Exploiting Satellite Motion in ARAIM: Measurement Error Model Refinement Using Experimental Data

In this work, a new time-sequential positioning and fault detection method is derived and analyzed for dualfrequency, multi-constellation Advanced Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (ARAIM). Unlike conventional ‘snapshot’ ARAIM, the sequential approach exploits changes in satellite geometry at the cost of slightly higher computation and memory loads. From the perspective of users on earth, the motion of any given GNSS satellite is small over short time intervals. But, the accumulated effect geometry variations of redundant satellites from multiple GNSS constellations can be substantial. This paper quantifies the potential performance benefit brought by satellite motion to ARAIM. It specifically addresses the following research challenges: (a) defining and experimentally validating raw GNSS code and carrier error models over time, consistent with established ARAIM assumptions, (b) designing estimators and fault-detectors capable of exploiting satellite motion for positioning, carrier phase cycle ambiguity estimation, and integrity evaluation, and (c) formulating these processes in a computationally-efficient implementation. A modular algorithm is designed, only requiring a minor augmentation of the snapshot airborne ARAIM multiple hypothesis solution separation (MHSS) algorithm. Other modifications to enable time-sequential ARAIM include additional ground segment performance commitments, and the inclusion of extra parameters in the broadcast integrity support message (ISM). Availability is analyzed worldwide for aircraft precision approach navigation applications. Results show substantial performance improvements for sequential ARAIM over snapshot ARAIM, not only to achieve ‘localizer precision vertical’ (LPV) requirements using depleted GPS and Galileo constellations, but also to fulfill much more stringent requirements including a ten-meter vertical alert limit.

[1]  Mathieu Joerger,et al.  Solution Separation Versus Residual-Based RAIM , 2014 .

[2]  Juan Blanch,et al.  Determination of fault probabilities for ARAIM , 2016, 2016 IEEE/ION Position, Location and Navigation Symposium (PLANS).

[3]  Gary McGraw,et al.  Development of the LAAS Accuracy Models , 2000 .

[4]  Mathieu Joerger,et al.  Integrity Risk Minimisation in RAIM Part 1: Optimal Detector Design , 2016 .

[5]  M. Rabinowitz,et al.  A system using LEO telecommunication satellites for rapid acquisition of integer cycle ambiguities , 1998, IEEE 1998 Position Location and Navigation Symposium (Cat. No.98CH36153).

[6]  J. Junkins,et al.  Optimal Estimation of Dynamic Systems , 2004 .

[7]  Bradford W. Parkinson,et al.  Autonomous GPS Integrity Monitoring Using the Pseudorange Residual , 1988 .

[8]  P. Enge,et al.  Paired overbounding for nonideal LAAS and WAAS error distributions , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems.

[9]  Per Enge,et al.  Critical Elements for a Multi‐Constellation Advanced RAIM , 2013 .

[10]  Benjamin W. Remondi,et al.  Pseudo-Kinematic GPS Results Using the Ambiguity Function Method , 1991 .

[11]  John F. Raquet,et al.  Broadcast vs. precise GPS ephemerides: a historical perspective , 2002 .

[12]  Matt Harris,et al.  More Results from the Investigation of Airborne Multipath Errors , 2005 .

[13]  Mathieu Joerger.  Carrier phase GPS augmentation using laser scanners and using low earth orbiting satellites , 2009 .

[14]  Brendon Baker,et al.  Global Positioning System , 2010 .

[15]  Patrick Y. C. Hwang.  Kinematic GPS for Differential Positioning: Resolving Integer Ambiguities on the Fly , 1991 .

[16]  Per Enge,et al.  Results on the Optimal Detection Statistic for Integrity Monitoring , 2013 .

[17]  Bruce DeCleene,et al.  Defining Pseudorange Integrity - Overbounding , 2000 .

[18]  Young C. Lee.  Analysis of Range and Position Comparison Methods as a Means to Provide GPS Integrity in the User Receiver , 1986 .

[19]  Frank van Graas,et al.  GPS Orbit and Clock Error Distributions , 2011 .

[20]  Paul Miller.  REPORT ON FIFTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INSTITUTE OF NAVIGATION , 1949 .

[21]  Bradford W. Parkinson,et al.  AUTOLANDING A 737 USING GPS INTEGRITY BEACONS , 1995 .

[22]  Per Enge,et al.  Optimal Positioning for Advanced RAIM , 2012 .

[23]  David Lawrence,et al.  Precision Autoland Guidance of the X -31 Aircraft Using IBLS - The Integrity Beacon Landing System , 2004 .

[24]  Mathieu Joerger,et al.  Multi-Constellation ARAIM Exploiting Satellite Geometry Change , 2015 .

[25]  Mats A. Brenner,et al.  lntegrated GPS/lnertial Fault Detection Availability , 1995 .

[26]  Per Enge,et al.  An Optimized Multiple Hypothesis RAIM Algorithm for Vertical Guidance , 2007 .

[27]  Tim Murphy,et al.  Implications of 30-Second Smoothing for GBAS Approach Service Type D , 2010 .

[28]  Mathieu Joerger,et al.  Analysis of Iridium-Augmented GPS for Floating Carrier Phase Positioning , 2010 .

[29]  Juan Blanch,et al.  Airborne Mitigation of Constellation Wide Faults , 2015 .