Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Signal Processing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sigpro

CFAR detection for multistatic radar

Vahideh Amanipour, Ali Olfat n
Signal Processing and Communication Systems Laboratory, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: In this paper a multistatic radar system with n transmitters and one receiver is
Received 13 November 2009 considered and several constant false alarm rate (CFAR) algorithms for detection are
Received in revised form introduced. The decision statistics of the proposed detectors are the sum of the n largest
26 March 2010
returning signals in an array of N +n range cells. It is shown that the proposed decision
Accepted 1 June 2010
Available online 16 June 2010
statistic satisfies the CFAR condition and it is justified that the sum of the largest
returning signals is the optimal statistic. The proposed CFAR detectors are simulated
Keywords: both in homogenous and non-homogenous backgrounds and their performances are
Multistatic radar compared with the performance of a monostatic radar of higher power. It is shown that
CFAR detection
a multistatic radar outperforms a monostatic radar under equal transmit power
Homogenous background
condition.
Non-homogenous background
& 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction may also have a counter-stealth capability, since target

Bistatic radars are radar systems that use antennas at
different locations for transmission and reception. They
have been studied since the earliest days of radar. If
further antennas, either transmitting or receiving or both,
are added to the bistatic pair the system might be termed
multistatic radar. However, other terminologies often
include ‘‘netted radar’’, ‘‘multi site radar’’, ‘‘distributed
radar’’ and ‘‘MIMO radar’’. Multistatic radars can provide
improved performance against electronic countermea-
sures.
Multistatic radars also have some inherent advantages.
For example spatial distribution of the nodes of the
network enables the area to be tailored according to the
specific application of interest. Additionally, it is possible
to increase sensitivity, as more of the scattered energy (in
the different directions) can be collected and hence
detection performance may be improved. Target classifi-
cation and recognition can also be enhanced, as the target
is observed from different perspectives. Multistatic radars
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: v.amanipour@ece.ut.ac.ir (V. Amanipour),
aolfat@ut.ac.ir (A. Olfat).
shaping to reduce target radar cross section (RCS) will, in
general, not reduce the bistatic cross section (BCS).
Moreover, increased survivability and reliability is
achieved because of the option of having ‘‘silent’’ or
passive operation of the receivers. The receiving systems
are undetectable and they are also potentially simple and
cheap. They can improve the location accuracy of possible
jammers by fusing the information from the network
nodes. Finally, if a single node of the network is lost it can
still provide a level of (reduced) performance and the
network is said to exhibit graceful degradation [1–3].
On the other hand, increasing the number of trans-
mitters comes with an increase in the cost of the radar
system. High power transmitters are generally very
expensive. An important question is if an expensive high
power transmitter may be replaced by a number of lower
power transmitters without losing the accuracy of detec-
tion. The important fact is that the economical price of a
transmitter grows faster than linear with its power. Lower
power transmitters are ‘‘much’’ cheaper than the high
power transmitters.
The system we would like to model in this paper is a
system that consists of n transmitters and one receiver. In
order to compare this system with the monostatic radar,

0165-1684/$ - see front matter & 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.sigpro.2010.06.003
 V. Amanipour, A. Olfat / Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37
we assume that the transmitted waveforms are the same.
In comparison with a fixed monostatic radar, these n
transmitters are assumed to be the same, except for their
power. They are assumed to have a fixed fraction of the
power of the monostatic transmitter.
One difficulty in dealing with multistatic radar was the
lack of a CFAR detection algorithm in the literature. The
earlier work only includes the case where the radar
system includes n spatially distributed detectors, or n
receivers, such that each detector sends its information
about the presence or absence of the target to a data
fusion center. More specifically, among the earlier works
on this subject we should mention that Barkat and
Varshney [4,5], have developed the theory of decentra-
lized CFAR detection. Elias-Fuste et al. [6] have extended
the data fusion rule [5]. The performance of distributed
CFAR detection in homogenous and non-homogenous
backgrounds are analyzed in [7–9]. Liu et al. [10–12]
proposed a novel data fusion by using genetic algorithm.
For a monostatic radar CFAR algorithms are studied
extensively [13–15] and also adaptive robust detectors
are introduced [16]. Sheikhi and Zamani [17] have
developed a CFAR detector for MIMO radars when the
transmitters are assumed to transmit orthogonal wave-
forms. This assumption reduces the system of n trans-
mitters and m receivers to mn independent bistatic radars,
which may basically be studied independently. Their
CFAR algorithm is a generalization of cell averaging CFAR
algorithm which is simulated only in homogenous back-
ground.
The main theoretical achievement of this paper is the
introduction of a family of CFAR detection algorithms
(called homogenous CFAR algorithms of order one) for a
multistatic radar. In fact, we show that a family of
statistics, called homogenous statistics of order one, may
be used in our algorithm so that the result has the CFAR
property. We then give some theoretic indications that
one particular statistic should have a relatively better
performance.
We simulate the performance of a multistatic radar
composed of n transmitters and one receiver using these
CFAR detection algorithms and compare it with the
performance of a monostatic radar as the power ratio
varies. In particular, when there are three transmitters
and the power ratio is equal to 1/3, or 1/2 we compare the
performances in both homogenous and non-homogenous
backgrounds for proposed algorithms. In reasonable
signal to noise ratio the performance of the multistatic
radar is better, even for power ratio equal to 1/3.
Moreover we show, for a fixed signal to noise ratio, how
the detection probability increases with the growth of
power ratio.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, the problem is formulated and we introduce our
CFAR algorithms for detection, which includes a cell-
averaging CFAR, an order statistic CFAR and a trimmed
mean CFAR. Then in Sections 3 and 4 the probability of
false alarm for these algorithms are computed. In Section 5,
we give an argument why the chosen statistic (the sum of
largest returning signals) in the algorithm is a logical
choice. Simulation results are presented in Section 6
29
.Finally, Section7 summarizes the main results of the
paper.
2. CFAR model
We will assume that n transmitters and one receiver
form our multistatic radar. Note that using three trans-
mitters the exact location of the target may be detected.
The transmitters and receiver are assumed to be synchro-
nized and the square-law detector output for any range
cell is exponentially distributed with probability density
function (pdf) [11]:
f ðxÞ ¼ ð1=2lÞexpðx=2lÞ, xZ0 ð1Þ
The null hypothesis oH0 of no target in a range cell
would mean that l is the total background clutter-plus-
thermal noise power, which will be denoted by m. Under
the alternative hypothesis H1 of presence of a target, l is
equal to m(1+ S), where S is the average signal-to total
noise ratio (SNR) of a target. In other words, we are
assuming a Swerling I model for radar returns from the
target and Gaussian statistic for the background. Sum-
marizing the above assumptions we have
(
m under H0
l¼ ð2Þ
mð1 þ SÞ under H1
We will test windows of N + n cells in order to detect
the target. Depending on the locations of the transmitters
and the receiver (i.e. the geometry of the multistatic
radar) the signals sent by the n transmitters will return
from the target in a particular pattern which also depends
on the coordinates of the target. In particular, if two
signals from two different transmitters are sent simulta-
neously, some delay between their returns will be
observed by the receiver. The number N +n is chosen so
that the maximum possible delay between any such two
returning signals (and for any geometric location of the
target) is at most (N + n)T, where T is the delay propor-
tional to the radar range resolution. The observations in
the N +n cells are assumed to be statistically independent,
including the cell under test. Let li for i=1,2,y,N +n be the
corresponding value of l for the ith cell. If in such a
window the target is present (i.e. under H1 hypothesis) for
n of the N + n cells we will have li = m(1+ Si) and for the rest
of them li = m. Let X1, X2,y,XN + n be the exponential
random variables which model the values of the range
cells. We will sort these variables in the increasing order
to obtain Y1,Y2,...,YN + n. We will assume that the n largest
values, i.e. YN + 1,YN + 2,...,YN + n, correspond to the returns
from the target. Fix a statistic Y= f (YN + 1,YN + 2,...,YN + n). The
rest of Yi in CFAR processor form the statistic Z. A target is
declared to be present if Y exceeds a threshold TZ. Here
T is a constant scale factor used to achieve a desired
constant false alarm probability.
The n synchronized transmitters send identical signals
simultaneously. So the receiver does not need to distin-
guish which returning signal is associated with what
transmitter. Of course, we may send the signals using
orthogonal codes in order to be able to distinguish them
in the receiver. Also note that for each returning signal
corresponding to a particular transmitter, we could have
30 V. Amanipour, A. Olfat / Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37

chosen one cell from the window of length N and test all
   
N N
the ... ¼ Nn possible n-component vectors to
1 1
form the ‘‘cell under test’’. So, the complexity and
computational cost of the process would significantly
increase. However, the proposed algorithm does not force
such a complexity (and cost) for forming the ‘‘cell under
test’’. Yet, combining both techniques (i.e. using orthogo-
nal codes and the fast algorithm for forming the cell under
test) we may locate the precise position of the target if the
number of transmitters is more than two.
Among the CFAR processors we will examine a class of
CFAR processors called homogenous detectors of order
one. Examples of such CFAR processors include OS-CFAR,
CA-CFAR, TM-CFAR and Censor Mean Level detectors. OS-
CFAR has a relatively good performance, both in
homogenous and non-homogenous environments for
monostatic radar, while CA-CFAR is the optimal choice Fig. 2. Block diagram of proposed homogenous CFAR detector of order
in homogenous environments. We will compare the one.

performance of CA-CFAR, OS-CFAR and TM-CFAR algo-

rithms for multistatic radar against monostatic radar both
in homogenous and non-homogenous environments.
We call a function f : RN -R homogenous of order p if choice of a homogenous function f : Rn -R of order one
it has the following homogeneity property: will result in a CFAR detector. It is important noting that
OS-CFAR, CA-CFAR, TM-CFAR, and CMLD are all examples
fðay1 , ay2 ,. . ., ayN Þ ¼ ap fðy1 ,y2 ,. . .,yN Þ ð3Þ of such homogenous CFAR algorithms. Here is a list of
If for a given homogenous function f : R -R of N homogenous functions corresponding to these detectors:
order one the statistic Z in the suggested CFAR algorithm OS-CFAR : fðy1 ,. . .,yN Þ ¼ yk
is set to be Z =Zf = f(Y1,Y2,y,YN), the detector will be
called a homogenous CFAR detector of order one,
CA-CFAR : fðy1 ,. . .,yN Þ ¼ y1 þ    þ yN
corresponding to the function f : RN -R. For example,
if Z= f(Y1,Y2,y,YN) =Yk, the detector will be an OS-CFAR
detector with parameter k. The block diagrams of CA- TM-CFAR : fðy1 ,. . .,yN Þ ¼ yT1 þ 1 þ    þyNT2
CFAR and general homogenous CFAR detectors of order
one are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. CMLD : fðy1 ,. . .,yN Þ ¼ y1 þ    þ yk1 þ ðN þ 1kÞyk
In order to study the performance of the above
processor, we need to compute the false-alarm probability
and detection probability for an appropriate function f.
We will see in the up-coming sections that an arbitrary 3. False-alarm probability for proposed OS-CFAR

In order to compute the false-alarm probability in

OS-CFAR case, which is the easiest case to analyze, we will
assume that the target is not present (i.e. we are under
H0). This means that the random variables X1, X2,y,XN + n
are all exponential random variables with parameter m,
and independent from each other. The probability of false
alarm is computed by the formula
Z 1
Pfa ¼ EZ fP½9Y 4TZ9H0 g ¼ P½Y 4 Tz fZ ðzÞ dz ð4Þ
0

where fZ is the probability density function for the random

variable Z.
For the OS-CFAR processor with parameter k we have
Z = Yk. The probability density function for this random
variable is

fk ðzÞ ¼ fZ ðzÞ
   Nk þ n þ 1   k1
Fig. 1. Block diagram of proposed CA-CFAR detector. The returning k Nþn z z
signals from the target are n of the N + n values X1, X2,yXN + n, which
¼ exp 1exp
2m k 2m 2m
would be the n largest values YN + 1, YN + 2,y,YN + n under the assumption
of the algorithm. ð5Þ
 V. Amanipour, A. Olfat / Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37 31

And using (5) the probability of false alarm is parameter m such that
2 3
 Z 1 Z1 fY ðaÞ ¼ ð1=mÞffix ða=mÞ ð11Þ
Nþn 6 7
Pfa ¼ k ½expðtÞNk þ n þ 1 ½1expðtÞk1 4 fY ðyÞ dy5 dt
k 0 From this formula we may compute
2mtT
Z1 Z1   Z1
ð6Þ 1 y x ¼ y=m
fY ðyÞ dy ¼ ffix dy ¼ ffix ðxÞ dx ð12Þ
where fY(y) is the probability density function for the m m
2mtT 2mtT 2tT
random variable Y= f (YN + 1,YN + 2,y,YN + n). In order for this
problem to be CFAR, the value of this integral should be If we replace (12) in (6), we obtain
2 3
independent of m. 
Nþn
Z 1 Z1
We claim that for any homogenous function f : Rn -R Pfa ¼ k ½expðtÞNk þ n þ 1 ½1expðtÞk1 4 ffix ðxÞ dx5 dt
k 0
of order 1, the probability of the false alarm given by 2tT

Eq. (4) is independent of m. ð13Þ

Examples of homogenous functions of order 1 that Clearly this last expression is independent of the
could possibly be used, are given below: parameter m, and the claim is proved.
f1 ðy1 ,. . .,yn Þ ¼ A1 y1 þA2 y2 þ    þ An yn
4. False-alarm probability for proposed CA-CFAR
f2 ðy1 ,. . .,yn Þ ¼ ðA1 y1 p þ A2 ðy2 y1 Þp þ    þAn ðyn yn1 Þp Þ1=p
f3 ðy1 ,. . .,yn Þ ¼ maxfy1 ,y2 y1 ,. . .,yn yn1 g ð7Þ In this section we will consider homogenous CFAR
Define the random variables W1,W2,y,Wn as follows: detectors of order one. In order to compute the false-
alarm probability for CA-CFAR or more generally for a
W1 ¼ YN þ 1
homogenous CFAR algorithm, again we assume that the
W2 ¼ YN þ 2 YN þ 1 target is not present. Once more, the random variables X1,
^ X2,y,XN + n are all independent exponential random vari-
Wn ¼ YN þ n YN þ n1 ð8Þ ables with parameter m.
Since X1, X2,y,XN + n are independent exponential For the CA-CFAR processor, in equation (4) we should
random variables with a fixed parameter (under H0 P
N
set Z ¼ Yk . For a general linear CFAR algorithm which
hypothesis), the ordered statistics Y1,Y2,y,YN + n are not k¼1
independent random variables. However, the random corresponds to the linear functionf : RN -R, we should
variables W1,W2,y,Wn are independent positive random consider Zf = f(Y1,Y2,y,YN) instead of Z. Note that we have
variables and their probability density functions are given
by X
N X
N
Z ¼ NY1 þ ðN þ 1iÞðYi Yi1 Þ ¼ Vi ð14Þ
  i¼2 i¼1
N þn
n   n   N
N x x where in this equation Vi are independent exponential
fW1 ðxÞ ¼ exp 1exp
2m 2m 2m random variables defined as
 
1 x
¼ g1 V1 ¼ NY1
m m
 
n þ 1i ðn þ 1iÞx Vi ¼ ðN þ 1iÞðYi Yi1 Þ, i 41 ð15Þ
fWi ðxÞ ¼ exp
2m 2m
 
1 x Similarly, if we define the linear function c : RN -R by
¼ gi , i ¼ 2,3,. . .,n ð9Þ
m m
cðNx1 ,ðN1Þðx2 x1 Þ,. . .,xN xN1 Þ ¼ fðx1 ,. . .,xN Þ ð16Þ
The functions g1, g2,y,gn are clearly independent of
the parameter m.
Note that the function f(y1,y2,y,yn) may be written as we may check that Zf = c(V1,V2,y,VN).
g(y1,y2  y1,y,yn  yn  1), where g is also a homogenous The probability density functions for the random
function of n variables. For any value a we can compute variables Vi will be
ZZ Z    
1 N þn þ1i ðN þn þ1iÞ
fY ðaÞ ¼ . . . fW1 ðy1 ÞfW2 ðy2 Þ. . .fWn ðyn Þ dA fVi ðxÞ ¼ exp x
2m N þ 1i 2ðN þ 1iÞm
gðy1 ,:::,yn Þ ¼ a
 
      bi bi
ZZ Z ¼ exp  x ð17Þ
1 y1 y2 yn 2m 2m
¼ ... g
n 1
g2 . . .gn dA
m m m m The density function for the random variable Zf would
gðy1 ,...,yn Þ ¼ a
ZZ Z then be computed by the following integral:
1
¼ ::: g1 ðs1 Þg2 ðs2 Þ. . .gn ðsn Þ dAu ð10Þ ZZ Z
m
gðs1 ,:::,sn Þ ¼ a=m ff ðzÞ ¼ fZf ðzÞ ¼ . . . fV1 ðx1 Þ:fV2 ðx2 Þ. . .fVN ðxN Þ dA
Here si = yi/m is a change of variable, and dA, dA0 are the cðx1 ,...,xN Þ ¼ z
ZZ Z Q !
volume forms for the hyper-surfaces g(y1,y,yn)= a and bi 1 X N
¼ ... exp  b x dA
g(s1,y,sn) = a/m, respectively. This means that there is a ð2mÞN 2m i ¼ 1 i i
probability density function ffix, independent of the cðx1 ,...,xN Þ ¼ z
32 V. Amanipour, A. Olfat / Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37

ZZ Z Q  ! S1,S2,y,Sn become larger, the subset A of H1 becomes

1 bi 1XN
x dA
¼ ... exp  bi i bigger. In order to guess the best statistic
m 2N 2i¼1 m mN1
cðx1 ,:::,xN Þ ¼ z Y = f (YN + 1,y,YN + n) we will focus our attention to this
ZZ Z Q !  
1 bi 1XN
1 z subset, where the computation is much simpler, i.e. we
¼ ... exp  bi si dAu ¼ hf will compute
m 2N 2i¼1 m m
cðs1 ,:::,sN Þ ¼ z=m
f- ðy1 ,y2 ,. . .,yn Þ
ð18Þ ~ 1 ,y2 ,. . .,yn Þ ¼ ðY 9AÞ
Lðy ð21Þ
f- ðy1 ,y2 ,. . .,yn Þ
where we have done a change of variable si = xi/m and dA, ðY 9H0 Þ

dA’ are the volume forms for the hyper-surfaces
c(x1,y,xn) =z and c(s1,y,sn)= z/m, respectively.
The functions hf(x) do not depend on the noise parameter
m and depend only on the coefficients bi,i=1,y,N and the
numbers N,n (and of course, on the linear function f). Using
these formulas for ff(z)we can obtain the probability of false
alarm in homogenous CFAR algorithm of order one, corre-
sponding to the function f : RN -R:
2 3
Z 1 Z1 Z 1 Z1
6 7
Pfa ¼ hf ðtÞ4 fY ðyÞ dy5 dt ¼ hf ðtÞffix ðsÞ ds dt ð19Þ
0 0
2mtT
Here fY(y) is the probability density function for the
random variable Y= f(YN + 1,YN + 2,y,YN + n), and ffix(s) is
defined as before. Clearly, this integral is independent of
the noise parameter.
These computations show that if in the algorithm we
use any linear combination of random variables
Y1,Y2,y,YN to define the statistic Z, the result would be a
CFAR algorithm. This proves the CFAR condition for CA-
CFAR, TM-CFAR and CMLD, and more generally for any
homogenous CFAR detector of order one.
5. An optimal choice of the function f
Since we are not able to distinguish the values
S1,S2,y,Sn we make a further assumption that
S1 ¼ . . . ¼ Sn ¼ S. Under these assumptions, there will be
a choice of a set I =(i1 oi2 o?oin) of n indices such that
{Xi1,Xi2,y,Xin} ={YN + 1,YN + 2,y,YN + n}. Let us denote the
-
vector (Xi1,Xi2,...,Xin) by XI . The set A may be written as a
disjoint union of the sets AI of events, where AI is the
- -
subset of A where Y corresponds to XI .
Under both hypothesis H0 and A, the random variables
Xij are independent exponential random variables. In case
2tT
of the hypothesis H0 the parameters of all of them are
m and in the second case (under the hypothesis A) the
parameters of these exponential random variables are
equal to mi = m(1+ S), i= 1,y,n. We may thus define the
following expression in place of
f- ðr1 ,r2 ,. . .,rn Þ
ðX I 9AI Þ
KI ðr1 ,r2 ,. . .,rn Þ ¼ ð22Þ
f- ðr1 ,r2 ,. . .,rn Þ
ðX I 9H0 Þ
We have just changed the variables y1,y2,y,yn from
Eq. (21) to r1,y,rn since these variables are no longer
subject to the condition y1 oy2 o?oyn. We have
fðXi 9AÞ ðr1 Þ. . .fðXin 9AÞ ðrn Þ
KI ðr1 ,r2 ,. . .,rn Þ ¼ 1

fðXi 9H0 Þ ðr1 Þ. . .fðXin 9H0 Þ ðrn Þ

We would like to choose the function f (y1,y2,y,yn) so 1
! !
that the probability of detection, with a fixed probability P
n
ri P
n
ð2mÞn exp  2mi exp S
2mð1 þ SÞ ri
of false alarm is maximized. We will need to make some i¼1 i¼1
extra assumptions in order to make the calculation ¼ !¼ ð23Þ
n Q P
n
ri
ð1 þ SÞn
possible. Let Xi1,Xi2,y,Xin, i1 oi2 o?o in be the n largest 2 ð mi Þexp  2m
random variables among Xl, l =1,2,y,N +n. This means that i¼1

as a set {Xi1,Xi2,y,Xin} ={YN + 1,YN + 2,y,YN + n} while the Note that KI Z t if and only if
random variables Xij do not have an order, and are
X
n
1þS
consequently independent. ri r 2mn logðð1 þ SÞtÞ ¼ gðtÞ ð24Þ
In order to use the Neyman–Pearson test [19] for i¼1
S
finding the best possible statistic Y = f (YN + 1,YN + 2,y,YN + n) Then we have
we need to compute the likelihood ratio:
f - ðy1 ,. . .,yn Þ r tf - ðy1 ,. . .,yn Þ ð25Þ
fððYN þ 1 ,YN þ 2 ,...,YN þ n Þ9H1 Þ ðy1 ,y2 ,. . .,yn Þ ðY 9AI Þ ðY 9H0 Þ
Lðy1 ,y2 ,:::,yn Þ ¼ ð20Þ
fððYN þ 1 ,YN þ 2 ,...,YN þ n Þ9H0 Þ ðy1 ,y2 ,. . .,yn Þ for some given y1 oy2 o? oyn if and only if for all the
subset I= (i1 oi2 o? oin) of indices (corresponding to the
Then, for any given threshold t, we should describe the
n largest values for the random variables) and some
inequality L (y1,y,yn)4 t as a relation of the form
re-ordering r1,y,rn of y1,y,yn the following relation is
f (y1,y,yn)4 f(t) for an explicit function f (y1,y,yn) and
satisfied:
some function f(t) of the threshold t. The statistic Y =f
(YN + 1,YN + 2,y,YN + n) will then be an optimal statistic in our f- ðr1 ,. . .,rn Þ r tf - ðr1 ,. . .,rn Þ ð26Þ
ðX I 9AI Þ ðX I 9H0 Þ
algorithm.
Computing the above likelihood ratio L (y1,y,yn) is This is equivalent to the simple relation:
quite complicated for all possible events. However, on a r1 þ r2 þ    þrn r gðtÞ ð27Þ
relatively large subset of all events the outcome is
relatively simple. Let A be the subset of H1 consisting of Since r1 + r2 +?+ rn =y1 + y2 + ?+ yn, this is satisfied if we
- have
the events where Y ¼ ðYN þ 1 ,YN þ 2 ,. . .,YN þ n Þ corresponds to
the signals returning from the target. As the values of y1 þ y2 þ    þ yn rgðtÞ ð28Þ
 V. Amanipour, A. Olfat / Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37
Thus over the subset A of the events the function
f(y1 + ?+yn) =y1 + ?+ yn gives the optimal choice for the
statistic Y =f (YN + 1,YN + 2,y,YN + n).
6. Simulation results
In this section, we will give through simulations a
comparison between the performance of multistatic
radar, processed with either of OS-CFAR, CA-CFAR or
TM-CFAR algorithms of this paper, and the performance of
monostatic radar. We will consider both the homogenous
and non-homogenous environments.
In case of multistatic radar, we will assume n =3, i.e.
there are three transmitters. The transmitters of multi-
static radar and monostatic radar are the same except for
their power. The power of each transmitter in multistatic
radar will be assumed to be a fraction of the power of the
monostatic radar. The positions of transmitters are
assumed to be at the vertices of a regular triangle, and
the receiver would be located at the center of this triangle
(see Fig. 3). We will simulate the algorithm using two
different functions f : R3 -R. First we consider the
following statistic (multistatic 1):
Y ¼ f ðYN þ 1 ,YN þ 2 ,YN þ 3 Þ ¼ YN þ 1 þYN þ 2 þYN þ 3
and then we use the second statistic(multistatic 2)
defined as
Y ¼ f ðYN þ 1 ,YN þ 2 ,YN þ 3 Þ ¼ maxðW1 ,W2 ,W3 Þ
¼ maxðYN þ 1 ,YN þ 2 YN þ 1 ,YN þ 3 YN þ 2 Þ
We assume N=24, k=21 and false alarm probability is
Pfa =10  4. The parameters of TM-CFAR are set T1 =20 and
T2 =1. Setting these parameters, we compute the scale factor
T for each of these two statistics (multistatics 1 and 2),
Fig. 3. Multistatic radar with three transmitters and one receiver.
33
and for either of multistatic OS-CFAR, CA-CFAR,
and TM-CFAR algorithms, as well as for the monostatic
radar.
Throughout the simulations, a Swerling I model for
fluctuating point target is used and for a comparison
between multistatic radar and monostatic radar we
assume that radar cross section (RCS) of target and
bistatic cross section (BCS) of target are the same.
6.1. Homogenous background
Figs. 4 and 5 show detection probability versus signal
to noise ratio of target in homogenous background when
the power of multistatic transmitters is 1/3 of the power
of monostatic transmitter. In Fig. 6 power ratio is set to
1/2. The SNR quoted in the figures refers to the signal to
noise ratio assumed for the monostatic radar. The
corresponding SNR for the multistatic radar is typically
much smaller. In fact according to the radar equations in
bistatic and monostatic cases [18], the ratio of SNRmult(i)
(the value of SNR for the ith transmitter in multistatic
radar) to SNRmono (the value of SNR for the monostatic
radar)can be expressed as
SNRmult ðiÞ R4 R2
¼ PRðiÞ 2 2 ¼ PRðiÞ 2 ð29Þ
SNRmono RR RT ðiÞ RT ðiÞ
where PR(i) is the power ratio between the ith multistatic
transmitter and the monostatic transmitter, RR = R is the
distance between the target and the receiver and RT(i) is
the distance between the ith transmitter and the target.
Thus, according to (29), the average SNR of multistatic
radar (compared to monostatic radar) is proportional to
2
power ratio PR and the average of R RðiÞ2 . The average of
R2 T
RT ðiÞ2
depends on the geometry of the transmitters and the
receiver. For the geometry shown in Fig. 3, that is used in
2
our simulations the average of R RðiÞ2 is approximately 0.6
T
which was computed by the Monte-Carlo method. So, in
the our simulations, for power ratios PR(i) equal to 1/3
Fig. 4. Detection performance of monostatic radar versus multistatic
radars with power ratio 1/3.
34 V. Amanipour, A. Olfat / Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37

more transmitters, in comparison with both OS-CFAR and

TM-CFAR.
More importantly, using multistatic 1 and CA-CFAR
algorithm, the performance of the multistatic radar with
power ratio 1/3 becomes better than the monostatic radar
when signal to noise ratio for the monostatic radar is
18 dB or more, while signal to noise ratio for the
multistatic radar is more than just 6 dB. Multistatic radar
with power ratio 1/2 (see Fig. 6) performs quite better
than the monostatic radar when signal to noise ratio for
the monostatic radar bigger than 14 dB (and this ratio for
the multistatic radar is thus slightly over 7 dB), which is
quite impressive.
In Figs. 7 and 8, we illustrate detection probability
versus power ratio when signal to noise ratio is 20 dB.
When the power of the transmitters in the multistatic

Fig. 5. Detection performance of monostatic radar versus multistatic

radars with power ratio 1/3.

Fig. 7. Detection performance of multistatic radars as the power ratio

between multistatic and monostatic radar is between 10% and 60%.

Fig. 6. Detection performance of monostatic radar versus multistatic

radars with power ratio 1/2.

and 1/2 , the SNRmult is approximately 9.2 and 7.4 dB less

than the SNRmono, respectively. This means the range of
SNR in Figs. 5 and 6 (which is 15–30 dB for SNRmono) is
equivalent to 5.8–20.8 dB for SNRmult.
As we expected from the computations of the Section
5, the performances of CA-CFAR, TM-CFAR and OS-CFAR
algorithms are better when multistatic 1 is used in the
simulations. Some other homogenous functions of degree
one have been tested as well and the simulations
supported our claim that the sum of three largest signals
is the optimal choice for the statistic Y in the algorithms.
The performance of CA-CFAR and OS-CFAR algorithms do
not have a significant difference for monostatic radar,
while both of these algorithms have better performance in
comparison with TM-CFAR. Note that it is well-known
that CA-CFAR has the optimal performance in homoge-
nous background. Moreover, CA-CFAR shows a notable Fig. 8. Detection performance of multistatic radars as the power ratio is
superiority in performance when the radar system has between 10% and 60%.
 V. Amanipour, A. Olfat / Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37
radar is at least 25% of the power of the transmitter of
monostatic radar, detection probability becomes larger for
multistatic radar.
The high probability of detection in low SNR is what
should be regarded as a measure for a good and satisfying
performance. As these figures suggest, starting from
power ratio 1/2 the performance of the multistatic radar
corresponding to multistatic 1 becomes better than the
performance of a monostatic radar. When the power ratio
is raised to 2/3 the probability of detection using a
multistatic radar, even in low SNR, is almost 10% better
than the probability of detection by a monostatic radar.
6.2. Non-Gaussian background
In the study of a non-Gaussian background, we have
also considered a clutter with heavy tailed distribution in
Fig. 9. More precisely, the distribution of the background
noise is assumed to be Weibull with shape parameter
equal to 0.5, and the performance of multistatic and
monostatic radars are compared.
As it may be observed from Fig. 9, the performance of
the multistatic radar in a Weibull clutter is similar to the
performance of a monostatic radar, while the performance
becomes better when the signal to noise ratio increases.
6.3. Non-homogenous background
In non-homogenous background, it is expected that
OS-CFAR and TM-CFAR algorithms have better perfor-
mance for monostatic radar when compared with
CA-CFAR algorithms. In this section, we report our
simulations in such backgrounds using our multistatic
OS-CFAR, TM-CFAR and CA-CFAR algorithms.
We will simulate two types of non-homogenous
background. The first case is when reference window
contains a clutter edge. In this case, we assume that n = 3,
N = 24, k= 21, T1 = 20 and T2 = 1 as before. The noise is
supposed to appear in our reference window as m cells
Detection performance in Weibull clutter: N = 24, Pf = 1e-4
1
0.9
0.8
Detection Probability
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 as the number of cells in the clutter region increases, for
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
SNR (db)
Fig. 9. Detection performance of monostatic radar versus multistatic
radars in Weibull clutter.
35
modeled by exponential random variables with parameter
m0 and in 24 m cells modeled by exponential random
variables with parameter m1, with m1 4 m0. The target may
be either in or outside the clutter region, and the
returning signals may have parameters m1(1+ Si) or
m0(1+ Si) accordingly. The expected noise parameter is
estimated by examining the values of m random variables
with parameter m0 and 24  m random variables with
parameter m1, so the estimated parameter is expected to
be some value m0 o mexp o m1 .
If the cells under test correspond to the clutter region
(i.e. their noise parameter is m1) both the probability of
detection and the probability of false alarm will be
increased, when compared with the homogenous back-
ground, since the actual noise parameter is larger than the
estimated noise parameter mexp . As the number of cells in
the clutter region increase, the value of mexp becomes
closer and closer to m1, the false alarm probability will be
decreased, and will converge to the false alarm probability
in homogenous background. If the cell under test is
outside the clutter region both the detection and false
alarm probability will become less than the homogenous
case, by a similar reasoning.
In order to compute the probability of false alarm in
the multistatic case, we will need to use the following
formula for conditional probability:
Pfa ðMultiÞ ¼ PðFalse9A1 ÞPðA1 Þ þ PðFalse9A2 ÞPðA2 Þ
þ    þ PðFalse9An ÞP ðAn Þ ð30Þ
where Ai is the event that i of the n cells YN + 1,YN + 2,y,YN + n
are in the clutter edge. The total probability of the false
alarm in the monostatic case may be computed from the
following observation. When we test the ith cell
 
Xi 2 X1 ,X2 ,. . .,XN þ n in the monostatic radar, a threshold
value ti = t(X1,y,Xi  1,Xi + 1,y,XN + n) will be computed and
if Xi is larger than ti we will have a false alarm. Note that if
Xi 4Xj we will have ti o tj. This implies that if after testing
Xj a false alarm is declared, the same would happen after
testing Xi. Thus the total probability of a false alarm is the
probability of false alarm for the largest value
YN þ n 2 fX1 ,X2 ,. . .,XN þ n g.
Pfa ðMonoÞ ¼ Pfa ðYN þ n Þ ð31Þ
Clearly, if the clutter edge is large and the number of
cells in clutter is very small (a very unlikely event), it is
natural that the radar, with either monostatic or multi-
static structure, gets confused. Yet, our simulations using
the above formulas, which are illustrated in Fig. 10,
indicate that the performance of the multistatic radar
under the assumption of a clutter edge is almost as
multistatic1-sum (os)
good as the monostatic radar. In simulations shown
multistatic2-max (os) in Figs. 11 and 12 a clutter edge of 10 dB is assumed
monostatic (os) (typically larger than the signal to noise ratio assumed for
multistatic1-sum (ca)
the radar in homogenous background).
multistatic2-max (ca)
monostatic (ca) Fig. 13 illustrates the changes in detection probability
24 26 28 30 different CFAR algorithms and fixed signal to noise ratio.
When the clutter region is small, OS-CFAR has a relatively
better performance for monostatic radar, while the
performance of our multistatic CA-CFAR algorithm is
36 V. Amanipour, A. Olfat / Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37

false alarm in 10dB clutter edge: N = 24, Pf = 1e-4

0
Log (False alarm Probability)

-0.5

-1

-1.5
multistatic1-sum (os)
multistatic2-max (os)
monostatic (os)
-2
multistatic1-sum (ca)
multistatic2-max (ca)
monostatic (ca)
-2.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. of cells in clutter edge

Fig. 10. Total false alarm probability versus the number of cells in the
clutter region for 10 dB clutter edge. Fig. 12. False alarm probability versus the number of cells in the clutter
region for 10 dB clutter edge and CUT in the clutter region.

Fig. 11. False alarm probability versus the number of cells in the clutter
region for 10 dB clutter edge and CUT in the clutter region. Fig. 13. Probability of detection versus number of cells in the clutter
region for 10 dB clutter edge and CUT outside the clutter region.

optimal for multistatic 1. Again, using TM-CFAR does not 7. Conclusion

have any advantages.
The second type of non-homogenous background We have proposed a class of CFAR algorithms for
considered in this paper is the presence of an interfering multistatic radar with n transmitters and one receiver in
target in the reference window. We will assume that in this paper. The simulation results suggest that the CA-
our window of 24 cells, we will have the signals returning CFAR detection algorithm using a particular statistic
from one interfering Swerling I target, and the inter- (which is the sum of the n largest signals in a test
ference to signal ratio is 0.5 dB. Fig. 14 illustrates the window) has the best performance. In both homogenous
performances of monostatic and multistatic radars (power and non-homogenous environments we have compared
ratio is 1/3) when OS-CFAR, TM-CFAR and CA-CFAR the performance of multistatic and monostatic radars.
algorithms are used. It can be seen than monostatic When the power of each transmitter in the multistatic
OS-CFAR performs better than monostatic CA-CFAR, while radar is a fraction of the power of the transmitter in the
for multistatic radar the probability of detection is better monostatic radar, our simulations indicate that the
for CA-CFAR processing using multistatic 1. Once more, detection probability is better in multistatic radar if
there is no advantage in using TM-CFAR. As signal to noise the signal to noise ratio is large enough. In particular,
ratio becomes larger than 18 dB, multistatic radar begins for three transmitters and power ratio equal to 1/3 and
to show better performance in this type of non- 1/2 we have observed that in reasonable SNR multistatic
homogenous background. radar has better performance. Similar results are obtained
 V. Amanipour, A. Olfat / Signal Processing 91 (2011) 28–37
Fig. 14. Detection probability versus signal to noise ration in presence of
one interfering target with I/S= 0.5 dB.
in non-homogenous background. These observations
strongly indicate that besides all the advantages of using
multistatic radar, it is economical to replace an expensive
high power transmitter by several lower power transmit-
ters without losing on performance of radar system.
References
[1] H.D. Griffiths, Bistatic and Multistatic Radar, Military Radar
Seminar, 7 September 2004. Available from: /http://www.iee.org/
oncomms/pn/radar/Griffiths%20Shrivenham.pdfS.
[2] C.J. Baker, H.D. Griffiths, Bistatic and multistatic radar sensors for
homeland security, 2005. Available from: /http://www.nato-asi.
org/sensors2005/papers/baker.pdfS.
37
[3] W. Beide, The nature of bistatic and multistatic radar, IEEE
Proceedings, International Conference on Radar (2001) 882–884.
[4] M. Barkat, P.K. Varshney, Decentralized CFAR signal detection, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 25 (2) (1989)
141–149.
[5] M. Barkat, P.K. Varshney, Adaptive cell-averaging CFAR detection in
distributed sensor networks, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems 27 (3) (1991) 424–429.
[6] A.R. Elias-Fuste, A. Broquetas-Ibars, J.P. Antequera, J.C.M. Yuste,
CFAR data fusion center with inhomogeneous receivers, IEEE
Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 28 (1) (1992)
276–285.
[7] M.K. Uner, P.K. Varshney, Distributed CFAR detection in homo-
geneous and nonhomogeneous backgrounds, IEEE Transactions on
Aerospace and Electronic Systems 32 (15) (1996) 84–91.
[8] G. Jian, H. You, P. Ying-Ning, Distributed CFAR detector based on
local test statistic, Signal Processing 80 (February 2000) 373–379.
[9] H.A. Meziani, F. Soltani, Performance analysis of some
CFAR detectors in homogeneous and non-homogeneous Pearson-
distributed clutter, Signal Processing 86 (August 2006) 2115–2122.
[10] W. Liu, Y. Lu, J.S. Fu, Data fusion of multiradar system by using
genetic algorithm, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic
Systems 38 (2) (2002) 601–612.
[11] W. Liu, Y. Lu, J.S. Fu, A novel threshold optimization for distributed
OS-CFAR of multistatic radar systems by using genetic algorithm,
IEEE Proceedings, IEEE Radar Conference (2001) 275–278.
[12] W. Liu, Y. Lu, J.S. Fu, CFAR data fusion of multistatic radar system
under homogeneous and nonhomogeneous backgrounds, IEE
Proceedings, IEE Radar Conference (2002) 248–252.
[13] P.P. Gandhi, S.A. Kassam, Analysis of CFAR processors in non-
homogeneous background, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and
Electronic Systems 24 (4) (1988) 427–445.
[14] H. Rohling, Radar CFAR thresholding in clutter and multiple target
situations, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems
AES-19 (4) (1983) 608–621.
[15] Amar Mezache, Faouzi Soltani, A novel threshold optimization of
ML-CFAR detector in Weibull clutter using fuzzy-neural networks,
Signal Processing 87 (September 2007) 2100–2110.
[16] Muralidhar Rangaswamy, Freeman C. Lin, Karl R. Gerlach, Robust
adaptive signal processing methods for heterogeneous radar clutter
scenarios, Signal Processing 84 (September 2004) 1653–1665.
[17] A. Sheikhi, A. Zamani, Coherent detection for MIMO radars, IEEE
Radar Conference (2007) 302–307.
[18] N.J. Willlis, in: Bistatic Radar, Artech House, 1991.
[19] N. Levanon, in: Radar Principles, John Wiley & Sons, 1988.