Skip to main content
Log in

Reduced ARAIM monitoring subset method based on satellites in different orbital planes

  • Review Article
  • Published:
GPS Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the development of the Global Navigation Satellite System, the increased number of satellites has resulted in more fault hypothesis situations and subset solutions. This situation represents a new challenge for advanced receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (ARAIM) in terms of the computational load. To efficiently detect faults and reduce the computational load, a method based on the association between satellite features in the same orbital plane is proposed. This approach first tests subsets that exclude entire constellations to narrow the search range for faults. Next, we evaluate multiple-fault cases directly by utilizing the subsets that exclude entire orbit satellites. Compared with the baseline Multiple Hypothesis Solution Separation (MHSS) method, our method can clearly reduce the number of subsets and the computational time under a typical multi-constellation situation while satisfying the localizer precision vertical 200 performance requirement, i.e., the guidance supports approach operations down to 200-foot altitudes. Furthermore, the experimental results illustrate that the number of subsets is reduced at most by two orders of magnitude, from 1330 to 87, and the computational time is decreased by 66.6%. The effective monitoring threshold and the fault-free 10−7 error bound on the accuracy of our method are much closer to those of the baseline MHSS method, and the usability coverage of both methods reaches 100%. This study verifies that the monitoring subsets and the calculation time for ARAIM are dramatically reduced by the new method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blanch J, Walter T, Enge P, Lee Y, Pervan B, Ripp M, Spletter A (2012) Advanced RAIM user algorithm description: integrity support message processing, fault detection, exclusion, and protection level calculation. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS 2012, Institute of Navigation, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, Sept 2012, pp 2828–2849

  • Cui XQ, Yang YX, Wu XB (2012) Influence of the orbital plane rotation angle on GEO satellite. J Astronaut 33(5):590–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan L, Jiang C, Hu M (2016) Ground track maintenance for BeiDou IGSO satellites subject to tesseral resonances and the luni-solar perturbations. Adv Space Res 59(3):753–761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GEAS (2008) GNSS evolutionary architecture study, GEAS phase I-panel report. FAA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • GEAS (2010) GNSS evolutionary architecture study, GEAS phase II-panel report. FAA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Jan SS, Chan W, Walter T, Enge P (2001) Matlab simulation toolset for SBAS availability analysis. In: Proceedings of ION GPS 2001, Institute of Navigation, Salt Lake City, UT, Sept 2001, pp 2366–2375

  • Kaula WM (1966) Theory of satellite geodesy. Blaisdell Publishing Co., London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropp V, Eissfeller B, Berz G (2014) Optimized MHSS ARAIM user algorithms: assumptions, protection level calculation and availability analysis. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ION PLANS 2014, IEEE, Monterey, California, July 2014, pp 308–323

  • Langel S, Chan FC, Meno J, Joerger M, Pervan B (2013) Detecting earth orientation parameter (EOP) faults for high integrity GNSS aviation applications. In: Proceedings of ION ITM 2013, Institute of Navigation, San Diego, California, Jan 2013, pp 224–233

  • Lee YC, McLaughlin MP (2007) Feasibility analysis of RAIM to provide LPV-200 approaches with future GPS. In: Proceedings of ION ITM 2007, Institute of Navigation, Fort Worth, TX, Sept 2007, pp 2898–2910

  • Liu JY (2008) Principle and method of GPS satellite navigation and positioning. Science Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Qian S, Li HN, Wu SG (2014) Perturbation compensation strategy for MEO non-resonant navigation constellation maintenance. J Natl Univ Def Technol 36(2):53–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Rippl M (2013) GNSS inter-constellation phasing: validation of the worst case assumption. In: Proceedings of ION ITM 2014, Institute of Navigation, San Diego, California, Jan 2013, pp 250–261

  • Shah NH, Proulx RJ, Kantsiper B, Cefola PJ, Draim J (1998) Automated station-keeping for satellite constellations. Adv Astronaut Sci 97(1):275–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr MSB, Powe MD, Owen JIR (2004) A long-term statistical analysis of the accuracy of GPS and GLONASS broadcast orbit and clock models. In: Proceedings of ION GNSS 2004, Institute of Navigation, Long Beach, CA, Sept 2004, pp 2095–2103

  • Van Dyke K, Kovach K, Lavrakas J, Carroll B, Systems O (2004) Status update on GPS integrity failure modes and effects analysis. In: Proceedings of ION NTM 2004, Institute of Navigation, San Diego, California, Jan 2004, pp 92–102

  • Walker JG (1984) Satellite constellations. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 37:559–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter T, Blanch J, Enge P (2014) Reduced subset analysis for multi-constellation ARAIM. In: Proceedings of ION ITM 2014, Institute of Navigation, San Diego, California, Jan 2014, pp 89–98

  • Wang J, Ober P (2009) On the availability of fault detection and exclusion in GNSS receiver autonomous integrity monitoring. J Navig 62(2):251–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang ZP, Macabiau C, Zhang J, Escher AC (2014) Prediction and analysis of GBAS integrity monitoring availability at LinZhi airport. GPS Solut 18(1):27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Working Group C (2012) Interim report of the EU/US cooperation on satellite navigation released. FAA. http://www.gps.gov/policy/cooperation/europe/2013/working-group-c/

  • Working Group C (2015) Milestone 2 report of the EU/US cooperation on satellite navigation released. FAA. http://www.gps.gov/policy/cooperation/europe/2015/working-group-c/

  • Working Group C (2016) Milestone 3 report of the EU/US cooperation on satellite navigation released. FAA. http://www.gps.gov/policy/cooperation/europe/2016/working-group-c/

  • Zhi W, Wang ZP, Zhu YB, Li R (2016) Availability prediction method for EGNOS. GPS Solut 2016:1–13. doi:10.1007/s10291-016-0582-5

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors first thank Todd Walter, Juan Blanch, and Per Enge, whose study provided the authors with the ideas and foundations for the work we described, and their simulation results served as a reference for simulation analyses. The authors also thank the staff at the National Key Laboratory of CNS/ATM for their advice and interest. The work was conducted with financial support under the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61521091, 61501010, U1433114) and Aeronautics Science Foundation (Grant No. 2015ZC51035).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhipeng Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ge, Y., Wang, Z. & Zhu, Y. Reduced ARAIM monitoring subset method based on satellites in different orbital planes. GPS Solut 21, 1443–1456 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-017-0658-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10291-017-0658-x

Keywords

Navigation