Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Proceedings of ION GPS 2001, Salt Lake City, Utah, September 2001
to lose lock on multiple satellites whenever jammers Ns Nj
are detected, reducing the satellite coverage factor. y k (t ) = ∑ si ( x k , t ) + nk (t ) + ∑ j j ( x k , t )
With the beam-steering approach, the antenna pattern i =1 k =1
is optimized to increase the satellite gain. This where si (xk ,t) is the ith GPS satellite signal received at the
improves the satellite coverage factor increasing the kth antenna element
availability of precision approach and landing nk (t) is the noise introduced by the kth DFE
capability in the presence of jamming jj (xl ,t) is the filtered jth jammer signal received
at the kth antenna element
In this paper, the design of a military P(Y) code digital
beam-steering GPS receiver is described and test results
are included showing the receiver performance in 6 to 12 Processing
Up to 16 Antenna
providing high accuracy code and carrier phase Elements Channels
observations, reducing the effect of multipath errors, and Array Weights Correlator
Logic
Logic
tracking the GPS satellites in the presence of a GPS
DFE
jammer. Module
Processing Channel
Calibration
Logic
DFE
HIGH GAIN ADVANCED GPS RECEIVER Module
Processing
DFE
NAVSYS’ High-gain Advanced GPS Receiver (HAGR)1
Channel
Module
Antenna
was used to collect GPS measurements to observe the Element
Output Bus
digital beam-steering performance in the presence of DFE Processing
Module Channel
jamming. The HAGR comp onents are illustrated in I/Q
Weights &
Figure 1. With the current generation analog CRPA To All Modules
Local
CorrelatorControl Data
DIGITAL BEAM-STEERING
The digital signal from each of the HAGR antenna
elements can be described by the following equation.
2
Figure 3 Seven-Element CRPA and Mini-Array Figure 4 L1 Antenna Pattern
3
1. Ionosphere errors– (I) 28 0.236 0.366 0.055 0.272
2. Troposphere errors – these are the same on all of the 29 0.225 0.312 0.050 0.217
observations ( ∆ Ti ) 30 0.477 0.791 0.089 0.624
3. Receiver Measurement Noise – these are different on 31 0.325 0.266 0.055 0.135
each of the observations ( n PR1 , n CPH1 )
4. Multipath Noise – these are different on each of the
observations ( τ M 1i , λ1θM 1i )
C/A HAGR
62
1
2
C/N0 (dB-Hz)
22
sum cancels out the common errors and the range to the 52
23
25
≈ C + 2 I i + τM 1i + n PR1 42
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
The PR+CPH is plotted in Figure 8 for SV 25 and each of Time (hrs)
the receiver data sets. The short term (<100 sec) white Figure 6 C/A HAGR Signal-to-Noise (dB -Hz)
receiver noise was removed by passing the PR+CPH P(Y) HAGR
22
any carrier smoothing applied. The mean observed RMS Figure 7 P(Y) HAGR Signal -to-Noise (dB -Hz)
accuracies are summarized below in Table 1 with the
average peak multipath PR errors observed. SV 25
0
1-Antenna
1 0.239 0.259 0.054 0.202 -15
1-Choke Ring
HAGR C/A
20 0.222 0.267 0.050 0.164 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6
Time since 0:00 (hrs)
5.7 5.8 5.9 6
4
C/A RMS PR Noise (m) effect on the measured signal/noise ratio and the code and
carrier observations, as described below3 .
1
1
2
3
0.9
4
7
0.8 8
9
Signal/Noise Ratio When multipath is present the
0.7
11
13 signal/noise ratio magnitude varies due to the constructive
14
18
20
and destructive interference effect. The peak-t o-peak
0.6
RMS PR Noise (m)
21
22 variation is an indication of the presence of multipath
23
0.5 25 signals, as shown by the following equation where A is
26
0.4
27
28
the amplitude of the direct signal, AM is the amplitude of
29
30 the reflected multipath signal, θ is the carrier phase offset
for the direct signal and θM is the carrier phase offset for
0.3 31
0.2
the multipath signal.
~
A = A + AM e ∆ θ − A
0.1
0
~
θ = ∠( A + A M e ∆ θ )
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (hrs)
0.09
3
4
signal/noise ratio by using the relationship plotted in
0.08
7
8
Figure 12.
9
11
13
0.07
14
18
Carrier-phase Error The multipath carrier phase error
20 ~
0.06
(θ ) is related to the received multipath power level from
RMS PR Noise (m)
21
22
0.05
23
25 the above equation. This results in a cyclic carrier phase
26
0.04
27
28
error as the multipath signals change from constructive to
29
30
destructive interference that has the peak-to-peak carrier
0.03 31
phase error shown in Figure 13.
0.02
τ~ = M2 τ M
A
The pseudo-range error that could be expected for a
multipath delay of 15 m is plotted in Figure 14.
RMS PR Error (m)
10
-1
The short term cyclic variations shown in Figure 8 are
caused by multipath errors. The peak-t o-peak cyclic PR
variation for each of the receiver data sets was calculated
used to estimate the errors observed for each satellite
from the pseudo-range multipath[1]. These errors are
listed in Table 1 for each of the satellites.
-2
10
40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60
C/N0 (dB) The HAGR spatial signal processing can also be used to
detect the presence of multipath and adapt the antenna
Figure 11 C/A and P(Y) HAGR RMS PR error versus
pattern to further minimize these errors. A test was run to
C/N0
demonstrate the ability to spatially detect both the direct
MULTIPATH REJECTION satellite signal and local multipath reflections. The array
was placed in the parking lot at NAVSYS and tilted to
Multipath errors are caused by the receiver tracking a
deliberately assure that multipath signals would be
composite of the direct GPS signals and reflected GPS
received from the ground and near-by objects including a
signals from nearby objects, such as the ground or a
car located close-by (Figure 16). During the multipath
ship’s mast. Multipath errors can be observed by their
5
tests, data was collected using NAVSYS’ Digital Storage
Receiver (DSR). The DSR can be configured to record
data from up to 16 independent antenna elements (see
Figure 15). Post test, the data was played back from the
DSR into the HAGR to perform the spatial signal
processing to detect the multipath levels.
1 N ( az N , el N ) = C BN ( PRH )1 B (az B , el B )
10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
window. Multipath Attenuation (dB)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
power attenuation using the relationship shown in Figure Multipath Attenuation (dB)
12. Both the C/A and P(Y) HAGR show significant Figure 14 Peak Multipath Pseudo-Range Error
attenuation of the average multipath power levels due to
the beam-steering antenna pattern which gives around 10-
11 dB additional multipath rejection. This will result in
significantly lower carrier phase errors on the HAGR than
using the conventional antennas. With an average M/S
16 Digital HAGR
level of –6 dB the carrier phase peak multipath would be Front Ends Processor
around 14 mm. With an average M/S level of –16 dB the
carrier phase peak multipath error will be less than 5 mm
(see Figure 13).
Data Logger
6
SV 1
65
1-Antenna
1-Choke Ring
90
60 HAGR C/A
HAGR P(Y)
80
55
70
50
60
Elevation (deg)
C/N0 (dB-Hz)
45
50
40
40
35
30
30
20
25 10
20 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time since 0:00 (hrs)
1-Antenna
1-Choke Ring
6 0 9 0
HAGR C/A
HAGR P(Y)
8 0
5 5
6 0
Elevation (deg)
C/N0 (dB-Hz)
4 5
5 0
4 0
4 0
3 5
3 0
3 0
2 0
2 5 1 0
2 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4
58
56
C/N0 (dB-Hz)
54
1-Antenna
1-Choke Ring
HAGR C/A
HAGR P(Y)
52
46
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (secs)
7
were compared with a SOLGR GPS receiver at the same
location, which was used as a reference throughout the
jammer tests.
8
CONCLUSION
In summary, the testing has demonstrated the following
advantages of the digital beam-steering P(Y) HAGR for
precision GPS applications.
9
tested under a contract to the US Naval Observatory
(USNO). The antennas used for multipath comparison
testing were provided by the National Geodetic Survey
(NGS).
REFERENCES
1
A. Brown, N. Gerein, "Test Results from a Digital P(Y)
Code Beamsteering Receiver for Multipath
Minimization," ION 57th Annual Meeting,
Albuquerque, NM, June 2001.
2
A. Brown and D. Morley, “Test Results Of A 7-Element
Small Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna”,
Proceedings of ION GPS 2001, September 2001. Salt
Lake City, Utah.
3
A. Brown, “High Accuracy GPS Performance using a
Digital Adaptive Antenna Array”, Proceedings of ION
National Technical Meeting 2001, Long Beach, CA,
January 2001
4
A. Brown and N. Gerein, “Test Results Of A Digital
Beamforming GPS Receiver In A Jamming
Environment”, Proceedings of ION GPS 2001,
September 2001. Salt Lake City, Utah
10