’s plan, the current technology trend is to
develop and implement Communications, Navigation, Surveillance, and Air Traffic Management
(CNS/ATM) systems based on the Global Positioning System (GPS) to replace legacy Air Traffic
Control (ATC) systems based on ground-based radar [1]. The Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NextGen) will modernize the air traffic control system in the United States, and many of the
foundational elements required to meet the predicted capacity and efficiency improvements rely on
widespread use of precision Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) services provided by the
GPS [2]. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) needs to ensure a sufficient backup PNT
capability to reduce the risks of aviation users if GPS becomes unavailable. As described in the FAA
Flight Plan [2], the air traffic system of the future will be much more dependent on GPS. This strategic
goal will not be achievable without a NextGen Alternate PNT (APNT), especially in the event of a
GPS loss of service. The APNT program ensures alternate PNT services provided by the ATC system,
minimizes the economic impact of GPS outages, and supports air transportation’s timing needs. The
existing legacy navigation and surveillance infrastructure, i.e., VHF Omnidirectional radio Range
(VOR), Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), Non-Directional Beacon (NDB), and secondary radar,
may not achieve the desired level of performance for NextGen operation [3].
To improve ATC tracking performance, one solution is to upgrade the ATC radar beacon system.
However, this solution is expensive. A more cost-effective solution is to improve the ATC tracking
algorithms, which does not require the implementation of new radar facilities. The present study thus
proposes a radar tracking algorithm that meets the requirements of APNT systems. The major challenge
and difficulty for ATC tracking is tracking target maneuvering in a cluttered environment [4–7].
Bar-Shalom and Blom [4] introduce a tracking algorithm called the Interacting Multiple Model (IMM)
estimator, which provides tracking estimates with significant noise reduction and fast response to
sequences of aircraft maneuver modes [4,5]. However, the tracking of an aircraft in a cluttered
environment might be a challenge due to the several observations for a single aircraft under such
environment [6,7]. That is, some tracking measurements do not originate from the target aircraft.
Therefore, the present study utilizes the Probabilistic Data Association (PDA) filter [6,7] to assign
weights to the validated measurements. The PDA filter can extend the tracking capability to a highly
cluttered environment. In order to gain possible improvement on the tracking performance, this study
combines the IMM estimator and PDA filters to create an IMMPDA filter (IMMPDAF). Most studies
on radar tracking algorithms use simulated data for analysis. To further evaluate the IMMPDAF, this
study uses real flight radar data collected by the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA) of Taiwan. A
filter that uses the nearest neighbor method and the standard Kalman filter (NNKF) is commonly used
for radar tracking systems. Therefore, this paper compares the tracking performance of the IMMPDAF
and the NNKF in terms of positioning accuracy. Finally, the validation of the IMMPDAF under APNT
Sensors 2013, 13 6638

requirements is discussed. Due to the complexity of the IMMPDAF, this paper also conducts a
computational load study on the IMMPDAF and the NNKF.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the algorithms of the IMM
estimator and the PDA filter. Then, the IMM estimator and the PDA filter are integrated. The dynamic
model setting of the IMMPDAF for the ATC scenario is also discussed in Section 2. The
implementation of the IMMPDAF to a radar system is discussed in Section 3. The tracking
performance of the IMMPDAF is compared with that of the NNKF. In addition, the computation loads
of these filters are evaluated. Section 4 concludes this work.

2. IMMPDAF

2.1. IMM Estimator

The IMM estimator is a good candidate for a radar tracking system [4]. The IMM estimator
provides significant noise reduction and a fast response. Previous investigations have found that the
IMM estimator is a cost-effective technique for tracking a maneuvering target [4]. In the IMM
estimator, several Kalman filters are used in parallel. Each Kalman filter uses a different dynamic
model. The IMM estimator can be separated into four steps. In the first step, the state estimate and
covariance are mixed. These mixed estimates and covariances are the inputs of the Kalman filter. The
equations are:
pij ui ( k − 1)
U ij ( k − 1) = r
(1)
∑ p u ( k − 1)
l =1
lj l

r
X 0j ( k − 1) = ∑ X i+ ( k − 1) U ij ( k − 1) (2)
i =1

{ }
r
Pj0 ( k − 1) = ∑ U ij ( k − 1) Pi + ( k − 1) + ⎡⎣ X i+ ( k − 1) − X 0j ( k − 1) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣ X i+ ( k − 1) − X 0j ( k − 1) ⎤⎦
T
(3)
i =1

In Equations (1–3), the subscripts i, j, and l indicate different Kalman filters. There are up to r
different dynamic models of Kalman filter, the total number for ui, X0j , X+i , P0j and P+i is r, and the total
number for Uij and pij is r2. ui (k−1) represents the model probabilities in the previous time
(k−1). Since the initial model probabilities have little impacts on the results over time, they can be
conveniently chosen. In this study, the initial model probabilities are set to be rectangular functions. pij
is an element of the Markov transition matrix; there is probability pij that the target will transit from
model i to model j at each time step. Uij represents the conditional probability of the target in the j
model state, which transited from the i model state. According to [5], the IMM algorithm performance
is robust to the choice of transition matrix. X+i (k−1) and P+i (k−1) are the updated state and covariance,
respectively, from the Kalman filter in the previous time step (k−1). X0j (k−1) and P0j (k−1) are the
mixed state and the mixed covariance, respectively, for each Kalman filter as inputs at time k. Then,
the second step implements the multiple models of the Kalman filter:
Sensors 2013, 13 6639

⎧⎪ X −j ( k ) = F j ⋅ X 0j ( k − 1)
⎨ −
⎪⎩ Pj ( k ) = F j ⋅ Pj ( k − 1) ⋅ F j + Q j
0 T (4)

⎧ K = P − ( k ) ⋅ H T ( H ⋅ P − ( k ) ⋅ H T + R ) −1
⎪ j j j j j j j
⎪ +
⎨ X j ( k ) = X j ( k ) + K j ⋅ ( Z ( k ) − H j ⋅ X j ( k ))
− −
(5)
⎪
⎪ Pj+ ( k ) = ( I − K j ⋅ H j ) ⋅ Pj− ( k )
⎩
The details of Kalman filter can be found in [8]. In Equations (4,5) the subscript j indicates it is the j
th Kalman filter, and Equations (4,5) are applied for each Kalman filter. In Equation (4), Fj is the
dynamic model and Qj is the covariance of the process noise. X−j (k) and P−j (k) are the uncorrected
predicted state and covariance, respectively. In Equation (5), Hj is the observation matrix, Rj is the
covariance of the measurement noise, and Kj is the Kalman gain. Z(k) is the measurement at time k and
I is the identity matrix. X+j (k) and P+j (k) are the corrected predicted state and covariance, respectively.
In the third step, the updated model probabilities are calculated as:
⎧ S j ( k ) = H j ⋅ Pj− ( k ) ⋅ H j T + R j
⎪
⎪ y j ( k ) = Z ( k ) − H j ⋅ X j ( k )
−

⎪ d 2 k = y k T S k −1 y k
⎪ j ( ) j ( ) j ( ) j ( )
⎨ (6)
⎪ ⎡ −d ( k ) ⎤
2

exp ⎢ j ⎥
⎪ 2
⎪ Λ j (k ) = ⎣ ⎦
⎪ 2π × S j ( k )
⎩
u j ( k − 1) ⋅ Λ j ( k )
u j (k ) = r
(7)
∑ u ( k − 1) ⋅ Λ ( k )
i =1
j i

In Equation (6), the subscript j indicates it is the jth Kalman filter; exp[] means the exponential
operation and | | represents calculating the determinant of the matrix. The likelihood function Λj is the
probability density function of the estimated measurement Hj ·X−j (k), which is a normal distribution
with mean Z(k) and covariance Sj(k). In Equation (7), the subscripts i and j indicate different Kalman
filters. uj(k) represents the latest model probabilities at time k. In the last step, the corrected predicted
state X+j (k) and P+j (k) covariance from the Kalman filters are combined. The weighting factor is the
latest model probabilities uj(k):
r
X ( k ) = ∑ X +j ( k ) ⋅ u j ( k ) (8)
j =1

{ }
r
P ( k ) = ∑ u j ( k ) Pj+ ( k ) + ⎡⎣ X +j ( k ) − X ( k ) ⎤⎦ ⎡⎣ X +j ( k ) − X ( k ) ⎤⎦
T
(9)
j =1

X(k) and P(k) are the combinations of the system state and covariance from 1 to rth Kalman filters,
respectively. Using Equations (1–9), the IMM estimator calculates the system state and covariance
from time k−1 to k.
Sensors 2013, 13 6640

2.2 PDA Filter

The PDA filter is designed for tracking a target in a cluttered environment based on the Kalman
filter [6,7]. The PDA filter obtains an estimator which incorporates all the returning measurements that
might originate from the target of interest rather than select only one of them. The resulting estimator
sets a gate to determine whether the measurements are valid. The association probabilities of the target
being tracked for each validated measurement are then calculated. These probabilities are assigned to
all of the validated measurements with different weights. Next, the validated measurements are
combined with different weights based on location, and then the combined measurement is used to
update the state estimate of the target. The PDA filter can extend the tracking capability to a highly
cluttered environment.
The probabilities are used for weighting the correction and covariance in the PDA filter. The basic
assumptions and theories for the PDA filter can be found in [6,7]. Here, a brief introduction of its
functions and equations is given. Because the PDA filter is based on the Kalman filter, the first
equations are the same as those for the Kalman filter:
⎧ X j ( k ) = Fj ⋅ X j ( k − 1)
− +

⎪⎪
⎨ zˆ j ( k ) = H j ⋅ X −j ( k ) (10)
⎪ −
⎪⎩ Pj ( k ) = Fj ⋅ Pj ( k − 1) ⋅ Fj + Q j
+ T

Similarly, the first step is to predict the system state and covariance. In Equation (10), the subscript j
indicates it is the jth PDA filter, X+j (k−1) is the calculated state at time k−1, F is the dynamic model,
and X−j (k) is the predicted state at time k . H is the observation matrix and zˆ j ( k ) is the predicted
measurement at time k. P+j (k−1) is the calculated covariance at time k−1 and Qj is the process noise
covariance. The second step is to determine which measurements can be used to update the state and
covariance:
⎧⎪ Z i j ( k ) = zi ( k ) − zˆ j ( k )
⎨ (11)
⎪⎩ S j ( k ) = H j ⋅ Pj ( k ) ⋅ H j + R j
− T

Zij ( k ) ⋅ S j ( k ) ⋅ Zij ( k ) ≤ γ
T
(12)

The main purpose of Equation (11) and (12) is to validate the measurements by Chi-Square test, and
it includes all the measurements returned by all the radars. In Equation (11), the total number of
measurements is unknown; the subscript i indicates it is the ith measurement. Zji is the innovation of ith
measurement for jth PDA filter, zi(k) is the ith measurement at time k and R is the covariance of the
measurement noise. Equation (12) is the validation equation. γ is the threshold corresponding to the
gate probability. γ can be obtained from Chi-Square tables for a chosen gate probability. Once the ith
measurement passes the Chi-Square test in Equation (12), it can be utilized in the rest of the PDA
filter. Then, the association probabilities of each validated measurement are calculated as:
Sensors 2013, 13 6641

⎧ V ( k ) = ( 4π 3) ⋅ γ 3 2 ⋅ S ( k )
⎪⎪ j j

⎨ N ⎡ zi ( k ) ; zˆ j ( k ) ; S j ( k ) ⎤⎦ ⋅ PD (13)
⎪ Lij ( k ) = ⎣
⎪⎩ m Vj (k )

⎧ Lij ( k )
⎪ , i = 1," m
∑ ( )
m j
⎪1 − P ⋅ P + L k
βi j ( k ) = ⎨
D G n =1 n
(14)
⎪ 1 − PD ⋅ PG
,i = 0
⎪ 1 − P ⋅ P + m Lj ( k )
⎩ D G ∑ n =1 n

In Equation (13), the subscript j indicates it is the jth PDA filter, V(k) is the volume of the validation
region, m is number of total validation measurements, and N ⎡⎣ zi ( k ) ; zˆ ( k ) ; S ( k ) ⎤⎦ represents the normal
distribution, centered at ẑ ( k ) with variance S(k). Lji is the likelihood of the ith measurement for jth PDA
filter, βji is the associated probability of the ith measurement for jth PDA filter. In Equations (13) and
(14), PD and PG are the target detection probability and the gate probability, respectively. βi(k) is the
association probability of the validated measurements. Note that β0(k) is the probability that all
measurements are not valid [7]. The suggested values of PD and PG can be found in [5]. PD is required
to be larger than 90% for primary surveillance radar sensor and 98% for secondary surveillance radar
sensor. PG is the probability that the true measurement from the target is detected and validated; and
PG is usually chosen to be at least 95%. If PG is set too low, the gate γ will be too small that no
measurement can pass the validation and it could be end up losing track. If PG is set too high on the
other hand, the gate γ will be too large that causes too much false alarms (i.e., not true measurement
from the target) and reduction on the accuracy [5]. The last step is to update the system state and
covariance. In this step, only the validated measurements and their association probabilities are used:
⎧ m

⎪ v j ( k ) = ∑ βi j ⋅ Zi j ( k )
⎪ i =1

⎪⎪ W j ( k ) = Pj ( k ) ⋅ H j ⋅ S j ( k )
− T −1

⎨ (15)
Pj′′( k ) = Pj ( k ) − W j ( k ) ⋅ S j ( k ) ⋅ W j ( k )
− T
⎪
⎪
⎪ Pj′′′( k ) = W j ( k ) ⋅ ⎡ ∑ β i j ⋅ Z i j ( k ) ⋅ Z i j ( k )T − v j ( k ) ⋅ v j ( k )T ⎤ ⋅ W j ( k )T
m

⎪⎩ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ i =1 ⎦

⎧⎪ X j (k ) = X j (k ) + Wj (k ) ⋅ v j (k )
+ −

⎨ + (16)
⎪⎩ Pj ( k ) = β 0 ⋅ Pj ( k ) + (1 − β 0 ) ⋅ Pj′′( k ) + Pj′′′( k )
−
j j

In Equations (15,16), the subscript j indicates it is the jth PDA filter, v(k) is combined innovation;
W(k) is Kalman gain; P′′(k) and P′′′(k) are the covariances of state updated. In Equation (16), X+(k) and
P+(k) are the calculated system state and covariance, respectively at time k. The propagation of the
PDA filter is shown in Equations (10–16).
Sensors 2013, 13 6642

2.3. IMMPDA Filter

The IMM estimator and PDA filter can be combined as shown in Figure 1. The Kalman filters in
the IMM estimator are replaced by the PDA filters. At the top, Equations (1–3) are implemented to
deal with the data from the previous epoch. Then, the PDA filters [Equations (10–16)] use the data
from Equations (1–3) as the initial values and generate the calculated states and covariances. The next
step is to use Equations (6,7) to obtain the latest model probabilities. The last step is to utilize
Equations (8,9) to combine the states and covariances with different weights, which are related to the
latest model probabilities. The combinations of states and covariances, X(k) and P(k) are the outputs of
the IMMPDAF. In Figure 1, the IMMPDAF has three different models of PDA filter. The number of
models depends on the number of dynamic motions of the target. In this paper, the tracking target is a
commercial airline aircraft. The selection of suitable motion models for an ATC system is discussed in
the next section.

Figure 1. Flow chart of the IMMPDAF with three models.

Sensors 2013, 13 6643

2.4. Tuning of IMMPDAF

As described above, the IMMPDAF can be considered as a modification of the Kalman filter. The
Kalman filter is tuned by changing the process noise covariance Q matrices and the measurement noise
covariance R matrices. The matrices Q and R adjust the Kalman gain. The R matrices represent the
accuracy of the measurement device; larger R matrices mean that the measurements can be trusted less. In
most practical situations, matrices Q and R are unknowns. In this paper, a run-time estimate method [9] is
used to obtain the measurement noise covariance R. The adaptive measurement noise covariance is
estimated in Equation (17). v(n)is the innovation in time epoch n, obtained from Equation (15); and
vavg(k) is average innovation value from time 1 to time k:
⎧ k

⎪ ∑ v j (n)
⎪ vj (k ) =
avg n =1
⎪ k
⎨ k (17)
⎪
∑
T
j ( k ) ⎦ ⎣ v j ( n) − v j ( k ) ⎦
⎡⎣v j (n) − v avg ⎤⎡ avg
⎤
⎪
⎪Rj ( k ) =
n =1

⎩ k
From the conclusions of [9], the run-time estimate method can handle changes of measurement
noise covariance, and converge faster than that of a standard Kalman filter.

2.5. Dynamic Models of Commercial Airline Aircraft

The key to successful target tracking is selecting suitable dynamic models that fit the target
motion [10,11]. Ideally, each motion should have a correct dynamic model. In an ATC scenario, the
motions of commercial airline aircraft can be summarized as ascent, descent, en-route, turning, and
change of speed. These motions can be described as three basic dynamics: constant velocity motion,
accelerated motion, and turning motion [11,12]. Following [11–15] and our previous work [16], this study
uses the constant velocity model, the acceleration model, and the turning rate estimator model,
respectively given in Equations (18–20), respectively, for the IMMPDAF. For ATC radar tracking, the
measurement is the target 3-dimensional position (x, y, z) of the tracking target in WGS-84 coordinates. In
Equations (18–20), X is the system state, x, y, z are the positions, x, y , z are the velocities, and ω is the
turning rate. F represents the dynamic model and t is the time interval. Generally speaking, the time epoch
is close to 5 seconds. Q is the covariance of process noise and σ is zero-mean Gaussian white noise. The σ
value is tuned by experience and testing, and the value is related to the measurement noise covariance:
⎧ ⎡ x⎤
⎪ ⎢ y⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎢z⎥ ⎡ I 3 tI 3 ⎤
⎪X = ⎢ ⎥, F = ⎢ ⎥,
⎪ ⎢ x ⎥ ⎣ 0 I3 ⎦
⎪ ⎢ y ⎥
⎨ (18)
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎣ z ⎦
⎪ ⎡t2 ⎤
⎪ ⎢ 2 I3 0 ⎥ σ
⎪ Q =
⎢ ⎥
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ 0 tI 3 ⎥⎦
Sensors 2013, 13 6644

⎧ ⎡ x⎤
⎪ ⎢ y⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎢z⎥ ⎡ I 3 tI 3 ⎤
⎪X = ⎢ ⎥, F = ⎢ ⎥,
⎪ x
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ 0 I 3 ⎦
⎪⎪ ⎢ y ⎥
⎨ ⎢ ⎥ (19)
⎪ ⎣ z ⎦
⎪
⎪ ⎡ t3 t2 ⎤
⎪ ⎢ 3 3 2 I3 ⎥
I
⎪ Q=⎢ 2 ⎥σ
⎪ ⎢ t ⎥
⎢ I 3 tI 3 ⎥
⎪⎩ ⎣2 ⎦

⎧ ⎡ −ωt 2 ⎤
⎪ ⎢1 0 0 t
2
0 0⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎡x⎤ ⎢ ωt 2 ⎥
⎪ ⎢ y⎥ ⎢0 1 0
2
t 0 0⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎢z⎥ ⎢0 0 1 0 0 t 0⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ X = ⎢ x ⎥ , F = ⎢0 ⎛ ω 2t 2 ⎞ ⎥ ,
0 0 ⎜ 1 − ⎟ −ω t 0 0
⎪ ⎢ y ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎢ z ⎥ ⎢ ⎛ ω 2t 2 ⎞ ⎥
⎪ ⎢0 0 0 ωt ⎜1 − ⎟ 0 0⎥
⎢ω ⎥ ⎝ 2 ⎠
⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎢0 0 0 0 0 1 0⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎣0 0 0 0 0 0 1⎦
⎪⎪ ⎡t4 t3 ⎤
⎨ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥ (20)
⎪ ⎢4 2 ⎥
⎪ ⎢ t4 t3 ⎥
⎪ ⎢0 4
0 0
2
0 0 ⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎢ t4 t3 ⎥
⎪ ⎢0 0
4
0 0
2
0 ⎥
⎪ ⎢ 3 ⎥
⎪ Q=⎢
t
⎪ 0 0 t2 0 0 0 ⎥σ
⎢2 ⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎢0 t3
⎪ 0 0 t2 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎢0 t3
0 0 0 t2 0 ⎥
⎪ ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
⎪ ⎢0 t σω ⎥
2
0 0 0 0 0
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ σ ⎥⎦

3. Experimental Results and Discussion

The experiment data are from the CAA of Taiwan. The data formats include radar data (ASTERIX
AC048) and ADS-B (ASTERIX AC021). The radar data were recorded from local time 12:00:00
Sensors 2013, 13 6645

midnight on 28 March 2012. Hundreds of commercial airline aircraft were tracked and recorded. Two
cases are used here to investigate whether the performance of the IMMPDAF significantly varies in the
area surrounding Taiwan. The first case target was from east head to Taiwan and the second case target
flight away from Taiwan to north. The radar data was processed using the IMMPDAF and the NNKF.
The ADS-B data have the target ‘Callsign’ and GPS calculated positions; these were set as the initial
values of the two methods and regarded as the true positions. As described in the previous section
IMMPDAF includes three filters of different dynamic models shown in Equations (18–20). The
parameters of initial model probabilities and transition matrix are shown in Equation (21). The initial
values of model probabilities have minor effect on the performance, and the IMMPDAF is very robust
to the choice of transition matrix. Since the values set for PD is 0.9 and PG is 0.999, and the degree of
freedom is 3, the gate threshold obtained from Chi-square table is approximately 16.
⎧uinitial = [1 3 1 3 1 3]
⎪
⎪ ⎡0.8 0.1 0.1⎤
⎨ ⎢ ⎥ (21)
⎪ p = ⎢ 0.1 0.8 0.1⎥
⎪ ⎢⎣ 0.1 0.1 0.8⎥⎦
⎩
The performance requirements for APNT can be found in [17]. The minimum performance
requirements for APNT are shown in Table 1. The FAA categorized the airspace into several zones [17].
En-route is the airspace at flight level (FL) 180 to FL 600 (18,000 to 60,000 feet). Terminal is the
airspace starting at 500 feet above the ground and extending out to 5 statute miles from the airport; it
then goes up at a 2-degree angle to FL 180. Under 500 feet, the APNT system needs to support the
LNAV/non-precision approach. Accuracy (95%) is defined as the errors in the horizontal 95% under
the accuracy requirement. That is, according to a normal distribution, 95% of error (error mean + 2
standard deviations) has to be under the accuracy requirement.

Table 1. Required performance for APNT.

Navigation Surveillance
Accuracy (95%) Separation NACp
En-route 10 nmi 5 nmi 0.1 nmi
4 nmi
2 nmi
Terminal 1 nmi 3 nmi 0.05 nmi
LNAV 0.3 nmi
3.1. Case 1

In Figure 2, the target heads to Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport (IATA: TPE, ICAO: RCTP)
from east to west. The interval between epochs is 5 s. Note that a lot of surveillance radar systems have
a scan time of close to 5 s. For example, ASR-12 surveillance radar has a scan time of 4 to 6 seconds.
The tracking performance is shown in Figure 3. In case 1, the target starting at en-route airspace, so the
accuracy requirement begins from 2 nmi. As shown in Figure 3, the NNKF experiences the instability at
the beginning and the IMMPDAF performs more stable. The reason of the difference is the strategy to
deal with the low quality measurements. While the NNKF just chooses to trust one of the
Sensors 2013, 13 6646

measurements and updates, the IMMPDAF gives all the validated measurements weightings and
updates with all of them. From Figure 3, the tracking performance of both the IMMPDAF and the
NNKF meets the accuracy requirement. The IMMPDAF outperforms the NNKF, as shown in Table 2.
The legends for Figures 3 to 5 are illustrated below.

Figure 2. Flight path for case 1 (target heading toward Taiwan).

Case 1
25.5

25

24.5

24
Latitude

23.5

23

22.5

22 Taiwan
Target course
21.5
119 120 121 122 123 124
Longitude

Figure 3. Performance of IMMPDAF and NNKF for Case 1.

Case 1
2.5

2
Error in Horizontal (nmi)

1.5

1
IMMPDAF error mean + 2 standard deviations
2
IMMPDAF error
0.5 1.5
NNKF error mean + 2 standard deviations
1
NNKF error
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0.5
Epoch (5 s) Accuracy requirement

3.2. Case 2

In Case 2, the target takes off from Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport and flies northeast as
depicted in Figure 4. The tracking performance is shown in the upper plot of Figure 5, and the bottom
plot of Figure 5 is the zoom-in plot of the upper one which shows the tracking performance for the
LNAV/non-precision approach region. Note that the NNKF results initially exceed the accuracy
requirement of APNT whereas the IMMPDAF results remain under the accuracy requirement. That is,
Sensors 2013, 13 6647

the NNKF method does not meet the accuracy requirement (95%) in this case. As a result, the
IMMPDAF outperforms the NNKF.

Figure 4. Flight path for Case 2 (target flying away from Taiwan).
Case 2
28

27

26

25
Latitude

24

23

Taiwan
22 Target Course

21
119 120 121 122 123 124
Longitude

Figure 5. Performance of IMMPDAF and NNKF for Case 2.

Case 2 Case 2
2.5 0.5

0.45
2 0.4
Error in Horizontal (nmi)
Error in Horizontal (nmi)

0.35
1.5 0.3

0.25
1 0.2

0.15
0.5 0.1

0.05
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 1 2 3 4 5 6
Epoch (5 s) Epoch (5 s)

The mean accuracies of the horizontal positioning are summarized in Table 2. The IMMPDAF
outperforms the NNKF for all tested cases. In comparison to the use of the NNKF, the average
improvement on the positioning (tracking) performance gained from the proposed IMMPDAF is about
50%. The overall mean accuracies of the horizontal positioning are also listed in Table 2.
Sensors 2013, 13 6648

Table 2. Overall mean accuracies of the horizontal positioning for IMMPDAF and NNKF.
Accuracy (95%) IMMPDAF NNKF
CASES 1 0.311 nmi 0.921 nmi
CASES 2 0.397 nmi 0.582 nmi
AVERAGE 0.354 nmi 0.751 nmi

3.3. Computation Load

For all the experiments, the computations were performed in MATLAB (R2008a). A PC with an
Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 2.93-GHz CPU and 2 GB of RAM was used. The computation performance
was measured using a MATLAB function. The computation performance results are listed in Table 3.
The values are total seconds that running a case needed. Each test runs 10 times and to obtain the
average result. The average result is shown that both algorithms in the single target ATC radar tracking
scenario are below the radar scan time an epoch (5 seconds).Without coding optimization, the
IMMPDAF requires about nine times than that of the NNKF.

Table 3. Computation performance of IMMPDAF and NNKF for Cases 1 to 2. Lower

values are better.
Cost Time (s) IMMPDAF NNKF
CASE 1 19.754 s 2.249 s
CASE 2 25.110 s 2.734 s
AVERAGE 22.432 s 2.491 s

4. Conclusions

This paper presented a filter based on the Interacting Multiple Model (IMM) estimator and the
Probabilistic Data Association (PDA) filter, and this filter is thus called IMMPDAF, which was
applied to the radar tracking system. The real flight radar data was used to evaluate the tracking
performance of the IMMPDAF, and the conventional Nearest Neighbor Kalman Filter (NNKF) was
used as the baseline to show the performance gained from the proposed filter. Experimental results
show that the tracking performance of the IMMPDAF is better than that of the NNKF. In one test case
(i.e., Case 2), the IMMPDAF meets the accuracy requirement of the Alternate Positioning, Navigation,
and Timing (APNT), but the NNKF results exceeded the APNT accuracy requirement for some
periods of time. Although the computation load of the IMMPDAF is nine times that of the NNKF, the
IMMPDAF is still suitable for ATC radar since processing time of each epoch is below the radar scan
time (5 s). The proposed IMMPDAF gained about 50% improvement on tacking performance than that
of the NNKF. Importantly, the radar tracking with the proposed IMMPDAF met the performance
requirements of the APNT. That is, the current radar with the proposed IMMPDAF is capable to
provide the navigation and surveillance services for the Air Traffic Management (ATM) system during
periods of GPS outages.
Sensors 2013, 13 6649

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Science Council in Taiwan under research grant NSC
101-2628-E-006-013-MY3, and the real flight radar data is provided by Taiwan Civil Aeronautics
Administration. Authors gratefully acknowledge the support. This paper is an extension of work
presented at the Institute of Navigation GNSS 2012 Conference, Nashville, TN, USA, 17–21
September 2012 [18].

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Global Air Navigation Plan for CNS/ATM Systems, 2nd ed.; International Civil Aviation
Organization: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2002.
2. NextGen Implementation Plan; Federal Aviation Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
3. Concept of Operations for NextGen Alternative Positioning, Navigation, and Timing; Federal
Aviation Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
4. Blom, H.A.P.; Bar-Shalom, Y. The interacting multiple model algorithm for systems with
Markovian switching coefficients. IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr. 1988, 33, 780–783.
5. Blackman, S.S.; Popoli, R. Design and Analysis of Modern Tracking Systems; Artech House:
Boston, MA, USA, 1999.
6. Bar-Shalom, Y.; Tse, E. Tracking in a cluttered environment with probabilistic data association.
Automatica 1975, 11, 451–460.
7. Bar-Shalom, Y.; Daum, F.; Huang, J. The Probabilistic Data Association Filter-Estimation In the
Presence of Measurement Origin Uncertainty. IEEE Contr. Syst. Mag. 2009, 29, 82–100.
8. Welch, G.; Bishop, G. An Introduction to Kalman Filter; Department of Computer Science
University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill, NC, USA, 2006.
9. Kang, J.G.; You, B.J. A Run-time Estimate Method of Measurement Error Variance for Kalman
Estimator. In Proceedings of the 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human
interactive Communication, RO-MAN 2007, Jeju, Korea, 26–29 August 2007; pp. 157–162.
10. Li, X.R.; Jilkov, V.P. A survey of maneuvering target tracking: Dynamic models. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 2000, 39, 1333–1364
11. Li, X.R.; Bar-Shalom, Y. Design of an interacting multiple model algorithm for tracking in air
traffic control systems. In Proceedings of the 32nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control,
San Antonio, TX, USA, 15–17 December 1993.
12. Bar-Shalom, Y.; Li, X.R.; Kirubarajan, T. Estimation with Applications to Tracking and
Navigation; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 466–476.
13. Singer, R.A. Estimating optimal tracking filter performance for manned maneuvering targets.
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 1970, AES-6, 473–483.
14. Fitzgerald, R.F. Simple tracking Filters: steady state filtering and smoothing performance.
IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 1980, AES-16, 860–864.
Sensors 2013, 13 6650

15. Dufour, F.; Mariton, M. Tracking a 3D maneuvering target with passive sensors. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 1991, 27, 725–739.
16. Kao, Y.C.; Jan, S.S. Validation of Interacting Multiple Model Estimator Implementation for
Radar Tracking System. In Proceedings of IGNSS Symposium 2011, Sydney, Australia, 15–17
November 2011.
17. Narins, M.; Eldredge, L.; Enge, P.; Harrison, M.; Kenagy, R.; Lo, S. Alternative Position,
Navigation, and Timing—The Need for Robust Radionavigation. In Proceedings of the Royal
Institute of Navigation NAV10 Conference, London, UK, 30 November–2 December 2010.
18. Kao, Y.C.; Jan, S.S. Interacting Multiple Model and Probabilistic Data Association Filter on
Radar Tracking for ATM System. In Proceedings of ION GNSS 2012, Nashville, TN, USA,
17–21 September 2012.

© 2013 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 license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).