Open Access

The Effect of Cooperation on UWB-Based Positioning Systems Using Experimental Data

EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing20082008:513873

Received: 1 September 2007

Accepted: 21 December 2007

Published: 12 February 2008


Positioning systems based on ultrawide bandwidth (UWB) technology have been considered recently especially for indoor environments due to the property of UWB signals to resolve multipath and penetrate obstacles. However, line-of-sight (LoS) blockage and excess propagation delay affect ranging measurements thus drastically reducing the positioning accuracy. In this paper, we first characterize and derive models for the range estimation error and the excess delay based on measured data from real-ranging devices. These models are used in various multilateration algorithms to determine the position of the target. From measurements in a real indoor scenario, we investigate how the localization accuracy is affected by the number of beacons and by the availability of priori information about the environment and network geometry. We also examine the case where multiple targets cooperate by measuring ranges not only from the beacons but also from each other. An iterative multilateration algorithm that incorporates information gathered through cooperation is then proposed with the purpose of improving the position estimation accuracy. Using numerical results, we demonstrate the impact of cooperation on the positioning accuracy.

Publisher note

To access the full article, please see PDF.

Authors’ Affiliations

WiLAB, University of Bologna
ENDIF and WiLAB, University of Ferrara
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), Massachusetts Institute of Technology


© Davide Dardari et al. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.