Receiver Characteristics - Revision history

Claudia.Prajanu at 18:59, 2 September 2018

2018-09-02T18:59:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 2 September 2018
Line 84:		Line 84:
	*<b>Continuity</b>: whenever solution continuity is a key driver, the receiver may accommodate dedicated algorithms, e.g. guaranteeing extrapolation of the solution (even if a GNSS solution is not present) using past measurements, external sensors (e.g. INS), or even complementary technology (e.g. UMTS, WiFi).		*<b>Continuity</b>: whenever solution continuity is a key driver, the receiver may accommodate dedicated algorithms, e.g. guaranteeing extrapolation of the solution (even if a GNSS solution is not present) using past measurements, external sensors (e.g. INS), or even complementary technology (e.g. UMTS, WiFi).

	*<b>Integrity</b>: although integrity is usually associated with aeronautical applications, [[Criticality of GNSS Applications\|liability-critical applications]] also share this need. For safety-critical applications, the receiver may cope with integrity by using [[SBAS Fundamentals\|SBAS]] and [[Galileo ~~integrity concept\|Galileo]]~~. For the remaining applications where integrity may be required, the receiver may still use SBAS, but there are also alternative receiver standalone techniques that can be implemented (less stringent), such as Isotropy-Based Protection Levels (IBPL)<ref>Cosmen-Schortmann, J.; Azaola-Saenz, M.; Martinez-Olague, M.A.; Toledo-Lopez, M.; <i>“Integrity in urban and road environments and its use in liability critical applications”</i>, GMV, Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, 2008 IEEE/ION, 5-8 May 2008, page(s): 972 – 983, Monterey, CA.</ref>.		*<b>Integrity</b>: although integrity is usually associated with aeronautical applications, [[Criticality of GNSS Applications\|liability-critical applications]] also share this need. For safety-critical applications, the receiver may cope with integrity by using [[SBAS Fundamentals\|SBAS]] and Galileo. For the remaining applications where integrity may be required, the receiver may still use SBAS, but there are also alternative receiver standalone techniques that can be implemented (less stringent), such as Isotropy-Based Protection Levels (IBPL)<ref>Cosmen-Schortmann, J.; Azaola-Saenz, M.; Martinez-Olague, M.A.; Toledo-Lopez, M.; <i>“Integrity in urban and road environments and its use in liability critical applications”</i>, GMV, Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, 2008 IEEE/ION, 5-8 May 2008, page(s): 972 – 983, Monterey, CA.</ref>.

	*<b>Accuracy</b>: whenever accuracy is the main driver, receiver designers and manufacturers may decide to choose from a wide range of techniques such as [[Differential GNSS\|Differential GNSS]], [[PPP Fundamentals\|Precise Point Positioning (PPP)]] or [[Real Time Kinematics\|Real Time Kinematic]].		*<b>Accuracy</b>: whenever accuracy is the main driver, receiver designers and manufacturers may decide to choose from a wide range of techniques such as [[Differential GNSS\|Differential GNSS]], [[PPP Fundamentals\|Precise Point Positioning (PPP)]] or [[Real Time Kinematics\|Real Time Kinematic]].

Filipe.Pelica: Included editor logo.

2014-09-18T16:37:11Z

Included editor logo.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 18 September 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:
	\|Level=Intermediate		\|Level=Intermediate
	\|YearOfPublication=2011		\|YearOfPublication=2011
			\|Logo=GMV
	\|Title={{PAGENAME}}		\|Title={{PAGENAME}}
	}}		}}

Carlos.Lopez at 11:01, 23 February 2012

2012-02-23T11:01:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:01, 23 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Article Infobox2		{{Article Infobox2
	\|Category=Receivers		\|Category=Receivers
	\|Editors=GMV ~~A.D.~~		\|Editors=GMV
	\|Level=Intermediate		\|Level=Intermediate
	\|YearOfPublication=2011		\|YearOfPublication=2011

Carlos.Lopez at 10:35, 23 February 2012

2012-02-23T10:35:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:35, 23 February 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Article Infobox2		{{Article Infobox2
	\|Category=Receivers		\|Category=Receivers
	\|~~Authors~~=GMV		\|Editors=GMV A.D.
	\|Level=Intermediate		\|Level=Intermediate
	\|YearOfPublication=2011		\|YearOfPublication=2011
	~~\|Logo=GMV~~
	\|Title={{PAGENAME}}		\|Title={{PAGENAME}}
	}}		}}

Rui.Pereira at 16:23, 8 November 2011

2011-11-08T16:23:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 8 November 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Article Infobox2		{{Article Infobox2
	\|Category=Receivers		\|Category=Receivers
	~~\|Title={{PAGENAME}}~~
	\|Authors=GMV		\|Authors=GMV
	\|Level=Intermediate		\|Level=Intermediate
	\|YearOfPublication=2011		\|YearOfPublication=2011
	\|Logo=GMV		\|Logo=GMV
			\|Title={{PAGENAME}}
	}}		}}
	Receiver characteristics and [[System Design Details\|design]] are strongly related to the application at hand. In fact, the target application requirements are actually the main driver to a given receiver architecture and design decisions, so the selection of an adequate receiver usually underlies a large set of trade-offs.		Receiver characteristics and [[System Design Details\|design]] are strongly related to the application at hand. In fact, the target application requirements are actually the main driver to a given receiver architecture and design decisions, so the selection of an adequate receiver usually underlies a large set of trade-offs.
Line 86:		Line 86:
	*<b>Integrity</b>: although integrity is usually associated with aeronautical applications, [[Criticality of GNSS Applications\|liability-critical applications]] also share this need. For safety-critical applications, the receiver may cope with integrity by using [[SBAS Fundamentals\|SBAS]] and [[Galileo integrity concept\|Galileo]]. For the remaining applications where integrity may be required, the receiver may still use SBAS, but there are also alternative receiver standalone techniques that can be implemented (less stringent), such as Isotropy-Based Protection Levels (IBPL)<ref>Cosmen-Schortmann, J.; Azaola-Saenz, M.; Martinez-Olague, M.A.; Toledo-Lopez, M.; <i>“Integrity in urban and road environments and its use in liability critical applications”</i>, GMV, Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, 2008 IEEE/ION, 5-8 May 2008, page(s): 972 – 983, Monterey, CA.</ref>.		*<b>Integrity</b>: although integrity is usually associated with aeronautical applications, [[Criticality of GNSS Applications\|liability-critical applications]] also share this need. For safety-critical applications, the receiver may cope with integrity by using [[SBAS Fundamentals\|SBAS]] and [[Galileo integrity concept\|Galileo]]. For the remaining applications where integrity may be required, the receiver may still use SBAS, but there are also alternative receiver standalone techniques that can be implemented (less stringent), such as Isotropy-Based Protection Levels (IBPL)<ref>Cosmen-Schortmann, J.; Azaola-Saenz, M.; Martinez-Olague, M.A.; Toledo-Lopez, M.; <i>“Integrity in urban and road environments and its use in liability critical applications”</i>, GMV, Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, 2008 IEEE/ION, 5-8 May 2008, page(s): 972 – 983, Monterey, CA.</ref>.

	*<b>Accuracy</b>: whenever accuracy is the main driver, receiver designers and manufacturers may decide to choose from a wide range of techniques such as [[~~Work in Progress:~~Differential GNSS\|Differential GNSS]], [[PPP Fundamentals\|Precise Point Positioning (PPP)]] or [[~~Work in Progress:~~Real Time Kinematics\|Real Time Kinematic]].		*<b>Accuracy</b>: whenever accuracy is the main driver, receiver designers and manufacturers may decide to choose from a wide range of techniques such as [[Differential GNSS\|Differential GNSS]], [[PPP Fundamentals\|Precise Point Positioning (PPP)]] or [[Real Time Kinematics\|Real Time Kinematic]].

	As an example of the different error magnitudes, depending on the receiver application, Table 2<ref><i>Kaplan, E.D. et al, "Understanding GPS: Principles and Applications", second edition, chapter 7, section 7.7</i>.</ref> presents an order of magnitude of the 3-D position / time errors achieved with different types of receivers, both for Standard Positioning Service (SPS) and Precise Positioning Service (PPS) using legacy GPS. Note that this table is valid for GPS only and it is provided here for illustrative purposes<ref>For further information on the accuracy of each of the GNSS, please refer to the applicable sections.</ref>.		As an example of the different error magnitudes, depending on the receiver application, Table 2<ref><i>Kaplan, E.D. et al, "Understanding GPS: Principles and Applications", second edition, chapter 7, section 7.7</i>.</ref> presents an order of magnitude of the 3-D position / time errors achieved with different types of receivers, both for Standard Positioning Service (SPS) and Precise Positioning Service (PPS) using legacy GPS. Note that this table is valid for GPS only and it is provided here for illustrative purposes<ref>For further information on the accuracy of each of the GNSS, please refer to the applicable sections.</ref>.

Timo.Kouwenhoven: Text replace - "|Level=Medium" to "|Level=Intermediate"

2011-11-06T07:46:38Z

Text replace - "|Level=Medium" to "|Level=Intermediate"

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:46, 6 November 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	\|Title={{PAGENAME}}		\|Title={{PAGENAME}}
	\|Authors=GMV		\|Authors=GMV
	\|Level=~~Medium~~		\|Level=Intermediate
	\|YearOfPublication=2011		\|YearOfPublication=2011
	\|Logo=GMV		\|Logo=GMV

Carlos.Lopez at 13:26, 27 October 2011

2011-10-27T13:26:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:26, 27 October 2011
Line 23:		Line 23:
	*<b>Receiver Dynamics</b>: receiver dynamics may affect the received signal (e.g. increasing the range of Doppler frequencies of the incoming signals). In such applications, the design of the receiver needs to cope with such requirements. As an example, a stationary receiver is expected to handle Doppler frequencies within the range of ±4 kHz, but this value is largely exceeded in GPS-guided ballistic applications. These considerations will also have an impact on the [[Tracking Loops\|tracking loops]], since the integration times must take these factors into consideration.		*<b>Receiver Dynamics</b>: receiver dynamics may affect the received signal (e.g. increasing the range of Doppler frequencies of the incoming signals). In such applications, the design of the receiver needs to cope with such requirements. As an example, a stationary receiver is expected to handle Doppler frequencies within the range of ±4 kHz, but this value is largely exceeded in GPS-guided ballistic applications. These considerations will also have an impact on the [[Tracking Loops\|tracking loops]], since the integration times must take these factors into consideration.

	*<b>Military applications</b>: legacy military applications use the [[GPS ~~signal description~~\|GPS Precise Position Service (PPS)]] which implies encryption capabilities and dual frequency receivers. Furthermore, (un)intentional interference is a major concern for military applications, since the receiver will likely have to operate in an environment where jammers and spoofers are present. Interference mitigation techniques are therefore usually welcomed for these applications.		*<b>Military applications</b>: legacy military applications use the [[GPS Services\|GPS Precise Position Service (PPS)]] which implies encryption capabilities and dual frequency receivers. Furthermore, (un)intentional interference is a major concern for military applications, since the receiver will likely have to operate in an environment where jammers and spoofers are present. Interference mitigation techniques are therefore usually welcomed for these applications.

	*<b>Aeronautical applications</b>: the main challenge in the aeronautical domain is concerning the landing and taking-off phases, not only due to the required accuracy but mostly because of the need for integrity, since it is a safety critical application. Furthermore, interference in the aeronautical band is expected in most airport vicinities, e.g. DME / TACAN pulses in the L5 band.		*<b>Aeronautical applications</b>: the main challenge in the aeronautical domain is concerning the landing and taking-off phases, not only due to the required accuracy but mostly because of the need for integrity, since it is a safety critical application. Furthermore, interference in the aeronautical band is expected in most airport vicinities, e.g. DME / TACAN pulses in the L5 band.

Rui.Pereira at 16:23, 7 July 2011

2011-07-07T16:23:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 7 July 2011
Line 35:		Line 35:

	{\| class="wikitable" align="center"		{\| class="wikitable" align="center"
	\|+align="bottom"\|GNSS technology comparison, from (++) major advantage to (--) major disadvantage.		\|+align="bottom"\|Table 1: GNSS technology comparison, from (++) major advantage to (--) major disadvantage.
	\|-		\|-
	!Technology		!Technology
Line 92:		Line 92:

	{\| class="wikitable" align="center"		{\| class="wikitable" align="center"
	\|+align="bottom"\|Comparative 95% three-dimensional position / time errors across various receivers.		\|+align="bottom"\|Table 2: Comparative 95% three-dimensional position / time errors across various receivers.
	\|-		\|-
	!		!

Rui.Pereira at 16:22, 7 July 2011

2011-07-07T16:22:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 7 July 2011
Line 34:		Line 34:


	{\| ~~border~~="1" align="center~~" cellpadding="5" style="text-align: center; font-size: 11px;~~"		{\| class="wikitable" align="center"
	\|+align="bottom~~" style="font-size:12px;~~"\|~~'''''Table 1:'''''~~ GNSS technology comparison, from (++) major advantage to (--) major disadvantage.		\|+align="bottom"\|GNSS technology comparison, from (++) major advantage to (--) major disadvantage.
	\|-		\|-
	!Technology\|\|Development Costs\|\|Performance\|\|Power Consumption\|\|Single Unit Costs\|\|Flexibility		!Technology
	\|-		!Development Costs
	~~\| '''~~ASIC~~''' \|~~\| -- \|\| ++ \|\| ++ \|\| ++ \|\| --		!Performance
	\|-		!Power Consumption
	~~\| '''~~FPGA~~''' \|~~\| - \|\| ++ \|\| + \|\| - \|\| +		!Single Unit Costs
	\|-		!Flexibility
	~~\| '''~~DSP / CPU~~''' \|~~\| ++ \|\| + / ++ \|\| + / -- \|\| + / - \|\| ++		\|- align="center"
	\|-		!ASIC
	~~\| '''~~Hybrid FPGA / CPU~~''' \|~~\| + \|\| ++ \|\| + \|\| - \|\| +		\| --
			\| ++
			\| ++
			\| ++
			\| --
			\|- align="center"
			!FPGA
			\| -
			\| ++
			\| +
			\| -
			\| +
			\|- align="center"
			!DSP / CPU
			\| ++
			\| + / ++
			\| + / --
			\| + / -
			\| ++
			\|- align="center"
			!Hybrid FPGA / CPU
			\| +
			\| ++
			\| +
			\| -
			\| +
	\|}		\|}

Line 66:		Line 91:


	{\|~~align~~="~~center~~" ~~border~~="~~1" cellpadding="5" style="text-align:~~ center~~; font-size: 11px;~~"		{\| class="wikitable" align="center"
	\|+align="bottom~~" style="font-size:12px;~~"\|~~'''''Table 2:'''''~~ Comparative 95% three-dimensional position / time errors across various receivers.		\|+align="bottom"\|Comparative 95% three-dimensional position / time errors across various receivers.
	\|-		\|-
	!~~ \|\|~~colspan="3"\|SPS\|\|colspan="3"\|PPS		!
	\|-		!colspan="3"\|SPS
	~~! \|\|<i>Best Location</i>\|\|<i>Median Location</i>\|\|<i>Worst Location</i>\|\|<i>Best Location</i>\|\|<i>Median Location</i>\|\|<i>Worst Location</i>~~		!colspan="3"\|PPS
	\|-		\|-
			!
			!Best Location
			!Median Location
			!Worst Location
			!Best Location
			!Median Location
			!Worst Location
			\|- align="center"
	!Handheld (best 4-SV solution)		!Handheld (best 4-SV solution)
	\|16m\|\|32m\|\|72m\|\|10m\|\|30m\|\|71m		\|16m
	\|-		\|32m
			\|72m
			\|10m
			\|30m
			\|71m
			\|- align="center"
	!Handhelp (AIV solution)		!Handhelp (AIV solution)
	\|11m\|\|25m\|\|54m\|\|8m\|\|23m\|\|53m		\|11m
	\|-		\|25m
			\|54m
			\|8m
			\|23m
			\|53m
			\|- align="center"
	!Mobile (land/marine vehicle)		!Mobile (land/marine vehicle)
	\|7m\|\|23m\|\|53m\|\|N/A\|\|N/A\|\|N/A		\|7m
	\|-		\|23m
			\|53m
			\|N/A
			\|N/A
			\|N/A
			\|- align="center"
	!Aviation receiver (AIV, RAIM, tightly coupled with INS)		!Aviation receiver (AIV, RAIM, tightly coupled with INS)
	\|7m\|\|24m\|\|55m\|\|4m\|\|5m\|\|6m		\|7m
	\|-		\|24m
			\|55m
			\|4m
			\|5m
			\|6m
			\|- align="center"
	!Survey receiver (dual-frequency, real-time performance)		!Survey receiver (dual-frequency, real-time performance)
	\|3m\|\|4m\|\|5m\|\|3m\|\|4m\|\|5m		\|3m
	\|-		\|4m
			\|5m
			\|3m
			\|4m
			\|5m
			\|- align="center"
	!Aviation receiver dynamic time transfer performance		!Aviation receiver dynamic time transfer performance
	\|14ns\|\|45ns\|\|105ns\|\|12ns\|\|13ns\|\|14ns		\|14ns
	\|-		\|45ns
			\|105ns
			\|12ns
			\|13ns
			\|14ns
			\|- align="center"
	!Time transfer receiver static time transfer performance		!Time transfer receiver static time transfer performance
	\|10ns\|\|19ns\|\|35ns\|\|10ns\|\|10ns\|\|11ns		\|10ns
			\|19ns
			\|35ns
			\|10ns
			\|10ns
			\|11ns
	\|}		\|}

Rui.Pereira at 11:19, 27 June 2011

2011-06-27T11:19:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:19, 27 June 2011
Line 61:		Line 61:
	*<b>Integrity</b>: although integrity is usually associated with aeronautical applications, [[Criticality of GNSS Applications\|liability-critical applications]] also share this need. For safety-critical applications, the receiver may cope with integrity by using [[SBAS Fundamentals\|SBAS]] and [[Galileo integrity concept\|Galileo]]. For the remaining applications where integrity may be required, the receiver may still use SBAS, but there are also alternative receiver standalone techniques that can be implemented (less stringent), such as Isotropy-Based Protection Levels (IBPL)<ref>Cosmen-Schortmann, J.; Azaola-Saenz, M.; Martinez-Olague, M.A.; Toledo-Lopez, M.; <i>“Integrity in urban and road environments and its use in liability critical applications”</i>, GMV, Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, 2008 IEEE/ION, 5-8 May 2008, page(s): 972 – 983, Monterey, CA.</ref>.		*<b>Integrity</b>: although integrity is usually associated with aeronautical applications, [[Criticality of GNSS Applications\|liability-critical applications]] also share this need. For safety-critical applications, the receiver may cope with integrity by using [[SBAS Fundamentals\|SBAS]] and [[Galileo integrity concept\|Galileo]]. For the remaining applications where integrity may be required, the receiver may still use SBAS, but there are also alternative receiver standalone techniques that can be implemented (less stringent), such as Isotropy-Based Protection Levels (IBPL)<ref>Cosmen-Schortmann, J.; Azaola-Saenz, M.; Martinez-Olague, M.A.; Toledo-Lopez, M.; <i>“Integrity in urban and road environments and its use in liability critical applications”</i>, GMV, Position, Location and Navigation Symposium, 2008 IEEE/ION, 5-8 May 2008, page(s): 972 – 983, Monterey, CA.</ref>.

	*<b>Accuracy</b>: whenever accuracy is the main driver, receiver designers and manufacturers may decide to choose from a wide range of techniques such as [[~~DGNSS Fundamentals~~\|Differential GNSS]], [[PPP Fundamentals\|Precise Point Positioning (PPP)]] or [[Real Time Kinematics\|Real Time Kinematic]].		*<b>Accuracy</b>: whenever accuracy is the main driver, receiver designers and manufacturers may decide to choose from a wide range of techniques such as [[Work in Progress:Differential GNSS\|Differential GNSS]], [[PPP Fundamentals\|Precise Point Positioning (PPP)]] or [[Work in Progress:Real Time Kinematics\|Real Time Kinematic]].

	As an example of the different error magnitudes, depending on the receiver application, Table 2<ref><i>Kaplan, E.D. et al, "Understanding GPS: Principles and Applications", second edition, chapter 7, section 7.7</i>.</ref> presents an order of magnitude of the 3-D position / time errors achieved with different types of receivers, both for Standard Positioning Service (SPS) and Precise Positioning Service (PPS) using legacy GPS. Note that this table is valid for GPS only and it is provided here for illustrative purposes<ref>For further information on the accuracy of each of the GNSS, please refer to the applicable sections.</ref>.		As an example of the different error magnitudes, depending on the receiver application, Table 2<ref><i>Kaplan, E.D. et al, "Understanding GPS: Principles and Applications", second edition, chapter 7, section 7.7</i>.</ref> presents an order of magnitude of the 3-D position / time errors achieved with different types of receivers, both for Standard Positioning Service (SPS) and Precise Positioning Service (PPS) using legacy GPS. Note that this table is valid for GPS only and it is provided here for illustrative purposes<ref>For further information on the accuracy of each of the GNSS, please refer to the applicable sections.</ref>.