An approach for Optimum Transmitter Selection

for Passive Radar

Nenad Stefanovi, Ivan Pokrajac, Predrag Okiljevi and Nadica Kozi

Abstract Passive air surveillance recently has drawn

increased attention, as solutions for many issues became more
feasible. In the essence, passive radar does not have its own
transmitters, but uses illuminators of opportunity such as widely
spread base stations (BS) of mobile communication systems or
digital video broadcasting-terrestrial (DVB-T) transmitters. To
start design of passive radar receiver, one must begin with
calculating its requirements for potential usage. One of the basic
requirements is range or coverage performance of radar on
specific territory. In this work we use results from real
measurements of BS in national cellular network and generated
data from digitized topographic maps to set a scenario for
finding the best relations between transmitters of opportunity
and selected receiver location as a step of radar system design.
The propagation model we use here is ITU-R 1546 and signal-todirect interference ratio (SIR) as key parameter for coverage
evaluation.
Index Terms passive bistatic radar; ovals of Cassini; direct
path interference, propagation factor.

I. INTRODUCTION
Although the idea of passive radar dates from the first
quarter of the 20th century, overall performance of such
system was too poor to compete with classic ones. Emerging
wireless communication waveforms and signal processing
power in latest decade pushed forward the idea of passive
radar, again. The term passive radar or passive coherent
location (PCL) denotes system that, unlike conventional
radars, does not have its own transmitter but uses available
radio-signal sources in the area of deployment, often called
illuminators of opportunity. This system can be multistatic (or
netted), referring to system with more than one transmitter
and/or receiver and bistatic, when there is only one transmitter
and one receiver involved [1].
Other term, coherent, implies from the principle of the
receiver itself it captures the reference signal from
transmitter, compares it to, or correlates it with the target echo
signal, making receiver to be coherent. The essence of its
Nenad Stefanovi Department for electronic and electro-mechanic
systems , TOI aak, Dr. Dragie Miovia 167, 32000 aak, Serbia (email; nenad.stefanovic@vs.rs).
Ivan Pokrajac Department for electronic system MTI, Ratka Resanovia
1, 11030 Belgrade, Serbia (e-mail: ivan.pokrajac@vs.rs).
Predrag Okiljevi Department for electronic system MTI, Ratka
Resanovia
1,
11030
Belgrade,
Serbia
(e-mail:
predrag.okiljevic@mod.gov.rs).
Nadica Kozi - Department for electronic system MTI, Ratka Resanovia
1, 11030 Belgrade, Serbia (e-mail: nadica.kozic@gmail.com).

operation is matched filter and ambiguity function on its

output.
After a variety of work that observes radar performance
simulation [2], [3] and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
systems, not relevant to the location and target tracking [4],
[5], [6], only few of them evaluates PCL performance taking
account signal propagation effects [7], [8]. Although
ambiguity function is very important for a good resolution and
range precision of PCL receiver, here we use basic radar
equation which, transformed to range expression, give
contours of constant values, known as ovals of Cassini.
Through this work we tested behavioral passive radar
performance scenarios with low radar cross-section (RCS)
targets and interference that mostly comes by direct path from
selected real base station (BS) transmitter. Considering basic
bistatic configuration, we derive appropriate expresson to
apply ITU-R 1546 propagation model providing
corresponding coverage maps and hence visualize radar
performance. Observed performance prediction included
propagation effects in calculation. The results reported here
relate to bistatic case, but it can be further used also for the
dynamic selection in multistatic scenario.

II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

A. Bistatic geometry
Basic configuration setup of passive bistatic radar (PBR)
can be represented as bistatic triangle, Fig. 1. The transmitter
and receiver are separated by a baseline L, RT stands for range
from transmitter to target, and RR range from receiver to
target. Bistatic angle is formed at the target. There are
essentially three parameters that the bistatic receiver may
measure [9]: the difference in range (RT + RR - L) between the
direct signal and the transmitter-target-receiver path, the angle
of arrival R of the received echo signal, and the Doppler shift
fD of the received echo signal.
If the distance L is known, bistatic range (RT+RR) can be
extracted from the measured quantity (RT + RR - L). Hence,
after measuring angle of arrival R, range of the target from
the receiver may be found from

RR

RT RR 2 L2

2( RT RR L sin R )

(1)

If the transmitter and receiver are stationary, and the target

is moving, then the Doppler shift fD on the received echo can

be calculated by:

fd

cos cos / 2.

ratio because the latter can cause serious errors in the range
calculation, especially in some ill-defined (and generally
unmeasurable) bandwidths.

(2)

Here, presents target velocity, signals wavelength and

angle of the velocity vector, with respect to the bisector of the
bistatic angle .

Fig. 1. Bistatic Radar Geometry: velocity vector with bisector of bistatic

angle forms angle . Constant values of bistatic range (RT+RR) define an
ellipse with the transmitter and receiver at the two foci.

It is worth mentioning here the radial velocity Vb, which is

the target velocity vector component along the bistatic sector
[10], or projection of the velocity vector on bistatic bisector

Vb

v cos .

To start a radar system design, basic approach is through

radar equation. The objective of the radar equation is to
calculate the maximum range at which the desired detection
performance can be achieved, for a specified set of
transmitter, target, receiver and environmental parameters
[11]. When deriving radar range equation, one has to express
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the receiver as a function of
range. In case of PBR receiver, it is required to have two
receiving channels: reference and surveillance, which is
shown on the Fig. 2.
Reference channel processes reception of the direct signal
from the transmitter and from observing region on dedicated
low-noise digital receiver. The role of surveillance channel is
to accept incoming echo signal from target(s), preprocess it
and cross-correlate it with the reference signal. The main
sources of disturbations at the receivers surveillance channel
come from thermal noise and direct interference signal from
transmitter that interferes with useful one direct path
interference (DPI). Therefore, instead of SNR, it is more
accurate to talk about signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio
(SNIR). In quantitive way, disturbations that come from
thermal noise are significantly lower than those coming from
DPI, so that, for calculating coverage maps we can use
approximation that SNIR SIR [12]. Hence, it is useful to
distinguish between signal to noise energy instead of power

Fig. 2. General PBR processing block diagram: reference signal is used for
filtering captured echo signal from target as for cross-correlation with it to
extract desired information (RT+RR-L), R and fD.

B. Radar Equation
In order to provide coverage maps, let define that
SIR

W
.
WD

(3)

where W denote the energy of the target echo signal and WD

the energy of direct path signal, both at the receivers
surveillance channel. If we denote the energy of transmitted
isotropic signal with Wt, then the energy density at the target
is
Wt
(4)
W
.
4RT2
For transmitting antenna with a gain Gt, we have

Wt Gt
.
4RT2

(5)

After reflection from a target with a radar cross section ,

the energy density WR at the receiver input is

WR

Wt Gt
.
(4 ) 2 RT2 RR2

(6)

The radar receiving antenna captures this energy with

effective aperture Ar as

W WR Ar .
Using that, receiving antenna gain GR is
GR

4Ar

(8)

Wt Pavt f .

(8)

where Pav is average transmitting power and tf is coherent

processing interval. Reference [11] reminds that L.V. Blake
introduced pattern-propagation factors Ft and Fr for
transmitter-target and, target-receiver paths, detectability
factor D(n) and bandwidth correction factor Cb finally having
Pavt f Gt G R 2 Ft 2 Fr2
(4 ) 3 RT2 R R2 D(n)Cb

(9)

In the baseline direction, generally we have transmitter

antenna gain GtD and receiving antenna gain GRD, so for
received DPI energy, we can write

WD

Pavt f GtD G RD 2 Fa2

(4 ) 2 L2 D(n)Cb

(10)

Replacing (9) and (10) in (3) and after some rearranging,

we get
SIR

Ft 2 Fr2 L2 Gt G R
.
4RT2 R R2 Fa2 GtD G RD

(11)

It is useful to put here a comment on pattern-propagation

factor F. It is defined as the ratio of the amplitude of the
electric field E at a given point under specified conditions, to
the amplitude of the electric field under free-space conditions
Efs with the beam of the transmitter directed toward the point
in question:
F

E
.
E fs

(12)

Pattern-propagation factor describes in sort of quantitive

way the effects of reflection, refraction and other real
conditions in radio propagation of the signal, and it is
connected with path loss LP as
F2

L B
LT L R

(14)

or, to express in dB:

and coherent transmitting energy is

SIR

(7)

4R 2
.
LP G

(13)

where G stands for summary gain of the system. Puting (13)

in (11), we formulate the final expression for our simulation

SIR(dB) (dBsm) LB (dB) LT (dB) LR (dB).

(15)

here LB , LT and LR presents baseline, transmitter-target and

target-receiver path losses, respectively. Next section uses
(15) to calculate SIR matrix with respect to system parameters
included.
III. SIMULATION SETUP
For the purpose of simulation, we used Data Fusion
Matlab code developed in Military Technical Institute.
Among other things, it uses recommendation ITU-R 1546 to
calculate level of electrical field in chosen point of digitized
large-scale detailed topographic map. Heights matrix is placed
in separate file and it is used to form terrain profile between
transmitter and receiver. After choosing desired map file, next
step is to place the transmitter and receiver positions. It can be
done with a large-scale precision, as is presented on Fig. 3.
In the Data Fusion simulator, different kind of maps, raster
or vector types can be imported. For this work, georeferenced
raster maps in the PNG (Portable Network Graphics) format
has been used. Working with that type of map, beside row
picture, require the additional data, like georeferenced points
(location), scale, rotation of the map and optionally height
data matrix. All of these additional data are contained in the
additional files, and for this scenario PNGW (world file) and
ASC (Arc/INFO ASCII Grid file for height data) file format
types have been used. All maps are drawn in layers container,
which is good approach when you need to work with different
types of data, i.e. data coming from different type of sensors
we draw in the different layers over the main layer (which
contain only map). Because of memory efficient work with
big data files (maps), low-level optimized routines are only
used.
In this scenario, digitalized raster topographic map with
scale 1:50.000 (1 millimeter on the map is 50 meters on the
real terrain) are used. Using the PNG map file format (which
use lossless picture compression) allows to use large zoom
scale when we need to do visualization check of simulation
results (off course, for limited zoom scale only, but larger
values in compare to JPG and similar picture file formats).
Calculated electrical field E is up-bounded with its
maximum value that is equal to Efs and consequently
dependent on range [13]. Basic transmission loss LPL in dB is
given by
LPL 139 E 20 log f

(16)

where f represents signals frequency. Equation (16) is used to

calculate path loss elements in (15). Value of E in (16) is in
dBV/m for 1kW effective radiated power, so it was

necessary to do appropriate corrections for other values of

transmitter power and antenna gain.

Fig. 3. Receiver deployment region. Large-scale detailed topographic map

allows placing transmitter and receiver with a high precision. It was
previously digitized to provide necessary data files with coordinates and
heights.

Target altitude is set to 1600m which is representative for

many UAVs with small RCS. When used as transmitter or
receiver, target altitude was recalculated to appropriate height
of the antenna mast by subtracting terrain height (above sea
level) from this altitude.
The last element in (15), target cross-section , without
deeper analysis was set to 1,2 m2, which corresponds to about
1 dBsm (dB referenced to square meter). Although this value
varies with many other factors like frequency, signal
polarization, absorbing material, etc., we found it the easiest
way to represent small targets like missiles, drones, UAVs or
for example a man.
The example of RCS variation nature with frequency
change, is presented in Table I. In this work, presented value
of radar cross section is used as a lower bound of fluctuations
a value that is exceeded some specified (a large) fraction of
time. This procedure has advantage of simplicity [14].
TABLE I
MEASURED RADAR CROSS-SECTIONS OF A MAN

FREQUENCY (MHz)
410
1120
2890
4800
9375

(m2)
0,033-2,33
0,098-0,997
0,14-1,05
0,368-1,88
0,495-1,22

Next step was to determine transmitter parameters. It was

done through real measurements of BS in the field. As
references we took measurement results from several
locations shown on Fig. 4.
The results are summarized in Table II, where h presents
height of transmitting antenna mast. We use omnidirectional
antenna at the transmitter site, which have the same gain in all
directions.

Fig. 4. Locations of BS on topography map used for simulation setup. The

terrain is middle-hilly, without large water surfaces and far from urban zones.

TABLE II
SUMMARIZED PARAMETERS OF TRANSMITTERS
f (MHz)

Tr1
900

Tr2
900

Tr3
900

Tr4
900

Tr5
900

Tr6
900

Pt (W)

439

760

195

346

195

439

h (m)

19

18

32

22

18

30

Gt (dB)

15

14,3

14,8

16,5

17

14,5

IV. RESULTS
We start our analysis by placing receiver inside of triangle
that form Tr1, Tr2 and Tr3, beside the road in the area of Fig.
3. Its coordinates on generated map (in meters) are
X=7534684,7816 and Y=4766666,1912 so it can be
recognized on following figures. Generated terrain profiles are
depicted on Fig. 5.
Simulation (calculated for 2m height of receiver antenna,
securing covert feathure) of separate bistatic configurations
one-by-one provide corresponding coverage maps, as depicted
in Fig.6.
Displayed coverage presents selected map with different
values of SIR. Color bar beside makes reading of these levels
easier for human.
Acceptable lower values of SIR where one can expect
satisfying PBR performance is -60dB, according to [12]. In
the first case, expectations for correct detection are in the
nearest surrounding of Tr1 and along the valley (red area).
Predominant influence here comes from terrain, around
transmitter which is surrounded by hills.
In the second case, when Tr2 is employed, SIR levels are
more equalized on larger area, but deep bellow -60dB. Here,
DPI is significantly larger because of near LOS (nLOS) path
conditions between transmitter and receiver.

a)

b)

c)
Fig. 5. Terrain profiles on Tx-Rx paths for a) Tr1, b) Tr2 and c) Tr3,
Only b) profile is nLOS, while a) and c) are NLOS paths.

For the third case, coverage of the north-west part of map

provide adequate SIR performance for detection and tracking.
Coverage improvement of the second configuration is
performed by replacing receiver to NLOS position regarding
to Tr2 (X=7540684,7816 and Y=4763866,1912). Levels of
SIR increments drastically as DPI are masked by relief
obstacle (Fig. 7.).
Similar results and conclusions are obtained in lower
triangle of illuminating BS (Tr4-Tr5-Tr6) also, providing a
way to find optimal receiver location(s) for given parameters
setup.
Another contribution of method may be in developing
optimum algorithm for detecting and tracking low-altitude
targets with small RCS in multistatic scenario. In the case of
netted receivers, this algorithm may be solution for covert,
low-power and low-cost air surveillance systems [15].
There are several techniques to suppress DPI and thus raise
the level of SIR, that were not involved in our simulation:
physical shielding, Fourier processing, high-gain receive
antennas, sidelobe cancelation, adaptive beamforming and
adaptive filtering. In urban areas, high buildings can be used

Fig. 6. Coverage maps corresponding to three bistatic configurations with

BS Tr1, Tr2 and Tr3, respectively. Position of receiver is at X=7534684,7816
and Y=4766666,1912

to place receiving antennas making the coverage even

better.
All of these techniques were not considered in overall
calculation of SNIR, so the resulting performances after using
them can only be for some value better, what could be a task
for further work.

dynamic way. Finally, it candidates as low-cost tool for

building multistatic scenario setup for passive sensing
networks with significant capabilities, reducing costs of
development and deployment in chosen area.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]
Fig. 7. Direct path terrain profile and coverage map after relocating
receiver to NLOS position regarding to Tr2. New position of receiver is at
X=7540684,7816 and Y=4763866,1912

[10]

[11]

V. CONCLUSION
Simulation of passive air surveillance of low-altitude-small
RCS targets using GSM BS as illuminators of opportunity
assumes good performance for selected rural area. Coverage
can be enhanced by taking account receiving gain as mix of
physical and processing techniques when designing it. Hence,
as ambiguity function plays important role in accuracy,
resolution and Doppler acquisition, introducing it in code,
presents another quality step further. One would be able to
distinguish between transmitting signals (FM, GSM, DAB,
DVB-T, etc.) and use different properties of such signals in

[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]

N. J. Willis, H. D. Griffiths Air Surveillance, in Advances in Bistatic

Radar, ch. 6, pp. 7879 , Raleigh, Country: U.S.A, 2007
I. Scott, Development of a complete radar system model, Proceedings
of the 2001 IEEE Radar Conference, Atlanta, USA, 1-3th May, 2001
L-J. Han, Z-M. Chen, D. Rui,C. S. Jiang, Modeling of Varying
Geometrical Scenarios of Bistatic Radar, Proceedings of the 2007
International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing and
Communication Systems ISPACS-2007, Xiamen, China, 28th November
1st December, 2007
X. Geng, H. Yan, Y. Wang, A Two-Dimensional Spectrum Model for
Generic Bistatic SAR, IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, vol. 46, No. 8, August, 2008
G. Franceschetti, A. Iodice, S. Perna, D. Riccio, Efficient Simulation
of Airborne SAR Row Data of Extended Scenes, IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 44, No. 10, October, 2006
R. K. Hawkins, J.R. Gibson, R. Saper, M. Hilaire, A Tool for Bistatic
SAR Geometry Determinations, Advances in Space Research, vol. 32,
No. 11, November, 2003
M. Inggs, Y. Paichard, G. Lange, Passive Coherent Location System
Planning Tool, International Radar Conference Surveillance for a
Safer World, (RADAR 2009), Bordeaux, France, 12-16 October, 2009
Y. Paichard, M. Brooker, M. Inggs, Signal Level Simulator for Netted
Text Radar Waveforms Evaluation, IEEE A&E Systems Magazine, 2729 March, 2010
W.L. Melvin, J.A. Scheer Passive Bistatic Radar, in Principles of
Modern Radar: Radar Applications, ch. 11, pp. 505506 , Edison,NJ.
Country: U.S.A, 2014
M. Greco, P Stinco, F. Gini, A. Farina, M. Rangaswamy, Cramer-Rao
bounds and Tx-Rx selection in a multistatic radar scenario, Radar
Conference 2010 IEEE, Washington, DC, USA, 10-14th May, 2010
D. K. Barton, Radar Equations for Modern Radar, Norwood, USA:
Artech House, 2013
G. E. Lange, Performance Prediction and Improvementof a Bistatic
Passive Coherent Location Radar, M.Sc. dissertation, Electr.
Engineering Dept., Cape Town Univ, Cape Town, RSA, 2009
Method for point-to-area predictions for terrestrial services in the
frequency range 30 MHz to 3 000 MHz, Recommendation ITU-R
P.1546-1, 2003
M. I. Skolnik, Radar Handbook, 3rd ed, NewYork, USA, McGrow-Hill,
2008
A. Macera, C. Bongioanni, F. Colone, C. Palmarini, T. Martelli, D.
Pastina, P. Lombardo, FM-based Passive Bistatic Radar in ARGUS
3D:Experimental results,GTTI 2013 Session on Sensing, Ancona,
Italy, 24-26th June, 2013