Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T13:34:12.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fault Exclusion in Multi-Constellation Global Navigation Satellite Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 June 2018

Yawei Zhai ,
Mathieu Joerger  and
Boris Pervan
Yawei Zhai*
Affiliation:
(Illinois Institute of Technology)
Mathieu Joerger
Affiliation:
(The University of Arizona)
Boris Pervan
Affiliation:
(Illinois Institute of Technology)
*
E-mail: yzhai9@hawk.iit.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper comprehensively investigates the fault exclusion problem in multi-constellation Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS). In future GNSS, the heightened likelihood of fault detection events will cause more interruptions in the continuity of the navigation operation. The main contribution of this paper is to establish the theoretical basis to quantify the contributions of fault events on continuity risk, therefore allowing us to assess the desired exclusion function performance based on specific continuity requirements. Accordingly, a new real-time exclusion algorithm is developed, for which the upper bounds on integrity risks are rigorously derived. Using the new method, performance is comprehensively investigated for two important civil aircraft navigation operations using various numbers of constellations. We show that high service availability can be achieved for both operations.

Keywords

Fault ExclusionContinuityAdvanced Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (ARAIM)

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 71 , Issue 6 , November 2018 , pp. 1281 - 1298
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Blanch, J., Walter, T. and Enge, P. (2010). RAIM with Optimal Integrity and Continuity Allocations under Multiple Failures. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 46, 1235–1247.Google Scholar
Blanch, J., Walter, T., Enge, Per., Lee, Y., Pervan, B., Rippl, M., Spletter, A. and Kropp, V. (2015). Baseline Advanced RAIM User Algorithm and Possible Improvements. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 51, 713–732.Google Scholar
Blanch, J., Walter, T. and Enge, P. (2016). A Simple Satellite Exclusion Algorithm for Advanced RAIM. Proceedings of the 2016 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Monterey, California, 239–244.Google Scholar
Cassel, R. (2017). Real-Time ARAIM Using GPS, GLONASS, and Galileo. M.S. Thesis, Dept. of Mechanical, Materials, and Aerospace Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
EU-U.S. Cooperation on Satellite Navigation, Working Group C. (2016). ARAIM Technical Subgroup Milestone 3 Report. http://www.gps.gov/policy/cooperation/europe/2016/working-group-c/ARAIM-milestone-3-report.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAA. (2010). Phase II of the GNSS Evolutionary Architecture Study, FAA report, Feb. 2010. https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/documents/media/GEASPhaseII_Final.pdfGoogle Scholar
FAA. (2012). System Specification for the Wide Area Augmentation System. FAA-E-2892d.Google Scholar
Gibbons, G. (2012). Munich Summit Charts Progress of GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, Beidou GNSSes. Inside GNSS, March 20, 2012. http://www.insidegnss.com/node/2981Google Scholar
Heng, L., Gao, G. X., Walter, T. and Enge, P. (2012). Automated Verification of Potential GPS Signal-In-Space Anomalies Using Ground Observation Data. Proceedings of IEEE/ION PLANS 2012, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, p1111–1118.Google Scholar
ICAO. (2009). Annex 10, Aeronautical Telecommunications, Volume 1 (Radio Navigation Aids), Amendment 84.Google Scholar
Joerger, M., Stevanovic, S., Chan, F-C., Langel, S. and Pervan, B. (2013). Integrity Risk and Continuity Risk for Fault Detection and Exclusion Using Solution Separation ARAIM. Proceedings of the 26th International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, Nashville, TN, 2702–2722.Google Scholar
Joerger, M., Chan, F.-C. and Pervan, B. (2014). Solution Separation Versus Residual-Based RAIM. NAVIGATION, 61(4), 273–291.Google Scholar
Joerger, M. and Pervan, B. (2016). Fault Detection and Exclusion Using Solution Separation and Chi-Squared RAIM. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 52, 726–742.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. C. (1986). Analysis of Range and Position Comparison Methods as a Means to Provide GPS Integrity in the User Receiver. Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Seattle, WA, 1–4.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. and McLaughlin, M. (2007). Feasibility Analysis of RAIM to Provide LPV-200 Approaches with Future GPS. Proceedings of the 20th International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation, Fort Worth, TX, 2898–2910.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. and Bian, B. (2017). Advanced RAIM Performance Sensitivity to Deviation of ISM Parameter Values. Proceedings of the 30th International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS+ 2017), Portland, OR, 2338–2358.Google Scholar
Milner, C., Bang, E., Macabiau, C. and Estival, P. (2017). Methods of Integrity Risk Computation for ARAIM FDE. Proceedings of the 30th International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS+ 2017), Portland, OR, 2371–2387.Google Scholar
Parkinson, B.W. and Axelrad, P. (1988). Autonomous GPS Integrity Monitoring Using the Pseudorange Residual. NAVIGATION, 35(2), 255–274.Google Scholar
Pervan, B., (1996). Navigation integrity for aircraft precision landing using the Global Positioning System. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
RTCA Special Committee 159, (1991). Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Airborne Supplemental Navigation Equipment Using Global Positioning System (GPS). RTCA/DO-208.Google Scholar
US DOD. (2008). Global Positioning System Standard Positioning Service Performance Standard. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence. http://www.gps.gov/technical/ps/2008-SPS-performance-standard.pdfGoogle Scholar
Walter, T., Blanch, J., Joerger, M. and Pervan, B. (2016). Determination of Fault Probabilities for ARAIM. Proceedings of IEEE/ION PLANS 2016, Savannah, GA, 451–461.Google Scholar
Zhai, Y., Joerger, M. and Pervan, B. (2015). Continuity and Availability in Dual-Frequency Multi-Constellation ARAIM. Proceedings of the 28th International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, Tampa, Florida, 664–674.Google Scholar
Zhai, Y., Joerger, M. and Pervan, B. (2016). H-ARAIM Exclusion: Requirements and Performance. Proceedings of the 29th International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, Portland, Oregon, 1713–1725.Google Scholar
Zhai, Y., Joerger, M. and Pervan, B. (2017). Bounding Continuity Risk in H-ARAIM FDE. Proceedings of the ION 2017 Pacific PNT Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, 20–35.Google Scholar