Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T04:21:14.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Approach to Calculate the Vertical Protection Level in A-RAIM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2014

Yiping Jiang  and
Jinling Wang
Yiping Jiang*
Affiliation:
(School of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia)
Jinling Wang
Affiliation:
(School of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia)
*
(E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Four methods to calculate the Vertical Protection Level (VPL) can be used in Advanced Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (A-RAIM), among which the ideal method is the strictest one. To obtain the ideal VPL satisfying the exact required integrity risk, the worst case bias with the maximum integrity risk is searched for. This investigation has found that the correct worst case highly depends on the choice of the input VPL. To gain the correct result, the computation becomes complex and the accuracy of the result is compromised. Therefore, a new procedure is designed with a new search: the maximum VPL is searched to encompass all possible bias sizes. Since VPL is calculated with a given integrity risk for each bias size, the uncertainty of the arbitrary VPL input in the ideal method is avoided. Also, an optimisation algorithm is adopted to improve computational efficiency. It is shown that the new method is more reliable and efficient than the current best method. Simulation results worldwide also show that the new approach has improved A-RAIM availability from 32%–38% to 74% with GPS and from 44%–43% to 85% with Galileo.

Keywords

RAIMGNSSMultiple HypothesisSolution SeparationClassic RAIM
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 67 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 711 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2014 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Angus, J.E. (2007). RAIM with Multiple Faults, Navigation, 53(4), 249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baarda, W. (1967). Statistical concepts in geodesy. Netherlands Geodetic, Commission, Publications on Geodesy, New Series 2, No. 4, Delft, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanch, J., Ene, A., Walter, T. and Enge, P. (2007). An Optimized Multiple Hypothesis RAIM Algorithm for Vertical Guidance, ION GNSS 2007, Fort Worth, TX.Google Scholar
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(3), 1235–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, M. (1996). Integrated GPS/Inertial Fault Detection Availability, Navigation, 43(2), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.G. (1992). A Baseline GPS RAIM Scheme and a Note on the Equivalence of Three RAIM Methods, NAVIGATION, Journal of The Institute of Navigation, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.G. and Chin, G.Y. (1998). Calculation of threshold and protection radius using chi-square methods-a geometric approach, ION Red Books.Google Scholar
Diggelen, F. and Brown, A. (1994). Mathematical aspects of GPS RAIM, Position Location and Navigation Symposium, IEEE, 733–738.Google Scholar
GEAS. (2008). GNSS Evolutionary Architecture Study, GEAS Phase I - Panel Report, FAA. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/documents/media/GEAS_PhaseI_report_FINAL_15Feb08.pdf.Google Scholar
GEAS. (2010). GNSS Evolutionary Architecture Study, GEAS Phase II - Panel Report, FAA. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/techops/navservices/gnss/library/documents/media/GEASPhaseII_Final.pdf.Google Scholar
Jiang, Y. and Wang, J. (2014). A-RAIM and R-RAIM Performance with the Classic Method and the MHSS Method, The Journal of Navigation, 67(1), 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, R. J. (1998). The linear model, RNP, and the near optimum fault detection and exclusion algorithm, Global Positioning System, Vol. V, The US Institute of Navigation (ION), 227–259.Google Scholar
Lee, Y.C. (1986). Analysis of the Range and Position Comparison Methods as Integrity in the User Receiver, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the ION, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Milner, C. and Ochieng, W. (2010). ARAIM for LPV-200: The Ideal Protection Level, Proceedings of the 23rd ION GNSS 2010, Portland, OR, pp. 3191–3198.Google Scholar
Milner, C. and Ochieng, W. (2011). Weighted RAIM for APV: The Ideal Protection Level, The Journal of Navigation, 64, 61–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ober, P.B. (2003). Integrity Prediction and Monitoring of Navigation Systems. PhD Thesis. TU Delft.Google Scholar
Pervan, B., Pullen, S. and Christie, J. (1998). A Multiple Hypothesis Approach to Satellite Navigation Integrity, Journal of the Institute of Navigation, 45(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, T. and Enge, P. (1995) Weighted RAIM for Precision Approach, Proceedings of ION GPS-95, Palm Springs, CA, pp. 1995–2004.Google Scholar
Young, R.S.Y. and McGraw, G.A. (2003). Fault Detection and Exclusion Using Normalized Solution Separation and Residual Monitoring Methods, NAVIGATION, 50(3): 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J. and Ober, P.B. (2009). On the Availability of Fault Detection and Exclusion in GNSS Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring, the Journal of Navigation, 62(2), 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar