Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:18:03.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Airborne Pseudolite Distributed Positioning based on Real-time GNSS PPP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2019

Panpan Huang ,
Chris Rizos  and
Craig Roberts
Panpan Huang*
Affiliation:
(School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia)
Chris Rizos
Affiliation:
(School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia)
Craig Roberts
Affiliation:
(School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia)
*
(E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Airborne-Pseudolite (A-PL) systems have been proposed to augment Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSSs) in difficult areas where GNSS-only navigation cannot be guaranteed due to signal blockages, signal jamming, etc. One of the challenges in realising such a system is to determine the coordinates of the A-PLs to a high accuracy. The GNSS Precise Point Positioning (PPP) technique is a possible alternative to differential GNSS techniques such as those that generate Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) solutions. To enhance the A-PL positioning performance in GNSS challenged areas, it is assumed that inter-PL range measurements are also used in addition to GNSS measurements. When processing these new measurements, cross-correlations among A-PL estimated states introduced during measurement updates need to be accounted for so as to obtain consistent estimated states. In this paper, a distributed algorithm based on a Split Covariance Intersection Filter (SCIF) is proposed. Three commonly used means of implementing the SCIF algorithm are analysed. Another challenge is that real-time GNSS PPP relies on the use of precise satellite orbit and clock information. One problem is that these real-time orbit and satellite clock error corrections may not be always available, especially for moving A-PLs in challenging environments when signal outages occur. To maintain A-PL positioning accuracy using GNSS PPP, it is necessary to predict these error corrections during outages. Different prediction models for orbit and clock error corrections are discussed. A test was conducted to evaluate the A-PL positioning based on GNSS PPP and inter-PL ranges, as well as the performance of error prediction modelling. It was found that GNSS PPP combined with inter-PL ranges could achieve better converged positioning accuracy and a reduction in convergence time of GNSS PPP. However, the performance of GNSS PPP with inter-PL ranges was degraded by observing A-PLs with limited positioning accuracy. Although the performance improvement achieved by the SCIF-based distributed algorithms was smaller than that by the centralised algorithm, greater robustness in dealing with deteriorated observed A-PLs' trajectory data was demonstrated by the distributed algorithms. In addition, short-term prediction models were analysed, and their performance was shown to reduce the effect of error correction outages on A-PL positioning accuracy.

Keywords

PPPA-PL positioningSCIFOrbit and clock corrections
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 72 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 1159 - 1178
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2019 

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

Bisnath, S. and Gao, Y. (2009). Current state of precise point positioning and future prospects and limitations. Observing our Changing Earth. International Association of Geodesy Symposia, 133, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Carrillo-Arce, L. C., Nerurkar, E. D., Gordillo, J. L. and Roumeliotis, S. I. (2013). Decentralized multi-robot cooperative localization using covariance intersection. In: 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Tokyo, 1412–1417.Google Scholar
Chandu, B., Pant, R. and Moudgalya, K. (2011). Modeling and simulation of a precision navigation system using pseudolites mounted on airships. 7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations Conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Chen, L., Song, W., Yi, W., Shi, C., Lou, Y. and Guo, H. (2017). Research on a method of real-time combination of precise GPS clock corrections. GPS Solutions, 21(1), 187–195.Google Scholar
de Oliveira, P. S., Morel, L., Fund, F., Legros, R., Monico, J. F. G., Durand, S.and Durand, F. (2017). Modeling tropospheric wet delays with dense and sparse network configurations for PPP-RTK. GPS Solutions, 21(1), 237–250.Google Scholar
El-Mowafy, A. (2017). Impact of predicting real-time clock corrections during their outages on precise point positioning. Survey Review, 2017, 1–10.Google Scholar
El-Mowafy, A., Deo, M. and Kubo, N. (2017). Maintaining real-time precise point positioning during outages of orbit and clock corrections. GPS Solutions, 21(3), 937–947.Google Scholar
Gao, Z., Zhang, H., Ge, M., Niu, X., Shen., W. Wickert, J. and Schuh, H. (2017) Tightly coupled integration of multi-GNSS PPP and MEMS inertial measurement unit data. GPS Solutions, 21(2), 377–391.Google Scholar
García-Crespillo, O., Nossek, E., Winterstein, A., Belabbas, B. and Meurer, M. (2015). Use of High Altitude Platform Systems to augment ground based APNT systems. 2015 IEEE/AIAA 34th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), Prague, Czech Republic, 1–22.Google Scholar
Geng, J., Meng, X., Dodson, A. H., Ge, M. and Teferle, F. N. (2010) Rapid re-convergences to ambiguity-fixed solutions in precise point positioning. Journal of Geodesy, 84(12), 705–714.Google Scholar
Goel, S., Kealy, A., Gikas, V., Retscher, G., Toth, C., Brzezinska, D. G. and Lohani, B. (2017). Cooperative localization of unmanned aerial vehicles using GNSS, MEMS Inertial, and UWB sensors. Journal of Surveying Engineering, 143(4), 04017007.Google Scholar
Gross, J. N., Watson, R. M., D'Urso, S. and Gu, Y. (2016). Flight-test evaluation of kinematic precise point positioning of small UAVs. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2016.Google Scholar
Hadas, T. and Bosy, J. (2015). IGS RTS precise orbits and clocks verification and quality degradation over time. GPS Solutions, 19(1), 93–105.Google Scholar
He, C., Yu, B. and Deng, Z. (2016). Wireless time synchronization for multiple UAV-borne pseudolites navigation system. Proceedings of China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC) 2016, Volume II. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, 389, Springer, Singapore.Google Scholar
Heo, Y. J., Cho, J. and Heo, M. B. (2010). Improving prediction accuracy of GPS satellite clocks with periodic variation behaviour. Measurement Science and Technology, 21(7), 073001.Google Scholar
Howard, A., Mataric, M. J. and Sukhatme, G. S. (2002). Mobile sensor network deployment using potential fields: A distributed, scalable solution to the area coverage problem. Distributed Autonomous Robotic Systems, 5, 299–308.Google Scholar
Huang, G. W., Zhang, Q. and Xu, G. C. (2014). Real-time clock offset prediction with an improved model. GPS Solutions, 18(1), 95–104.Google Scholar
Jiang, W., Li, Y. and Rizos, C. (2015). Locata-based precise point positioning for kinematic maritime applications. GPS Solutions, 19(1), 117–128.Google Scholar
Julier, S. J. and Uhlmann, J. K. (1997). A non-divergent estimation algorithm in the presence of unknown correlations. Proceedings of the 1997 American Control Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 4, 2369–2373.Google Scholar
Kia, S. S., Rounds, S. and Martinez, S. (2016). Cooperative localization for mobile agents: a recursive decentralized algorithm based on Kalman-filter decoupling. IEEE Control Systems, 36(2), 86–101.Google Scholar
Kim, D., Park, B., Lee, S., Cho, A., Kim, J. and Kee, C. (2008). Design of efficient navigation message format for UAV pseudolite navigation system. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 44(4), 1342–1355.Google Scholar
Lee, K., Baek, H. and Lim, J. (2016). Enhanced positioning algorithm of ARPS for improving accuracy and expanding service coverage. Sensors, 16(8), 1284.Google Scholar
Lee, K., Baek, H. and Lim, J. (2017). Relay-based positioning in TDMA networks. IEEE Systems Journal. 12(4), 3849–3852.Google Scholar
Li, H. and Nashashibi, F. (2013). Cooperative multi-vehicle localization using split covariance intersection filter. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, 5(2), 33–44.Google Scholar
Liu, S., Sun, F., Zhang, L., Li, W. and Zhu, X. (2016). Tight integration of ambiguity-fixed PPP and INS: model description and initial results. GPS Solutions, 20(1), 39–49.Google Scholar
Mokhtarzadeh, H. and Gebre-Egziabher, D. (2014). Cooperative inertial navigation. Navigation, 61(2), 77–94.Google Scholar
Nie, Z., Gao, Y., Wang, Z., Ji, S. and Yang, H. (2018). An approach to GPS clock prediction for real-time PPP during outages of RTS stream. GPS Solutions, 22(1), 14.Google Scholar
Small, D. (2017). Method and device for chronologically synchronizing a kinematic location network. U.S. Patent Application 15/327,333.Google Scholar
Tegedor, J., Øvstedal, O. and Vigen, E. (2014). Precise orbit determination and point positioning using GPS, Glonass, Galileo and BeiDou. Journal of Geodetic Science, 4(1), 65–73.Google Scholar
Teunissen, P. J. G. and Khodabandeh, A. (2015). Review and principles of PPP-RTK methods. Journal of Geodesy, 89(3), 217–240.Google Scholar
Tsujii, T., Rizos, C., Wang, J., Dai, L., Roberts, C. and Harigae, M. (2001). A navigation/positioning service based on pseudolites installed on stratospheric airships. 5th Int. Symp. on Satellite Navigation Technology & Applications, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Wanasinghe, T. R., Mann, G. K. I. and Gosine, R. G. (2014). Decentralized cooperative localization for heterogeneous multi-robot system using split covariance intersection filter. In: 2014 Canadian Conference on Computer and Robot Vision, Montreal, QC, Canada, 167–174.Google Scholar
Wu, Z., Cai, Q. and Fu, M. (2017). Covariance intersection for partially correlated random vectors. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63(3), 619–629.Google Scholar