Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-25T07:58:56.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A-RAIM and R-RAIM Performance using the Classic and MHSS Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2013

Yiping Jiang  and
Jinling Wang
Yiping Jiang*
Affiliation:
(Surveying and Geospatial Engineering, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia)
Jinling Wang
Affiliation:
(Surveying and Geospatial Engineering, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia)
*
(E-mail: yiping.jiang@student.unsw.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) architectures, Advanced RAIM (A-RAIM) and Relative RAIM (R-RAIM), are compared with two different RAIM algorithms, the Classic method and the Multiple Hypothesis Solution Separation (MHSS) method. The difference between A-RAIM and R-RAIM is in the positioning methods that produce different error models and projection matrices for integrity monitoring. The difference between RAIM algorithms lies in the methods of risk distribution. The influences of different positioning methods on integrity results are analysed in this paper via a generalized RAIM framework. Simulation results for the LPV-200 service with worldwide coverage show that the R-RAIM position domain method has the best results, while the differences between these methods decrease with application of the optimization method.

Keywords

A-RAIMR-RAIMMHSSClassic RAIM

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 49 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2013 

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., 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. (2008). A Simple Algorithm for Dual Frequency Ground Monitoring Compatible with ARAIM, Proceedings of the 21st International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of The Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2008), Savannah, GA, 1911–1917.Google Scholar
Blanch, J., Walter, T. and Enge, P. (2010). RAIM with Optimal Integrity and Continuity Allocations under Multiple Failures, Aerospace and Electronic Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 46(3),1235–1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanch, J., Walter, T. and Enge, P. (2012). Optimal Positioning for Advanced RAIM, Proceedings of the 2012 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, Newport Beach, CA, 1624.Google Scholar
Choi, M., Blanch, J., Walter, T. and Enge, P. (2011a). Advanced RAIM Demonstration Using Four Months of Ground Data, Proceedings of the 2011 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, San Diego, CA, 279–284.Google Scholar
Choi, M., Blanch, J., Akos, D., Heng, L., Gao, G., Walter, T. and Enge, P. (2011b). Demonstrations of Multi-constellation Advanced RAIM for Vertical Guidance Using GPS and GLONASS Signals, Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2011), Portland, OR, 3227.Google Scholar
Ding, W. and Wang, J. (2011). Precise velocity estimation with a stand-alone GPS receiver, Journal of Navigation, 64(2): 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GEAS (2008). GNSS Evolutionary Architecture Study, GEAS Phase I – Panel Report, FAA.Google Scholar
GEAS (2010). GNSS Evolutionary Architecture Study, GEAS Phase II – Panel Report, FAA.Google Scholar
Gratton, L., Mathieu, J. and Boris, P. (2010). Carrier Phase Relative RAIM Algorithms and Protection Level Derivation, Journal of Navigation, 63(2), 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitson, S. and Wang, J. (2006). GNSS receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) performance analysis, GPS Solutions, 10(3), 55–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitson, S. and Wang, J. (2007). GNSS Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) with a dynamic model, Journal of Navigation, 60(2), 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Y., Wang, J., Knight, N. and Ding, W. (2010). Optimization of position domain relative RAIM for weak geometries, 23rd Int. Tech. Meeting of the Satellite Division of the U.S. Inst. of Navigation, Portland, Oregan, USA, 2182–2189.Google Scholar
Jiang, Y. and Wang, J. (2011). A-RAIM vs. R-RAIM: A Comparative Study. IGNSS Symp., Sydney, Australia, paper 154.Google Scholar
Lee, Y.C. (1986). Analysis of Range and Position Comparison Methods as a Means to Provide GPS Integrity in the User Receiver. In: Global Positioning System, Vol. 5. The Institute of Navigation, Fairfax, Virginia, 5–19.Google Scholar
Lee, Y.C. (2008). Optimization of Position Domain Relative RAIM, ION GNSS 2008, Savannah.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y.C. and McLaughlin, M. (2008). A Position Domain Relative RAIM Method, Proceedings of the IEEE/ION PLANS 2008 Conference, Monterey, California.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner, C. and Ochieng, W. (2010). ARAIM for LPV-200: The Ideal Protection Level, Proceedings of the 23rd International Technical Meeting of The Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation (ION GNSS 2010), Portland, OR, 3191–3198.Google Scholar
Ober, P.B. (2003). Integrity Prediction and Monitoring of Navigation Systems, PhD Thesis. TU Delft.Google Scholar
Ochieng, W.Y., Sauer, K., Walsh, D., Brodin, G., Griffin, S. and Denney, M. (2003). GPS Integrity and Potential Impact on Aviation Safety. Journal of Navigation, 56(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, B.W. and Axelrad, P. (1988). Autonomous GPS Integrity Monitoring Using the Pseudorange Residual, Navigation, 35(2), 255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pervan, B. S. (1996). Navigation integrity for aircraft precision landing using the global positioning system, Thesis (Ph.D.), Stanford University.Google Scholar
Pervan, B., Pullen, S. and Christie, J. (1998). A Multiple Hypothesis Approach to Satellite Navigation Integrity, Navigation, 45(1), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rippl, M., Spletter, A. and Günther, C. (2011). Parametric Performance Study of Advanced Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (ARAIM) for Combined GNSS Constellations, Proceedings of the 2011 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navigation, San Diego, CA, 285–295.Google Scholar
Serrano, L., Kim, D. and Langley, R. B. (2004a). A single GPS receiver as a real-time, accurate velocity and acceleration sensor. ION GNSS 17th international technical meeting of the satellite division, Long Beach CA. 2021–2034.Google Scholar
Serrano, L., Kim, D., Langley, R. B., Itani, K. and Ueno, M. (2004b). A GPS velocity sensor: How accurate can it be? – A first look. ION NTM 2004, San Diego CA. 875–885.Google Scholar
Sturza, M.A. (1988). Navigation System Integrity Monitoring Using Redundant Measurements. Navigation, 35, 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teunissen, P.J.G. (2000). Testing Theory, An Introduction, VSSD, Delf.Google Scholar
Van Graas, F. and Soloviev, A. (2004). Precise Velocity Estimation Using a Stand-Alone GPS Receiver, Navigation, 51(4), 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J. and Kubo, Y. (2010). GNSS Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring, In: (Eds. Sugimoto, S & Shibasaki, R.): GPS Handbook, Asakura, Tokyo, ISBN978-4-254-20137-6, 197–207.Google Scholar
Wang, J. and Ober, P.B. (2009). On the Availability of Fault Detection and Exclusion in GNSS Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring, Journal of Navigation, 62(2), 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Y., Wang, J. and Jiang, Y. (2013). Advanced receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (ARAIM) schemes with GNSS time offsets, Advances in Space Research, 52(1): 52–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar